My attention has been drawn to a discrepancy between the English and Afrikaans versions of the Bill, which can be corrected under Standing Order No. 198.

I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

In dealing with the Banking Bill I wish to point out that in Select Committee it was proposed that the Bill should be made to apply to commercial banks only, and I wish to explain why I supported this proposal. I think the main business of commercial banks falls into an altogether different category to that of Trust Companies. These do not accept deposits, withdrawable by cheque, which is the main business of commercial banks. This Bill has for its object the provision of security to safeguard those members of the public who lodge deposits with deposit receiving institutions, and for this purpose these institutions are required to provide so called liquid reserves, which means that large sums of money are locked up, which money ought to be in circulation. The Trust Companies wish to have a percentage of their mortgage bonds classified as liquid reserves, but this was not agreed to, and the representative of the Reserve Bank in giving evidence stated that his bank being the “lender of last resort” could create money and lend it on the security of these mortgage bonds, to meet the shortage of money that would result in times of depression through the public starting a run on deposit receivinginstitutions for the repayment of their deposits. At such a time all securities would fall in value, and the Reserve Bank could meet the situation by creating more money. Now I wish to suggest that the Treasury should take to themselves power to do what the Reserve Bank can do. The Treasury could become the lender of last resort, it could create national money and lend that money on the security of mortgage bonds. This would obviate the necessity of locking up money in so called liquid reserves, money which should be in circulation, and which only benefits the people when it is in circulation. I suggest to the Minister that when he is considering schemes for post war reconstruction he will give earnest thought to this question of giving the Treasury power to create national money.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not once again register my protest against this system of legislation. Here we have a big Bill and the intention was that it should deal with banking institutions and that it would protect the public against any kind of banking institutions. This Bill is a very mixed up affair. It deals with commercial banks, savings banks, boards of executors and any other organisation or person receiving deposits. If it was so necessary for the public to be protected against all these kinds of institutions, and if there was any special reason to introduce such a measure at this stage I could have understood it, but judging from the statements made in Select Committee and the discussions which took place in Select Committee it is perfectly clear that that is not the case. To my mind this Bill strengthens the position of the existing banking institutions even more. It gives them the opportunity of boycotting new banking institutions to such an extent that it will make it hardly possible for them to exist. Provision is made for certain reserves in cash which have to be maintained in order to cover deposits or liabilities of the institutions. There is really nothing in the Bill. It was discussed ad nauseum in Select Committee and what I feel about Select Committees is that if one moves something the Chairman simply says that the Minister does not want it, and then all the Government members on the Select Committee vote against it, and the result is that nothing is achieved. Now this Bill is introduced late in the session when half of the members have gone, and we are not able to discuss all the amendments here. So we simply have to allow a Bill of this kind to be passed without proper discussion. Even the technical Committee which was entrusted with the drafting of the Bill in their report told us to be very careful. This is what they say in their report:—

What the technical committee therefore says is this: that they admit that this Bill is not quite right, that it should be a well considered Bill which should be carefully drafted, that it should be made to deal with commercial banks and that there should then be legislation to deal separately with boards of executors and other institutions accepting deposits from the public. They admit that the whole position should be tackled in that way, and that a proper Bill should be drafted to deal with commercial banks and that there should be other measures to deal with other institutions, and that it is Parliament’s duty to see to it that the public are protected. But when we get a Bill of this kind which deals with the reserves of the banks and similar matters we find that the banks are maintaining very much larger reserves, reserves which are practically twice as large as what is required by this Bill. The whole matter had to be reduced to a minimum because they did not have all the necessary information at their disposal. What I feel on the subject is this: If we have to pass a Bill of this kind, then it is our duty to produce the best possible Bill we can before this House. We cannot simply go and say that we have not got the information, and that we are therefore proposing the very minimum. Surely there must be other ways of obtaining the information, and if we have not obtained our information in that other way then this is not the way to tackle the subject. We start here with legislation which is very unsatisfactory. The country has been brought into a state of commotion as a result of the steps which have been taken and where are we going to get our ideal legislation now? How are we going to satisfy people? I feel that this Bill should not have been submitted to Parliament at this stage or in this form. There should be separate legislation in regard to the commercial banks because this Bill is certainly not adequate to deal with the commercial banks. I think that the Minister of Finance agrees with me in that respect. But apart from that we are dealing here with the very minimum with which the Minister wants to try and satisfy the people, because he says he has not got the necessary information. Consequently, there are numerous things which have been left out. Take for instance the clearing of cheques between the various banks. The big banks have a sort of monopoly. They can refuse to clear a new bank’s cheques if that new bank wants to compete with them, and in that way they can from the very start kill an institution which has not got its branches all over the country. Furthermore, nobody knows what the secret reserves of the banks are, and what is more, the banks want to use the assets which they have in this country also to cover the debts of obligations of foreign branches. That was changed at my request, but apparently to punish me it was thereupon provided that the banks need not give details in regard to those other branches. Because we did not give in to allow them to use the deposits, the money which they have in reserve in this country to pay their debts in those other countries, that provision was put in. It appeared to me that practically speaking there was a prejudice in favour of the foreign banks. We admit that some of those foreign banks have rendered us good service, but we also know that we have had to pay 20s. in every £1 for the assistance that we have received. Why cannot we give the benefit to our own banks now? No, there was a sharp prejudice in favour of the foreign banks. The management of those banks is outside this country. If they want to they can cause us considerable difficulties because they can use their assets in this country for the promotion of their interests abroad. It may also be that a transaction abroad may render the position of such a bank practically impossible. There is no provision in the Bill as to what the relationship between the different banks is to be. Nothing is laid down as to how they are to assist each other, or all the rest of it. The Government should have a say in regard to the policy of banks when that policy is in conflict with the interests of the country. This Bill is nothing but a Bill which is designed to help the big financial magnates. The Imperialists are satisfied; banks which come from outside to do business here are not controlled by us, because their policy is laid down in foreign countries. We know of a bank in this country which, as a result of one transaction which it tried to do outside this country, eventually landed itself in such a position that it was compelled to give up its business on account of the big losses it had suffered. If one works with money one never knows when a false step may perhaps land a bank in the most serious trouble. True, we now have these provisions in regard to reserves in this Bill, but in spite of that we feel that this legislation is not of such a kind that the Minister of Finance has any reason to be very proud of it. He feels in his heart of hearts that this matter has not been properly considered, and that with the exception of these few things which I have mentioned no provision has been made. This Bill comes up at the end of the session. We have no opportunity of moving amendments and we have no opportunity of properly discussing matters. Members already look at one and seem to object if one gets up to speak, because they want to go home. I am very displeased with this Bill. I moved an amendment to the effect that farmers’ co-operative societies should be excluded. I did not succeed in getting my amendment passed. So I simply went out, because what is the use of sitting here and watching this Bill being passed when I am not allowed to do anything to improve it. The Bill is very loosely drafted, and it only provides for the minimum requirements, and we shall now have to wait a few years before a change can be made, and who knows how much damage may be done in the meantime. I feel it my duty to protest against the attitude the Minister has adopted in regard to legislation of this kind. Nobody can possibly know how much damage a measure of this kind is going to do to the country.

I shall be very brief in what I have to say. It is in connection with the new Clause 37 dealing with the appointment of auditors. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what appears to be an omission there. That section provides—

There is no provision in this section to cover the case of a casual vacancy occuring, where an auditor may die or resign or be suspended for any reason. The same problem occurred in connection with the Companies Bill, and was recently amended in the amending Bill that came before the House this session; and I would suggest to the Minister that this is a practical contingency, which can arise, and that he should consider introducing a further sub-section to provide for the vacancy to be filled where an auditor may die or resign or be suspended. He can bring it up in another place if he prefers to do so.

I shall look into the point the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) has raised, and consider the possibility of dealing with it in another place.

†*For the rest I want to be very brief. In the first place I want to say that I hope my hon. friend, the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has not created the impression that the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill acted in an impartial manner. I definitely did not try to influence the Select Committee. On the contrary, the position is that the Select Committee accepted several amendments which I was not very keen on, but which I, none the less, have accepted. The Select Committee did various things which I was not satisfied with, but I accepted them and I inserted them in the Bill. The hon. member further said that this Bill is a half-baked Bill, and he said that the House had not had sufficient opportunity to discuss it fully. But this Bill was discussed for weeks in Select Committee, and if it is still a halfbaked Bill, then he shares the responsibility for it.

But if we make a proposal we are told that the Minister does not want it.

I just want to say this now: This Bill is not merely intended to apply to the banks. The general purpose is to give protection in regard to the deposits of the public not only with the banks but also with other institutions. I am prepared to assume that the Bill so far as deposit receiving institutions are concerned is not as complete as we should have liked to have seen it, but in the circumstances the Bill goes as far as it is possible to go at the present moment, and it gives us the opportunity of securing the necessary data on which, if necessary, we can afterwards base further amending legislation. Unless we are prepared to take the first step now, we shall never be in a position to place this matter on a sound basis.

I move—

This replaces paragraph 2 of Section 2 (a). The effect of this amendment will simply be to bring the Bill into line with the resolution adopted in the Committee of Ways and Means. This amendment affects the position when the tax is to be calculated over a period of more than one year. The resolution which we passed in the Committee of Ways and Means was to the effect that in such cases the rate should be so adjusted as to be 6s. 8d. on each £ of the aggregate amount extended over that period. The clause, however, as drafted, has not that effect. It lays down that the aggregate rate shall not exceed 6s. 8d. in the £. That is incorrect, and it is in order to rectify the position that this amendment is moved

This clause is causing me a good bit of concern. I have been wanting to see the Minister privately to discuss it with him, but unfortunately in this rush there has been no time. In the first place, I would like to refer to the abatement of £3,000, which is applicable to an individual as a minimum, and I want to ask the hon. Minister to consider the question of introducing a further amendment to this clause to make that provision more equitable as between (a) individuals who are on their own or associated in partnership, and (b) individuals who are associated in a private company. This clause operates most inequitably against the shareholders of private companies. Two or three or four or five people in a company can collectively only obtain £3,000 as a rebate as against a £3,000 rebate for each person, who is on his own or in partnership. I can see a few ways of dealing with the anomaly, but I do not propose to go into details now. I would ask the Minister to consider this question with me before the Report stage. With regard to the paragraph the Minister is amending, there is one point in it that concerns me seriously. The position is this, that, if the taxpayer should suffer a diminution of income as compared with his pre-war standard of profit, and then in the subsequent year make a profit, which would bring him into the excess profits category, he would have to pay far more than 6s. 8d. in the succeeding year. We have the case where an individual may suffer a loss for a couple of years, and during those years his tax will admittedly be reduced below the figure of 6s. 8d. on the basis of 8d. for every 10 per cent. He may have suffered very badly through fire or any other dislocation—causes quite beyond his control—and then when he gets into his stride again and makes a substantial profit, which is beyond his pre-war standard of profit, his rate of tax is not limited. It can go apparently to 13s. 4d. in the £ and even higher, because it seems to travel in steps of 8d. without any limit at all. I feel that there should be a limitation on the rate of tax imposed in any one year, otherwise the tax will be quite impossible, where a person suffers an accident or setback in any one year, and then makes a big profit the following year. I feel that this is a question to which the Minister should give his serious attention.

The hon. member has raised two points in regard to this matter, both of which I may say are covered by the resolution which we have adopted, and by which we are therefore bound at this stage. The first point which the hon. member made is that there is a possibility under this clause, of payment having to be made at more than 6s. 8d. in the £ in respect of any one year. That is certainly a possibility, but, of course, that follows inevitably from the nature of the tax. I do not think it is likely to happen that there will be cases when a rate is payable such as the hon. member mentioned. If there are going to be such hardships we shall have ample time to correct that position next year. The other point which the hon. member raised was the position of the private company which will have a £3,000 minimum applied to it, whereas in the case of a partnership the £3,000 applies to each of the partners. The effect of the proposal before us is actually that no tax is payable on less than £3,500; the £500 allowance applies in this case, too. In reality, therefore, the rebate is £3,500. I say this just in passing. Now, it is perfectly true that in the case of a private company there will only be this one allowance, whereas in the case of a partnership there are several, one for each partner. That, of course, follows from the fact that we regard private companies as entitties for excess profit duties, and I think on the whole it has been to the advantage of the private companies to be so regarded, and not in the interests of the Exchequer. Apart from that, let me just put this point to the hon. member. There is a difference between the private company and the partnership, but in the case of the partnership a salary cannot be brought as a charge for the purposes of taxation; the private company can bring in salaries, and that may alter the position very considerably. Quite considerable amounts of remuneration are allowed, and therefore the comparison between the private company and the partnership in this case is not quite so clear and straightforward as the hon. member suggested.

I appreciate what the hon. Minister has said, but what I want to drive home is the fact that this tax is a fearfully discriminating tax, not only as between individuals, who earn their income by way of salary or fixed interest as against those who earn their income from trade, but also as between individuals, who are clubbed together in partnerships and individuals who are clubbed together in a company. Last year, for the purpose of income tax, the whole taxation basis of the private company was changed. It was changed to this, that a private company was regarded as a partnership and placed on the same footing as a partnership. The whole of the profits are now apportioned to the individual shareholders, who are called upon individually to pay normal and super tax on the full amount of the profit of the private company, so that there is no amount of profit in the private company which escapes taxation. This basis of taxing is quite equitable, because each individual pays tax according to his own income. Here, however, we have a discrimination brought in as between the individual in the private company and the individual on his own or in partnership. I believe that without much difficulty, one could find a reasonable solution to this problem. May I suggest as one means of a solution that, in the case of the private company. When the apportionment is made, the abatement of £3,000 should be allowed for every shareholder in the company, whose apportionment is £3,000 or over, so that for every such individual the company will receive the benefit of £3,000 in the hands of the company. That will have a somewhat equalising effect on the discrimination to which I have drawn attention. That seems to me to be a practical proposition, and I do feel that some amendment like that on the Minister’s part will be a gesture, which will ease the position. I feel that during the next twelve months this tax will be subjected to great criticism, and I appeal to the Minister to make such a change now, and not to leave it over for a year. I have in mind the case of a private company which paid in taxation last year the sum of £6,000. The application of this tax is going to increase that company’s tax to £19,000 this year. That company contains a number of shareholders but is only allowed £3,000, and I feel that in the same way that £3,000 is allowed to each partner, there should be at least an allowance for each individual, whose apportionment is £3,000 or over.

I move—

I move—

I move—

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name. As I have explained before, I don’t want to use the word “Loan Certificate” because it may cause confusion in people’s minds with our Union Loan Certificates. I prefer to use the word Tax Levy Certificate. I therefore move—

I move—

I would like the Minister to consider the question of modifying subsection (1) in the case of the stock savings certificates. The loan savings certificates may be redeemed or cashed at any time after six months, but in the case of the stock savings certificate it cannot be redeemed or cashed for a period of six years. I think the distinction is unduly great, and I would like to ask the Minister to consider making it a period of six years or until the end of the war, whichever period is the lesser.

I have already pointed out during the course of my Budget speech that these amounts will be blocked for a period of six years and I think, generally speaking, it is desirable that they should be blocked. We make this concession to the man who deposits less than £20, but I do not think it is necessary or appropriate to make the same concession to the man with the large income, and the reasons for that are obvious.

I move—

I move—

I want to move the following amendment to this clause—

Let me say at once that we on this side of the House in principle are opposed to any land tax, especially if it is imposed with the exclusive or with the main purpose of getting in money. If such a tax were imposed for the purpose of preventing unhealthy speculation something might perhaps be said in favour of it. So my amendment is in the first instance intended to prevent unhealthy speculation as far as it is possible to do so without, however, interfering with any legitimate transaction. What is going to be the effect of the Minister’s proposal? First of all there is no doubt that it will contribute towards rushing up prices and bringing about inflation. Secondly the Minister by his proposal is not so much going to affect the speculator as the purchaser who is really compelled to buy. The Minister will first of all by his proposal cause prices to be rushed up, and if he were to affect the speculator by doing so it might perhaps be a good thing, and we would not have had so much objection, but the Minister is not going to touch the speculator, he is going to hit the purchaser who is compelled to buy. Let us remember that the man who goes in for speculation usually is the type of person who financially is fairly strong. He uses his capital for the purpose of speculating. In other words, he is a man who in nine cases out of ten is able to hold back his properties and he is not compelled to sell. He wants to make a certain profit because he has bought the property with the object of speculating with it. If he cannot make his profit he is going to hold back the property and he is not going to put it on the market. It is going to hit the man who has to buy, and for this reason: The speculator will only be prepared to sell if he can make a profit. Assuming a man has bought a house for speculative purposes and he has paid £1,500 for that house. He is prepared to sell the house for £1,800 and to make £300 profit. Now the Minister comes here with his taxation proposals. The man still wants to make his £300 profit, and if he has to surrender £100 to the State, then he is not going to sell for £1,800, but for £1,900. So the purchaser is forced to pay the tax. And who are the people who buy today? Under the Minister’s legislation it will not be the speculators, because they know that they will not make any profit if they buy now, so they are not going to buy. The only people who will be affected will be the people who are forced to buy, and those are the very people whom the Minister does not want to touch by his proposals. They will be the people who will be forced to pay the tax. That is not what the Minister has in view, but that will be the effect of this Bill. It is with a view to removing that possibility that I have proposed this amendment. It amounts to this, that the tax will only be levied on properties bought since the 22nd February, 1942. Now, why do I move this? The Minister will see at once what the practical effect of my amendment is going to be. Assuming I am forced to buy because I need a house—I am not buying for speculative purposes. If I have to pay a little more, I am forced in any case to pay it, but if I have bought a house I know full well that I shall not be able to make any profit, or at any rate I shall make practically no profit if I have to sell it again. So I am only buying for my own use if I am forced to buy. The Minister does not want to prevent that because that is legitimate business. The Minister’s primary object is to prevent speculation. He is not going to achieve that object under his proposal, because in terms of the proposal now before the House nobody is going to buy houses or fixed property in future for speculative purposes, simply because one knows that it is useless to do so on account of the tax which one will have to pay. But the man who needs a house to live in will be forced to buy, and he will therefore have to pay the tax. I know, of course, that the Minister’s object is partly to prevent speculation, but partly also to get in revenue for the Treasury. It is true that he will lose a little bit of revenue if he accepts my amendment, but I am quite convinced that the little bit of money he will lose will more than counter-balance the inconvenience which he is going to inflict upon people.

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) in his amendment wants to go back on the resolution which has already been approved of by this House. That resolution was approved of after consideration in Committee of Ways and Means; we then very definitely decided to include transactions from the date mentioned in this Bill, namely from the 1st October, 1939. This Bill was only drafted to give effect to the instructions given by the House itself. The hon. member therefore cannot expect me to go back on that now. He should have made his plea at that time and not now. He certainly cannot expect me to go back on that resolution.

But surely one can try twice to convert you?

Then why is it proposed here?

We are dealing here with legislation which creates the machinery to give effect to the resolution which we have already passed. The House is already committed. The hon. member’s arguments amount to this, that the effect of this proposal is going to be that the price of land is going to be raised instead of being reduced. So far it has not had that effect.

It is not in operation yet, or, at any rate, it has hardly come into operation.

We heard what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) had to say about that.

I have nothing to do with that. The effect will very definitely be that prices will go up.

The immediate effect of the steps which have been taken have been the very opposite.

That is why I am going to vote against it again.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) does not want us to prevent increases in prices. The hon. member for Brits, on the other hand, says that the effect of these measures we are taking is going to be that prices will go up. How can one reconcile these two things. The object of this proposal now before the House is to stop an increase in the prices of property. It has already that effect, and I think that it is in the interests of the community as a whole. For that reason I cannot possibly accept the amendment.

I want to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler), and I do so for this reason, that I am convinced, as surely as I am standing here, that the effect of the Minister’s proposal is going to be that the farmers whose capital is very largely locked up in fixed property is going to be detrimentally affected—and that it is going to freeze their property. In future it will not be possible for a man to undertake any business transaction to benefit himself, simply because the State will take the bulk of one’s profit. I am not talking of a man who already owned his farm before the date laid down here, but surely the Minister must recognise that the majority of the people never dreamt that legislation of that kind was going to be introduced, and consequently many transactions have been entered into from the 1st October, 1939, up to date when the Minister announced this levy. I think that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brits is a fair and reasonable one, because if it is agreed to only such people will be affected who entered into a transaction to buy a property since the Minister made his announcement; they will be the only people who will have to pay this tax. That is what the amendment aims at. In explanation of the amendment and the object the amendment has in view I want to say this: Under the amendment we practically say this: “Very well, we shall have to pay this tax, but don’t impose it on people who did not know beforehand that a measure of this kind was going to be passed—don’t make people who were not aware of what was going to happen subject to an imposition of this kind. Only apply it from the date when the announcement was made.” I well remember the days when the very existence of the mealie farmers was at stake because it was impossible to give them certain powers to apply control in an effective manner. It was then said that there was such a thing as ordinary law and justice, and that no law could be made applicable to transactions which had already been entered into. In other words, the grain speculators got away with their advance purchases. They buy the coming crop in January, February and March, and then we are told that we have no right to interfere with their advance purchases, because the purchases had been entered into before the date the Bill was passed. Here, however, the Minister does not concern himself with that principle, and I only want to ask him now in all fairness to meet or request.

I find a little difficulty in the interpretation of the definition of property company. It reads—

“Property company means any private company, whose income, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is or will be mainly derived from immovable property …”

I realise the Minster’s difficulty in bringing any defined meaning to a property company, but I should like him to tell us what is the underlying meaning of the word “mainly” in “will be mainly derived?”

I want to give the Minister a little information because he still seems to be in doubt about the effect of this tax. The information which has been given to me in regard to the practical effect of this tax amounts to this: The result of the tax is the rise in the price of land, for the reasons already mentioned by the hon. member for Brits, namely, that the sellers add the tax to the price of land when they sell. To that extent, of course, it must detrimentally affect the land and it must also detrimentally affect all those who own land. Secondly, the effect is going to be that no long term credit will be given in future. The money lenders will have no more confidence in regard to this matter. In other words, whereas so far it has been possible to help a man to get hold of a piece of land by giving him credit over a long period of time, he will no longer be able to get that in future, for the simple reason that the banks say that they are not going to give any more credit now, because they do not know what is going to happen.

It will freeze all property.

Exactly. This tax can therefore have nothing but detrimental effects, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler), at any rate, tries to meet the land owners and the people who want to buy land. I am sorry the Minister now relies on a resolution already passed by this House, and I am sorry he takes up the attitude that for that reason he cannot comply with our request. I thought it was my duty to inform the Minister what the practical effect of this motion was going to be.

Just a few words. The Minister is partly right when he says that prices will not go up because very, very few transactions, indeed, will take place. Where the Minister to my mind is doing the wrong thing, and where he does not want to answer me, as a matter of fact, is here: I said that prices would go up for the very people whom the Minister did not want affected. This tax is of such a character that speculators are not going to buy, because they know that if they buy they will, when they sell again, have to surrender so much of their profits, that it will not pay them to take the risk, but the man who is forced to buy is the man who is going to be hit. Take the case, for instance, of two farmers who own land next to each other. They each have 500 morgen. Separately it is not economic to work those two lots of land. So A decides to sell his land to B. To A the land is worth £500, but to B, if he has the two lots of land together, A’s land is worth £700 or £800. It is not a case of speculation, but B is now practically prevented from buying that land because A will no longer be prepared to sell the land for £700 on account of the tax which he will have to pay. He is not going to sell at that price because he will have to surrender too much of his profit to the State. Transactions will therefore be interfered with, except in the case of people who are forced to buy. My point therefore is that, in the first place, you are going to curtail transactions to a very considerable extent, but that the transactions which will take place at a higher price, and that higher price will have to be paid by people who are forced to buy. One always comes across cases of people being forced to buy, and they will be the ones who will have to pay the tax. The sellers are not going to pay the tax, and consequently prices will be pushed up. The Minister tells us that he has introduced this tax mainly with the object of preventing inflation. But, as a matter of fact, it is going to cause inflation, because he is going to push up prices. I fail to see how it can have any other effect. Now, the Minister tells us that this proposal has already been approved of by the House, but it is not law yet, and this House even has the right to amend the law. We are fully entitled to make this proposal, and I want to ask the Minister to give it his sympathetic consideration.

I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to the case I mentioned yesterday when I spoke of a man who had two bits of land, one of which he had bought only recently. Now those two small bits of land have become too small for him and he wants to buy one large farm. If he sells the two bits of land he cannot make any profit on the one piece which he bought recently, because the Government is going to levy the higher tax on that. It is very hard on that man; he needs the money to expand his farming activities, but he is being handicapped now. I want to ask the Minister to accept the general principle so that the tax will not be levied on land which has not been bought for speculative purposes. The Minister has already differentiated by imposing the higher tax on land bought since the 26th February, as compared with land bought between 1st October, 1939, and the 26th February, 1942. Why does he make this distinction? I think it would have been fair if he had made the tax payable in respect of transactions which have taken place since the announcement that he was going to impose it. People who bought before the 26th February could not know what was going on in the Minister’s mind. I hope the Minister will give this matter further consideration and that he will particularly bear in mind the position of bona fide farmers.

I hope the Minister has quite understood the point.

I have already replied to it.

And you cannot accept it?

No, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

It is perfectly clear to me that this tax is going to hit people very hard. I know of one case which has been brought to my notice of people who bought land since the 1st October; if they want to sell that land they will have to pay this tax. Those people never knew what the Minister had in mind and it appears to me that it is unfair to make this tax retrospective, especially where the farmer’s capital is concerned. If the Minister would accept the suggestion made by this side of the House to apply this tax to transactions entered into since he made his announcement it would be fair, and we could understand it. I want to emphasise that it is unfair that a man who has a small bit of land, and who has met with a little success, should be handicapped if he wants to extend his operations, because the price of land is going to be pushed up as a result of this tax.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted in lines 45 and 46 stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—52:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hoymeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

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.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—29:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Boltman, F. H.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Apart from the fact that we are going to vote against the whole of this clause because in principle we are opposed to any tax on land, I still want to move an amendment to this clause because the Minister will perhaps not be prepared to abandon this clause altogether, and we therefore want to try and make the clause as harmless as possible. In regard to the tax itself I have already explained that a land tax is a tax to which we have always been opposed, and still are opposed. Now I want the Minister to consider this aspect of the matter. He says that this tax is being imposed on the profits made on the sale of immovable property because he believes that by imposing this tax he is going to stop inflation. On what grounds does he differentiate then between people who make profits out of speculation in land, and people who make profits out of speculation in stock or any other goods? The evils of inflation do not only arise from the sale and resale of immovable property, but also out of the purchase and sale of any other commodity. That, therefore, is not an adequate reason for the introduction of this tax. Now I also want to ask the Minister to consider this question: People who make profits on purchases and sales are already brought in under the income tax and the excess profits tax. Why must they now be made to pay double taxation? That is all I want to say so far as the principle of the matter is concerned, but now I come to another aspect of the tax and it is this: that this tax which the Minister now proposes is going to hit the man who has a small bit of land in the most cruel manner. Yesterday I cited the instance of the land owner, the small farmer or the poor man in a little dorp who has a bit of land which has cost him £200 or £300, which represents his whole capital. He bought that land since the 1st October, 1939. In the course of the war circumstances may arise which may cause him to want to sell that land, circumstances over which he perhaps has no control, and if he then makes a small profit the Minister steps in and takes 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d. in the £ of that profit and puts that into the Exchequer. I want the Minister to look at the matter in this light, and I want to ask him not to introduce a clause in this Bill which is going to hit the poor man in this way. This man has perhaps no control, and if he then makes now going to be compelled to surrender 13s. 4d. in the £ of that profit. It is a very cruel thing to do. I can quite realise that if people make thousands of pounds out of such speculations one can perhaps justify the imposition of such a tax, but there is no justification for the imposition of this enormous tax in the case of these poor people on the small profits which they make. Apart from the fact, therefore, that we are going to vote against this whole clause I want to move this amendment. I move—

I am moving this because it seems to me that this at the present stage is the only way of safeguarding the poor man whom the Minister is taxing in this manner. This is the only way of safeguarding him from losing such a large proportion of the little profit he is making. I hope the Minister will look at it in that light and I hope he will accept the amendment. I also hope the Minister will not adduce the argument again that the principle of this tax has already been approved of in Committee of Ways and Means and that we cannot therefore move such an amendment at this stage. I want to repeat what I said previously by way of an interruption, namely, that the Minister must not take up the attitude that because the House has decided on a certain matter it has become a law of the Medes and Persians, and that no amendment can thereafter be made. I put the position to the Minister on a previous occasion. He refused to see it in that light, and we can do no more than express the hope that at a later stage he will see the matter in that light and that he will be prepared to make some concessions to the people on the basis proposed by me, and we hope he will not bluntly refuse to meet us when we propose amendments of this character.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment, but not for the reasons which the hon. member thought I was going to adduce. This amendment does not fall within the scope of the Committee of Ways and Means. To my mind it would be possible for us to accept such an amendment if it were a good amendment. But the previous amendment was definitely in conflict with something which had been specifically included in the resolutions passed by the Committee of Ways and Means. I see no reason why an amendment like the one now before us cannot be moved. That does not mean, however, that I am going to accept it. This is the position. If my argument is correct, in other words, if the application of this tax is going to prevent the increase in the prices of land, then it is just as necessary to apply the tax to small properties as it is to apply it to large properties, and although it means that those people will not make the profits which they would otherwise have made, it is very definitely in the interest of the community as a whole that the increase of prices should be curtailed.

But surely there can be no speculation in those small properties, because the speculators do not speculate in properties of that kind.

Even if there is no large-scale speculation it still means that the prices go up, and the application of this tax would stop that.

It can only happen if there is a speculation spirit. The speculators do not put themselves out, they do not concentrate on the buying and selling of small properties.

Assuming there is an increase in prices today, then it means that people will have to pay more for the properties they buy more than they should pay, and if we are able to prevent that sort of thing it is my contention that it is in the interest of the community as a whole that we should do so.

We have to be extremely careful in passing legislation of the kind which is before us at the present moment. I only want to say that we in this part of the House feel that we must go further than the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has gone and that we must try to convince the Minister that it is undesirable to make this kind of taxation system applicable to the platteland. On the platteland we have this condition of affairs, as I have tried to explain to the Minister, that the farmers’ lands, his farm, constitute his main assets, and if the Minister by the introduction of legislation of this kind stops, transactions in farm property we are going to have this condition of affairs, that the farmer will be placed in the position of a man who has nothing at all, as the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), has already explained. All long-term credit will be completely stopped by this kind of legislation. Governments of the past have been at great pains to devise means to improve the farmer’s financial position by raising land values to a better level. But now our present Minister of Finance goes out of his way practically to knock out the farmer and to freeze his capital, so that the farmer will be in a hopeless position—his land will be worth nothing as security, because the value of the security depends on the readiness with which such land can fetch a particular price on the market, and if one-third or two-thirds of the profits on the sale of such property have to be surrendered to the State we can quite realise what the position is going to be. I therefore want to move the following amendment—

I hope I have put the position clearly. I am very anxious to avoid the farmers suffering a severe setback as a result of this clause of the Act being forced on them, and I therefore hope that the Minister will meet us.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice a difficulty with which one section of the farmers in this country will particularly have to contend under this Bill, and that is the section of people who are not landowners. In those parts which I represent there are many farmers who are not landowners but who are tenants of ground. The time of leasing ground has passed. People can no longer obtain land to lease. Does the Minister realise the heavy burden he is going to impose on those people? I personally know of many cases where people have not been able to get any land on lease. The people I have in mind are people who financially are unable to buy land; they have been trekking from place to place with their stock until in the end they have had nothing left, and what is the Minister going to do now? He should know the position of farming and of the farmer individually. The farmer does not want to sell his land— he will object all the more if he knows that he has to surrender such a large proportion of his profit to the Government. There can be only one of two results. He has to sell the land at such a high price that it will be practically impossible for the unfortunate man who has no land at all to buy it without landing himself in a hopeless position, or he will not sell at all and he will hang on until such time as the Nationlist Party takes off this tax. There is not the slightest doubt that the Minister is going to hit these farmers very severely by this tax. Cannot he accept a proposal which will have the effect of these farmers not being hit by this tax? I really fail to see why the Minister should impose this tax on bona fide farmers. If the Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment from this side of the House let him put in something himself to exempt those farmers who are in this difficult position. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister, particularly in view of the conditions prevailing in those parts of the country which I represent.

I hope the Minister will not take any notice of these so-called desires of members opposite in regard to the farmers. I first of all want to say that what we have to do here is to look after the interests of those people who are going to be farmers in future. The man who sells his farm is a farmer no longer. He has finished farming. But the man who buys it is the man who is going to farm, and he is the man we have to look after. And that is the object of this Bill. To make sure that that man does not have to pay too high a price, so that he cannot pay the interest. The hon. member said that we were forcing the farmers into a corner. Does not the hon. member remember the corner we were pushed into by the inflation after the last war? The greatest difficulty a farmer has to contend with are these inflation periods.

They are still suffering from it now.

Hon. members all know that those people who bought land in those years of inflation without exception got into difficulty. I therefore say that what we have to look to is the future of the farmers, and not the farmer who sells his farm and who ceases to be a farmer. Look after the farmers of the future and see to it that they are not made to suffer from the results of inflation.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) does not want to help us to get concessions for the farmers. He says that our amendment is not going to help the farmers. May I be allowed to give an example? A young farmer has been saving for years to buy land in the Bush Veld for winter grazing. Perhaps it has been his intention to buy that land either this year or next year. That farm would have cost him £500. But now that this tax is being imposed the seller is not going to sell for £500. He is going to see to it that the amount of the tax is added to the sale price. The hon. member for Potchefstroom does not understand what the position is. That is the point which we must try to make the Minister of Finance understand. If the Minister wants to help the farmers he has the opportunity of doing so now. It seems to me that the Government, on the one hand, is appealing to the farmers to produce more; it is appealing to the farmers to do all they possibly can to produce; but, on the other hand, the Government goes out of its way to handicap those self-same farmers. I want to express the hope that the Minister of Finance will see his way to accept both amendments which have been proposed from this side. The amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) will be of great assistance to the poor man in the towns as well as on the platteland; it will help the poor man in the town who may perhaps want to buy a house. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) will be of great help to the farmers on the platteland.

I do not like either of the amendments which have been moved.

I am not accepting them.

I think it would be a great error to accept them. There is firstly the amendment by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) to exempt the established farmer from the tax. Such a step means discrimination in favour of farmers against the other sections of the community, and this would be most undesirable—be the favoured section farmers or any other section. No, let the tax apply equally to everyone who profits from the sale of fixed property. Secondly, there is the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) to abate £100 as a fixed amount from the profit of each sale. I think an abatement of a fixed sum is not advisable, but I do think the Minister should temper this clause by providing for an abatement of an amount on a percentage basis, a percentage of the total cost. It would be a simple method of dealing with the difficulty, and it would bring it more into line with the taxation as it has existed. These profits, when taxable in the past, have been subject to the excess profits tax, in which there has been a pre-war standard or a statutory percentage allowed. In this particular clause there is no provision whatever for even a statutory percentage, and I think it would temper the clause, and would help a good deal in administering this clause, if the Minister were to make provision for an abatement of an amount based on a percentage of the cost.

In reply to the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) I only want to say this, he may be quite honest in his intentions when he says that the farmer may suffer greater hardships if these amendments are accepted, but let me assure the hon. member that prices are driven up by competition. If there are 9,000 sheep on the Cape Town market and there is a demand for 12,000 sheep, prices are higher than they usually are—they are driven up, and what is happening here? The Minister is now making this law retrospective to the 1st October. All the farms bought after that date will come under the provisions of the Act. Those farms —that land—does not constitute the major part of our land. The major part, therefore, is not in any way affected by this Bill, but it means that there is all the more competition for those farms which are put on the market. Do not the Minister and the hon. member realise that? The farmer has to have land, and the farmer now has fewer farms to choose from—or let me say there are fewer farms offered for sale because before the 1st October they were in the hands of the owners, and consequently there is more competition. The farmer will therefore have to pay a much higher price. It seems to me that the Minister does not want to accept the amendment. If he considers the matter seriously he will realise that our argument is a sound one.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. G.

Strydom, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28:

Boltman, F. H.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pirow, O.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—52:

Abrabamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. P

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Labuschagne, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28:

Boltman, H.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pirow, O.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—52:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller. C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—52:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—29:

Boltman, F. H.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pirow, O.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaardt, G. v. Z.

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

I have an amendment which I wish to move. I want to deal with the position which arises in connection with these property companies, companies which are established in the main for the purchase and sale of immovable property. There are certain deductions allowed here. May I admit that at once, but I do not think that this goes to the length of giving the Commissioner the powers which I would like him to possess. What I am trying to get at is this: in an ordinary company which deals with immovable property you have ordinary overhead expenses. And in a case which has been brought particularly to my notice they point out that in the ordinary course of the activities of the business from which their profits are made, out of which these sales arise, they have their ordinary expenses in the way of rent, telephones, stationery, salaries, licences, advertisements, the issue of brochures, and various other things which come in the ordinary run of a company dealing with immovable property. I do not think the clause as it stands goes sufficiently far so that if a position arose such as in the case which has come to my notice where certain particular properties—if you take the mere value at which they were bought and the price at which they were sold—show a profit of £1,300, but the ordinary expenses of running that business, out of which the sales arose, show a loss of £700. The point I want to make is that you cannot divide up the individual sales in a company which deals with the buying and selling of property. You cannot distinguish between directors’ fees, telephone accounts, and so on, which occur in the ordinary running of the business, which are genertal in their nature, and the Commissioner must have the power to allot a portion of that expenditure incurred in the conduct of the business out of which the profit arose, so as to determine whether a profit may or may not have been made. I realise the difficulty of trying to apportion any part of that expenditure, and I have therefore in my amendment given the power to the Commissioner to determine the extent to which such expenditure may be allowed, before the imposition of the tax is made. I think it is a reasonable proposal, and I think it is a power which the Minister may safely entrust to the Commissioner. At the end of a year, when the sales have been determined, it will be possible to apportion out of the running expenditure of the business a portion which ultimately can be allocated to the sales that have been made during that year, and after deduction and making allowances for that, then ascertain the amount upon which the tax is to be paid. The difference is this, that if I, as an individual, sell the property, I don’t pay income tax, but these people are already paying income tax on the revenue they derive from that business on revenue and sales, and I think it is right and fair for the Minister to allow the Commissioner to take into account the overhead expenses in the running of that business in order to ascertain and determine what portion of the purchase price received in the realisation of these properties should be subject to the payment of this tax. I move—

I don’t think this amendment is necessary. In Section 28 (1) the Commissioner can take account of any necessary expenses in connection with the acquisition of a property. That applies to the individual and the copany. He can also under Section 29 take account of any expenditure in connection with the alienation. And under Section 28 (c) he can take account of so much of any other expenditure between acquisition and alienation as it appears reasonable to take account of. I do not see why these matters which the hon. member has raised cannot be dealt with under 28 (c). If we are to accept his amendment we are breaking down the structure of the Bill insofar as we should now have a special clause for the company and not for the individual who might be in a similar position. I am quite satisfied that we shall be able to deal reasonably with these cases to which the hon. member has referred under 28 (c). Indeed, we had that particular case in mind when we drafted that paragraph.

I also want to move an amendment, but it seems to me that the Minister has hardened his heart to such an extent this morning that we cannot move him. But I feel that my amendment is an important one. All of us have been pleading the same cause. I move—

My amendment means this: the Minister by introducing this tax aims at preventing unnecessary speculation, and naturally at preventing inflation. I do not think that the Minister can have any objection to a reasonable profit being made on any transaction. I do not think that ten per cent. is an exorbitant profit, and if we insert this provision it will not have such a disturbing effect on the ordinary course of business. It will enable people who want to buy a house today to secure one, because more houses will be offered for sale if we allow a reasonable profit of ten per cent. to be made.

When the proceedings were suspended I was discussing the amendment I have proposed. I hope the Minister’s heart has been softened since the dinner hour, and I therefore do not propose discussing my amendment any further in the hope that it will be accepted.

I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. friend’s expectations. I consider this amendment to be of precisely the same character as that proposed by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) which we have already negatived. His amendment aimed at a certain portion of the profit not being made subject to this tax. My hon. friend is now moving the same kind of amendment, and for the same reasons as I gave before I cannot accept this amendment.

In regard to the amendment which I proposed this morning, I realise that the question is one purely of administration, and in view of the fact that the Minister has stated that the Bill as drafted was intended to meet the position as I set out this morning in support of my amendment, I accept the Minister’s statement as meeting the position which I put when introducing my amendment. I therefore withdraw my amendment.

I move the amendment standing in my name. This gives effect to the undertaking I gave on the second reading. I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Those definitions are no longer necessary in view of the fact that we have largely wiped out the definitions which previously existed in the law, and we no longer anywhere in the Bill make use of these terms. I want to take this opportunity of saying a word in general to the large number of amendments which I have put on the Order Paper. I want to say at once that in the framing of these amendments I have received a great deal of assistance from hon. members interested in this Bill. While these amendments all appear in my name, the paternity of a great many of them can rightly be claimed by other hon. members who have consulted me in regard to them. I appreciate the fact that members have been prepared to discuss their amendments and their difficulties with me. In that way, of course, those hon. members who have acted in that manner have effaced themselves, not perhaps securing publicity but achieving definite results.

That is what counts.

Yes, that is what counts. There is, however, a very practical reason for the procedure adopted, because as hon. members are aware it will not be possible for any amendment to be moved at this stage which is not covered by a recommendation of the Governor-General, and therefore by discussing their proposals with me hon. members have facilitated this procedure, and I have thereby been able to secure the Governor-General’s recommendations collectively to all the amendments which appear in my name. If you will allow me to go on for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I think that these amendments as a whole taken together in the Bill as submitted, will give us something which we can view with a considerable amount of satisfaction. The amendments of which I have given notice do mark a considerable improvement to the Bill. I am not going to claim perfection for the Bill—that it would be very wrong for me to do, and I am quite sure in my own mind that almost inevitably next year further amendments to this Bill will have to be made. Points inevitably crop up in war time in connection with pensions legislation which require dealing with, and I would like to take this opportunity of saying to hon. members who have not asked for, or have been unable to obtain, a recommendation for their amendments, that I shall be prepared to consider points raised by them at a later stage before amending legislation is introduced—I shall be perfectly prepared to consider other points raised, or points which may come up when once the Bill has become Act, and is in operation, and I hope that in view of that assurance members will not press unduly those points which they may wish to raise and which are not covered by the amendments of which I have given notice, and to which His Excellency’s recommendation is attached.

Hon. members will note that the formal words of enactment have been inadvertently omitted at the commencement of the Bill and as these words are not put in Committee, I have, in terms of Standing Order 166, directed that the necessary correction be made.

Would it be possible for the Committee of the Whole House to consider the definition clauses before proceeding with the amendments tabled?

I cannot hear the hon. member. Does the hon. member wish to know whether the Committee must confine itself to the amendments on the Order Paper?

We are allowed, I know, to proceed with the amendments standing in the Minister’s name. I want to know whether one would be allowed to refer to the definition of “military service” where no amendment has been moved, and to refer to the subsequent clauses …

Yes, the hon. member may proceed.

Very well, sir. The definition of “military service” says that the term shall not include the courses of training referred to in Section 6 of the South Africa Defence Act Amendment Act of 1922. If we were to do that we should be excluding from the provisions of this Bill and from possible compensation a certain number of cases which have already occurred. One of these cases has been the subject of correspondence between the Commissioner of Pensions and myself. I refer to the case of W. F. Wallace. He says that he received an injury while engaged on a course at Roberts Heights, an injury which has affected him very seriously, and has caused hernia, affecting his earning capacity. In that case the Commissioner indicated that his proper course was to submit a claim under Section 118 of the Defence Act, and he concluded with this comment—

It would be unfair if we were now to exclude his case from the operation of this Bill, and my request to the Minister is not to exclude that from military service. There is another case I want to refer to. I have a letter from the wife of one of the men who have suffered injuries. Let me read this letter—

That is not so clear a case as the one in which a military course was taken, but he was certainly in the process of training. The other case to which I have referred is one in which an officer was attending a course at Roberts’ Heights, during which he was injured, and I hope the Minister will agree not to exclude those men who were injured while they are engaged in undergoing their training.

In view of what the Minister has said, I want to make it clear that there is no intention on the part of those of us who have amendments on the Order Paper to seek any publicity, but where one feels that a matter has to be brought forward, you cannot help yourself if you are placed in that position. I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of those who have amendments on the Order Paper. We would be the last to seek any publicity in regard to this matter. I have an amendment in my name on page 661. It reads—

Under Clause 17, taking that as an example, certain remedies lie. Certain pensions are payable to persons where certain things have happened during the war. Now, under the definition as it now stands in the Bill, the war terminates at a date fixed in a proclamation issued by the Governor-General. I visualise the probability of many of our men doing military service either in the form of garrison duty or otherwise, after that date which is fixed in the proclamation, and I feel that these men should have the same privileges and the same protection which this Bill affords to others who happen to be injured on or before the date mentioned in the proclamation. I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion which I have put forward, and move it himself at the Report stage.

May I reassure the hon. member at once. I think my hon. friend is unduly apprehensive. The definition in the Bill means the period from the 6th September, 1939, until the date when the Governor-General in a Proclamation declares the termination of the war. My hon. friend may take it that the Governor-General will not declare a date until everything has been cleared up. In the last war the date of termination was 10th January, 1920; so my hon. friend will see that ample time was allowed. My hon. friend may take it from me that his point will be fully met in our advice to the Governor-General. The point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is one which unfortunately he did not have an opportunity of discussing with me, but as far as I can see the particular case to which he referred would not be met by an amendment such as he suggests. I understand that that man in any case was not a volunteer under this Act. I have not had notice of this particular instance, but if my hon. friend will give me the opportunity, I shall go into it further.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper dealing with the definition of “child”. I do not intend to move it as it stands because I don’t think it will quite meet the position.

No, it does not quite help you.

No. There are two methods by which a soldier’s service may be terminated. He may be at a depot, at a camp, and his service may be terminated there, and he may be sent home. In that particular case he may be in Pretoria. His home may be in Cape Town. It takes him two or three days to travel, and it seems to me that it is cutting the margin unnecessarily fine. The second case may be that of a man who is badly injured. He may be sent to his home and he may be discharged from his home, and there may be very little likelihood of any family arriving—that man may not be in such a state within the 280 days provided for. But I want to ask the Minister at a later stage to extend that period to twelve months. I don’t want to go into the medical side, but to give a period of eight days from the discharge as the limit in which the child shall be conceived; well, it does seem to make it too snappy. I would suggest that possibly twelve months would meet the position. Perhaps the Minister himself will move it at a later stage.

In view of the Minister’s remarks, I wish at the outset to make it clear that I am not one of those who discussed this matter with the Minister. I have, however, put to the Minister certain amendments which I want to move, and he knows I am moving them, although they are not on the Order Paper. My first amendment relates to the same point which the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has just dealt with. I think I can improve his amendment, and I wish to move my amendment as follows: I move—

This will solve the whole problem, and I think it will meet with substantial approbation, because the Act as it stands means this’: A child born before the soldier is discharged, or within 280 days, is in a favourable position. The children born after that period are outside the scope of the Act. The child within the Act and favoured by the Act receives the following benefits: An allowance will be paid for the child during the father’s pension. It may be continued to the age of 18 in the case of a male and to the age of 21 in the case of a female. In the case of a male it can be continued during the period of apprenticeship, or during the period of articles or training, when a nominal wage only is received, or while the child is being educated at a technical institute, university or other institution. And furthermore, it does cover the case of any child rendered incapable of earning a living through mental or physical infirmity. Now we have this position: Take the case of Mary and Jack, who were born before the soldier’s discharge. They are both eligible for all these benefits, but Tommy and Willy, who are born afterwards, are not included in these benefits at all.

What about Wally?

I have just received a telegram from Orange Grove.

Who is Orange Grove?

A very important constituency, advising me that they are very dissatisfied with this particular provision, and also the period of two years in Clause 9 affecting wives. All hon. members will have received a memorandum from the British Empire Service League, which has given considerable thought to the question of pensions. It is a body which can speak for the ex-servicemen, and we all know that in the memorandum the B.E.S.L. has recommended just what I am moving now. That is, that a child born at any time should be subject to the benefits of this Act. It seems to me that this is only fair and reasonable, and I fail to see how one can turn round and say that a child born before the man’s discharge is eligible for the benefits, and that children born after 280 days will not enjoy those benefits. If we take into account our social structure, we must realise that a child is an asset of the State. I want to mention a particular case. It is the case of a pensioner named Cooke, who is now dead. He was gassed in the last war, and he subsequently developed tuberculosis. He died a little while ago. Since the last war he has had four children. He has never had a penny for the sustenance of any of these children, and Mrs. Cooke is still faced with the difficulty of bringing up two of the children. The eldest boy, who has now turned 18, is in the army. It is quite good enough for the country to accept his enrolment in the army, but it has never been good enough for South Africa to help to bring up that boy to the stage of being able to serve the State. Throughout his life Cooke had not been given a single penny by way of allowance to bring up that boy or any of his other children. Then at the bottom of page 4, in the definition of “Widow”, I want to move this further amendment. I move—

The definition of “Widow” provides that no woman, who was not married at the time of the discharge of the volunteer, is a widow for the purposes of this Act. It seems to me almost barbarous to impose a condition like that. The Act in the past has provided that a woman married within two years of discharge is a wife within the meaning of the Act. But here it does not even go that length. The British Empire Service League has suggested a period of fifteen years.

As these amendments would involve increased expenditure, I am unable to put them to the Committee without the recommendation of the Governor-General.

I may say in regard to these amendments which have been proposed that these matters were very fully considered by the Committee which was appointed by our Party and which sat on the matter. It was because many members felt strongly on these points that they were fully argued and discussed, and it is because of that that so many members have not put these matters on the Order Paper. There were large numbers of amendments suggested by members from this side of the House. We consulted the Minister and we found that the effect would be that these amendments would not be in order. So we put the whole matter before the Minister. This Committee which was appointed by the Party met several times, and the only point I am sorry about is that members did not come and put their various amendments before the Committee. Other points which will be raised later on were also dealt with and considered in the same way and discussed with the Minister, who has put a number of amendments on the Order Paper with the recommendation of the Governor-General.

I could not hear what the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), had to tell the Committee, but I was glad to hear from the Minister that he does foresee the likelihood of amendments being necessary, at any rate, next year in this Bill.

Or in the Senate.

Yes, better still in the Senate. I hope that means that the Minister has not set his face positively against any change in the definition of “child”, and that he will recognise the necessity for the elimination of this unsavoury time limit. I understood the Minister to say on the second reading that the explanation was that there were administrative difficulties. Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Minister and his very able officers to overcome whatever administrative difficulties there may be. What should govern the definition is not the existence of administrative difficulties, but the justice of the matter, that there should in fact be no distinction as between one child and another, both being the children of their parents. It is an unreal distinction, and not only does it concern the parents, but I venture to say that it is of vital importance to the State, and it will be increasingly so after the war. We already have a population problem and we have no right by virtue of legislation of any kind to set a limit upon the raising of families. I say that if there is any person who has proved his eminent desirability to be the progenitor of a family, it is the man who has made sacrifices for his country, and we should encourage that man to have a family without the calculated restriction of a pension law. I hope the Minister will realise that this matter travels far beyond the confines of administrative questions, that it is a matter of principle, and that sooner or later we shall have to amend this provision, and the sooner we do so the better.

I only wish to say that the amendments moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) are very widely supported by those with whom I have come in contact. I would myself have given notice of these amendments had I not realised that those I put on the Order Paper and those the hon. member has moved are not admissible, because they increase expenditure under the Bill. We are in the position of not being able to move on our own initiative any amendments worth considering on this Bill at all. But that does not deprive us of the right to urge on the Minister of Finance the desirability of accepting amendments of this kind. I am certain that if the Minister were to take a referendum of the troops at present there would be no voices in favour of the Bill as it stands on this point—all voices would be in favour of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I hope that, although the amendment is doomed to be defeated here, that the Minister will reconsider the matter. This amendment in regard to the 15 years period is one that has had the consideration of the B.E.S.L., and they have urged it on the Minister. I think we cannot disregard that any more than we can disregard the innumerable appeals made to us by serving soldiers, and their families.

I know you have ruled the amendments which the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) wished to move out of order, but I think I should just say one word about the position. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) referred to what I said on a previous occasion, about administrative difficulties. These are very real difficulties. It must not be forgotten that what we have inserted here about a child and a widow is the same as has been in the law hitherto. Now, we are making this law retrospective. In other words, if we had to change the present basis of the law in that regard we would have to go back on all the cases, also in connection with wives and children.

Undoubtedly.

That would impose a very heavy burden on the Pensions Office. Hon. members do not realise what is involved in new legislative proposals of this kind from an administrative point of view. The Pensions Office is striving hard to keep abreast of its responsibilities and duties under the present law …

What about the Income Tax Office? You must be struggling there.

Yes, of course; and we have certain delays there as well, and some people don’t pay quite as promptly as they should, but if this additional burden is to be placed on the Pensions Office, the difficulty would be very great indeed. In determining the basic figures, namely, in deciding what we should pay as the 100 per cent. disablement rate and as the widow’s pension rate, in other words, virtually doubling the existing rate, we had regard to the existing structure of the law in this matter. If we had then felt it possible to make any changes in this regard, we would not have been able to make these other rates as generous as we have done. Hon. members must view this Bill as a whole, and accept the fact that we could only go as far as we did because we were going to build on the structure of the present law, in regard to those particular points that have been raised, and on that account I hope that hon. members will not press this particular point now.

I notice that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) had amongst his amendments a proposal to add a sub-section to this clause, and I wonder whether the Minister would consider the advisability of that being done at this stage. I realise that if the hon. member himself were to propose that clause it would be ruled out of order as increasing expenditure. It is printed on the Order Paper. There are a considerable number of us—I should say the majority of those supporting the Government—who would favour such a proviso as proposed in the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will take into consideration the desirability of meeting those who are in support of this section. We feel that this would supply an assurance which is badly needed, an assurance to every volunteer, that if he goes away a fit man and comes back broken in health, his right to a pension will be guaranteed by this proviso. I think there is a widespread feeling in support of this. The M.O.T.H.S., strongly represented throughout South Africa, has recommended this in a written memorandum distributed among M.P.’s, and wherever I have discussed this with hon. members I have felt that they are strongly in favour of the proviso. It need not necessarily involve a large increase in expenditure, but it will certainly increase confidence in the minds of the volunteers who are affected by the Act.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has referred to an amendment of which the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) gave notice. I considered that amendment. I also considered the representations which the hon. member for Illovo himself made to me personally on similar lines. I also considered the representations which had been made by other hon. members in regard to this matter, and it was as a result of discussion with those members that I have given notice of the amendment to Clause 5 as printed on the Order Paper. I think that substantially meets the position. Indeed, in certain respects, it goes further than the hon. member has asked for.

it is different.

Yes, it is different, but it does have that effect which the hon. member wants, that is to create confidence. In any event, I do not think I can go further than I have done in moving that amendment on Clause 5.

May I say that I claim no credit for having this amendment in my name on the Order Paper. I did not move it because I understood that it would be ruled out of order on the ground that it would increase expenditure, but may I now point out to the hon. Minister that his officials will tell him that the number of cases that have come before the Select Committee on Pensions, which deal with the percentage of disability, are innumerable. Even at this date questions arise out of the Great War as to whether or no a man’s disability has been aggravated by war services. You cannot get away from this fact: These young fellows suffer a certain illness or injury; they are young and able to respond easily to treatment. They are full of life and vigour, and they put no claim forward at the time of their discharge or even within a reasonable time thereafter, but as they grow older these things come to the surface. Then they have to get a special recommendation from the Select Committee in order to get what they should receive under this Bill. It is for that reason that I put the amendment on the Order Paper in the hope that the Minister will consider ways and means of giving effect to it. When these young fellows suffer an illness or injury, it is not apparent for a long time in many cases, and these things come to the surface only years afterwards sometimes, but the cause of it lies with the period during which they were on military service. On the Minister’s amendment to Clause 5, when the time arrives, I would like to submit to him that that does not affect the amendment which is on the Order Paper in my name.

I venture to suggest to the Minister that his observations in reply to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) are in substance this: “What you are asking has already been conceded, and even more.” In other words, this amendment cannot possibly affect the Minister at all, and I am rather inclined to agree with the Minister that his amendment possibly goes further than this proposed amendment.

Oh, no.

The hon. member for Illovo says it does not. It certainly does not go as far as I would like it to go. If the Minister is correct, then surely nothing is to be gained from the Minister’s and the department’s point of view in refusing to accept this amendment, because if I understand him correctly he is saying that all the possibly cases which might fall under the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander), supported by the hon. member for Illovo, are met by the amendment which the Minister will move on Clause 5. I am prepared to say that I am inclined to agree with the Minister that his amendment is probably wider in effect than the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, but let me say that I am gratified by the assurance the Minister has given the House that he is prepared during the recess, to consider representations which might be submitted to him either by his department or by interested organisations, or by members who have made the interests of ex-Servicemen a special feature of their activities. The hon. member for Illovo says that this is the accepted time, and I agree with him. I am not so much concerned with the case of the soldier returning from his service, and prior to his discharge finding himself the victim of some disease or other, which the hon. Minister is prepared to accept as being attributable to war services. But I would like the British Empire Service League and the M.O.T.H.S. and all other organisations to concern themselves with the man who enlists as A.1 and who returns to the Union A.1 and who is discharged A.1, and who prior to his discharge signs a certificate that he has no claim against the department, and who then within 18 months or 2 years finds himself and his health completely undermined as a result of his war services. Let me tell the Minister that it is the man who is discharged and who within a period of one to five years finds his health completely undermined by the service he has rendered the country— that is the man who is a derelict on the streets of Cape Town and elsewhere today. I ask the hon. Minister to take that particular aspect into consideration when he considers the strengthening of public opinion in what we consider to be a square deal to those who serve South Africa today in the foreign battlefields.

I do not want to delay the Committee very long, but I do want to ask whether the hon. Minister will be prepared to tell us that he will set his face absolutely against any certificate to be signed by any soldier, precluding him at a later date from claiming a pension.

I think the case will be met by Clause 5 as put by the Minister, with a slight alteration. You find many men whose general standard of health would entitle them to be grouped under the A.1. class. But on account of some physical deficiency which may be very slight, such as dental deficiency, for example, they are grouped in a lower class. Similarly you have cases in the B class where men who in other respects are physically fit to be grouped under the B.1 class are grouped in the B.2 or B.3 class on account of dental deficiency, for example. I think that the case can be met to a certain extent if the Minister were to do away with the three divisions under the A and B classes respectively, and simply to have classes A and B. It may be that some men will lose certain rights as a result of not coming within the prescribed class merely through some slight physical disability, such as dental deficiency, and for that reason I suggest that there should be only classes A and B, and not A.1, A.2, A.3, and B.1, B.2, B.3.

I move the amendment as printed on page 675 of the Order Paper—

This amendment gives effect to an undertaking I gave at a previous stage.

I am a bit concerned about the discrimination that is set up under sub-clause (4) of Clause 2. As the sub-clause stands at present it says that if after the age of 15 a lad has regularly attended any school or technical college, or institution with a view to qualifying for any profession or employment, and has then joined up, he shall if he is totally disabled, get a maximum pension of £200 plus a certain amount for each year that he has been at this institution or college. Now the result of that may very well be this, that where a lad has been keen to join up as soon as possible, and has attended such an institution and then joined up, say, at the age of 18, he may be discriminated against because of his keenness to join up, as against the lad who stayed at the institution for five years in order to complete his training. The second lad will get the same basis pension but because he has attended for five years, so that he will qualify for a pension on the basis of £450, whereas the boy who put his country before his own career may only get at the most, if he has been three years at this institution, £395. That does seem to me to put a premium on the lads finishing their education; in other words, putting their own careers before the needs of the country, and I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the results of that. I feel that it must seriously hamper the war effort. I know that many parents, considering the clause, will now say: “Well, in view of the fact that if the boy is disabled after five years he will get more, and in view of the fact that after five years of training the boy will be better qualified to make a living, we feel that we may be well advised to refuse permission for the boy to join up. That fact may act as a deterrent in recruiting, and I would ask the hon. Minister to consider whether in the report stage he will not be prepared to remove this discrimination set up in Clause 4.

While I would have been perfectly happy to discuss this matter further, I would point out that it is a point that is extremely difficult to meet, and I doubt whether even the ingenuity of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) would be able to do so. What we have done is to improve the position very considerably from the point of view she has argued. In the past there was a flat rate for each year. Now we have made the rate higher at the beginning and lower towards the end of the period, so that there is less inducement to stay than under the old rate. I do not think the old rate was much of a deterrent to recruiting, and therefore the new clause will be less of a deterrent to recruiting. I do not see how one can get over the difficulty.

May I say with all respect to the Minister, I feel myself compelled at this stage to ask the Minister to give due consideration to the representations made by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) …

I said I would.

… and completely to eliminate discrimination. Here we have five men; one in the first year at university, one in the second year at university, one in the third year, and two of whom who propose to follow the profession of a barrister, in their fifth year. All of them at once offer their services to the country, and all of them are 100 per cent. disabled. Now does the Minister suggest to me that there is any justification for differentiating between the lad of 18, the lad of 19, the lad of 20 and the lad of 21? All four were prepared to offer their services. I feel that if there is to be any difference, it should be in favour of the younger man who happens to be wounded and who suffers a disability in the cause of the country. All things being equal, the prospects are that the younger man is going to carry his disability for a longer period than the older man who spent four years at the university before joining up. I feel that the Minister should and can devise ways and means of meeting the situation. There is no possible legal or moral justification for the differentiation at all.

May I ask whether this particular difficulty cannot be solved in the light of the Minister’s solution of the difficulty in regard to the farmer’s son? I like that solution a long way better than Subsection 4 as it now reads, because it will be possible for the Minister of Finance by a stroke of the pen to adjust any difficulties. He has the right under a subsequent section to lay down the law in regard to pre-war earnings, and in relation to the farmer’s son he has, I think, relied upon those powers. His amendment says in the case of the farmer’s son who was assisting his father at the time of his enlistment, an amount not exceeding £450 per annum may, on the recommendation of the Board and on the recommendation of the Minister, be substituted for his pre-war earnings. A slight alteration of that clause would give the Minister similar powers to deal with the university student or the man who wanted to go in for a profession, and I maintain that the Minister of Finance would be able to adjust any apparent injustice in that manner. Where a young man has enlisted during his first year, it seems infinitely wrong to put him on a lower scale than the lad who enlisted at the end of his training or university days. The man who goes first gets a smaller right than the man who goes last, and I hope that the Minister will solve the problem by following his own method that he adopted in regard to the farmer’s son.

I will give consideration to that.

I should like to move an amendment, and I think the hon. Minister will accept it. I move—

I move this because I want to confine the pensions to persons who fight in South Africa. We have the assurance of the Prime Minister that no troops will be sent outside Africa, and insofar as his assurance is concerned, there are no soldiers of the Union outside Africa. There can therefore be no objection to this amendment. On the 4th September, when the Prime Minister proposed his motion to take part in the war, he adopted the attitude that we should only break off diplomatic relations with Germany. He went further and dealt with the extent to which we would take part in the war, and he said—

He spoke here of active participation in the war, and he said that that was not the question. He continued—

That is the question which was put before the House, and upon that he received a mandate to prosecute the war. Since that time the Prime Minister has gone further, and has involved us in the war in North Africa. He says that he is doing it with volunteers. Now he introduces a Pensions Bill to give pensions to the volunteers who fight in North Africa. We have no objection to the pensions which he wants to give. We feel that there are thousands who went North not of their own free will but owing to economic conscription. For that reason we do not object to their receiving pensions. But if the Minister adheres to the statement of the Government, no troops may be sent out of Africa. I cannot therefore see any objection to this amendment.

Do you not want to pay pensions to volunteers?

I said that these people who are fighting in the North are volunteers, but some of them were only brought there by economic conscription. The hon. member may laugh, but there are numbers of these cases. The employer held out the prospect to the man either of fighting or being unemployed.

The hon. member cannot go into that; he must confine himself to the clause.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Minister asks for a pension for any soldier who wants to fight in Africa. But if anyone wants to join the Australian or British or Indian army, we ought not to pay a pension. During the last war people voluntarily went overseas, and they were paid by the English Government. We have a solemn promise from the Prime Minister, on the strength of which he got his majority, that he would not send any troops out of Africa. The Prime Minister repeatedly emphasised that we would not send any troops out of the country. In that case, what objection can there be to limiting the privileges in the Bill to troops in Africa, unless he contemplates sending troops outside Africa? For that reason I expect that the Minister of Finance will accept this amendment.

I just want to say that I cannot accept this amendment. I do not think it is necessary. This House, by means of a resolution, laid down where our troops could fight.

Why not insert this in the Bill?

It would be out of place in this Bill. If this House decides differently again, then it is for the House alone to say so, but why is it necessary to insert it in this Bill?

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood). I think that the remark of the Minister of Finance as to why he does not want this incorporated in the Bill does not hold water. He says that this House has decided where our troops would fight. If that is so, then the hon. Minister agrees with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) that we are voting these pensions only for people who fight in Africa. We have already gone much further than we dreamed of doing at the beginning of the war. The Minister may think that we should go still further and send our troops to other countries. Perhaps he does not think so, but tomorrow or the day thereafter it may happen that our soldiers will fight at other places. We are against this Pension Bill and against this war. Hon. friends on the other side laughed when we spoke about volunteers.

We did not laugh about volunteers, but about economic conscription.

A word to the wise is enough, but apparently the hon. member is not wise. It is the policy of the Government, to throw out of employment all those people who are fit to go and fight. Women fill their places. In that manner economic pressure is brought to bear upon them.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Since we are now making provision for pensions for people who are supposedly fighting for South Africa, let us now accept an amendment limiting the Bill to men who fight in Africa. With all respect to the Minister of Finance, if he had to pass an impartial judgment on the reply which he gave us just now, then he himself would have taken no notice of it. We are opposed to this legislation, but even if we regard the matter from their point of view, we say that we should give this pension only to people who defend South Africa.

On Section 4 I wish to emphasise that upon the interpretation of its terms will turn the very gravest of decisions. You may by an unfavourable interpretation of this section plunge a home into almost enduring misery. You may rob the volunteer of the pension he considered to be his due, and you may rob his wife and children. One interpretation of the section may give rise to the complaint that owing to what they have been accustomed to call “red tape” they have been robbed of their just dues. I have been profoundly disappointed that the Minister has been unable to accept the proviso in the form suggested by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander), because I believe, sir, with my whole heart that only by that means will he redeem the situation and restore the confidence of the men in the goodwill which the Minister undoubtedly has towards them. How can he expect by an amendment such as he proposes, to convey that goodwill to them? In the first place, it makes a distinction between A.1 and B.1.

We are discussing Clause 4 now.

I know, sir, the Minister’s amendment has been noted on Clause 5 and I am dealing with the interpretation of Clause 4, because that is the one which deals with attributability of disablement to military service, and the Minister’s amendment purports to deal with that. I want to urge the Minister to reconsider the proposal made by the hon. member for Wynberg. If we don’t do that, if we once get away from Clause 4, we shall be leaving that clause to be interpreted in a manner which may work very grave injustice, and I hope, therefore, the Minister will reconsider that point. It is a most urgent and important question, and I hope the Minister will accept the very reasonable amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg.

Mr. Chairman, I have a considerable amount of difficulty in connection with Clause 4, and especially subsection (b), in regard to the words “arising out of and in the course of the discharge of military service”. The provisions of the chapter according to this section, only apply to volunteers whose disablement in the opinion of the Board has arisen out of and in the course of the discharge of military service performed in the Union, or has been aggravated by and in the course of such service. It seems to me that the interpretation of those words may give rise to a good deal of injustice. The words are, of course, found also in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and there they have very often given rise to a great deal of hardship. I think this section should rather be drafted in such a manner as rather to give compensation to one or two cases which may not strictly be injuries caused through military service, rather than to deny compensation to cases which may fairly claim compensation by virtue of military service. I would ask the Minister to modify those words, and I have an amendment here to the following effect—

Then the section will apply to European volunteers whose disablement has risen out of or is attributable to the discharge of military service. A very simple case occurs to me in connection with that. Suppose a man is taken to Pretoria during military service and is discharged there. He proceeds to his home at the Cape immediately after discharge, and on the journey sustains a severe injury in consequence of a railway accident or a motor accident. He would then be unable to claim anything, because, although his injury may have arisen out of military service, it would not be “in the course of” military service. I am sure the intention is that in a case of that nature where the injury is really attributable to his military service, he should be compensated. I think the Minister might consider accepting an amendment of the nature suggested.

In regard to what the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) has said, we have on several occasions discussed this particular question, and I have given reasons why I think it is necessary to discriminate between service outside the Union and service inside. I have also pointed out that exactly the same thing is done in other countries, like Canada and Australia. I have even gone further and I have said that we are proposing to deal with hard cases, such as my hon. friend has referred to, by means of the institution of a special grants Board. We have made that provision in a subsequent part of this Bill, and that is intended to deal with cases of the kind the hon. member has referred to. I cannot accept an amendment which would wipe out the distinction completely.

In connection with the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood), the hon. Minister of Finance cannot push the matter aside as easily as all that, merely by saying a few words. We are dealing here with a provision in a Bill which, if necessary, will have to be interpreted by the court. This provision reads as follows—

It does not matter what the Prime Minister said on the 4th September, or what the House decided on the 4th September. I am afraid that no court would concern itself with any resolution which was taken on the 4th September, if a case comes before the court whether or not a pension should be paid. The court will only look at the provisions of the Act which is before it. Here this Bill very clearly says that the disablement must be attributable to military service outside the Union. All the court will ask is whether the military service was outside the Union, and the court will not draw a fine distinction as to whether it was in Abyssinia, Cyrenaica or Syria. The question which the court will decide is only whether it was outside the Union. I say, therefore, that the Minister of Finance cannot rid himself of the matter by shielding behind the resolution of the House on the 4th September. The resolution of the 4th September is not relevant in this matter. We are dealing here with the wording of the Bill, and the court will only concern itself with that. But even if he wanted to shield behind the resolution of the 4th September, there is a good deal of uncertainty and vagueness in the terms of that resolution. It reads—

On another occasion during the course of that session the Prime Minister further explained that, because there were certain questions in regard to the activities of Union troops outside Africa. The Prime Minister —I think I put the question to him—spoke about the activities of South African pilots, because there was some talk that South African pilots had taken part in the evacuation of Crete. The Prime Minister’s attitude, when he made that statement, was he took his stand on the strength of the fact that the resolution referred to “forces”. If the Minister of Finance examines what the Prime Minister said—where the Prime Minister emphasised the point that according to that resolution we could not send an expedition overseas—but if a few individuals fight beyond the borders they will still be covered by that statement. In moving this amendment, we are not intimating that we are satisfied that South Africa should be defended in Egypt. All we say is that if that is the policy of the Government, let us then make it clear in this Pensions Bill, to whom the pensions will apply. I cannot see what objection the Minister can have to that. One can only come to the conclusion that the Minister has something at the back of his mind; that he probably has in mind that troops will still be sent overseas, and that he would like those cases to be covered by this Bill. The Minister of Finance knows that coloured people and natives are already employed in Syria on construction works. I do not know the secrets of the Government, but it is possible that there are Europeans who serve as supervisors over those natives and coloured people. They are in military service, and they will be covered by this provision. It is possible, if things develop, that small detachments of troops will be sent overseas, and that the Prime Minister will still say that that falls under the statement of the 4th September, “That no forces will be sent overseas”. That is how he explains it. If there is not something at the back of the Minister’s mind, and if he wants to adhere to the policy of the Government as notified in the past, he ought to accept this amendment. If he does not accept it, we can only come to the conclusion, and the country can only come to that conclusion, that there is something more behind it, and that troops will be sent overseas in the future.

I just want to make it clear that there is nothing at the back of my mind, but we must draw a distinction between the policy of this Government in connection with the war, which is a matter of a decision of this House, and our obligations towards those people who fight for us. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that South African pilots took part in the evacuation of Crete. The Minister said that that did not clash with the policy of the Government, as accepted by the House. Does my hon. friend want us to incorporate something in the Bill which will make it impossible for us to pay compensation to those people? If it is a question of the policy of the Government in connection with the war, he must discuss that matter on another occasion. But it is our duty, when those people, our own Afrikaners, receive wounds or die as a result of service which they rendered to the country and in the interests of South Africa, to make provision for them in this Bill.

The Minister of Finance has let the cat out of the bag. He asked whether we objected to people who fought in the evacuation of Crete being brought under this Bill. If that is the attitude, what prevents the Government from sending people to India, Burma or Australia, and that they should also fall under the pension provisions of this Bill? Our suspicion is correct. At the second reading the Minister said that that was not his object. We did have that suspicion, and now the Minister admits it. If the Government includes in this Bill people who fought in Crete what will prevent him from sending people to other parts? As it is, there are some of our railway workers who are engaged in Palestine in constructing railway lines. They are on military service. Other people can be sent to Australia and Burma, and they will be covered by this clause. For that reason we will insist that the Government should clearly lay down that these pensions will only be applicable in the case of military service in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, before any volunteer joins the army he is required to undergo a medical examination, and if there is any doubt about his condition he has to go before a Medical Board, so that actually there is a double check on his physical condition. In the course of his service that man may suffer some injury or have his health affected by his military service and may be discharged. He is again medically boarded. In this Clause 4 I want to move an amendment—

In other words, the onus of proof should lie on the Government and not on the individual. The Board, sir, should not be asked to give an opinion as to whether a man’s service has aggravated or otherwise his condition. Every soldier has a personal file which discloses the state of his health at the time he was accepted, and if he was medically boarded on discharge, as I think every soldier should be on demobilisation, his report would disclose his state of health and would be of value for future reference if necessary. I think it is every disabled or sick soldier’s right to claim that ill-health has arisen out of his service, and his condition should be automatically considered to be due to his service unless the Government can prove that it is not so. I would like the Minister to accept this amendment. It will ensure a fair deal for ex-servicemen and women, and I cannot see how it is going to increase the cost to the State by having this principle accepted.

As the amendments proposed by Mr. Davis and Mr. R. J. du Toit would involve increased expenditure, I am unable to put them to the Committee without the recommendation of the Governor-General.

May I suggest as it is your opinion that this would increase the cost of the administration of the Act, that the hon. Minister should take over this amendment himself. The words “in the opinion of the Military Pensions Board” hand over to the Military Pensions Board the duty of determining whether or not a particular disability or aggravation of a disability, is due to military service. It must be perfectly obvious that the Military Pensions Board are Treasury officials. I have worked in close association with those members, and I know that no matter how sympathetic they are, they must have concrete evidence upon which to base their opinion, they must have some proof which in many cases the disabled ex-serviceman is unable to put before them. That is why at the second reading stage I championed the cause of the Treasury officials who had been attacked publicly in the Press, and I stated that after a prolonged and close association for more than 20 years with the administration of the Act, it was not unsympathetic administration by those officials which was the cause of any grievance, but the definite obligation placed upon the Military Pensions Board to determine a particular case based upon evidence which the unfortunate disabled ex-serviceman is unable to give. Ninety per cent. of the grievances and ninety per cent. of the criticism directed against the officials, who are just as sympathetic as the Minister, is due to the limitations imposed upon them in the administration of the Act. They are precluded from coming to any conclusion, except upon evidence which is placed before them. They may feel in a particular case that a man is having a raw deal, and ought to receive a pension, but they are bound by the rules of evidence. I should like it to be made possible for these Treasury officials to arrive at a conclusion without evidence, but upon the simple fact that a man was physically fit and is now a derelict. The onus should be on the Government. I would ask the Minister to drop these words “in the course of” than which there can be no words more calculated to cause confusion. Surely the Minister is prepared to concede that a man whose disability has arisen out of the discharge of military duty should receive a pension. If that is so, why complicate the issue by adding the words “in the course of”? “In the course of” was introduced for a number of purposes—it was introduced for the particular purpose of limiting the obligation of those who should carry an obligation for disability in the commercial world. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Employers’ Liability Act—the position has become tremendously complicated by the addition of these words, and I want the Minister to content himself by placing on the Statute Book that a person will receive compensation if, and only if, his disability has arisen out of the discharge of military duties which have been assigned to him.

I would remind hon. members that amendments ruled out of order should not be discussed, and further, that the Minister has no power to move amendments which increase expenditure except those for which he has a recommendation.

We appreciate the difference between subparagraphs “a” and “b”. One understands that the man accepted for service in the North is, generally speaking of “A” category, whereas, a proportion of those accepted for service in the Union by reason of age or unfitness, fall into a very different medical class; and it might be difficult to treat them in all respects in the same way as the “A.2” men engaged in field service in Libya. But what is the position of “A” men who are serving in the Union? For example, a gunner working his battery on our coast. Supposing he has influenza, or some other sickness which he may get anywhere, and dies from this malady? If a man dies up North, from any reason, his dependants are entitled to full pension benefits, and one hopes that that applies at least to the “A” men working in these batteries on our coasts and so on who suffer from exactly the same disability before they cross the borders to go up North. It must, moreover, be remembered these men wish to be sent to the Western Desert battlefields, and against their will are kept here to meet military needs and policy.

They are dealt with under Clause 32.

It is possible for an A.1 soldier in the Union to be set upon by roughs and toughs or whatever the proper expression for these most improper assailants may be, and, for example, lose the sight of an eye in the fray. I realise his case could be dealt with by the Special Grants Board. But there compensation is only available up to £100.

We are increasing that.

I want to ask the Minister to see if he cannot at the Report stage meet the serious objections raised to this clause? I know from my own experience of handling cases of numbers of men, both after the last war and in the course of the present war, what the root cause of the trouble is. Here you have the root cause of dissatisfaction which exists among a large number of ex-Servicemen with regard to the procedure when they want to make a claim. They find themselves ruled out so often by the application of these words, and they have no opportunity of meeting the position that is created by the fact that the onus does not rest on the Government or on the Military Pensions Board, but on them. They have to prove that they did not contract their disease or their trouble in some other way, or that they did not have that trouble or disease before they joined up. It is an unfair onus. The Government has all the information at their disposal. They have the best possible medical opinions at their disposal. Their medical men examine these people and send them to the front, and then it is unfair to ask these men to prove that their illness is due to active service … they have been sent there as perfectly fit men, and it is for the Government to prove that their illness is due to other causes. The Government should not be able to put the onus on the men. The Government should not have the right to say: “Yes, there was a blemish on the man when he went away, and that blemish was not found by our medical men, and therefore we cannot meet these cases”. I want to say that the Minister has dealt very fairly with most matters that have been brought to his notice, but I do say that the root cause of dissatisfaction which exists among ex-Servicemen is contained in these words. The men want to feel that the dice are not loaded against them. If the ex-Servicemen can get a square deal under Section 4 by a proper and suitable amendment of the words appearing there, I think 99 per cent. of the dissatisfaction in regard to certain aspects of military pension will disappear. I hope the Minister will agree that the onus should rest on the Government, and if the Minister complies with this request it will get rid of most of the dissatisfaction.

May I make an appeal to hon. members to assist me with this Bill? The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), has rightly said that I have done a great deal to meet the requests put forward by everyone. I said in my opening remarks that I had done my very best to meet the various contentions, but I went further, and I said that I recognised there would have to be amending legislation next year, and I would be prepared to meet whatever points I could. We are now creating the machinery of the Special Grants Board which will largely meet the special points raised. Now I do appeal to hon. members to give this thing a trial. Don’t try and kill this Bill by kindness. Let us direct our best efforts to the task of putting this Bill through.

It is particularly in view of the promise of the Minister to investigate avenues for improvement in the Bill that I want to add my quota on this section. I shall be brief, but I feel I must give expression to what in my view is the fundamental principle running right through the Bill. The right to a pension derives from the fact that the applicant while on service has suffered disablement. It does not arise from the fact that he is in a position to prove anything. I have always understood it to be a fairly well entrenched principle in our law that it is better that twenty guilty men should go unpunished than that you should punish one innocent man. It does not follow that because a man is unable to prove his claim that he has no claim in fact. And if the onus of proof rests on the ex-serviceman who in point of fact may well have acquired his disability in the circumstances which he is required to establish, you may nevertheless deprive him of his right, not his privilege, but his right, not because he is not entitled to it, not because he has not earned it, but because he is unable to prove it. And the Minister and the officials of the Pensions Department know only too well how in a large variety of cases where you have disorders and disabilities of a nebulous character, that imposing so uncertain an onus on the man makes the position extremely difficult for him. I am not going to develop this point as I might, as I do not want to hold up the Committee’s work, but I just want to deal with another aspect of the section, and that is the discrimination between men serving in the Union and outside the Union. The man who attests, attests for service anywhere in Africa, and it does not lie in the power of the volunteer to insist on being sent up North. We know there are many men compelled by the exigencies of the situation to do service in the Union who would infinitely prefer to be up North, and if you draw this distinction, by implication I suggest that you place a stigma on the man who involuntarily is serving in the Union. I am not talking of the man who is not doing real war service, and I am not talking of the man the Minister seeks to eliminate; he can be eliminated by the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria. I would seriously ask the Minister during the recess to apply his mind to the desirability of eliminating this distinction between on the one hand the man who is doing real war service in the Union and who is here not out of choice but because he is compelled to serve here, the man who would much prefer to be up North, and the man who in the circumstances is fortunate to be serving up North.

I must ask hon. members again not to discuss amendments which have been ruled out of order.

I don’t propose to discuss the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen). I want to show that Section 4 of the Bill in its present terms is wide enough to cover all categories. It says—

That section as it stands is wide ehough to embrace the consideration of all categories. My objection to the Minister’s proposed amendment which applies to the next section …

The Minister has no amendment to Section 4.

It is to be moved under Section 5.

We should discuss Clause 4; we can deal with 5 when we come to it.

I cannot do justice to Section 4 without indicating what Section 5 purports to do. Section 5 will actually limit the application of Section 4. It will restrict it so that only persons whose disablement will be held to be due to military service will be categories A.1 and B.1. The others by implication are classed outside. So to my mind the proposal of the Minister would be harmful to Section 4. The proposal which he makes in 5 will tend to limit the application of Section 4 to certain persons. And to my mind it is an unsuitable amendment, and I hope when we reach it the Minister will abandon it. But before we go to Section 5 we have to consider 4 and endeavour to make a section which will rid volunteers of their fear that they may be among those who will be rejected. We have already a very large number of rejected claims—men who have no redress whatever —who are merely referred to the Appeal Board which sits in Pretoria; over 615 up to January last, and I suppose the number must have increased since then. But those men will not be benefited nor will they have any confidence unless the Minister introduces some sort of assurance under Section 4 that they are not going to be rejected through hair splitting or haggling. That has been the fear of these men in the past, and they have been thoroughly strengthened in that fear by the treatment they have undergone. They realise that it is like a camel passing through the eye of a needle to convince the Board that their disablement is due to military service. All these men stand outside today. They are rejected. They are referred to the Appeal Board, and a large number of them have no means, nor have they the opportunity to go to the Appeal Board. What is needed is some sort of assurance that the gates are open again, and that they will have a different kind of treatment. They cannot accept the wording of this clause as it stands, and the amendment of the Minister under Section 5 makes the position worse, because it limits the undeniable cases to categories A.1 and B.1. What we want to do is to make this clause one which will commend itself to the persons concerned as an avenue—as a hope for proper consideration of their case. That is not done in the phraseology of the section as it stands. It needs something more and the proposal of the Minister in Section 5 will not accomplish that.

I only want to take up the time of the House for a moment. I want to again appeal to the Minister to redraft subsection (b). Take the case of a man who has got into khaki and because of that very fact is set upon by a band of ruffians, and loses an eye. Why should that man have to go to the Military Board? Why should he not have the right to say that he has sustained that injury in the course of his military duties?

The hon. member is discussing an amendment which has been ruled out of order.

I am suggesting that the Minister should redraft the clause to meet cases of that character and also with a view to meeting the criticism which has been directed against this vital clause in the course of the debate.

It seems to me there is a misunderstanding. Discussion is now taking place in regard to the amendment which the Minister has placed on the agenda in connection with Clause 5. If that is so, will I have the right to talk on that subject?

Not now.

This is a Bill on which the Minister has spent some considerable time. The Bill is one which we all welcome, but this particular clause as it stands will not meet with the approval of the people whom it is meant to apply to. The provisions of this clause as it stands are responsible for all the troubles which we have had with our ex-soldiers. It has been the means of shutting out hundreds of cases and many more hundreds of cases have been prevented from coming to the Military Board, knowing that they would not get the hearing which they desire. It is absolutely impossible for ex-soldiers to prove that their sufferings and disability are due to war service. Hundreds of cases are border-line cases and it is impossible for them to produce the necessary evidence. In hundreds of cases they have not the necessary means to do it. The Government can produce the greatest medical evidence in the country, and that evidence can say that a man is suffering from a medical disability. I have promised to do all I can to expedite this Bill, and I don’t want to stop it in any way, but I did think the Minister would meet the ex-servicemen’s representation on this clause. This clause is a blot on an otherwise perfectly good Bill. I realise that we are at the end of the session; we are anxious to get the Bill through and put it on the Statute Book before we leave at the end of the week, and I am not going to delay the House. The Minister has an opportunity of presenting a Bill which every servicemen’s organisation will be proud of, a Bill which no one will be able to cast reflections on. I do make an appeal to the Minister to satisfy the claims of these men who are defending the country today. Thousands of them will be considering this Bill and wondering how they are going to fare, and the common talk among soldiers in the army today will be, if this clause is passed, “What is the use of the Bill, look how careful we shall have to be,” and they will be thoroughly dissatisfied. The Minister has an opportunity of making a name for himself among the ex-servicemen by giving way on this particular clause, which to my mind is the only thing wrong with this Bill. In another year it may be possible to alter it, but you know how difficult it is to bring in amending legislation. We don’t know what we may be up against next year. The Minister may say, “If I bring in amending legislation every clause will be discussed and I am not prepared for that”. I am most anxious that the soldiers shall get the benefit of this Bill. Of course it is possible, if we say too much, that we may have no Bill at all. But I hope the Minister will listen to us. If the Minister reads this clause as it is, he will be compelled by public opinion to alter it, and he will be compelled to put right the very thing he has an opportunity of doing now.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Haywood put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—23:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—52:

Abrahamson, H. *

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W

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.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

I move, sir, the amendment as printed on page 675—

In view of the limited character of this amendment, will the Minister consider the advisability of withdrawing it? It is going to limit the number of people who will benefit.

I assure the hon. member that this amendment is not of a limiting character by any means. Clause 4 is the clause governing the whole chapter, and Clause 5 deals with the interpretation of Clause 4 in respect of a part thereof. The hon. member will be doing a disservice to the cause which he has at heart if he succeeds in persuading me to drop this.

There is little difference between A.1 and A.2 and A.3 and similarly between B.1 and B.2 and B.3, and I would suggest that the Minister should accept the proposal made earlier in the afternoon by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) to simply exclude all the A.s and all the B.s. If the Minister will not accept that, I would urge on him the propriety of inducing the Defence Department to re-grade these men either A.1 or B.1 if they are actually serving in a unit to which that category is appropriate. It does seem to be absurd, you have a B.1 man who is serving in a certain capacity, and he can come under this class, and you may have a B.2 man or an A.2 man serving in exactly the same capacity who will not come under this class. I do urge the Minister if he will not accept this proposal, that at least he will attempt to induce the department to see that if a man actually is in the firing line, he is put into the proper category.

May I say I have discussed this matter with the military authorities, who say it is not necessary or desirable to make that change. I am, however, quite prepared to discuss it with my hon. friend between now and the report stage.

Whilst I naturally desire to support the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) in her request for the widening of the range—extending the groups—to benefit in terms of the amendment by the hon. Minister, I want to say that if this is impracticable arrangements must be made whereby no individual belonging to classes A.2 and A.3 are sent outside the Union. These groups must be given dental treatment, and graduated training respectively, and thus enabled to be reclassified into class A.1. The same applies to class B.3. The only difference between members in this class and those in B.1 is the fact that the former require dental treatment. Once that treatment has been given they become B.1 and benefit under this amendment. What I have said, Mr. Chairman, emphasises that it is of great importance to arrange with the Adjutant-General and the Director-General of Medical Services, to pay particular attention to this matter.

I should like to accept the Minister’s assurance. I am very pleased about the amendment which has been moved. I am glad to hear that it is not the policy of the department to send men who are below that class, to the North. But we know that when the war broke out the examination was not perhaps as thorough as it is today; and those men did go to the North. They now return and will probably not fall under this pension. We would just like to know what their position will be.

I shall go into that.

I move the amendment as printed—

I move the amendment as printed—

I move—

I think I misunderstood the Minister’s reply to the representations which were made with regard to this twoyear period.

I meant to deal with that when I was dealing with the amendments which the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) wished to make to Clause 1. I then dealt with the question of the wife, I made the point then, sir, that we were faced with a provision which had always been a feature of our law. If we had to change that provision, seeing that we are making this Bill retrospective in its application, we would have to go back on all the pre-1939 war cases. That would involve a great deal of labour which we could not face in the circumstances. Therefore we took account of that in fixing the basic rates as high as we did, by virtually doubling them.

I wish to move an amendment—

I move the amendment as printed, which merely corrects a drafting error—

I move the amendment as printed, which again is a drafting amendment—

Will the Minister consider the desirability of increasing this amount of £20 in sub-section (3)?

I will look into that between now and the report stage.

I want information from the Minister on this point. Where a regular attendant is allowed to a disabled person, will that £100 cover the case where the wife herself acts as such an attendant?

Oh, yes; there is nothing whatever to prevent the wife from getting this allowance. There are many cases today where wives do draw this allowance, and on that account the amendment which the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) wants to propose is quite unnecessary.

My amendment was intended to cover wife or child.

There is no limitation to that.

I wish to move an amendment—

In the first place, I am proposing to delete the words “due to” and to substitute the words “attributable to”, which will move this into line with Clause 4. In the second place, to give effect to the proviso at the end of paragraph 5.

I should like to have an explanation from the Minister on this point. In the case of the widow of an oudstryder, who suffers from wounds, is that widow entitled to a pension, if such oudstryder dies? If not, whether the Minister will be prepared, in taking into review the question of pensions for oudstryders next year, to do something for the widow of the oudstryder; if it is a fact, as I have heard, that when an oudstryder dies as the result of wounds which he received, the question is asked how one can prove that after all these years, that the oudstryder concerned died from his wounds? If he endured all those wounds, how can it be shown that he died from them? In those cases his widow will not be considered for the pension. I would like to see that the widow of an oudstryder, whether or not he died from his wounds, is considered for a pension.

Yes, if he is a pensioner and he dies as a result of wounds which he suffered, the widow is entitled to a pension under this Bill.

If the oudstryder has suffered from those wounds for so many years, it will be difficult to prove that, as a fact, he died from those wounds. He may die from some disease or other, although the wounds which he received may possibly have been a contributory factor. I should like to know whether in that case the widow will still be entitled to this pension. If not, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will take this question into review?

It will be considered.

Thank you.

Do not express your thanks too soon.

It is common knowledge, sir, that a considerable number of wives have had their claims to pensions rejected. Will the Minister indicate what further application may be made by those persons who are obviously disqualified by Section 17 (1)? One would like to know what course of action they can take to get any sort of relief.

They can make application under Section 35.

I move the amendment as printed—

These words were deleted by mistake when the clause was originally drafted.

I had an amendment on page 762.

Mine covers yours, I think.

There is a small amendment to make there, sir, printed on page 676—

I move the amendment as printed—

In the proviso to sub-section (2) I think most of us will feel that it is very unfair to constitute the Board into a sort of judicial court which would be able to decide whether the wife had been in the wrong or not. It is a delicate matter, and I cannot help feeling that the opinion of the Board will probably always be that the woman was in the wrong. The House must realise that we do view this with a considerable amount of trepidation, because we think it is consistently going to react against the wife. Then there is another point in the proviso. A pension may be paid to a wife who is separated if the separation occurred more than two years prior to the date on which the deceased volunteer was enrolled for military service. I cannot understand that. Whenever the separation occurred, the legal obligation on the part of the man to support his wife is still there. It may well be that the wife has been unable to find her deserting husband, he may have left the country, and she may never have been able to find him. On the other hand, he may never have been in a position to give her support. I think this proviso is completely contrary to the responsibility which undoubtedly still rests on the husband when you make an arbitrary term of two years. I submit very strongly it is definitely contrary to our common law.

This proviso is not new, it has been in the law always, and I have never heard of its having worked any hardship. I have never heard of any suggestion that the Board has been prejudiced against the woman, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) suggests. I am now referring to paragraph (a). As far as (b) is concerned, surely if the woman has been deserted for two years, she has had ample time to take action in the courts. As far as paragraph (2) of the proviso is concerned, I do not think the two-year period is an unreasonable provision, it gives ample time for the woman to have asserted her rights.

One further point I would like to make on this clause. The Minister is probably aware that in many cases an agreement is come to between the parties, whereby a certain amount of maintenance is paid to the divorced wife. The Minister is aware, also, that in a good many of these cases divorcees are arranged on that basis, as otherwise the divorced wife cannot exist. However, it does seem to me that wherever there is a common law liability, or where there is a liability by order of court including a divorce order, then the pension should be paid. There are many divorced wives who have had this kind of arrangement made. I would like the Minister to consider that. The Minister has said that two years is plenty of time for the wife to institute action if she has been deserted; but that is not so, because in very many cases that have come within my own experience, the position has been that sometimes it is impossible to find the man, and again others shrink from publicity. After all, the legal liability remains, and the fact that the man has gone and cannot be found should not affect the woman’s rights. I ask the Minister to consider the deletion of proviso (b). As for the other proviso, it is absurd to set up a Pensions Board as a kind of censor of morals. I would urgently ask the Minister to delete the whole of that proviso, and to consider also the question of wives who are divorced, whether there is an order of court or not.

I do feel that effect should be given to the obligation of a man in regard to the maintenance of his wife, whether separated before or later than two years. There are some women who don’t like to be divorced for the sake of their children or their family, others who cannot indulge in the cost of enforcing their rights in regard to separation. Without taking up the time of the Committee any further, I hope the Minister will give consideration to this, and also to that further question which has been raised, and that is the undesirable position of making the Board as a court of enquiry to determine differences between husband and wife and vesting them with semi-judicial functions to decide whether the wife was at fault or not.

I want to move the deletion of this clause. This clause makes provision for a pension for a woman who is not married, but who lived with a soldier for a year. Well, if the soldier is killed and she proves that she lived with him for a year, she is entitled to a pension of £60, or even though she has not lived with him, if she has a child by the soldier, she would receive £60, and £30 in respect of each child. There will be many cases where soldiers will be killed and where women will then allege that they have children by those soldiers, and in such cases they will be entitled to this pension. We on this side have often pleaded for a pension for the wives of oudstryders, but now the Minister comes here and proposes to give a pension to the concubines of the soldier.

I just want to say that this is not a new provision. It has always been in our Act. It is not a question of morality which we are discussing now, but simply a question of kindness towards those people.

By means of this measure we will be encouraging immorality.

I should like to support the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood). I cannot understand how the Minister can say that it is not a question of morality. If a person can live with a soldier for a year, there is evidently no reason why they cannot marry. Even though this provision has always been in the Act, the fact remains that to a certain extent this clause encourages soldiers to live with women without marrying them. I just want to put this question to the Minister: Assuming a person is married and she lives with a soldier for a year, and she then has a child. Is the woman then entitled to a pension? It appears to me that that is the case.

Yes.

Well, in that case, I want to make an appeal to the Minister to accept this motion of the hon. member. One must take the world as it is; one must not take the world as one would like to have it. Here we have a clause which will encourage bad women to try to live with soldiers. But more than that. We will find that bad women would want to live with soldiers or have children by them, so that they can get a pension of £60 per annum. In those circumstances I want to ask the Minister of Finance to accept the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). This provision is also applicable to coloured people. Unfortunately we find that the moral standard of coloured people in South Africa is such that in many cases they change wives, or the person living with them. They do not marry lawfully, and they live first with one and then with another. If this clause is passed in its present form, and one of those soldiers is killed, there will be a number of vultures who will try to get the pension, although the soldier concerned may have had nothing to do with them. Although this provision is contained in the old Act, the Minister has introduced a great deal of legislation in the past with a view to amending and improving Acts. This Bill is intended to improve the Pensions Act, because the Minister is of opinion that the existing Act is no longer suitable. For that reason I ask him to accept the deletion of this clause.

The Minister justifies this clause on the strength of the fact that it appears in other legislation. In what Act does it appear?

In the existing Act.

I hope, nevertheless, that we are not going to encourage prostitution by means of a clause like this. It provides that children born out of wedlock may fall under it. See what happens in Cape Town at the moment; what can we expect to happen if a clause of this nature is passed. I want to ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—53:

Abrahamson H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Collins. W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare. W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper. E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

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.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—22:

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart,. C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

The present Bill provides for increases in a large number of cases. But in the case of the parents there has been no increase in the present Bill over the rate paid in the former legislation. One would like to have the maximum increase for deserving cases. Cases have occurred in this war in which a woman has lost her only son. She is left without any means of subsistence and £8 6/8 per month is altogether insufficient for a woman in those circumstances. A widow can get up to £300 per annum. It seems that where a mother has her only son killed she should not be limited to £8 6/8 per month.

I only want to say that while we have had representations of the ex-servicemen’s organisations in regard to the raising of pensions for disabled soldiers, and pensions for widows no representations were made to us in regard to raising the pensions of parents. All we were asked to do was to give an appeal as of right. And that is what we are doing. So we have met the only request made to us by the representatives of the servicemen’s organisation.

This clause makes provision for a pension for the parents and dependants of soldiers. I can understand that, but I definitely cannot understand the last portion of the clause. There we read—

The parents of any soldier under the age of 26 years, if he is killed, get a pension of £13 per annum. I cannot understand why the Minister pays this to all parents. The parent may have an income of £2,000, and why should that parent be paid a pension of £13 per annum? Surely that does not mean anything to him. The second point is this. What is the object of the £13 which is voted? There may be rich people With large incomes and if their child is killed, they would receive this pension. At the same time we find in other legislation that it is definitely laid down that a pension is only payable if the person is in pecuniary need. The oudstryders receive a pension, but they must be in need. That is the condition. Take the case of the old age pensioners. These people have to be in need or otherwise they do not get a pension. If an old man has an income of £80 per annum, he is excluded from the benefits of an old age pension, or an oudstryder’s pension. But here we find that if a child under 26 years of age is killed, his parents receive a pension of £13 per annum. If the parents of the person who is killed were dependent upon him, one could understand it. But what can be the object of paying a pension of £13 per annum to people who have an income of £4,000 to £5,000 per annum? They ought not to accept it, and I presume they will not do so. It does not mean anything to them. I cannot understand what the Minister’s object is in inserting a provision of this nature. On the other hand, I feel that it is wrong, since a deduction is made from old age pensions and oudstryders’ pensions in the event of their having an income. The Minister knows how we have continually pleaded in this House that if old age pensioners and oudstryders have a meagre income, that amount should not be deducted from their pensions. In that case the Minister refused to accede to our request, but here parents are getting a pension of £13 per annum, irrespective of the income they may have. I think the Minister should explain this. In the meantime I move the following amendment—

Here again we are dealing with something which was taken over from the existing Act, and moreover from an Act which we passed last year. I think that my hon. friend was here then. We passed an Act in which this provision was inserted. The intention was this, that we were of opinion that such an amount should be paid to the parents simply out of gratitude, when they lose a son.

Also in the case of a rich person?

In all probability those people will not take it. We approved of this provision last year already. It is not a new provision.

I want to express my satisfaction at the statement of the Minister that it is proposed to take into review the pensions of oudstryders. I am particularly glad for this reason. The Minister will recollect that on a previous occasion I drew his attention to the fact that we have every right to adopt the attiude that people who receive oudstryders pensions should not be treated on the same basis as people who receive old age pensions. The Minister apparently agrees with that. Now I should like to put a few questions to the Minister.

Does it fall under this clause?

I thought it could be discussed now.

We are not discussing oudstryders’ pensions now.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) said. I think the Minister’s argument that this is something which we passed last year, is surely not an argument. If we now discover that we made a mistake at that time, we should rectify it now. I am surprised at the comparison which one must involuntarily draw, since in all cases—I am thinking particularly of the case of oudstryders’ pensions—a means test is applied, and the pension is made dependent upon the neediness of the applicant, we are here laying down the principle that in certain circumstances we will grant a pension to the parents, irrespective of whether they need it. The pension burden which a war imposes on a country is a tremendous burden; it is a burden which is placed on the future generation, but one feels that in each case the pension is given to alleviate the need of people who suffered because of the war, and then one feels a certain measure of consolation for the enormous expenditure. But we find in this clause that this pension is paid irrespective of whether these people need it. We are prepared to give £13 per annum to parents who lose a son during the war. It is a principle which fits so badly into the whole framework of our pension legislation, that I cannot see how the House can accept it whilst it is not prepared to make any further provision for the oudstryders, for example. The age of 26 years also reminds one of the position of the oudstryders. There we have the position that even today no oudstryder enjoys the benefit of that meagre provision which was made for him if he was older than 22 years when the Second War of Independence broke out, because in that case he already receives the old age pension today. That meagre benefit which this Government gave last year, namely that the oudstryder may get the old age pension five years earlier—that privilege, the oudstryder who was older than 22 years at the outbreak of the Second War of Independence, cannot even enjoy. Here we are prepared to give a pension of £13 per annum to parents, irrespective of whether they are destitute, whilst that glaring injustice exists, and reproaches us in that we fail to see that justice is done to the courageous oudstryders. No, one feels that that is something which we dare not do, unless we are prepared to make better provision in other respects. For that reason I fully support the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) in asking for the deletion of this proviso. I hope that the Minister will appreciate what our position is, and that he will not allow himself to be influenced by the consideration that we already accepted this last year. If we accepted it last year, then we made a mistake, and that is no justification for perpetuating the error this year.

I want to put a question to the Minister with a view to clarifying the position in regard to parents. In the case of a mother solely dependent on a volunteer, would that mother be entitled to a sum up to £100 per year?

Yes.

It is referred to in the plural. If there were two parents dependent on the volunteer—would each parent get £100?

No, that does not follow.

In the one case either the mother or the father dependant on the volunteer can get a pension up to £100 per annum. I want to be perfectly clear. What would be the case if the mother and the father were both dependent on the volunteer?

The total would be £100.

And in the case of the £13?

The same.

Question put: That the proviso to subsection (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—50.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker. T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

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.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J

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

Noes—20.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

The Government has now officially put its stamp of approval on illicit marital relations, in Clause 22, where it is laid down that the reputed wife of the soldier will receive a pension. Here we now have a clause which lays down that if a woman, who received a pension, marries again, the pension lapses. I move—

As the clause now reads, if a widow receives a pension and she lawfully marries, she loses her pension, but if a widow becomes the reputed wife of a man simply by living with him, she does not lose the pension. There may be cases where people decide not to enter into marriage, because otherwise such a woman would lose her pension, and in that case they will simply live together in sin. For that reason I move this amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept it. This amendment will not only be applicable to a reputed wife, but to all other women who receive pensions, and it will expose them to possible persecution and blackmail if I accept such an amendment. I do think that it is not desirable to accept it.

I don’t quite understand what the Minister means, but the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) is very clear. It is laid down in this clause that if a woman who is drawing a pension marries, her pension does not continue. He now moves that if she lives with a man without marrying, the pension will also cease. I have the same objection to this clause as I had to clause 22. The Minister provides for immorality, he encourages it. Say a woman has an income of £400; she knows that if she marries she loses the £400. It will tempt some of them to say “We are not going to get married but we are going to live togther.” The Minister encourages them to live together without marrying and I think that is wrong.

May I remind the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) and the hon. member who has just sat down, that there is no reason to be unduly perturbed because of the probability of a woman living with a man in order to retain her pension. The possibility of any such thing happening is very remote indeed. I take exception to the fact that there is a subsequent clause in the Bill which permits the Minister to deprive any pensioner of his pension, which is his right, if he in the opinion of the Minister misbehaves himself. Under the administration of the 1919 Act I do not suppose that there were more than 50 cases when the hon. Minister of Finance was called upon to exercise his right under that section, to deprive a pensioner of the pension which he enjoyed, for the reason that he misbehaved himself. I would remind the hon. Minister that 75% of the cases deprived of their pensions, were widows, and that was due to the fact that in his opinion somebody had informed him that such a woman was living unmarried with such and such a man. These statements were not on oath and would have broken down under cross-examination. The majority of instances are not women refusing to marry in order to retain pensions, because they run just as big a risk if they live with a man, and that has been proved by the administration of the 1919 Act.

The Minister says that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) will also apply to other women except those who benefit under clause 22, but that is what we want. We do not want a widow, if she enters into a decent marriage, to lose her pension while if she continues to live in sin or starts living in sin she can retain her pension. We do not want any widow to be placed in temptation’s way. But as it appears here, the same as in clause 22, we are paying subsidies for immorality. I think that is a thing which any Government should be ashamed to do. It should be ashamed to create a condition placing a premium on immorality. If that is the object, let the Government say so openly. It is quite wrong to pass a provision of that kind. The argument adduced by the Minister is precisely what we want. It does not only concern those who come under clause 22, but we do not want to place temptation in the way of these other people to continue living in sin for the sake of a small pension.

The Committee divided:

Ayes—21:

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard. G. v. Z.

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

Noes—49:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

May I move the amendments as printed on the Order Paper in my name, which I think will explain themselves—

There are several points in this clause which I want to take up, and the first is sub-section (b)—

Most of us are aware of cases which are affected by this, I mean cases where for a number of years wives have actually been the support of disabled husbands. There are cases where for a long period of years a woman has been the sole support of her husband. I do not think there will be very many cases of this sort, if any at all, and for that reason not a very great sum would be involved, and I do ask the Minister to be generous here. I have heard it argued by hon. and legal members that there is no responsibility in our common law for the wife to support a sick husband; I have equally heard it argued by other legal gentlemen outside this House that actually, according to our common Law, the wife is responsible. I think it would be a generous act on the part of the Minister if he were to delete this sub-section. With regard to his own amendment in Section 1 (c), I am still not clear as to what this means. Does it mean that a woman who, for instance, had adopted a child or had an illegitimate child and no affiliation order has been made against the father, is the only person legally responsible; or does it mean that she is only partially responsible for that child,’ and somebody else, her parents or her grandparents are paying something for the support of that child. If it means the former, then I say neither the Minister’s amendment nor the Bill has made that clear; if it means the latter, that partial support is being given to her, then I think it is very wrong indeed. I would like the Minister’s explanation of that. There is one further point. In subsection 2 (1) (a) it says there will be no grant given to children of a woman volunteer unless she was a widow at the time of her death. I know, of course, that legally the father is responsible for the care of those children, but we do know in practice that there are an enormous number of cases where for the entire life of the child the woman has been the main support, and there are a number of cases where a man is utterly incapable of earning a living, and the woman herself is probably in a far better position to support the children. I think unless the Minister is providing elsewhere for these children in some other clause, it is most unfair to say that these children shall not get a grant. I press that very strongly, whether the men agree with me or not. In these matters grave injustice is always done to the woman, the dice are always loaded against the woman in these matters, and we feel it very bitterly. I try very hard not to let any bitterness I may have on behalf of my sisters, who suffer under grave injustice, I try very hard not to let my bitterness creep into this House, but I am very bitter about it. I say that always in these cases the dice are loaded against the woman. The men always stand up for their sex. I do say it is a gross injustice to withhold this grant from a woman who has a rotten husband somewhere, who has never supported the children, I feel very hotley about this, I do not see why in a house composed of 149 men and only four women, you should hold it against us that because we are not strong enough to fight this thing, we should not get this piece of justice for women. I appeal to the sense of justice of the men in this House to deal by their daughters as they would by their sons. Here we have a case of a woman who has maintained her children, she has done her duty to the state and has given her life for the state, and yet because of this provision her children cannot get this grant.

I recognise that there may be hard cases of the type that the hon. member has referred to both under Section 26 (1) (b) and under Section 26 (2) (1) (a), but, Sir, in both instances these hard cases would be of an exceptional nature, and therefore I do not think we can deal with them here. But we are certainly going to deal with them, and we will deal with them under Section 35. We are definitely contemplating dealing with these cases in Section 35 by means of the Special Grants Board. My hon. friend may accept my assurance that these cases will be dealt with. I propose to change the wording of Section 26 (1) (c). I think by using the word dependant” we are eliminating any possibility of creating hard cases. I think that the amendment I propose does go some distance to meet the representations of my hon. friend.

I want to call the Minister’s attention to one other point. In his amendment to which he has just referred, he is keeping the word „entirely.” There are many cases in which the woman gets a little help from her patents to maintain these children. In a case like that apparently, even with the Minister’s amendment she would get no allowance for the child. Surely the Minister does not contemplate that. There are numerous cases, for instance, where there is a maintenance order against the husband of a few shillings a week.

May I interject that I propose, at the report stage, to delete the word „alone.” That will meet the hon. member’s point.

I do want here also to make one final appeal to the Minister to, if possible, level up Section 26 (a) regarding the rights of pensions for women volunteers to approximate more to the scale applicable to men.

That does not arise here. We can discuss that on the Fourth Schedule, we cannot discuss it here.

Mr. Chairman, I propose to move the amendment as printed, which in the first place will make it clear that the provisions in regard to the alternative pension apply to non-European volunteers, and in the second place, deals with the question of the Indian or Malay who has more than one wife. I move these amendments—

I move—

The object of this amendment is to prevent provisions being made for more than one wife. This chapter provides for allowances to be paid to widows and orphans of soldiers who are non-Europeans, except natives. In sub-section (d) provision is made that if a deceased volunteer leaves more than one widow, more than one widow will be considered for compensation. In regard to the other part of my amendment I want to say that the pension allotted under this scale to coloured widows and orphans is very generous. A woman gets £12 and £10 for each child. I can conceive that if you get more than one widow—coloured men have perhaps three or four wives and each of them have a few children—it may happen that we shall have cases where we shall have to pay £270 or £300 in pensions, because of the large number of children. In a later clause dealing with natives, provision is also made for more than one wife. The clauses which we have already passed provide that such a woman need not be legally married. They can have lived together and then the woman is entitled to the grant. In that way the State may be put to tremendous expense because a man may have lived with more than one woman without having been married. That is why I move my amendment.

I do not know whether the hon. member has read the clause very carefully. He moves to insert the word “widow” in paragraph (a), but in paragraph (b) provision is made for pensions for widows. Paragraph (a) deals with invalidity pensions payable to volunteers themselves, and in the payment of those pensions account has to be taken of the fact that he has a wife. In sub-section (b) we deal with the case of more than one widow but that is why I provide in the amendment which I have moved that the amount payable to widows will be less if there is more than one widow, and in those cases the total amount laid down in the schedule is not paid to each of them.

How can there be more than one widow?

In the case of Indians and Malays we have to bear that in mind.

It seems to me that these women do not have to be legally married. If a man has lived with quite a number of women …

No, they must be legally married.

It does not look like it, as it appears here. I know of coloured men who have a number of women whom they live with.

When the proceedings were suspended at 6 o’clock I asked when a wife was a wife. From the way this clause reads it appears that any woman a coloured man has lived with is a wife. According to our Protestant customs a wife is only a wife if she is legally married, and if she is not legally married she is a concubine and surely we cannot vote money for concubines.

This only applies to women who are legally married.

If that is so then I shall be pleased if the Minister will put that in, because as it stands here it is very vague. I notice that these pensions come under schedule No. 5. And it is stated here that the wives of men who are a hundred per cent. incapacitated will get £12 per year and that every child will get £10 per year. Hundreds of pounds will have to be paid out in that way. The Minister should say “legally married” women because as it reads here it seems to me that any concubine will be entitled to claim these pensions.

It is perfectly clear. In the English text the word “wife” is used, and the Afrikaans translation of wife is “vrou.”

Why don’t you say “eggenote”?

I had the experience on my farm of a coloured boy arriving there with a woman and a crowd of children. Another coloured man took that woman and kicked out his own wife. Afterwards he took his original wife back and now he has two wives. Now, both of them have to get pensions. I hope it will be made clear in the law that this only refers to legally married wives.

I must say something on this clause. I have been asked to put to the Minister the idea whether at some later stage he can make some amendment here. I have two letters here …

That will come up on the fifth schedule.

I want to raise it here. It is laid down here … I only want to do it very shortly, and I think this is the proper place to do it. And I only want to say that the people concerned are bitterly disappointed at the rate being reduced from three-fifths to three-eighths in regard to A, B and C. And while they agree that the alternative pensions are an advantage they feel this differentiation very keenly. When the three-fifths was introduced at first they felt it keenly, and they said that as soldiers they should be treated on an equal basis. But at any rate the three-fifths was introduced and now it is reduced to three-eighths in the case above referred to.

Question put: That the word “wives”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Dr. Bremer, Dr. Dönges, Messrs. Fouche, Haywood, Loubser, Dr. van Nierop, Messrs. J. J. M. van Zyl, S. E. Warren and Wolfaard) voted against the Question, the Chairman declared it affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Haywood dropped.

The second amendment proposed by Mr. Haywood was put and negatived and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance were put and agreed to.

I move the amendment standing in my name which is merely a drafting amendment. I move—

I move—

On this clause I need hardly say that I support the Minister’s amendments and I am very glad that he has moved them, but there are just one or two further points. Under the Minister’s amendment he puts in a new sub-section (2) but he does not delete the old one. I feel that must be a mistake and I want to ask the Minister—I don’t know whether I can do it myself — whether he will not amend his amendment so as to delete the present subsection (2) of this clause. That refers to a gratuity to a soldier, a soldier who is disabled to the extent of less than 20%. Under the amendment which the Minister has just moved it is laid down that all grants and allowances are at a certain proportion of the European rate, and therefore I want to suggest that sub-section (2) is redundant. Automatically under the amendment which the Minister has just moved, the Native rate will be a proportion of the European rate, where there is a disability of 20%—I may be wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to me that that is so and therefore I want to ask him if he will not amend his amendment so as to delete sub-section (2). Now, I just want to say this. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I understand that the sub-section (2) which he moved in the earlier stage of the debate to Clause 5—it will be remembered that there was a great deal of discussion on that, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was not satisfied nor were other members—but I take it that under his amendment that applies to Natives too.

Yes, definitely.

That is the Al and Bl categories.

I am sorry I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) in regard to sub-section (2). The effect of that would be that there would be a gratuity of £166 payable. I think that is going much too far. That goes beyond what the House would be prepared to do, and I doubt if we could take it any further.

I have an amendment which simply deals with the case of the infirm child. I move—

The Minister’s amendment puts the Native and the Coloured child on the same basis, and that I appreciate. It is one of the points which I raised on the second reading, but now on this clause there is a serious matter to which I want to draw attention. Under the previous clause which the Committee has approved of, the various benefits that a disabled soldier can get under chapter 2 are applied to natives. That is the surcharge where he is 100% disabled—the other benefits set out in Chapter 2. Now this section deals with an almost more helpless type of person than the disabled soldier. It deals with the dependants he leaves behind. The small children, children under fourteen in the case of boys and under sixteen in the case of girls, and the widow who has to look after the children. I submit that these people are as much entitled to the protection of this Committee and the protection of the Minister as the disabled soldier himself. And yet the privileges that are extended to the disabled soldier are not when he dies extended to those he leaves behind. I hope members of the Committee are listening to what I am saying. Take an example I gave on the second reading. Under Chapter 3 of this Bill the widow of a pensioner, in other words the pensioner who has got a disablement pension, dies of natural causes: that widow, normally speaking, whether coloured or European, under this Bill gets a pension of half of what she was getting before, and her children get allowances, half of what they were getting before. Under this clause where the man who has been utterly wrecked in the services of his country comes home, he gets a disablement pension to the same extent proportionately of what other races do. His wife gets a wife’s allowance and the children get children’s allowances. If he dies, say from pneumonia, not connected with his war injury, his wife and children are cut off entirely. I do not want to press the Minister unduly, because I know he has made certain concessions, both to us on these Benches and to members elsewhere, but I want to know how he justifies that discrimination. I want to know how he can justify depriving a dead native soldier of things which he is not prepared to deprive a live soldier of? That is something which beats me, to use a colloquialism. What the dead native soldier is deprived of is the following: his widow is deprived of her gratuity on remarriage. The pensioner’s widow can get no pension. The separated wife can get no pension except the gratuity for dependants. The parents can get no special pension. I ask the Minister to believe me from my daily experience among those people that in this war what the parents get, what the old people get, is of greater concern or of just as much concern among them as what the wives and children get. In the country towns I have had old people flocking to me and asking me about dependants’ allowances. I am dealing with a class of people who do not get old age pensions—they get nothing at all, unless they are stone blind, and I do submit that the old native parent is as much entitled to a pension if he loses a son as the parent of another soldier who is fighting and laying down his life for his country. We are dealing here with people who have laid down their lives for this country. It is not a question of disability. On that the Minister has met me. But once the man dies, this horrible principle of discrimination comes in. I said on the second reading that we accepted the lower rate. We recognise that although we asked for the treatment of native soldiers and their dependants on the same basis as coloured soldiers and their dependants — we recognise that we cannot get it. Well, we shall go on fighting for it. But what we have asked for is this, that the same benefits proportionately, the same classes of beneficiaries, shall be looked after in this Bill with regard to natives as they are to other non-Europeans. And under this, as I say, the widow of a native pensioner, the separated wife of a native soldier who is killed, and many other classes of dependants are cut out, and I want to make this appeal to the Minister. I want him to realise what it means to the people I represent—it means more to them than it can mean to other races in this country. I ask the Minister to extend to their old people and other classes of dependants what is extended to the dependants of other races. An able-bodied native in this country has more people dependant on him than is normally the case with any other race, and this is the sort of sphere in which discrimination can be most harmful. I would not press it to the extent I am doing if I did not regard it as a matter of first importance, having regard to my experience with these people. And I ask the Minister if he cannot meet me now if he will consider the matter at a later stage.

I just want to say that I am prepared to go into that point further between now and the report stage. I want to be further advised as to the effect of what the hon. member is asking for.

We have been busy here the whole afternoon trying to induce the House not to place the Government’s official stamp on polygamy; we have been trying to induce the Government not to sanction a union of a man and a woman who are not legally married. But the peculiar point of the whole business is that of all people the Minister of Finance should be the man to refuse to concede our demands when we oppose poligamy. It is proposed here to give all the wives of a native volunteer a pension. In this clause we even go further than the natives themselves go. We know that it is a native custom that only the first wife of the native, that is the woman who is known as the „ou vrou,” officially benefits from the native’s estate. But now we go further than that, and we grant a pension to every woman whom such a volunteer has lived with. What is that going to cost the country? We find that if the native has two wives, for instance, which is an every day occurrence, and each of them have five children, £128 per year may have to be paid to them. We can see the danger. We hear a lot of talk about more and more natives joining the Army, we hear talk about the natives having to be armed shortly and having to fight. Consequently, more natives will be killed than is the case today. This pension is going to impose a heavy burden on the country. I don’t know where the money is to come from when the war is over if we are to meet the commitments which we are undertaking in terms of this Bill. We quite realise that if people are made to suffer as a result of this war they should get a pension, simply because the Government has forced them to go to war, but we are going too far here in making the State grant pensions to the illegitimate wives of natives. I move—

We have very definitely taken account of the point which my hon. friend has mentioned. That is why we use the term “not exceeding” here. We shall fix the allowances on such a basis that the total amount will not exceed £35 per year.

I am very glad the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) has raised this point, because it is a very important one indeed. I do not see why if a disabled soldier is guaranteed the amount of his pension, a widow should also not be guaranteed. I know from my own experience that polygamy is practically dead amongst the natives, or at any rate amongst the great masses of them.

Nonsense.

I am quite prepared to back my experience against that of the hon. member who says “nonsense.” Under the Clause as it stands, no widow has a guarantee, the whole thing is discretionary. I want to suggest to the Minister that the widow of the native soldier should be guaranteed the right that is laid down here, and if there is more than one widow they ought to share the amount. If there happen to be three, they will each get a third. A guarantee has been given in the case of coloured people, and I ask the Minister to do the same here. I am quite prepared to agree that if there is more than one widow they should share, and I think that is perfectly reasonable, and it is in fact precisely what the Minister has done in the case of coloured soldiers. I am not prepared to say that if there is more than one dependant, that is to say if polygamy is the case, the State shall pay any more, but the widow should be guaranteed the minimum rate as is done with coloureds and Europeans. I think the hon. member for Smithfield will agree with me that that is fair. I am prepared to back my knowledge of the facts against that of the hon. member who said “nonsense,” and I say that one wife is overwhelmingly the general rule. I do appeal to the Minister to grant me this, to give the one wife the guaranteed rate, and if there is more than one wife they can then share the guaranteed rate.

The hon. member who has just sat down tried to be very clever; he has, as a matter of fact, been showing us for a long time that he is too big for his boots. I am sorry if I hurt his feelings but the fact remains. It would be a very good thing if he were to moderate his language somewhat when speaking to people who have more intelligence than he is ever likely to have. I hope that will be enough for him and that he will keep his mouth shut in future.

Order, order!

We on this side of the House are opposed to poligamy. I am glad to hear that the hon. member over there is also opposed to it, and I am sorry that he does not agree with us that poligamy still exists, or that he thinks there is so little of it that we need not take any notice of it. I don’t pretend to know as much about the natives as he does, but he apparently knows as little about them as the man in the moon. I don’t want to talk about the native’s way of living, but I say that it is unreasonable for the State to encourage a thing of this kind—that is something the State should discourage.

I just want to show the Minister that he has given a totally wrong interpretation of this clause. I fail to understand how he can give such an interpretation. Let us see what this clause says in regard to the widow or the widows of a native who is killed while on active service. It says this:—

To the widow or widows a pension not exceeding £25 for each widow.

It says “not exceeding.”

Yes, but for each widow.

We are going to give them £25 altogether.

Yes, but under the Bill every widow can be given £25.

Yes, that is so.

The Minister gave the impression that the Bill does not allow that.

My intention was to say that that was how we would apply it. That is how we shall administer it.

But the Minister should remember that he is not going to be Minister of Finance for ever. Probably he will administer the law in that way, but if he should go the next Minister of Finance may perhaps administer the law differently; he will administer it as it stands here, and then it means that he can give every widow of a native £25 per year. We have to see what the law says and we cannot take the impression which the Minister wants to give us in regard to the manner in which he intends carrying out the law. As the clause now reads every widow can be paid £25 per year. The Minister will admit that: And not only that; the clause further provides that an allowance not exceeding £6 per year may be paid for every child of a native volunteer. That means that a native may perhaps leave four of five widows and each of them can get £25 per year and in respect of each child an amount of £6 per year can be paid. It’s going to mean an enormous amount of money being spent on one native. Let us remember the standard of living of the native—we have to take things as they are and not as we want them to be—we have to take them as they are and if a future Minister of Finance is to administer the Act as it reads now, then it may easily mean £150 per year being paid to the widows and children of one native. It is as much as they would perhaps have earned in the whole of their lifetime, and that is what the Minister is going to allow under this clause. Then another important point is this: In South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church has gone out of its way by its missionary work to try year in and year out to induce the natives not to have more than one wife. I believe that the Minister himself has contributed to the special collections for missionary work among the natives. Yet by this Bill he is now encouraging the native to take more than one wife. South Africa is a civilised country and if we want to show the native that our civilisation means something then we must make the native understand that he is allowed to have only one wife. I am not going to say that the Minister can adjust everything and achieve all these things in a short space of time, but if he accepts our amendment he will at any rate strengthen the position of the missionaries in coping with poligamy. It should not be necessary for us to argue that point. I do not think that the civilised world expects us in South Africa, who are the guardians of the coloured races, to pay the natives for illegitimate children—the civilised world will never believe it if they hear that we are encouraging poligamy in the way we are doing under the provisions of this Bill. Clauses have already been passed by this House, which I don’t want to go into again, under which a woman who has an illegitimate child from a soldier will be entitled to an allowance in respect of such child, but now we go further and we say that if a native has four or five wives each of those wives can get £25 per year, and each of those children can get £6. Surely the Minister should tell us what he bases his attitude on. I don’t believe that the Minister wants to encourage that sort of thing—it is the sort of thing which we should discourage. Yet the Minister in the attitude he adopts in his Bill is actually encouraging it.

I don’t agree with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) when he says that poligamy among the natives is dying out. I hail from a part of the country bordering on Basutoland where we are in constant touch with the natives, and I myself have a number of natives in my employ, and I know from my own experience that a large percentage of those natives have more than one wife today. We are a civilised nation whose object is to put a stop to that sort of thing. Nor can I agree with the hon. member when he says that if a native has more than one wife this pension should be divided among the wives. By doing that we are going to encourage poligamy while we should oppose it, and not even recognise it. I also wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to the question of the difficulties he is going to get into if he wants to grant allowances to all the children which these natives have by all their wives. Does not the Minister realise what the native custom is? This clause is drafted from this point of view, that we have to comply with native custom. If a native has more than one wife and he has not paid for all those wives yet, the children do not belong to the native. The children belong to his parents, or rather to the woman’s parents, and he is now going to do more than what the native himself asks for, because he is going even further than the native custom demands. No, I think the Minister should give in on this point, so that we shall not recognise poligamy; the State should not promote poligamy, but should set its face against poligamy. Let us grant a pension not exceeding £25 to the legal wife. That is to the first wife. When I speak of a pension not exceeding £25 I do not want to say that we on this side of the House are in favour of such a pension. But that principle is already contained in the Bill. We realise that according to the native standard of living the amount is too large, and if we could get our way we would reduce it very considerably, but it is too much. All we are pleading for at this stage is that the pernicious system of poligamy should not be encouraged and in this connection we are asking that we should do our duty in our position as the guardians of the natives. We accept our guardianship over the natives, and we realise that one of the greatest evils in native life is this system of poligamy; and yet in this Bill, instead of setting our faces against it, we promote it. There will be no trouble on the part of the natives if this amendment is agreed to, for it is their custom too that in the estate of the native the benefits go to the first wife. If we do what we propose in this amendment, we are carrying out the customs of the natives themselves. I again want to appeal to the Minister; grant our request and let us put this principle into this Bill so that we may set our faces against poligamy among the natives.

Question put: That paragraph (a), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—45:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A, P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—13:

Boltman, F. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I move the amendments as printed, which will explain themselves—

I ask the Minister not to leave in this Bill one of the anomalies and one of the injustices in the 1919 Act. The Minister has made it possible for those who suffer a sense of grievance at the hands of the Military Pensions Board to go to an Appeal Board, and he draws a distinction between appeals taken as a right and appeals taken with the consent of the Minister. Personally, I do not see why the Minister has to sanction appeals to the Appeal Board, but assuming there is any virtue in such a distinction, and the Minister concedes the right to appeal to an applicant, the case is heard by the Appeal Board, and on the assumption that the applicant gained his point and his appeal is upheld, the Minister then has the right to say that although the applicant has been successful, the decision of the Appeal Board can be overridden. The Minister can then say “I will now exercise an overriding discretion and refuse to give you the benefits of your successful appeal.” We know that the Minister only exercised that right through the advice of the Commissioner of Pensions, we know that the Minister would not be au fait with the circumstances of the case. Under the old Act, if the Minister exercised his discretion and vetoed or withheld from the appellant the benefits of the successful action, he was bound to lay such cases on the Table of the House. I do not think this is the case under this Bill. The same hardship occurs in appeals to the Medical Board, always it is in the hands of the Minister to usurp the functions of a superior tribunal, even his own Appeal Board. I ask the Minister not to repeat this injustice, because it is an injustice. The decision of the Appeal Board should be just as binding on the Minister as it is on the individual who appeals. And I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of eliminating this. What is it going to mean? I think during the whole of the administration of the 1919 Act there have not been more than twenty cases where the Minister has exercised this prerogative of his.

I am sorry the hon. member did not have an opportunity of discussing this point with me, but I should like to have the chance of considering it further between now and the report stage. I am not making any promises but I want to have the opportunity of considering it further.

May I appeal for a more simplified method for the appeal to take place? It is a terrible business to have masses of letters to go through. The man gets his letter of rejection, and he is told first the grounds on which his application has been turned down. He is then told that he has a right of appeal and then he is told all about the difficulties. First of all he is told that the Appeal Board is in Pretoria. Then he is told that no expenses are to be paid unless the Chairman of the Appeal Board authorises the payment of expenses. He may be represented before the Board by a doctor, but if he has no means to get a doctor he has to appeal to the British Empire Service League. It is a most gruesome business. It is the sort of thing that civil servants glory in—red tape galore. All sorts of formidable points are put against the man showing him that he has no chance at all— he is intimidated, and he is told of all the superior forces that are against him. And then the letter says that if he surrenders his appeal and signs a form agreeing to surrender his appeal and agreeing to a grautity—he may or may not get such a gratuity. No amount is specified. And if he signs a note renouncing any further claim against the Department the question of a gratuity will be considered. I hope we shall see the last of this sort of thing. Let the whole thing be simplified. Let us not make it impossible for the man to appeal by the Appeal Board sitting only in Pretoria. We hope these things will be simplified, and if a man has the right of appeal let him exercise that right without the intervention of other people, and let him have a measure of simple justice. But I do feel we have built up a system which is loathed by the soldier. I know what they say about it—they say it is the most loathsome business.

I want to put two questions to the Minister in regard to this very important clause. Will the Minister give the House some idea as to the composition of this Board insofar as its representative character is concerned? And, secondly, will the Minister give favourable consideration to the appointment of a woman member as one of the five? I think this suggestion will receive the support of the whole House bearing in mind the services which the women of South Africa are rendering to the country in connection with the Army.

I am not in a position at the moment to say how this Board is to be constituted. We have not decided yet to create the Board. I definitely intend to appoint one member to represent the ex-servicemen. I am also considering the question of appointing a woman on the Board. May I at the same time move the amendment standing in my name? The effect of my amendment is that we shall be able to make special provision for cases of aggravation where the loss of earning capacity is out of proportion to the degree of aggravation. At the same time we propose to increase the maximum amount to be awarded by the Board. I move—

Before you put Clause 36, there is on the Order Paper a new clause which on behalf of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) I desire to move.

The hon. member must move it in his own name.

Very well, I move it in this form as it appears on the Order Paper. I move—

1. (1) Whenever any Board appointed under the provisions of Chapter VIII shall be in doubt as to the assessment of the degree of disability of a volunteer—
   1. (a) who has applied for any benefit under this Act;
   2. (b) whose widow, child, separated wife, reputed wife, parent, or other dependant, has applied for any benefit under the provisions of Chapter III:
   3. (b) whose widow, child, separated wife, reputed wife, parent, or other dependant, has applied for any benefit under the provisions of Chapter III:

The purpose of this is twofold. The one is that now that these Boards have been agreed to under this chapter matters will come up for decision in which there may be certain members of the Board who consider that a higher percentage or degree of disability should be decided upon than others do. The purpose of this is to give the benefit of any doubt which might arise in favour of the volunteer. The second purpose is to make it clear that once that decision has been arrived at, the powers and discretion which are vested in the Minister and in the Commissioner are limited so as not to interfere with the decision of that Board. In other words, the Board having given its decision, that should be final, and it is only right that a volunteer once he has gone to these Boards should know where he stands. It is necessary for all men to be able to get finality in regard to their own position. They should know where they stand and what degree of disability has been fixed when a certain decision has been arrived at, or if there is any doubt as to what it should be, the higher should be accepted as the decision of the Board, and that should be final without further appeal to the Minister or the Commissioner.

I would only say if a doubt arises and the Board is enjoined to give the benefit of the doubt to the volunteer it must mean increased expenditure. I am sorry I cannot put the amendment to the Committee without the recommendation of the Governor-General.

On a point of order, sir might I submit this? You say that if there is doubt in the mind of the Board and the benefit of the doubt is given to the volunteer it will mean increased expenditure?

Is the hon. member questioning my ruling?

No, I am suggesting that you should consider it before giving a ruling. I take it you have not given a ruling yet. Your remark seems to indicate …

No, I have ruled very definitely. The moment it means increased expenditure I cannot accept it.

I take it that at a subsequent stage one will have an opportunity of raising it.

What does the hon. member wish to raise?

As I understood the remark you made—it was this: that if there was a doubt in the minds of the Board then, to give the benefit of the doubt to the soldier, would mean increased expenditure.

Yes, that is my ruling. If there is any doubt and the Board is compelled to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the soldier, it means increased expenditure.

May I move that we report progress to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling?

No, the Chairman is responsible for proceedings in Committee of the whole House, and I am prepared to accept the responsibility. I have given a clear ruling.

On Clause 36,

I move—

There is a point which may be very important and I do not quite understand the implications. I should like the Minister to explain what he means by saying here that the Governor-General may make regulations as to (a) the women volunteers to whom the provisions of Chapter 4 will apply.

It means he may have to specify the specific units— the W.A.A.F.’s and the W.A.A.C.’s. There may be new units created and he will have to specify those.

May I move the amendment of which notice has been given? I move—

I would like to move an amendment which will have the effect of deleting the whole of Clause 37. I must confess to being not only disappointed but surprised at finding Section 37 in this Bill. Section 37 with some minor adjustments in Section 19 of the 1941 Act. And the Committee will see that it empowers the Minister to direct that in any case in which in his opinion an applicant does not deserve a pension, gratuity or allowance, because of his misconduct, he may direct the Board to withhold it from him, and in such case where it has been granted to take it away from him either altogether or in part. I say, and I say unhesitatingly that a provision of this kind has no place in a Bill of this kind. It can only be justified upon the supposition, and a wrong one, that what we are granting in granting pensions and allowances—I leave out any consideration of gratuities—but certainly in respect of pensions and allowances, I say that this provision, this authority given to the Minister, can only be justified by the supposition that we are granting a privilege, and if that is the view taken by the Minister, then not only am I disappointed and surprised to see this provision in the Bill, but I am horrified, because it violates to my mind the whole spirit of our pension legislation which should be to recognise that when a man has become disabled on service he has by virtue of those facts earned the pension which we have provided for in this Act. He has a claim against the State. What we are doing, as I interpret it, is to meet the legitimate claims of a man who on active service is disabled, and his dependants in case of death, and if that is the correct view to take, as I submit it is, then I say that the Minister has no right to tamper with what belongs to the ex-serviceman. It is not a privilege which can be given on terms. This is earned by the ex-serviceman as soon as he becomes disabled and by his dependants in the event of his death, as soon as he loses his life. And it cannot be made subject to condition of good behaviour. If the ex-serviceman is guilty of conduct which is anti-social, he, like anyone else, is amenable to the ordinary laws of the land, and he should be dealt with by them. There is another reason which makes this provision objectionable. If the claimant is guilty of misconduct he may find himself answerable in the courts of the land and be punished, and yet he may be punished the second time by the Minister for the same offence—the Minister may take away from him the pension which he has been awarded. And that I need hardly say is a complete violation of the very fundamental of our jurisprudence. I can see no justification for this in the Act, and I think it would be a misfortune to allow this provision to tarnish what is otherwise a very good Bill.

The hon. member is correct when he says that this provision is in the existing law. It has been there from the beginning, and I think I should say to him that during the years that I have been administering the law I have never had any complaints about this from the ex-servicemen’s organisations. There is no feeling that this provision is unreasonable or has been abused. I think it has a very definite value. There is the case of the man who goes to prison. If he has dependants we pay the pension for their benefit. But if not, we withhold the pension. There is the case of the alcoholic. In his case we suspend the pension and give him the opportunity of reforming and then return him his pension. There is the case of the woman who lives with another man. In her case we withhold the pension. I think that as this clause has been in operation all along and as there has been no complaints raised against it, we would be acting correctly in leaving it in the Bill.

The only danger is in the danger of a complete change—if the aministration comes into the hands of another Minister.

Well, it is limited to certain cases.

The danger is not in the administration but in the fact that the Commission of Pensions or the Minister acts on representations made to him. The Commissioner has his attention drawn perhaps to some obvious lapse whereby he feels that the suspension or the withholding of the pensioner’s annuity should take place. The difficulty is not so much in the case of the alcoholic or the woman drawing a widow’s pension and being maintained by another person, but the fact that the Commissioner for Pensions may be asking the Minister to withhold that pension on wrong evidence. There are not many instances of this sort of thing, and during the whole of my experience probably only half a dozen have come to my personal knowledge, and I venture to say that in every case where it has come to my knowledge and where a man has complained to me and where I have been able to lead rebutting evidence, the whole position has been put right. Where the pensioner is given the opportunity of rebutting the allegations made against him, the Minister is able to exercise his discretion one way or the other. There is nothing in this clause giving the individual pensioner the right to submit evidence in his defence. That is fundamentally wrong. And if the Minister can in the interim establish some procedure whereby the person who is going to be deprived of his pension can be given an opportunity of meeting the allegations and refuting them, it will be a step in the right direction. We want some safeguards of that kind. If you simply deprive a pensioner of his pension, he does not go to anyone, he becomes an abject figure of suffering through physical disablement. And I think something should be done in the way I have indicated.

I am quite prepared to consider moving an amendment at the report stage which will give the man concerned an opportunity of making a statement before a final decision is come to.

I have an amendment there—it is correcting a drafting error. I move—

In regard to medical treatment, in many cases it would be much simpler if the person affected could be treated by the District Surgeon. Is there any difficulty about including such a provision in this section? That he should have the right to get free medical treatment from the District Surgeon?

I am afraid we cannot eliminate the discretion of the Commissioner, but we shall do our best to get these things speeded up.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I shall be glad if the Minister will explain the meaning of the words “regular employment”.

The point is this: that in the principal Act a person who is fit to do regular work is not considered competent to receive such a pension. It means that if this clause is strictly enforced a man who does small jobs and earns a few pounds per month, will not be allowed to draw this pension. If this clause is passed, it will give the Minister the right to grant the pension in such cases.

I move—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I should be obliged to the Minister if he would explain what sub-section (1) means. I have looked at it, and I cannot follow it at all. I am quite certain it must be a mistake on my part, but it says this—

And then there are two provisos which seems to indicate that until these chapters have come into operation, the rates of benefits are not to come into operation until the 1st April, 1942. The same applies to the chapters dealing with natives and other non-Europeans. On the face of it, it would appear as if a soldier who has been disabled before today cannot get the benefits provided for under this Bill. I do hope the Minister will clear this matter up because I cannot believe that it means what I am disposed to think it may mean.

The purport of this clause is simply that from the 1st April the new rates will become payable. Where people have been assessed on the old rates, they will have to be re-assessed on the new rates, and that re-assessment will take effect on the 1st April.

There is a point I want to put to the Minister in regard to Sections 7 and 8, disabilities of 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. for the loss of fingers on the right hand, etc. Now, with regard to women, except factory workers and teachers, I think it must be agreed that the vast majority are employed as shorthand typistes and writers. Now, the loss of any fingers is absolutely fatal to that type of employment. I know the Minister will say it is just as difficult in the case of a man, but I do submit that the field of employment is so very much narrower for women than for men, and I cannot think what will happen to these girls; they cannot work in factories, they will not be able to do millinery or dressmaking, and they will no longer be able to be nurses, and probably even not be able to look after children. They certainly will not be able to be employed as shorthand writers, and it seems to me that there is a very small field of employment left for them at all. It may be said, of course, that women get married, but I think it will be a very grave disability for women who desire to get married. Women very readily marry men who are maimed, but I do not think it so often happens that men marry women who are maimed. I think that the scale of allowance for this disability is too low. I feel that I must place this point on behalf of women generally. I am referring more particularly to women who were in employment before joining up. I think something more generous should be done for them.

The hon. member has on more than one occasion spoken to me about this matter, and I cannot help feeling that she has rather over-emphasised the possibility of this kind of case taking place. I am informed there has been no case of this nature under the old law, which only applied to nurses. I cannot see how you can make special provision for the women which you don’t also make for the men. We don’t make any special provision under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is just as serious for a man to lose his fingers as it is for a woman.

I should like to move the deletion of this schedule, and the insertion of a new schedule.

Fourth Schedule put and negatived.

I move—

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Nurses and other Women Volunteers.

There is an amendment on page 662, which I wish to move, but I do not know whether this falls within your previous ruling, sir. But if not, I think there is good reason for such an amendment. In Schedule 1 we have taken all ranks up to and including majors, and I think therefore the Minister might extend this schedule to bring it into line with Schedule 1. That would mean omitting the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh columns, and creating a new heading to the third column, which would read “All ranks up to and including principal matron and assistant matrons”.

The hon. member must see that if he deletes all the lower classes and wants to put everybody in the higher class, it must mean a considerable incerase in expenditure.

If that is your ruling, I cannot take it any further.

This amendment to the Fourth Schedule still does not affect the point that the women of this country feel very deeply, and that is the differentiation as between the disablement pension for women and the disablement pension for men. That for women is £150, and that for men £200. Now, sir, I find it difficult to understand why in a country like this and in war time, where women are sharing the burden of the fight, they should be discriminated against in this fashion. I have yet to learn that a disabled woman needs less to live upon than a disabled man, and when the State is asking its women, as it is continually doing, to come forward and take part in this struggle, then I say that these women, having done their share, have a right to ask the State to consider them on an equal footing with the men. There should be no discrimination when it comes to disability pensions. The pensions should be paid on the disablement, and not on the sex of the person concerned. No doubt to some this will be an innovation, but an innovation which is long overdue. On behalf of the women of this country, I ask the Minister very seriously and earnestly to consider doing something along the lines suggested.

On the same point I have had representations made to me all along the line, and wires have come to me, especially from the University Women’s Associations. I do not really see why if a nurse is disabled 100 per cent. and the man alongside her is disabled also 100 per cent., we should consider that the woman ought to accept a lower standard of living than the man. Women think that this discrimination is extremely harsh. It is not as if we were legislating here for married men. If a man is married, he will get an allowance for his wife. I think if we assume that the woman and the man are living bachelor lives, it is unreasonable to discriminate between them. Women cannot live as cheaply as men because they cannot go into the slums as easily as men. I do not see why we should always have this feeling that women are looked upon as inferior and should accept a lower standard of life. I cannot understand why this injustice is done, especially as there cannot be a very great many cases.

I recognise the eloquence and conviction with which the two hon. members have spoken, but I am afraid I cannot agree with them that we should put the woman on the same basis as the man. I would point out that the man has potential obligations which the woman has not. We do not provide in full for the family obligations which the man might incur. I think there is justification in this, as in other similar enactments for discrimination, and I am afraid I must mantain this distinction.

I trust what I have to say will not be regarded as weakening the appeal made by the hon. members who have just spoken. It is intended as an expression on behalf of the military nurses of their gratitude for what the Minister has been kind enough to do in submitting this schedule. Firstly, they will regard it as an appreciation of what the nursing profession has done in this war—there were only 17 when the war started, and there are 2,155 now. Secondly, it is an indication that the hard work they have done has been appreciated. They are ladies who have devoted years of hard work towards obtaining their degrees; most of them have done post-graduate work, and all of them have given up the security of civilian hospital work for the hazards of war. Finally, it is an indication that a time may come when these ladies, like other military nurses, in other parts of the Commonwealth, will be wearing the insignia of their rank. This schedule will be a guide to the authorities as to what their real rank should be.

On the second reading of this Bill I drew attention to the discrimination in disablement rates between women volunteers and male volunteers, and I alluded to the fact that the National Council of Women had held an investigation before the war as to the cost of living, and they had come to the conclusion that no woman in the cities could live decently on less than £10. I hope the Minister of Finance will find it possible to reconsider this matter of scales for women volunteers. There is no doubt that a large proportion of the women volunteers are from the urban areas, and those who are disabled will not be able to subsist on the money that is granted in this schedule. It is not a question of comparing them with men, and saying that men have larger responsibilities, but a practical question as to whether they can subsist on the money they are to receive under this scale.

As the representative in this House of people who are constantly suffering from discrimination on the ground of race, I support the appeal made by the hon. members for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz), and Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). In Labour matters there is discrimination in wages between men and women because men have greater obligations, but that does not enter into this particular question. I know that the Minister’s reply is that a man may marry after two years, but those who have raised this matter believe that that two years limitation is a rotten provision, a bad provision, and should not be resorted to in order to justify this discrimination. It does not seem to me to be fair to assume that a woman has a lower standard of living than a man.

I want to urge the Minister to reconsider even his amended schedule. I know I cannot move it, sir, because of your ruling. The Minister has, in his first schedule provided that all ranks up to and including major are placed in one category; they all rank alike for the benefits which they are to receive. I ask him to apply that same principle to the schedule which we are now considering.

Mr. Chairman, this is another case similar to the one I brought up this morning. The committee met and went into this matter very carefully with the Minister, and made recommendations which the Minister has accepted now. It is unfortunate that the hon. member should put this request forward tonight when it was not put forward at the commitee, when recommendations which were considered to be fair and reasonable, were agreed upon.

I am sorry that certain statements have been made which provoke one to say things which are better left unsaid.

Do not say them, then.

When the _ hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) made a certain statement this morning I kept silent, but he has now repeated that statement, and so I must reply to him. In fairness to an hon. member who is not here, I think I should say I do not know the circumstances under which he did not attend that meeting, but I know of my own circumstances. There is no desire on the part of that hon. member any more than there is any desire on my part to seek notoriety or publicity.

Hon. members should confine themselves to the matter before the Committee.

I have an amendment here which simply brings this into line with an amendment accepted by the House on one of the clauses—

I want to move the amendment appearing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I move—

Hon. members will see that the word “Board” in the definitions is interpreted as follows:

I want to insert after the word “established” the words “to which have been added two unpaid members possessing practical knowledge and experience of farming conditions”. I do not know whether there is any need for me to say very much on this question. As hon. members know, in terms of the Act the Mining Leases Board consists of the Government Mining Engineer, the Secretary for Finance and two Government officials. The whole Board, therefore, consists of Government officials. Well, they are very nice and kind people who have a knowledge of their own particular class of business, but there is no one on the Board to represent the farmers. This Board is an important body because it instructs the Minister to do certain things, It has to assist the Minister, for instance, in the drafting of agreements, it has to assist the Minister in fixing the amount of the prospecting rental contract and also when the contract is terminated. They fix the proportion of the profits from the production of the minerals to go to the owner, and they have to assist the Minister in regard to various other matters. Among the matters they have to deal with are the questions of damages suffered by the farmers. If the Minister agrees to accept a proposal that in the event of a difference of opinion about the amount to be paid as compensation for damages, arbitration will be resorted to, there will be no objection, but we do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept such a proposal. I feel that the people who assist the Minister should have a knowledge of farming conditions and they should be able to say what the rental value of a particular place should be, because those farming members would know what prospecting on a farm would mean, they would know the amount of inconvenience and discomfort prospecting on the farm would cause the farmer. The Minister has to determine how much rental must be paid for the ground which the prospector is going to work, and the Mining Leases Board, consisting of the Government Mining Engineer, the Secretary for Finance and two Government officials, has no practical experience of these things; those people, naturally, are fully acquainted with all the details of their own work, but they know nothing about farming. The result is that the Minister cannot get any information from them on matters of which they themselves know nothing. We feel in the circumstances that it is essential to have members on that Board who have a thorough knowledge of farming conditions so that they can inform the Minister and allow him to judge what will be a reasonable rental and how much the farmer should be paid. I therefore feel that the Minister should have no objection to the Board being placed in a position enabling it to judge of farming conditions, so that it may give him the best possible advice in the circumstances. I do not propose saying much more on this point. This Board among other things has to advise the Minister on the question of water rights. I feel that the Minister has to determine what the extent of the damage is, and that he has to see to it that the farmer is compensated for that damage by the amount he receives by way of rental. If that is the position, then the Minister must have men on that Board with a knowledge of farming conditions, men who will be in a position to advise him how much the farmer should be paid as a reasonable rental. I therefore feel that this is a matter of principle. It is essential that the Minister should get this information, and I therefore contend that he should have no objection to accepting this amendment.

I should like to remind the hon. member and the Committee that the Mining Leases Board is a statutory body which is already in existence. Its comparison is settled by Statute and it consists of four people appointed by the Governor-General. Two are fixed by their office, they are the Government Mining Engineer and the Secretary for Finance; either they themselves or officers acting on their behalf. The other two are appointed and are highly placed civil servants. It would be most inconvenient to establish here a fresh Board constituted in a different way. The hon. member will see the inconvenience of doing that and it would be most undesirable to have two Boards differently constituted functioning to do what is essentially the same purpose. The Mining Leases Board as an ordinary portion of its duty has to determine the terms and conditions of mining leases and has to have regard to all the different factors in the case. As I have said, on the second reading the Mining Leases Board has had a long history, and it has had a history which is almost unique among Boards of having had practically no complaints against it or its decisions. I am afraid that I am unable to accept this amendment, and I hope the hon. member will not press it.

I shall try to speak in English so that the Minister may be able to follow me better. In this instance you are dealing with quite a different Act. The other Act under which this Board is appointed deals with quite different matters. Under this Bill you are practically taking powers of expropriation.

No, no, no expropriation.

Well, you are taking the power of expropriation subject to compensation. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that under this Bill you are taking by force the property of an owner who has registered transfer of his property. These base minerals are the property of the registered owner of that place. They belong to him. Now you come and say that if he has these base minerals on his ground, because the State considers that the country requires them to be developed, the owner must either work it himself or allow someone else to do so. True, he gets a royalty and share of the profits, but it is still his property, and you are expropriating the man’s rights. Let me tell the Minister that very few farmers are able to exploit a proposition like that themselves, but the fact remains that as long as the farmer has these base minerals, they are his. Just the same as he has his money in the bank. Now he is to get notice that unless he exploits these minerals within six months the Minister is going to give them out by lease. Now the Minister consults this Mining Leases Board as to what will be a reasonable royalty, a reasonable rental for the prospector to pay. How can the Mining Leases Board have any knowledge of the damage which will be suffered by the owner of the farm? They are experts in their own sphere, they have a knowledge of mining and minerals, but they know nothing about farming. They do not know how far the prospecting is going to hinder the work of the farmer. They do not know how far the land will be damaged, or what inconvenience the farmer is going to suffer. The Minister may not understand that the farmer is making tremendous concessions here—he is allowing his property to be developed whether he likes it or no, nolens volens. And all I ask the Minister, while I have every respect for the Board, is to agree with me that they have no knowledge of what the agricultural or pastoral value of the property would be. All we ask is while you have these peculiar circumstances and while the State considers it necessary for these metals to be worked for the benefit of the country—all we ask is that somebody with a knowledge of the value of a farm, of the value of the agricultural prospects of the farm, should be placed on that Board. After all, the man’s private property is going to be worked for the benefit of the country. It is no use the Minister telling us that this Board, which was appointed under a totally different Act, has done excellent work. We don’t doubt that, but surely the farmer must get some advantage out of his money which is locked up in the land, in the form of base metals. It would be unreasonable if the Minister did not see that. The conditions are entirely different from what they are under the other Act. I have no reason to say that the Mining Leases Board has not answered its purpose under the other Act, under which it was constituted, but here the position is entirely different. So surely you should have someone who has a knowledge of farming on the Board, not only of the pastoral and agricultural value, but someone who understands what a nuisance this will be to the farmer. You know that the prospectors come along to one’s property with a lot of animals, drawing their wagons, their machines and their ploughs—they have 50 or 100 coloured boys, and they have to cut trenches and dig holes. It means that while these operations are carried out the whole portion of the property where the work is going on may have to be fenced, particularly if the farmer is a cattle farmer. Some precautions have to be taken, otherwise the man may lose his cattle. You get water in some of these holes. Now you cannot expect that Board to have knowledge of all these things. Consequently, you would have to get information from some reasonable person with a knowledge of farming. When you fix up the conditions of the lease you do not know what difficulties the farmer is going to have with the prospector. I therefore feel that rather than get the information from people who carry no responsibility you should get some other body. I do not say that these other people should always be on the Board, but put some people on the Board when these particular matters are dealt with. Surely it would be easy to get a couple of farmers, men of standing and ability, in some other area, who have a knowledge of these things. You want men with knowledge of farming conditions, to be able to give information, and I am sure that men like that would be of great assistance to the Board. You must remember that you are getting into quite a new field. You are going into the field of base metals and you are taking away people’s rights. Where there are expert questions to be decided, questions of mining, there I agree the Mining Leases Board will be the best body to deal with them, but where you come to other questions, there you will have to get information from someone else. You must remember that the Board has very great powers and if a Board like that were to decide and things went wrong, it would be a very serious matter. Say the Board decides that the rental must be £10 whereas it should be £50—it would be a very serious matter as far as the farmers are concerned. I think that this is a very reasonable request and I hope the Minister will agree to it.

The hon. Minister of Mines is a barrister. He knows that when we deal with a matter relating to a servitude on another person’s land, we must always consider to what extent that person’s property rights are jeopardised. Here we are also dealing with an obstruction of the property rights of the owner. He no longer has the free exercise of his rights on his land, and a Board is now appointed which knows nothing of the circumstances under which this man farms. It is therefore absolutely essential that he should also get representation, and that the person who represents him will know and understand his rights. We get water cases in connection with servitudes. In that case there must be evidence to determine how much compensation should be paid to the man; and who are the people who are called in such a case to prove how much damage the man suffered? It is not an academic Board which does not understand the circumstances at all. The Minister, as a barrister, knows that he can call upon practical farmers as witnesses to show what damage the farmer will suffer. That is the best evidence he can submit to the court, and, as a barrister, he now comes here and opposes an amendment which aims at justice being done in such circumstances. This is not an unusual thing which we are asking, but something which takes place in court every day. Why can the Minister not accept it? It would be easy to do so. In every one of our Provinces there will surely be at least two farmers who can serve on this Board to protect the interests of the farmers. No, in all reasonableness, I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). It will surprise me if he does not do so. If he does not do so, all the knowledge of the practice which he acquired in the past will not have stood him in good stead.

I think this is a very sensible amendment. I don’t say that there should be private farmers on this Board. But why not get a couple of members of the Land Board, for instance? There is a lot of reason and common-sense in what the hon. member said. We know that the members of the Mining Leases Board are able to deal with mining matters, but as soon as you start asking questions about the value of land and about the quality of the soil and farming matters, they are lost, because it is not their job; they are not trained for that. I really think the value of this Bill will be enhanced if an amendment like this were adopted by the Minister.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has appealed to me and to my knowledge as an advocate. I accept that, and I shall tell him what my experience is as an advocate. It is this, that when you want a question decided you call witnesses to give evidence as to the circumstances, but you do not go and put one of the persons who is prepared to give evidence into the position of a judge. That is my experience as an advocate and that is the reason why we have a completely independent Board here and why it is unnecessary to have a number of farmers put on the Board. There is every opportunity under the Bill as drawn for the landowner concerned to make representations to give evidence and place the whole of his case before the Board, and the Board gives its decision after hearing the evidence and not before. May I also draw attention to this: that the Board’s functions under this Bill are not to decide the loss or damage which has occurred to a farmer. The functions of the Board are to decide the terms of lease, the rental to be paid, the royalty, etc.

How can they do that if they do not know the value of the farm?

But they have representations made to them. The owner comes and says what the position is, just as though he were going to a court. He makes his representations and you have an independent Board which gives its decision. The Bill, as the hon. member will find, provides that where questions of damage to the farm have to be decided, the matter is left to the courts. I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment, and I must ask the hon. member to accept the Board, which has proved itself able to do its work well.

The Minister says that you call witnesses. I want to ask the Minister whether he knows anything about the Water Courts?

Yes, I have appeared before Water Courts.

There is always a farmer on the Water Court.

I am a farmer, too.

We mean a bonafide farmer.

Well, I must leave the question of my bona fides in the custody of the hon. member.

We won’t argue whether he is a bona fide farmer or a cheque book farmer. We do not say that the man must necessarily be a farmer; we say we want two men possessed of practical knowledge of farming conditions. The Minister says that you call people as witnesses. That is quite correct, and that is why you get so many cases where wrong decisions have been given, because the judge has no knowledge of these matters. But this is a different thing. Here it is not a question of facts merely. You have to settle terms and conditions which you are going to give to a prospector, and how can you expect these people who are mining and financial experts to have a practical knowledge of terms and conditions of things of this kind. And they not only fix those things, but they also have to fix the rent and other matters. In Clause 12 they have to be consulted in regard to water. No, I think the Minister is unnecessarily hard in this particular instance. I am not going to say yet that he is obstinate, because perhaps he may accept my amendment still, but if he does not I shall say that he is obstinate. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), has put the position in a nutshell. You will have these men, and you will not require them in every instance. It is only when their duties are required that they will be there. You cannot expect this Board to have the knowledge of conditions on a farm which contains base minerals—you cannot lay down any hard and fast rules. You have different conditions on each farm, and if the man on the farm sets out the conditions which he desires and you have no expert knowledge and you accept these conditions, you may be misled, too. So if you have not got persons there with practical knowledge of these things, you do not know whether the conditions laid down by the owners are reasonable or not. And if you have two men with practical knowledge, able to judge, the same as you have them on a Water Court, then you are in a much stronger position. Even if you bring witnesses before a court you still want somebody on that court with a personal and practical knowledge of matters. I can’t see how any injustice can be done to anyone if we accept this. It would not mean any additional expense to the Government. These men would only sit there if their presence is required. The mining and financial matters would be dealt with by the other members of the Board. I am not saying that the Mining Leases Board would not be a very useful Board but you want someone on that Board who knows exactly what is taking place. I am not trying to press this with any intention of holding up the Bill. I am merely anxious that the Minister should have all the knowledge and information that is possible, and that is why I have got up to speak again. I do not think the Minister appreciates what the position is going to be. He does not appreciate the uneasiness and the unrest there is going to be in the country about this, because if I have a valuable farm and only a small piece of weiveld, and they start prospecting there with thirty or forty natives, and they start say during the agricultural season, I may lose the whole of my crop.

That is damage—that will be dealt with by the court.

No, you only give him surface damage. When I raised the matter before, the Minister said that would be included in the rental. So the position is this, that you would have to people with a practical knowledge, you would have to have this round, getting evidence as to what damage was. I know of cases of damage of this sort through people not having proper knowledge of conditions, and I know where considerable injustice has been done. If I could see any reason why under the peculiar circumstances of this Bill we should not add two men with practical knowledge of farming I would accept the Minister’s statement. I don’t doubt that this Board has done excellent service, in a different way, where different conditions have been in existence, where they do not have to decide on matters of which they have no knowledge, but to say that they must decide here on matters of which they have no practical knowledge is unreasonable. Under the other Act they have to decide on financial and technical matters, and there I raise my hat to them. But here this Board has to deal with entirely different matters. It is no argument to say that because they have served very well under another Act that therefore they will be just as good here. I don’t think that that holds water at all. They themselves will probably desire to have the assistance of men with a practical knowledge of farming. After all, the Act of 1930 for which this Board was established was not passed to deal with conditions like this. We do not know how far this matter will go. I say again that if you have a Board with a knowledge of these things, it will be able to give its decisions in a much more practical manner, and it will give very much greater satisfaction. If the Minister could advance any reason founded on sound common sense, then I would accept his argument, but I am afraid I cannot accept it now, and I think he is doing the country a wrong, and therefore I feel that I have the right to ask him to reconsider his decision. Let the Minister ask the farmers on his side. I am sure that they will agree with me. There is no reason at all for the Minister to refuse my amendment—except that the Minister just says, “I don’t want it.” He says simply because they have done well in another capacity that therefore they must do well here. I want the Minister to reconsider his judgment and to feel with us that if he grants out request there will be a greater feeling of security among the farmers.

Will the Minister tell me whether the members of this Mining Leases Board are paid?

They are civil servants; they do not get extra pay.

If two farming members were appointed?

They would have to be paid.

Then I am afraid that it would mean extra expenditure and I must rule it out of order.

There is nothing in the amendment that calls for additional expenditure. The other members of the Board are not paid, why should these be paid?

That is not for me to decide. The fact that two other persons are to be appointed, and the Minister says that they will have to be paid—that is enough for me.

Then I would add to make it “unpaid members.”

I can only take the amendment as it stands, and I rule it out of order.

The hon. member wants to move a revised amendment.

I now move—

I agree with what the hon. member said. I think that it is very necessary that farmer members should be on the committee on account of the knowledge which they have of these matters.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether it is not possible to frame his amendment in such a way that it will lay down that one or two members of the Land Board shall take part in the proceedings. Then the difficulty will have been solved. I can imagine that if the hon. member wants two practical farmers to be appointed, they will have to be paid, but if he gets one or two members of the Land Board, they will not have to be paid. I therefore intend to move—

That two members of the Land Board be appointed to the Mining Leases Board.

The hon. member wants to move what I ruled out of order a short while ago.

I have an amendment to this clause—

It seems to me, according to the attitude of the Minister, that he is not prepared to accept any amendment at all, and that we will struggle a good deal with this Bill. I just want to read what compensation will now be paid to these people. This clause reads—

This clause proposes, if the Government wants to prospect on the land of private persons, and it is land which the person concerned cultivated, that the Minister will not pay the person concerned one penny rental, but all that he pays is compensation for damage to the surface. In other words, if he makes holes and furrows and damages my land by making roads, and there were natives who ate my grapes and killed my fowls and did other damage …

I must ask the hon. member to be serious.

But I am serious. I myself have seen this happen on a farm. For that reason I am so serious. The Government assumes the right to send people on the land and practically to take possession of my farm without any rental being paid in respect of it. The representative of the Government comes there with a number of natives, and after having eaten my grapes, the Government says: “Claim damages from the natives; they ate the grapes whilst they were not in my service.” That is damage, but it is not damage to the surface. This damage may be very much greater than surface damage. I have to say, and since some of my rights are taken away forecefully, and people are sent to my land who cause damage, this damage must be paid for. It should not only be damage to the surface which has to be paid for. If I suffer damage as a result of the actions of the Government’s official, then I want compensation to be paid to me. The Minister says that compensation is paid. But what is damage to the surface? That is not sufficient. That does not include the damage which I mentioned just now. I ask the Minister to accept this. The Minister may have knowledge of laws. He says he is a farmer, but I wonder whether he has ever had the experience that people come to his farm for the purpose of prospecting. Has he any idea of the damage which they can cause? It is not only damage to the surface which one suffers. Apart from the inconvenience of having a number of drunk kaffirs on your farm on Sundays and Saturdays, you suffer a great deal of damage other than mere surface damage. Now the Minister will say that I can have the natives put in gaol. That, of course, is no reply. I therefore move this amendment. Then it says here that the Minister will determine what compensation will be paid. The Minister is the man who causes the damage, and he is now to tell me what compensation I will receive in respect of the damage. It is the first time that I see anyone making such a proposal. The Minister sends his people there, they cause damage, and then he determines what the damages are. It would be ridiculous if I were to go to Feltcher & Cartwright’s and say, “Give me a hat, and I will tell you what I will pay for it”. They will think that I am not altogether sane. If a farmer is not satisfied with the compensation, an arbitrator ought to be appointed. For that reason I move the amendment. The farmer must have the right to resort to arbitration. Just let me read the amendment—

The hon. member has read it twice already.

I am sorry, but I differ, Mr. Chairman. I have not read it. I must read it now in order to emphasise it.

It is unnecessary to read it over and over again.

I ask the Minister whether he thinks that it would be unreasonable to have arbitration? That is the cheapest and the best way of determining the damages. If the Minister refuses to accept this amendment, then he wants to take something to which he is not entitled. He wants to cause damage, and then not pay adequate compensation.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). At the second reading, I already insisted that there should be arbitration if the farmers are not satisfied with the compensation, otherwise the court will have to decide and the farmer will be involved in costly court cases. In that case the farmer has no choice. He must allow the Minister to do as he pleases and be satisfied with it, or he must institute a costly court case. I think the Minister should be reasonable. We should like to help him in passing this Bill, but it must be a good Act and an Act which will protect the farmers. The Minister now wants to encroach on the farmer’s property, and if damage is caused, he does not want to pay proper compensation. I myself have seen what damage can be caused. I have a friend in the district of Robertson, and for a while they broke stones on his farms in order to get gravel for the macadamised roads. I think they paid him £20 per month just to be allowed to break the stones. One would say that that is excellent payment, but do you know that this man prayed for the time to arrive when this work would be completed, because they did terrific damage to his farm, to a much greater extent than the rental he received. One not only has trouble if a number of natives come on one’s farm, but one also suffers heavy damages. The grapes are eaten up by the natives. Nothing is sacred to them; or is the Minister going to have a police station there if he allows people to prospect on a farm? I do not think so. For that reason we ask that the farmers should be protected. It should not be necessary for the farmers to resort to courts of law. I ask the Minister kindly to accede to this request.

I think it is appropriate that I should intervene here, because it is quite clear that there is a serious misapprehension as to the meaning of this clause. We are dealing with Clause 2. Now, that is not prospecting by an ordinary prospector; this is an investigation by an officer appointed by the Government Mines Department, and it provides that when any damage is done in the course of the investigations …

If any damage is done to the land.

This is not a case of any prospector coming along, any Tom, Dick or Harry just coming on the land; this is an officer appointed by the Minister for the purpose of making an investigation, and there is every guarantee that there will be a most careful choice in the personnel of the party, whoever it is that is sent upon the land. There is not the slightest reason for becoming eloquent or otherwise over the possibilities of having a lot of drunken natives looting your orchard or stealing your crops. This is a provision by which the Minister of Mines can, on an appropriate occasion, appoint officers of his department to go on the land and conduct an investigation. Then it provides that any damage which is done to the surface in the course of this investigation shall be paid for in full. Now, who is to settle how much compensation is paid? It is not the Mining Leases Board; it is not the Minister, it is left to the ordinary courts of the land. If you suffer any damage you can sue for it in the courts.

Why not have arbitration?

Well, now, I want first of all to clear up the misunderstanding that the Minister would decide this. He would not, nor would this muchdepreciated Mining Leases Board decide it. Any damage which is done will have to be sued for in the absence of a prior agreement between the parties. It is suggested that arbitration would be cheaper and better. Mr. Chairman, I have had a very wide experience of arbitration all my professional life, and I want to tell the Committee that it is a myth to suppose that arbitrations are cheaper, more expeditious, or give more satisfaction to the parties than the decision of a court of law. Again and again and again it has been my experience, and the experience of my friends at the Bar, that arbitrations cost more money, take up more time, and are less satisfactory, and that is why I resist the idea of having arbitration here. Arbitrations are expensive, dilatory, and nine times out of ten they don’t give satisfaction. With the greatest goodwill in the world to meet my friends on all the issues I possibly can, I cannot agree to this. I am convinced that the provision of this Bill in this clause as it stands, is the most satisfactory to all parties.

The Minister does not realise the real difficulties of the farmers. I am glad that the Minister of Lands is in the House at the moment. He, as a practical farmer, can give the Minister of Mines some information as to the great damage which farmers can suffer. We gained practical experience when the national road was constructed in our area. The Minister says that he will not send any Dick, Tom or Harry to the farms. But when the national road was constructed, the engineers came there. Surely they are not Dick, Tom and Harry. The engineers tried to maintain order amongst the native labourers, but the greatest difficulties were experienced by the farmers. The Minister of Lands knows what difficulties arose at Colesberg, for example. I personally had to go there at great expense to solve the matter. These people threatened to vote against the then United Party only on account of the indirect damage which was caused by the natives who worked on the roads. Does the Minister actually appreciate what damage can be caused? I should like him to ask the Minister of Lands.

I think the hon. Minister should accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). It is all very well for the Minister to say tonight that he will appoint Government inspectors, and he will send individuals round to inspect the damage that has been done. Mr. Chairman, we have to appreciate that, although we have the hon. Minister of Mines at the present moment, we do not know what is likely to happen in the future. It is quite possible that the Minister of Mines may be Prime Minister in the very near future, and, that being so, he will not have any jurisdiction over the Mines Department.