May I with the leave of the House, make a personal explanation? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday in addressing the House during the debate on the motion on employment of South African Forces outside Africa, I indulged in personalities which I am afraid have hurt the feelings of several members. I spoke unpremeditatively and I hope that the House and the members concerned will accept my apologies.

The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has a contingent notice of motion on the Order Paper.

I move—

1. (a) that all deposits received while the Union is at war shall be repayable only on the date when the Union officially ceases to be at war or thereafter, as may be stipulated when the deposit is made; and
2. (b) that all moneys received as such deposits shall, while the Union is at war, be invested solely in public loans raised by the Government specially and expressly for the purposes of financing the war.

During the second reading debate on this Bill, I asked the hon. member in charge of the Bill if he would be good enough to accept a certain amendment, the purpose of which was to enable the Municipality to devote any funds which might be deposited with this so called Savings Bank for war purposes—for purposes in connection with the war. I had hoped that the hon. member would have accepted the amendment, but he indicated to me at the time that he was not prepared to do so. Hence my reason for tabling this, which is practically the same suggestion which I made at that stage of the Bill—hence my reason for moving this as an instruction to the Committee.

May I at this stage raise a point of order?

What is the point of order?

My point of order is whether this instruction is not in conflict with the principles of the Bill as read a second time. I refer to Standing Order No. 165 which reads as follows—

And in making this submission I should like to refer to a passage in May which deals with this particular standing order, on page 479 of the 11th Edition—

Now, the first point that occurs to one is this. What are the principles of this Bill before the Committee? In determining those principles one must look to the title of the Bill and the preamble. If we refer to the title of the Bill we find that it is a private Bill to enable the City Council of Durban to establish, maintain, and conduct a savings department and a housing section thereof, and to confer upon it certain powers incidental thereto. Then we refer to the preamble which sets out extensively what the principles of this Bill are, and, I might say in passing, before I read the preamble, that this Bill being a private Bill, had to be submitted to a Select Committee, and the pith and marrow of that Bill was the preamble. In other words, that Bill stood or fell by its preamble, and the Select Committee having found the preamble proved, its decision was in fact that the principles enshrined in that preamble are the principles which govern the Bill. Now, there are nine principles involved in this Bill, every one of them being of cardinal importance. I would refer you now to the preamble itself which sets out the nine principles. The first principle is the purpose for which deposits may be received. (2) The conditions of repayment thereof; (3) the total amount which may be received on deposit at any one time; (4) the minimum and maximum amount which any depositor may deposit; (5) the fixing of rates of interest; (6) the retention in a liquid form of a certain percentage of the total amount deposited; (7) the forms of security in which funds may be invested; (8) the limitation of advances which may be made upon mortgage; and, lastly, the making and amending of regulations and the procedure thereof; so that we see the two most important principles of this Bill are, firstly, the creation of a savings department; and, secondly the establishment of a housing scheme. If we refer to the instruction which my hon. friend has moved, we find that there are two portions of that instruction. The first is this (a) that all deposits received while the Union is at war shall be repayable only on the date when the Union officially ceases to be at war, or thereafter, as may be stipulated when the deposit is made; and (b) that all moneys received as such deposits shall, while the Union is at war, be invested solely in public loans raised by the Government specially and expressly for the purpose of financing the war. My submission is, if that were accepted, it would be a complete negation of one of the two primary principles of this Bill—in other words, the City Council of Durban would not be able to carry out its object of providing a housing section because there would be no funds. So that one of the primary pillars of the Bill would be removed if that particular instruction were accepted. My submission is that it cuts right across and is a complete negation of one of the principles of the Bill, and it is, therefore, inadmissible. Then, with regard to (a) I might point out that (a) and (b) are really indivisible—I do not think the one could be accepted without the other. In regard to (a), if it were accepted it would mean that the objects and principles of the preamble which I have recited to this Committee would also be negatived. There would be a complete negation. In other words, the City Council would not be able to operate a bank at all. No moneys would be withdrawable; they would not be able to accept any deposits on current account; they would have to accept deposits for an indefinite time, and it must be obvious to the House that that would be a complete negation of the principles of the Bill. And it is obvious, I think, to every hon. member in this House that this is the object of the instruction. The object of the instructions is to stultify the decision of this House taken at the second reading of the Bill. I should like to quote a ruling which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, gave in this House in 1927, when the House was concerned with the Steel Industry Bill. I now quote from the Votes and Proceedings of this House of the 4th April, 1927, page 434, when you had to consider a matter somewhat similar to that now before the House. This is what you said on that occasion—

And then come the points which I think I should quote—

My submission, therefore, is that this instruction deliberately seeks to thwart the wishes and decision of this House at the second reading. It obviously negatives the intention of the House as embodied in the Bill at its second reading, and my contention is, on the authority of your own ruling, based on that passage in May, that this instruction is inadmissible.

When this motion of my hon. friend for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) comes to be voted on, if you allow it to be voted on, I shall vote against it. But the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has raised a matter—he has asked for your ruling on a matter which may have a very important bearing on the rights of members of this House, and that is why I intervene at this stage. Not because I want to protect the hon. member for Griqualand—not because I think his proposed amendment is a good one, but because I think that if you were to rule it out at this stage it might have an effect on the future proceedings of this House in restraining the rights of free discussion. Now, what is this Bill? This Bill is a Bill to allow the Municipality of Durban to start a Municipal Savings Bank. In order to achieve that object it must receive deposits and it must invest those deposits. I find in Clause 6 of the Bill as read a second time actual provision which exists for the investment of deposits and the instruction which my hon. friend is moving is an instruction which will allow the Committee in the course of its discussions to decide that these deposits shall be invested in a certain manner and in a certain manner only. I turn now to Clause 165 of the Standing Rules and Orders as read by the hon. member who is raising this point. You look at the side note and you see it deals with amendments in Committee. In other words it professes to lay down rules for the guidance of the Chairman of Committees when the House is in Committee, as to what amendments he may accept or may not accept. Let me read it—

Now, those words “pursuant to instruction” must be deemed to be pursuant to instructions given by this House which will enlarge the scone of the discussion which otherwise would be permissible in Committee. Why otherwise would it be necessary to have that instruction? I may say that I have not studied this matter. It has been worked up very carefully by the hon. member for Brakpan and it has been very ably put by him, but as he was speaking I was trying to cast my mind back to previous instructions in this House. I remember—I seem to remember that when the Liquor Bill was before the House an instruction was moved or attempted to be moved trying to introduce a new principle, the principle of local option. No mention was made of local option in the Bill when it was read a second time, and an instruction was moved to allow the House in Committee to consider the introduction of local option into the Liquor Bill. I remember, too, that the late Gen. Byron introduced a Women’s Enfranchisement Bill into this House. I am speaking solely from my unsupported recollection but I think an Instruction was moved or attempted to be moved enlarging the basis of the Franchise. I think the Bill was coached as a Bill for the enfranchisement of European women, and I think an amendment was moved extending its scope to non-European women.

That was relevant.

It is very difficult to understand how it can be said that the instruction that deposits must be invested in a certain way is irrelevant to the general purpose of this Bill, which is to create a Savings Bank department.

And a housing scheme.

If hon. members look at the Order Paper they will notice on page 150 an amendment to be proposed by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance proposes to set up an entirely new clause dealing with the investment of deposits. I don’t want to go into the merits of that, but I want to point out that he apparently did not consider the Bill as drafted sufficient to deal with the question of investment of deposits, and he proposes to move that a certain percentage of the deposits be invested in one way, and another percentage in another way.

That does not alter the Bill.

I fail to see any difference in the relevance between the proposals made by the Minister of Finance in this clause which he has put down, and that of my hon. friend’s proposal. I am not going to discuss my hon. friend’s proposal on its merits. I shall vote against his proposal on its merits, but I am anxious that if possible this discussion should not be prohibited by a ruling which may be given by you. I am not sure, and, looking at this ruling which was given by you—looking at it for the first time now—whether this ruling of yours related to the moving of an instruction or whether it related to a ruling given by Mr. Chairman.

Yes, it related to a ruling by Mr. Chairman.

If it is related to a ruling given by Mr. Chairman when the House was in Committee, that is one thing. We are not dealing with that. We are now dealing with an instruction to extend the scope of this Bill. It has always been understood that if a Bill, as read a second time, is not wide enough in its scope, then the House can by an instruction widen that scope, provided it is not totally irrelevant to the original concept of the Bill. How it can be argued that the instruction that a deposit shall be invested in a certain way is irrelevant to the Bill is something I cannot understand.

Can the hon. member tell me this? Will the Council be able to proceed with the housing scheme if this instruction is embodied in the Bill?

I submit, Sir, that you are not concerned with the practical effect of the motion, nor with the motive of the hon. gentleman who moved it. His motives have been attacked, and I leave him to defend himself. I take it that the motion must be read on its merits. To take this case that I mention to you, where an instruction was moved to enfranchise non-European women, it is conceivable that the member who moved it may have intended to destroy the Bill, but I do not think the Chair takes notice of the intention or the motive of the member. You put a question to me, which, quite frankly, I have not had an opportunity of considering, namely, whether, if moved, it would have the effect of rendering the proposals nugatory, that is to say, whether, if carried into this Bill, the Durban Corporation can carry on with the scheme.

It cannot.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) says that if this were passed, the Durban Corporation cannot go on. I began by saying that I would vote against this, and I do not think that we should accept it. I have only to read it to see that if that were passed, the scheme would be dead. I have voted for this scheme all along, and I will still vote for it, and I will vote against this instruction, but I am anxious that you will appreciate my view, speaking as one of the senior private members of this House, that in his zeal to defend this Bill, the hon. member for Brakpan will not lead this House into too close a restriction upon the rights of private members.

I find myself in considerable difficulties in replying to this exception which is being taken by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). I am more used to growing mealies than I am to chopping logic with skilled lawyers, but I shall do my best. Your decision was alluded to at great length by the hon. member for Brakpan. I may say that he built his whole case on the ruling which you gave on this Iron and Steel Bill.

You will find the quotation in that ruling.

But in this particular case, the Chairman was in Committee at the time, and an amendment was moved in Committee. He ruled that it was irrelevant, that he could not move in Committee, and your ruling was asked on that very question. Now your ruling at that time was given only as to the relevancy of a certain amendment sought to be moved when Mr. Chairman was in the Chair. My hon. friend has tried to twist that; he attempts to make it applicable to an instruction that you are asked to give your ruling on. That is an instruction which is provided for under our rules. You only ruled that that amendment could not be moved in Committee. Now, I ask myself as an individual who has no knowledge of law, how a decision given on validity of an amendment in Committee can be quoted as a precedent against the moving of an instruction at this stage of the proceedings. I ask you, Sir, to consider that point very carefully. I would not like to say that my hon. friend is trying to score a point off me, but he does go a long way when he quotes a case against me in this House, and asks for your ruling on it under such circumstances as this, without giving me any previous notice of what he intended to do, and bases his whole argument on an entirely different set of circumstances. The hon. member quotes against me Clause 165 of our Standing Orders, which perhaps you will allow me to read. This clause reads as follows—

Now this visualises that at this stage one is perfectly entitled to move an instruction which one might not be able to move in Committee, but is pertinent to the title and the preamble of the Bill.

Will the hon. member tell me whether, if this instruction were given effect to in the Act, if it is passed, whether the municipality would be able to proceed with its housing scheme.

The point is, do you want me to explain whether they would wish to proceed with this Bill, or whether they would be able to proceed with this Bill.

One of the principles of the Bill is that there shall be established a housing scheme. Can a housing scheme be proceeded with if the instruction is given effect to in the Act as eventually passed, until after the war?

I will be very glad to deal with it.

Yes or no?

I was tempted to ask that hon. member a certain question, but I won’t. I think I will now. I was tempted to ask the hon. member whether he stopped beating his mother-in-law, yes or no?

I have not got a mother-in-law.

Let me quote the title of the Bill. It says—

The preamble goes on to state—

I won’t go further than that, but I will submit that the amendment, the instruction, which I asked the House to pass, does not in any way stultify either the preamble or the title. Now let me go on with the peamble itself.

Don’t waste time.

I looked at the clock, and the hon. member for Brakpan wasted exactly half an hour.

No, he did not; you are wasting it.

I do not object at all to these little interjections.

Why do you not answer the question Mr. Speaker put to you?

I am answering you, sir, but I am not answering back-benchers. Possibly after as long a Parliamentary experience as I have had, these hon. gentlemen will learn that back-benchers are usually ignored. Let me take Clause 6 of the Bill.

Where are you going to take it?

Clause 6 of the Bill reads as follows—

It can keep the whole amount. There is no compulsion under that clause to proceed with any housing scheme. It can retain the whole amount. It is so distinct—

Then we come to Clause 7, which reads as follows—

It can here stultify its own scheme.

[Inaudible],

I think we heard the hon. member for Brakpan with courtesy, but courtesy does not seem to be the strong suit of the hon. member who keeps interjecting here. He only forces me again to read the whole clause—

The whole matter is so clear. The Council can invest the whole of its money, if it so chooses, into any fund. That is to say, that it can under this Bill itself stultify—to use a word my hon. friend is so fond of—it can stultify the scheme by investing the whole of its money into the fund.

Only into a sinking fund.

The section says—

Surely, Government loans are definitely securities in which the Council can invest. It says—

What is the point you are trying to prove?

I shall never try to prove any point to the hon. member as his intelligence will never appreciate it. I do submit that this section gives the Council the full right to invest the whole of its monies into any securities in which the Council is authorised to invest. With this instruction, they can do what I suggest, but I am suggesting that the Council shall invest in a manner that would tend to increase the efficiency of our war effort today, and I maintain that the Council is entitled to do it even without my instruction.

Why bother about the instruction then?

Because the Council may not do what they are entitled to do. At the very best, it is not stultifying this housing scheme; it is only postponing it for a certain period. You would be quite right, Sir, in ruling me out of order if I attempted to rule out the housing scheme altogether, but I am not doing that. I am only postponing the housing scheme for a definite period. My last point is the question of motive. My hon. friend raises the question of motive, that this is a definite attempt on my part to stultify the decision of this House; that it is a deliberate attempt to stultify the decision of this House. Sir, I think that is a charge which the hon. member has no right to make. It is not correct, it is not true. Can any man at this stage of the world’s history, at this stage of upheaval in the world, when I merely ask that they should invest their money in furthance of the war effort, accuse me of trying to stultify the decision of the House? I do submit that this is an instruction which slightly widens the scope of the Bill possibly, but it is one which I am entitled at this juncture to put before this House for its decision, and I submit that the ruling on which the hon. member for Brakpan relies is not pertinent to the question, that it relates to an entirely different set of circumstances.

I do not want to discuss at this stage the merits of the motion itself, but merely the question raised by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). I would like to put it to you that the purpose of his instruction is of a twofold nature, the one is fixing the period of the deposits made for a limited period—it may be long or it may be short—the second is the form of investment in which they are placed. If you look at the preamble, there are certain specific rules and ideas outlined. There is, for example, the period for which such deposit may be received, the conditions of repayment thereof, the retention in liquid form of a certain percentage of the total amount invested, the forms of security in which the funds shall be invested or may be invested. That then, is the general idea which is given, and it is followed then by details how these general ideas are to be applied. If you look at Sections 6 and 7 you will find how the ideas in regard to the modes of investment vary, but there are three words in Section 7 which seem to the to be of vital importance. In line 14 you will find this—

In other words, the amounts which are not invested under Clause 6 can all be placed with a minimum which is laid down—in subarticles (a) and (b) of Clause 7 these are laid down. In other words, may I put it to you this way, that according to the circumstances which prevail at the time, the Council of Durban may consider that it is desirable to have 30 per cent., 50 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the amounts deposited by them in some form of liquid security. The form of liquid security could not be better than in the form of Government stock. The Council, acting within the powers vested in that body, may invest 90 per cent. of the deposits into Government stock. It is not in conflict with the section because the percentages laid down here are minimum percentages, which can be varied from time to time. It was stated at 40 per cent. in the first instance, you will remember. It was fixed at 20 per cent. by the Select Committe and it is now proposed by the Minister of Finance to make it 25 per cent. Opinions vary on that. It is a minimum figure. The ultimate decision rests with the Council, and I say there is no reason, in the first instance, why an instruction should not, be able to determine the period and the percentage of the money which shall be invested in Government securities for a fixed period. My point is this—and this is a matter of thought which is uppermost in your mind—is it going to stultify the intention and the purpose of the Bill by having no money available for housing? My answer to that is that there is no percentage laid down here, as I read it, which shall be applied to housing, and it will depend entirely on the exigencies of the moment how much is going to be allocated to housing, and that is going to vary from time to time. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not discussing the merits of the instruction. I am merely taking the principle which has been put to you, and that is whether it is in conflict with the principle laid down in the Bill and whether it might stultify the Bill. I submit that it cannot because there is no minimum amount fixed here for housing.

I feel myself compelled to support the instruction which has been moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), and may I at the outset come to the questions which you have put to one or two of the hon. members, and that is: Can the Municipality proceed with a housing scheme if this instruction is given effect to? Well, Sir, apart from the merits of the case as to whether the Committee should rescind this instruction at your hands or not, I think we are at the present moment concerned with the realities of the situation. The Minister of Finance is continually talking inside this House and outside about the inflation which is likely to take place in South Africa if certain remedies are not given effect to. I say that it is the duty of this House to assist the Minister of Finance in any possible way ….

The hon. member should argue on the point which has been raised and not on the merits.

I am coming to that Sir, but I want to remove certain amounts of money at present in circulation and in that way help the Minister of Finance to prevent inflation by investing this money in the right channels. At the present moment you will appreciate that all building materials have been frozen.

That has nothing to do with the point raised.

No, Sir, but I do submit that you are concerned directly with giving effect to a Bill that may pass through this House. Now if the City Council is given certain powers, but they are unable to exercise those powers through matters over which they have no control, I submit that where they ….

I am afraid that argument does not affect the matter before the House.

I submit that the hon. member for East Griqualand possibly had in mind the great difficulties of putting into effect a scheme as envisaged in this Bill. It is only a matter of a few days ago that the City Council in Durban was greatly troubled in getting certain building materials ….

The hon. member should confine himself to the question of procedure and not go into the merits.

I think the House will admit that although the City Council may agree, they will not be able to exercise this right owing to circumstances over which they have no control. If it is a question of certain amounts of money that is going to be collected, on electric light bills, water bills, and so on, to accumulate as deposits, then I say that it will be possible for the City Council to utilise any amount of the money subscribed as deposits or loans, and they can utilise that amount of money even up to 95 per cent. as the Bill stands at the present time, for whatever purpose they desire. Now this instruction of the hon. member for East Griqualand merely seeks to instruct the City Council what they shall do with these funds, and as we are passing through very serious times indeed, it is very difficult indeed to allocate these funds in consonance with the desire of the Bill, as it is at the present moment. I would suggest that the people of Durban, the City Council, would welcome an instruction of this nature, to enable them to utilise these funds. The City Council of Durban has always played its part and has always been very concerned about the war.

I am afraid the hon. member is quite irrelevant.

The City Council must use their funds in a certain patriotic manner, and that is to invest the money into a fund ….

Will the hon. member confine himself to the question whether this instruction is in conflict with the Bill as read a second time or not.

Yes, Sir. That of course is the most relevant matter before us. Of course, I do not pretend to be an expert on Building Society matters, and I can only read the preamble of the Bill as I see it before me. Perhaps some other hon. gentleman will be able to show me my simplicity, and point out to me where this instruction is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) spent the best part of half an hour in attempting to show us that an instruction of this nature is in direct conflict with the Bill. Personally I cannot see that there is any great harm in saying to the Durban City Council: “Durban, you are having great difficulty; you will have great difficulty and we submit that this is a matter which the whole of Durban would like to see shelved until after the war.” I have no instruction to support this Bill or otherwise. That, of course, is beside the point, but I feel that as effect cannot be given to the wishes contained in this Bill, we have to endeavour to assist the promoters to, as it were, make it a Bill that can be utilised at the present moment in a practical way. That is my difficulty. I am unable to agree with the Minister of Finance who moved all these amendments to the Bill, which is of course beside the point.

Perhaps the hon. member will keep to the point.

Yes, Sir. I say that the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) himself is in great difficulties. This instruction will assist the hon. member out of a very great difficulty. It is laid down in the Bill that our City Council will be able to utilise 95 per cent. of this money. The instruction is merely assisting the promoter of the Bill to put the surplus amount of the money into a channel in which I am sure the majority of the members of the House would like to see it. It would make some contribution to the war effort, and Durban has always been in the front line when anything of that nature is under consideration. I do hope that you will be able to give your ruling on this matter, and that you will be able to decide that it is not in actual conflict with the principle of the Bill as we understand it at the present moment.

Misunderstand it.

May I submit to you, when the Minister of Finance has moved all these amendments, will the Bill still be recognisable? What will the Bill be like when the Minister of Finance has finished with it?

I am afraid that has nothing to do with the question before the House.

No, sir, but I do submit that we have a Bill of a particular type before us at the present moment, and when you give us your decision, if I may say so respectfully, you should endeavour to visualise what sort of Bill this will be when the Minister of Finance has moved all his amendments. We may say, and you may find, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. You may be justified in assuming, and in giving the decision, that the Bill is quite a different Bill when the Minister of Finance has finished with it and has inserted all his amendments into it; I feel that it is the wish of the majority of the members of this House that you would be voicing the opinion of the people outside if you were to say words to this effect: That the instruction moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand is an honourable one, that the Committee will be taking the right course in adopting it, and that as things are at the present moment, if it cannot give effect to the Bill, we will do the next best thing and take this money that is flowing about in Durban and put it into the war.

May I submit for your consideration that this instruction will not affect the passage of this Bill in the slightest degree, or the principle ’of it. The House may proceed with this Bill in all its stages and the effect of this instruction will simply be that certain housing schemes must be held over for the period of the war. It does not interfere with the principle of the Bill, nor will it interfere with the passage of the Bill.

The advocates of the validity of this contingency motion have so far evaded the very pertinent question which you put to them from the Chair, and as a Durban member and as a member who has been very interested in this Bill and who was originally chosen, as a matter of fact, to introduce the Bill into the House, I can state quite definitely that it is my opinion that if this instruction were accepted and incorporated in the Bill, then it would not only result in the municipality not setting up a housing scheme, but it would be impossible for them to do so. Of the two principles which are enshrined in the Bill (1) the setting up of a savings department and (2) the setting up of a housing scheme, from the point of view of the City Council of Durban, a housing scheme is by far the most important. They are actually indivisible, but the idea of a bank only emanated in the mind of the City Council because of the necessity of getting a housing scheme, so the housing scheme is the crux of this particular Bill. There was a suggestion at one time that the title of the Bill might be changed and that the term “municipal bank” might be left out; so concerned was the Council about the housing scheme. But I want to submit that not only will the acceptance of this instruction completely stultify any idea of setting up a housing scheme, but in a very large measure indeed it would also stultify the setting up of a municipal savings bank, because the suggestion is here that the Durban City Council should institute a savings bank and borrow money from the public and invest that money into the war. The public have got all the opportunity in the world to invest their money in the war, so if this provision were put in it would be impossible to put up a municipal savings bank, because there would not be enough people to contribute. I can say with all due authority, as speaking for the Durban City Councillors who have for years tried to bring this Bill into fruition, that if the instruction of the hon. member for East Griqualand were agreed to, the Durban Municipal Council would make no effort whatsoever to set up either a municipal bank or a housing scheme.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) said that of the two sections of this Bill, i.e. the section creating the savings bank and the section dealing with housing, the section dealing with housing is by far the more important of the two. Well, I ask the House how—in the manner this Bill is framed—how in terms of Clause 7—the hon. member for Umbilo can make such a statement. Clause 7 does not place any obligation whatsoever upon the Council of Durban to invest one penny in housing, and it is for that reason that I have tabled an amendment to the effect that they cannot invest more than 30 per cent. in a liquid security. I have left the 5 per cent. untouched, because no responsible body would keep all its money in liquid cash, when they are faced with paying interest to investors. So I do not see how one can attach such a great deal of importance, particularly at this juncture, to the specific aspect of housing, and that is the question, Sir, you put to the hon. member for East Griqualand. It is also doubtful whether the City Council will be able to do any housing schemes from a practical point of view.

That is not correct.

My hon. friend says that that is not correct, but when you start to build, you know what the difficulties are. Apart from the specific legal aspect of the case, it is highly doubtful what Durban will be able to do in the way of housing until the war is over, and this instruction of the hon. member for East Griqualand will only be effective during the period of the war and not after the war. Then we come to the amendment which the hon. Minister of Finance ….

The hon. member cannot deal with the amendment of the Minister of Finance. We are merely dealing now with the instruction which is before the House.

I am merely dealing with your question to the hon. member for East Griqualand and I just want to show a further point, which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) did not show when he spoke. The Minister says that the Durban City Council may invest its money also in loans to depositors upon the security of their deposits, and he does not propose here to make it obligatory upon the Council to invest any money at all in housing. And then we come to the original Bill which was presented to this House. We find that the Durban Corporation, in framing the Bill, supported the provision that not more than 25 per cent. of the deposits would go to housing.

That was done to please fellows like you.

It was not done to please people like me. I personally am always pleased to see housing schemes.

May, 11th ed. p 480, after stating the rules which govern instructions to Committees of the Whole House on Bills, states that “no instruction is permissible which is irrelevant, foreign or contradictory to the contents of the Bill, or that seeks the subversion thereof, by substituting another scheme for the mode of operation therein prescribed.”

The main object of the Bill as agreed to at the Second Reading was to empower the Durban Council to establish, maintain and conduct a savings department and a housing section thereof and to confer upon it certain powers incidental thereto. It is obvious that the intention was to finance a housing scheme out of deposits in the savings department. The instruction proposes to compel the Council to invest all deposits in a certain way for the duration of the war. If that were given effect to it would prevent the Council from proceeding with the housing scheme and that would be contradictory to the contents of the Bill as adopted at the Second Reading.

The instruction in its present form must therefore be ruled out of order.

I move—

Shall I be in order at this juncture in moving that we report progress and ask for leave to sit again? My reason for doing so is this. We had a Bill introduced last year which was essentially a measure to establish a savings bank, and that Bill went to a Select Committee and emerged in a form which we had before us at the beginning of last Session. Only yesterday thirty-one more amendments appeared on the Order Paper—a large number of which were by the Minister of Finance.

Including some of your own.

Yes, I admit that, but the Minister’s were very pertinent amendments indeed.

Are you sure of that?

Well, perhaps the hon. member would like to call them impertinent, but still these amendments are so drastic and wide in their implications that they no longer adumbrate a savings bank only. Anyhow, we have not had time to give these amendments the study which is necessary. As I say, we only had them on the Order Paper yesterday morning. The House sat from 11 o’clock yesterday right through to dinner time; there was no opportunity of studying the amendments, and I do submit in deference to many hon. members who are anxious to make this a good Bill that we should have time to study these amendments. And it seems only decent that we should postpone the Committee stage of this Bill for a fortnight. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to see for yourself the difficulty in which we find ourselves. Look at Clause 2. The Minister has amendments there to delete certain words and substitute others, to delete other words and substitute other words again, and so on. These amendments are not straightforward amendments, the implications of which we understand. They involve deleting a word here and there and substituting others. We don’t know what they mean; we must have time to study them, and it becomes perfectly impossible for us to keep pace with what the effect of these amendments is going to be. I have no doubt that the mover of this Bill will see eye to eye with me. This is not the Bill which went to the Select Committee. This is an entirely different Bill and it seems to me that if we are to do justice to this measure it should go back to the Select Committee and be properly gone into and considered in a calm and quiet atmosphere. Let us get back a Bill which has some resemblance to the measure which was originally introduced. I feel that the City Council of Durban will not be satisfied with a Bill of this kind. They ask for a Savings Bank Bill but now they are going to get a Building Societies Bill, so I hope the hon. member who has introduced this Bill will agree to report progress and give us an opportunity to give reasonable consideration to these amendments. Rush legislation like this can never be good legislation. To rush a Bill through which not ten members understand is bad.

I don’t think you understand it yourself.

We are here to do our best in the interest of the country and that is why I am adopting the attitude I have done. I move—

I cannot accept this amendment by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). Let me point out to him that while he has made a point with reference to the amendments to be moved by the Minister of Finance, I might put it to him that he and the other opponents of the Bill have also placed on the Order Paper in the last few days some thirty amendments, eleven of which appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday. In so far as the Minister’s amendments are concerned, I think I can say—and I studied them until 11 o’clock last night—that 75 per cent. of what is provided in those amendments already appeared on the Order Paper twelve months ago. And I would just add this new point. The hon. member is most anxious, in view of the new complexion given to the Bill by the Minister’s amendment, that the matter should be referred to the Select Committee. I find it hard to believe coming from the hon. member for Griqualand, because he has shown here in regard to this Bill that he does not share the opinion of the Select Committee, so I am sure that if it were referred to a Select Committee it would make very little difference to the hon. member. So I hope the House will not accept the hon. member’s proposal.

I want to support the motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again. The hon. member in charge of this Bill has told us that he was up till 11 o’clock last night. Well, well—all respectable members of Parliament should be in bed by 10 o’clock and not later. But if a member who has introduced a Bill, who knows all about the Bill, has to be up till midnight in order to study the meaning of amendments, what then must we poor members who are not so well versed with the details of the Bill do in order to acquaint ourselves with the meaning of every amendment. We may have to sit up all night. In all those circumstances I fell sure you will agree with us, Mr. Chairman, that the Bill should stand over for at least another month. Knowing the hon. member for Point (Dr. Shearer) as I do, I am sure that although he has been up till midnight he knows very little, if anything, about this Bill. He has kept particularly silent on this matter. I have not yet been able to find out why this sweet baby was handed over by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) to the hon. member for Point. But in spite of the fact that these two hon. members have nursed this little child, they know very little about it. They have to sit up till midnight trying to digest simple amendments by the Minister of Finance. Now the Minister of Finance is a very busy man—he is so busy that he even finds it impossible to be here this afternoon. Had he been less busy he would have been here to support his amendment. Really, I suggest that the Minister of Finance should be in charge of this Bill, and in the circumstances I feel that we are not justified in proceeding with this measure in his absence. I am sure that he as the Deputy Prime Minister would resent our going on with the Bill when he cannot be here. These amendments have been on the Order Paper for such a short time that hon. members have not had the opportunity of reading them. Hon. members have not much time to consider a petty foggying measure like this—a measure which is not wanted by anyone. Durban, of course, has voiced her opinion. No one is interested in the Bill beyond a few people who see great opportunities through this measure. I think I can safely say that not one single member has had the opportunity of studying the amendment. Nobody knows what they mean. Nobody has even read them, so I am going to ask the indulgence of the House and your permission to save members the trouble of going right through the amendments, and I propose reading just a few of them.

I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on these lines. He must come back to the question before the Committee.

Well, then I shall have to be satisfied to endeavour to get the mover of this Bill to give us the assurance that he will give us some guidance as to the real intentions of the various clauses and the amendments. In view of the important work on the Order paper, in view of the state of the country at the present moment with so much industrial trouble brewing, and the international situation being what it is, I sincerely hope that the mover of the Bill will reconsider his position.

I feel that the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) is quite right in moving that progress be reported and leave be granted to sit again. The mover of this Bill says that yesterday amendments were put on the Order Paper by what he calls the obstruction team or words to that effect.

I did not say that.

I have studied these amendments and I think the amendments which they have tabled are almost entirely the same amendments as those which appeared on the Order Paper at the end of last year. I asked the Minister what amendments he was going to move. We would have liked to have seen them because we understand that they were going to be far-reaching. The Minister then told me that his amendment would be put on the Order Paper only yesterday. Although the Minister tabled a large number of amendments last year he has changed them this year in a far-reaching way. Last year the Minister framed his amendments based on the Banking Bill; this year he has eliminated the Banking Bill, he has reconstituted his amendments, and based them on the Building Societies Bill. Further, I understand that the Building Societies Bill is to undergo some major amendments.

How do you know?

That is what I have been given to understand. The Minister proposes to negative a large number of clauses, which happen to be the principal clauses. He proposes to negative Clauses 6 and 7 and to substitute new clauses, and the same with a number of other clauses. So I submit that by the time we shall have had time to consider the Minister’s amendments we shall be looking at an entirely new Bill. The hon. member for Point (Dr. Shearer) may have been sitting up till 11 o’clock last night. He must have had a very busy time. We have other matters to attend to, The House sat until after 7 o’clock last night and this morning some were on Select Committees at 9.15 a.m. So I submit that it is a very reasonable request that progress should be reported. Amendments of this kind cannot be considered without reference to the Building Societies Act, and I want to say that some of the Minister’s amendments also require improvement. I myself have some amendments to propose to certain of his clauses, but I must admit that I have not been able to get further than the first few clauses. Therefore I submit that progress should be reported.

I do not think that the speeches of the last two hon. members call for any reply. You cannot reply when nothing is said, but the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) did say something, though not anything of great value. He reminded me of a speech of an old headmaster of mine, who was not as old as I wished he was—in the process of handing out to me a most amazing hiding he added insult to injury by telling me that it hurt him more than it hurt me. The same system was being worked by the hon. member for Griqualand when he said that the various obstructive speeches were in the interest of making this a really good Bill. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is really trying to make this into a really good Bill, or whether he is trying to make it into no Bill at all.

Mr. Chairman, if the motion to report progress is not accepted, I have an amendment which is an important one. The idea of the Bill is to help the small man, and I would like to see a provision that where there is more than one application for money, not only the smaller amount should receive consideration but preference should be given to the applicant who has an income of less than £500 over those applicants whose income is in excess of that amount. If this motion is not accepted by the House, I would like to know whether the promoter of the Bill and the hon. Minister will consider a proposed amendment in these terms which I will submit before the report stage of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the contribution to this debate made by the hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman). He asked whether the members of the House who have been opposed to this Bill wish really to improve the Bill, or to prevent it from being a Bill at all. I would like to ask, sir, to which Bill the hon. member refers, because the people of Durban have never seen this Bill and know nothing whatever about it, or the changes which have taken place since the second reading. I was astounded, and I think the people of Durban will be astounded, when they see this Bill. As far as I can see, the powers given to the Durban Corporation in regard to housing under this Bill will be subject to the supervision of the Registrar of Building Societies, and I would like to know whether the Corporation will accept or carry out the work under the supervision of a bureaucrat. That will place Durban under the control of an official in Pretoria. I would like to ask the hon. member for Durban, North, whether the primary object of this Bill was to help the poor people of Durban, and why we who represent Durban were never consulted in connection with it; why our views on the subject have never been solicited. Speaking as a member representing Durban, I wish to say that I heartily support the suggestion that progress be reported, because I feel we ought to consider these amendments more fully.

Mr. Chairman, I think the House only now realises how very dense hon. members are who are sitting on those benches.

Order, order! That is a reflection on hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, it is not intended as a reflection, but merely as a statement of fact.

Order, order!

I will qualify that by saying apparently dense. Those hon. members have admitted that they have not been able to grasp what is contained in these amendments. One after the other they have said that they require additional time, and that they could not possibly, in twenty-four hours, realise what the amendment actually is. I am sure if their constituents only realised how difficult it is for these gentlemen to follow the proceedings of the House, they will not be returned again. In that event, Mr. Chairman, I think very few of those hon. members will grace those benches after the next election.

What about yourself?

The hon. gentleman is concerned about my own position. I am afraid I will be here to keep company with a very few hon. gentlemen on the other side who will be here. In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is any reason for the request of hon. members to report progress. I think they have had ample opportunity to study these amendments, and they do not require any additional time at all. I think it is very clear that the real purpose which underlies their action is, I will not say deliberate obstruction, because you, sir, would say that I am out of order.

Yes, the hon. member would be out of order in using that expression.

Yes, sir. That is why I have not said it. I think in the attempt to obstruct this Bill, the hon. gentleman must have some ulterior motive.

Order! Order! the hon. member must not impute ulterior motives to hon. members.

I will withdraw it and say that these hon. gentlemen probably have some other purpose in view in attempting to delay the passage of this Bill. The hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Hooper) stated that the people of Durban did not want the Bill. He was not concerned at all about the amendments on the Order Paper, those amendments which he has not had sufficient time to study. He said that the people of Durban do not want the Bill; in other words, those interests which the hon. gentleman represents, do not want the Bill, and that is why they are making use of all possible tactics to delay the passage of the Bill.

On a point of order, sir, it is not within my recollection that I said, that; I said Durban knew nothing about the Bill.

That is not a point of order.

The hon. gentleman said that the people of Durban knew nothing about the Bill. You, sir, called me to order when I accused those hon. gentlemen of density. I do not think you will call me to order if I accuse the people of Durban of precisely the same thing, if after this Bill has been before the House for twelve months they know nothing about it. The Bill is designed in the interests of Durban, and I trust the House will not accept the motion, but will consider these amendments which are very important, and designed to improve the Bill. I hope that the House will now get on with the work.

I am trying to find out why the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) suddenly took it upon himself to intervene in this discussion. He certainly did not contribute very much to the gaiety of nations, or the wisdom of the House. He started off by calling everybody to order, and saying that we were extremely dense on this side of the House, and things of that sort. We have not had time to study this Bill, and let me point out that the reason why we have had no time to consider these amendments is that yesterday the House was discussing one of the most vital questions ever put before it. A debate of the greatest possible importance not only to the whole of Africa but the whole world, was taking place, and most of us were engaged in listening to the speeches made on both sides of the House. We were far too much occupied in attending to the affairs of the universe to study these amendments, which were only put on the Order Paper at the eleventh hour. It seems to me impossible to imagine that members of Parliament, when the affairs of the world are at stake, should spend their time attending to a trifling matter of this sort. Mr. Chairman, let us look at this Bill, when it is now suggested we should pass. It reminds me of a crippled man who had been standing up to fight Joe Lewis. It is so covered with patches and bandages that it is impossible to recognise it as a Bill which originally went before the Select Committee, and surely it is quite a reasonable suggestion to make that it should be taken out and doctored up a little bit, and given time to recover a little bit before this House takes it into consideration. It reminds me of the man who kept on going into the door of the House, and when he got in he was kicked out. Nothing daunted he went in again, and was kicked out again, and after he had been kicked out the third time, he said “Now I understand what is the matter; they don’t want me inside that house.” It seems to me that this Bill, as at present constituted is very much in the same position. It is suggested that we do not want this Bill, but we do want a Bill that we can understand and recognise. No one could recognise this Bill as it is now before the Committee as the Bill that originally passed the Select Committee. I say it is wrong to allow a Bill to be doctored and tinkered about, and then put before us to be passed without any further consideration. It is not a very great thing we are asking, we are merely asking to report progress and ask leave to sit again. In the meantime, let us see whether we cannot get this Bill into some sort of shape and make it look like a Bill, instead of like a patchwork quilt.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept the motion at the present stage as new arguments are still being advanced.

I do really protest against these attempts to push the Bill through Committee. This Bill should never be called the Durban Savings Bank Bill, but the Durban Building Society Amendment Bill. The Minister has suggested that the Bill is quite in order, but I want to be absolutely sure that he is not altering the principle of the Bill in these amendments. I want to seriously challenge him to show that he is not altering the principle of the Bill as it passed the second reading. For that reason alone, and to give him an opportunity to study these amendments, I do hope that he will agree to report progress.

Mr. Chairman, I want to approach the subject from an entirely different angle. It may not be known to the members of the House that the Durban Municipality is facing a financial crisis. The House is asked to adjudicate on a measure which is going to apply to the City of Durban only, and they know very little, if anything, about the finance of Durban. I would like to tell them one or two facts which hon. members are not aware of. A short while ago there was a revaluation made of the city which had the effect of increasing rates on some properties by 100 per cent. That was just before the war. The application of this revaluation came into force in 1939. Owing to the neglect of the Government in not meeting its contributions towards the war expenditure that Durban had to meet, the municipality had to find an additional sum of £500,000.

Order. I am afraid the hon. member is not in order. That is not relevant to the motion.

Sir, I am working up to my point. I said I wanted to approach this from a different angle, because I want to show the necessity for the adjournment of the debate, and I want to apprise the members of this House of the financial situation in Durban. I have here a statement made by the City Treasurer which has a very strong bearing on this point, and I think the members ought to know about it before they decide what they are going to do about this Bill. This is a report from the City Treasurer which appeared in the “Natal Mercury” on February 1st, 1943. The headline is “Increasing rates and valuation of land.”

Is the hon. member in order in discussing the financial position of Durban?

I would ask the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) what connection that has with the question before the Committee.

I know Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot discuss the amendment of the hon. member for East Griqualand, but at that time Mr. Speaker was not aware of the disclosures that I am making.

The hon. member must not question Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

Durban, sir, is a very patriotic city.

What has that got to do with the motion before the Committee?

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—39:

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, G.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Goldberg, A.

Grobler, J. H.

Hayward, G. N.

Higgerty, J. W

Hofmeyr, J. H

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Quinlan, S. C.

Schoeman, B. J.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Van der Merwe, H.

Verster, J. D. H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: C. F. Miles-Cadman and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—13:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Bell, R. E.

Booysen, W. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Deane, W. A

Henderson, R. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Neate, C.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and L. D. Gilson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again was put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—15:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Bell, R. E.

Christopher, R. M.

Deane, W. A.

Friedlander, A.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Tothill, H. A.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and L. D. Gilson.

Noes—38:

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, G.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Schoeman, B. J.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, H. C.

Van dei-Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

I have an amendment which is printed on the Order Paper on page 149 which I now move. I think the purpose of this amendment will be quite clear to hon. members. It is simply a matter of drafting. I propose in subsequent cases to refer to the “Department,” and I think it is necessary to put in this at the end of the clause. I move—

I want to move an amendment to Clause 1, as follows:

On a point of order, is that amendment in order in view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling previously today?

The hon. member has not yet explained his amendment.

The reason for my amendment is the tenor of the amendments moved by the hon. Minister of Finance, which convert this Bill from a Savings Bank Bill into a Building Societies Bill, subject to the Buildings Societies Act. The term “Savings Department” is a misnomer, and to make the position perfectly clear I should like to have this department described by its proper designation in Clause 1 and throughout the Bill, and for that reason I move that the word “Department” be omitted and “Building Society”, inserted. I also desire all words after “thereon” omitted as the clause will be unintelligible without that amendment and it will be for the ingenuity of the hon. member in charge of the Bill, together with the Minister of Finance, to so draw the subsequent amendments that they will be in consonance with the idea of this being a Building Society under the City Council of Durban.

I would like to say a word on this point of order, if I may. I do think an analogy can fairly be drawn by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) between this amendment which is moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) and the one which I moved this morning, and which was the subject of an appeal to Mr. Speaker’s ruling. As I understood the gist of the objection which was taken by the hon. member for Brakpan, and the ruling given by Mr. Speaker, it was that it was altering the contents, first, of the preamble, and then the contents of the Bill. And it was on these grounds that Mr. Speaker gave his ruling. I contend that it is a very debatable point as to how you describe the Bill now. The alteration moved by the hon. member for South Coast and objected to by the hon. member for Brakpan does not in the slightest degree alter the contents of the Bill, and I think one might describe it as a very debatable point whether it is not now more of a Building Society that we are setting up than a Savings Bank. I have no doubt you will agree with me that the money is being borrowed through the medium of the Savings Bank. Now the Minister of Finance has moved these amendments on the lines of a Building Society. Now the whole gist of the objection which was raised by the hon. member for Brakpan and was supported by other speakers, including the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), was that this was in effect a Building Society, that the sole principle of this Bill was that the money should be used for housing purposes. Therefore, bearing in mind the fact that the contention this morning was that the society was a department whose sole object was for building purposes, I do submit that the amendment should not be ruled out of order. When you come to describe the long title, or the short title, the question does arise, but in view of the amendment which will probably come later, to amend the titles, I do submit that it should be allowed to stand at this stage. I cannot see that it alters the contents of the Bill or that it interferes with the object of the Bill in any shape or form whatsoever.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has suggested to you that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate), in view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling this morning, tends to alter the principle of the Bill. The Speaker this morning asked certain members of the House whether an instruction to the Committee, as proposed by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), if given effect to, would enable the Durban City Council to proceed with a housing scheme. Mr. Speaker rightly gave his ruling that if the instruction, as moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand, had been accepted, the City Council could not proceed with the housing scheme. Well, all that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast set out to do is to give the bank its right name. We are told by various people who have had time to make some sort of study of the amendments of the hon. Minister of Finance, that the amendments of the Minister of Finance convert the Bill from a Savings Bank Bill into a Building Societies Bill. That is true. I feel perfectly certain that it was the intention of the Minister of Finance that this Bill should not go out of the scope of the Building Societies Act, that it should be brought into line with the Building Societies; that has been his chief reason for moving the amendments. I think until we hear from the Minister of Finance—and an opportunity will later present itself to give us his views—we would be quite justified in changing the name. Surely it makes no difference under what name this Bill is known, and I hope that you will rule that what has been suggested to you by the hon. member for Brakpan has nothing to do with the matter whatsoever. If the instruction moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand, this Bill would not have permitted the City Council of Durban to embark on housing schemes.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause before the Committee.

I am endeavouring to prove that the hon. member asked you not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast in view of the Speaker’s ruling this morning …

I am accepting the amendment.

I am sorry, I did not hear that. I thought we were discussing the question whether or not you should accept the amendment. I am glad that you are prepared to accept this amendment, and I feel perfectly certain that on second thoughts the mover in charge of the Bill will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast.

I want to move as an amendment, an amendment to the two amendments aidready moved. I feel that the additional words the Minister proposes to insert are inserted in the wrong place. I do not know whether the hon. Minister has looked at this point, but I would like to ask him to refer to the papers. I was saying that I felt that the words the Minister proposed to insert, were inserted in the wrong place, that they should be inserted in line 29 after the word “Department.” I move as follows—

I feel that the Bill should give this Department a special name. There is no point in trying to explain the matter further; it is self-explanatory. It does give the department a special name by which it can become known in the future. I think that a special name for this department is an important feature in the Bill.

I want to move an amendment to this clause. In fact, I have two amendments but I shall have to move them one at a time. My first amendment reads as follows—

My reason for that is that it seems very probable that a person may embark on purchasing ground and then find that the amount which the department may advance on such proposed buildings and the freehold value of the ground, may not be sufficient for the purposes for which it is required, and it seems to me that in a case like that it should be permissible for the borrower to obtain sufficient funds to finish his building by pledging additional security. I think this is a reasonable request, and I hope that we shall not get these stupid remarks of obstruction. It will be realised that it is in very good faith that I want to put this amendment in the Bill. I can conceive of serious embarrassment being the portion of a man who has borrowed £1,500 to build a house which is going to cost him £1,800. I think it would be perfectly permissible for an extra advance to be made, provided the extra security is forthcoming, and I think it would probably be a very great help in many cases. I think this clause does tie us down a bit too drastically. I think it only allows an advance to be made on the buildings and the freehold value of the ground; but that may prevent or embarrass a man who has embarked on a building operation, very considerably. It might not be very often that people will want to avail themselves of it, but I think it will improve the matter if that provision is inserted. I hope the hon. member in charge of the Bill will accept it, and that it will not be necessary for me to say any more. I commend this to the hon. member in charge of the Bill. It seems to me the Minister is in charge now after all these amendments. But I commend this to whoever is in charge of the Bill.

The only amendment which I have moved is a small one.

I think that there is a great deal of substance in the amendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). You will find on the Order Paper that there is an amendment by the hon. Minister in regard to the deletion of the present Clause 15 and the insertion of a new clause. That will give the very powers which the hon. member seeks to introduce now. The disadvantage, however, is that one does not know whether the amendment will be moved as it appears on the Order Paper, and even if moved, whether it will be accepted.

If I do not move it, you can.

If the amendment of the hon. member is accepted, the two clauses will dovetail into each other, making it clear that they can invest in other securities.

This is a very simple amendment, and I think it does clarify Clause 1, because while Clause 1 enables the department to accept deposits, there is no provision for lending money on any other security than land and buildings, and I see that the Minister at a later stage envisages lending money against the security of deposits; so I think this amendment will meet the position perfectly well.

I hope the hon. member in charge of the Bill will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I can visualise a position of this nature, that a borrower may have a piece of ground. He may want certain loans on it. He may also have a few thousand pounds in War Bonds. He may not be able or may not want to realise on those bonds. He has some assets that are very valuable indeed and he wants to go along to our benevolent City Council and say: “I have a piece of ground and I have assets worth three or four times the money I want to borrow from you.” The City Council, I may say, will take whatever they can get and more, if they can, but they might say: “We cannot accept your giltedged security; you people in Cape Town, in your wisdom, prevented us from exercising our rights in a position such as this which arises now, and although you have assets which are worth much more than the loan you want, we cannot help you.” There may not be many cases of that sort, but in an important matter of this kind I feel that we should have clarity. One will have to be very careful indeed to see that no loopholes whatsoever are left, so that the people in charge of this Bill, who are so anxious to provide houses for the poorer people in Durban—so that we place no obstacles in their way whatsoever. I hope that the promoter of the Bill will see my point. I do not know whether he will, but the Minister of Finance, at any rate, is a clear-headed person and may advise the hon. member, and I hope he will be able to accept that advice.

I hope the hon. member in charge of this Bill will tell the House whether or not he will accept this amendment. I have been supported in this respect by members who have a knowledge of the subject. It has been moved as an amendment which will improve the Bill. I am afraid the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill does not understand the procedure very well. By the time he will have this Bill through the House, he will have a lot more experience, and I hope he will handle the next Bill a little more ably, if I may say so. This is a necessary amendment, a very useful amendment, and the hon. member sits in dignified silence—he sits in silence, I do not know whether it is dignified—and he does not give any indication whether or not he will accept this amendment. However, I do not want to keep the debate too long, because I have another amendment which I have to move on this particular clause. I want to bring back this Bill to the Bill we were so familiar with before, and I give it the same title with which it originally appeared on the scene. No explanation was given to us for the change of name. We were not told why it was necessary to change the original title. This is definitely a savings bank—that is the argument. Here are hon. members who have spoken in support of the Bill, and everyone alludes to it as the Durban Savings Bank Bill, and it is in effect a Durban Savings Bank Bill, and I think it would be more in keeping simply to use the term “Savings Bank” here instead of describing the Bill in its present language. I do not attach as much importance to this amendment as I do to the one I moved previously. This amendment is perhaps just a matter of taste. After all, it is not going to make any very great difference in the working of the Bill. What I am pressing for, however, is the acceptance of the amendment which I moved. I move this further amendment now and I hope that if the hon. member cannot see his way clear to accept that amendment, the good sense of the House, on a division, will insert it in the Bill. We can always trust this House to show good sense when a Bill comes through the House. We can always trust this House to support and accept amendments which tend to the betterment of a Bill, and I hope it will not even be necessary to call for a division, but I shall have to do it if the hon. member does not give us any explantion or any indication whether he considers this amendment will improve his Bill in any way, whether it would in any way advance the interests of those he is so earnestly advocating in this House. A man can advocate in silence as well as in speech, and I think the hon. member does show a real desire to see this Bill in a form which will be useful to everyone who wants to take advantage of its various provisions.

I do not know whether the hon. member has been moved by the eloquence of the hon. member who has just spoken. I think there is one part of his amendment that is really worthy of consideration, and that is where he endeavours to provide for additional security to enable borrowers to obtain higher loans. I think the main purpose of the Bill is to provide housing, and the only reason why the Bill should be generally supported is because it will provide service which cannot be provided by the building societies. Building societies can advance up to 75 per cent. of the purchase price, on their own valuation. This Bill will render service which cannot be given by the building societies, and I feel that if a purchaser can advance collateral security, he should be entitled to the full amount of the loan he seeks. I do not think it will do any harm to insert this in the Bill if the hon. member intends accepting the amendment which is to be moved by the Minister of Finance.

It might be a disadvantage.

If that is the case, then I appeal to the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) to withdraw his amendment. It is not the intention of the Bill to advance money only on collateral security but on mortgage security. I cannot see what purpose can be served by merely changing the name of the Bill. I cannot see that it will make any difference whether it is called a Savings Bank Department or any other name.

May I make the position quite clear, firstly in regard to that amendment, I cannot accept it.

Which one?

The second amendment which was moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I personally do not at this stage attach a tremendous amount of importance to the name; I do not think it makes much difference whether the Bill is called a Building Society or a Savings Department or a Savings Bank.

It must have some name.

The point is that I am more particularly concerned with the provisions of the Bill, and I am accepting the position as put forward by the hon. Minister of Finance. In regard to the other amendment moved by the hon. member for East Griqualand, may I make it clear that it is my intention to accept the amendment moved by the Minister in regard to Clause 15 (4) and the various sub-sections which set out the various types of collateral security which will be accepted by the promoters. In view of the fact that we are going to accept the amendment to be moved by the Minister at a subsequent stage, I do not think it is necessary to push this amendment now.

I do not follow the Minister. The amendment says “or other security.” I understand the last line will read “upon the security of freehold land and buildings and other securities hereinafter referred to.”

Collateral security.

No, not collateral. The Minister is going to move in Clause 6, or he has tabled an amendment, which will provide Tor the conditions upon which money can be lent, and in the last line it says “Loans to depositors on the security of their deposits.” That is not collateral security.

I would like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) regarding the name of this institution. We have a similar case in regard to the South African Mutual Life Assurance Society; nobody describes it by its full title, it is known universally as the “Old Mutual.” I think the suggestion made by the hon. member is more suitable, namely, the Durban Municipal Building Society.

I feel sure it is not clear what is meant by this Clause 1. We hear that the Minister is dealing with it by Clause 15. The hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer), who is in charge of the Bill, evidently does not agree with the Minister, and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) and the Minister appear to be under some misapprehension in connection with this particular clause. That being the case, I think it will be in the interests of the Bill, and I as one who is anxious to get through this Bill as quickly as possible, would like to make sure that there shall be no fundamental mistake, and no one should be under any misapprehension. I think, under the circumstances, as there is so much confusion and misunderstanding, I should like to move—

I am inclined to support that suggestion. We have so many amendments before us that I do really think it would be advantageous to let this clause stand over. We can then decide the name we should adopt. The hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer), has said that he is not worried as to what name to give the baby, but when it is christened I should like to see it emerge with a name that one can be proud of. I do not think that as we have the Minister’s proposal for a name …

I have made no proposal about a name. I am sticking to the present name.

We have got the Minister’s “Savings Department”; I am proposing “Savings Bank”; another member wants “Building Society” and a fourth amendment by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) is to give it a different name. In a cooler atmosphere we shall have a chance to bring this clause into a form acceptable to everybody. I like the term “Savings Bank Department”. There is a rhythm about it. If you go to the Post Office you go to the Savings Bank Department, not to the Savings Bank.

I move—

I second.

I merely wish to make a request to the Minister of Finance. He is asking for leave to introduce a Bill in which he is asking for an amount of £35,000,000 on account. This is £10,000,000 more than last year. I do not believe that the country’s administration is costing more. If more money is required it is probably due to the fact that the tempo of the Defence expenditure has been accelerated. Before we can vote this amount on account I think the Minister should realise that it is advisable to give the House the opportunity of discussing the malconditions which may prevail, particularly in the Department of Defence, especially when he is asking for money for the Defence Force. We can only do so if we have the report of the Cost Plus Commission before us, and if it is laid on the table of the House prior to such a discussion taking place. I am making this request to the Minister on behalf of this side of the House, and my request is that he will put down the second reading of this Bill for a date after that Commission’s report has been laid on the table, and we have had an opportunity of discussing it. I don’t think it can be denied that unsatisfactory conditions do exist, and before the House is asked to accelerate the tempo of expenditure on Defence I feel we should be given the opportunity of discussing those conditions and at the very least of getting an assurance from the Minister that those unsatisfactory conditions will be remedied. That is the request I am making to the Minister.

I am sorry I am unable to give the hon. member any definite assurance as to the date when the reports to which he has referred will be laid on the table of the House, or to give him any assurance in regard to the second reading of this Bill. I am doing my best to accelerate this document being placed on the table of the House, but I have not yet learned when the report will be available to enable me to lay it on the table. I can only assure the House again that I shall do all in my power to expidite the matter. I am not going to give any undertaking that I shall hold back the second reading of this Bill for any length of time, because my hon. friend knows that it will be necessary to get this Bill passed before we start on the Estimates, and it means that the time at our disposal is very limited. I also want to say this, that in the event of the hon. member not having those documents at his disposal before the second reading—I give him the assurance that I shall do my best—he will be able to discuss the matter on the third reading, and if not on that occasion, he will be able to discuss the question on the Budget itself. This is not the last opportunity he has and I know that my hon. friend will make the best possible use of the opportunity given to him.

I wish to move the amendment of which I have given notice. It appears on page 142 of the Order Paper. On the second reading of this Bill I undertook to propose this amendment. I move—

I have certain amendments on page 154 of the Order Paper and I move—

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, it is necessary for me to come to it for authority before I can build any railway line. The line that I am contemplating building now is not a line of major importance, although it will be a very important piece of railway line from the point of view of the working of traffic on the Reef. The line we are now proposing to construct is approximately five miles long, and is a short cut between Welgedacht and Springs, cutting out the triangle which at present has to be followed by traffic through Apex Junction. Owing to the expansion of mining activity on the East Rand, the traffic which now comes from the east of Apex is very greatly increasing and has at present to go through Apex, undergoing a good deal of shunting and handling, and then back to the Nigel-Heidelberg area. It is now proposed to by-pass that, in effect, by means of this short line. If we were not to do this, we would be compelled tot face a considerable extension of the Apex yard, which owing to the fact that it is now surrounded by mining activity, mine dumps and other things, would be a very costly process. By far the cheapest and most effective way of meeting this traffic bottle-neck at this point, is to build this short line between Welgedacht and Springs. Although I am asking the House for authority to proceed with this just now, it is not intended really to lay the line at once, because I have not got the line to lay. It may be that I will actually not be able to proceed with the physical work of laying the line until after the war, but as members of the House know, before you can begin to lay a railway line, you have to have extensive negotiations with landowners, and arrange for the compensation to which they are entitled for the use of their land and so forth. For that reason I think we should take the power now, so that when the time comes and the material is available, we can proceed at once with the building. I think there is nothing I need say more. The clauses in the Bill are those usual to give the railways authority to negotiate all matters relating to level crossings, subways and other things with the local authorities.

I have been wondering why the hon. the Minister of Railways considered it necessary at a time like the present to come before the House with a Bill of this kind, particularly in view of the Government’s declared policy, and of the policy of the Department of Railways, that they were not going to start any extensive new works during the war. As far as we have seen it has been the Department’s policy to curtail traffic as much as possible. Instead of additional lines being built, and instead of the opportunity being created for additional traffic, it has been the policy of the Department to curtail the traffic, and that to such an extent that the Railway Administration has caused the greatest discomfort and inconvenience to the travelling public, and to our producers and industrialists. The Minister has now come here to ask the House to pass this Bill, but he tells us that a start will not be made with the construction of this line until after the war. The war may continue for another two or three years and unfortunately this House has so often had the experience in the past of the Railway Administration starting certain work, carrying on with it to a certain stage, and then simply relinquishing the work they have started. Every year we have had complaints of that kind in the report of the Auditor-General about things which the Railway Administration has started, after which it is found out that for some reason or another it must not carry on with it, and the money which has already been spent is simply written off as a dead loss. This is not a rare occurrence, the Minister knows that year after year instances of this kind are brought to the notice of Parliament. I am particularly thinking of the fact that now that land will have to be expropriated in connection with this line, the Railway Department will have to pay a big price for that land. It is generally recognised that the price of land has reached a level such as has hardly ever been reached before in the country’s history. The prices are exorbitant and artificial. It will simply mean that very high prices will have to be paid for the land, which will either have to be bought or expropriated, in spite of the fact that that land for the construction of this line will only be required in two or three years’ time. The result is that the construction of this line could have been undertaken very much more cheaply if the Minister had only waited until after the war. That being so, it will be much better if the Minister waits until after the war before introducing this Bill. By that time the prices of land will in all probability be normal again and he will be in a position to secure the land he needs at normal prices. It is an unsound principle to ask Parliament for authority two or three years before a line is built. I do not think it is in the interest of the country to do so.

I also wish to object to the building of this line, and the reason for my objection is not that I want to stop progress or want to do anything to place obstacles in the way of the country making progress anywhere, but there are many important lines which require to be built, and which are continually being put off. Time after time I have applied to the Government for the extension of the line between Ladismith and Calitzdorp, but my requests have never yet met with any favourable response. That line is continually turned down, and now a line is to be built between Springs and Welgedacht, although the Minister admits that there already is a line there; he wants to build a shorter line for the convenience of the people in that area. Those people there want to get to their destination more quickly, but the other people who really need a Railway line very badly cannot get one. No, that sort of thing is wrong. We are spending millions of pounds on the war—on a war which is not our war—or rather, which should not have been our war—and now the Minister wants to build an additional line in an area where to my mind it is not necessary because there already is a line there, and he neglects to have Railway lines constructed in areas where they are necessary for the development of the country, and particularly for the development of our farming industry. I have repeatedly pointed out that if a small bit of line could be constructed in one part of the country the people in the Eastern areas would be 72 miles closer to Cape Town.

The hon. member cannot discuss other lines on this Bill.

Surely I can discuss one line?

The hon. member must confine himself to the line which is being asked for, and he cannot discuss any other line.

I protest against the building of this line because it means the unnecessary wasting of money, money which could be better spent on another line. The people in that area already have Railway facilities, and I have to come here year after year to ask for a small Railway connection, but I cannot get it. We have for years had promises made to us, and we have been trying for the last twenty or thirty years to get this line built but nothing is being done. Everything is being made easier and easier for the people living in the towns, while the farming population who are badly in need of certain facilities have to do the best they can. This sort of thing should be stopped. I protest against, this line being built until other lines which I consider to be very much more necessary have been constructed.

I also wish to protest against the construction of this line. A number of lines are urgently required in the Free State and in other parts of South Africa. We have repeatedly been told that it is the policy of the Railway Board not to construct any further Railway lines, yet the Minister comes here now and asks for the consent of this House to spend a large amount of money on a new line at Springs, while the rest of the country is anxiously waiting for traffic facilities. Smithfield for instance has for many years been anxiously awaiting a Railway line. We also know that the Minister of Justice a short while ago gave his word of honour and made a promise that a line would be built there.

The hon. member cannot advocate the building of any specific line now.

I only want to tell the House why I object to the building of this line. It is because we urgently require new Railway lines and as the Minister of Justice has pledged his word of honour we feel that those who represent this constituency cannot vote for another line until such time as the Minister of Justice has carried out his promise.

I am sorry that I also have to raise my voice against the voting of any money for this particular Railway line. A sum of money has already been voted by this House for the building of a station at Potgietersrust, but that station has not yet been built. Now the Minister comes here and asks for something entirely new. He asks for the building of a new Railway line. We hear a lot about honour and duty but it is the honour and duty of the Railway Administration first of all to build that station for which the money has already been voted. In its war lust the Government has deleted the amount set down for that station, but now extra money is being asked for another Railway line. That is why I cannot vote for this Bill.

Many Railway lines have been promised in the past. For instance a Railway line has been promised from Middelburg through the Transkei to Durban, and also a line between Cradock and Tarkastad.

I cannot allow a discussion about the construction of other lines.

I feel that until such time as those other essential lines have been built I am unable to vote for this new Railway line.

I must also lodge my protest against the Government’s intention of building this line in a part of the country which boasts magnificent roads, tarred streets and excellent transport facilities. In my constituency we are in urgent need of a railway line, and I consider it is very much more needed there than at Springs, which possesses all those amenities. But there is another matter, too, on which I wish to put a question to the Minister. I think it is more than ten years ago that an amount was placed on the Estimates for a new station at Ashton.

I must ask the hon. member not to discuss any other matters now but the proposal to build this line.

I don’t want to discuss the matter; I only want to say that the Minister cannot expect me to vote for a Bill which authorises him to construct a railway line which I feel is not as necessary as other lines which he has already promised in other parts of the country. I don’t think he can ask us to do so. While our constituencies urgently require transport facilities I cannot give my vote for the building of a line near Springs where they have all the necessary transport facilities. We on the platteland are suffering great hardships, but we are forgotten. Yet …

Why don’t you build roads?

I must ask the hon. member please to keep quiet. This line is now to be built for the sake of people like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter), who make so much money that they don’t know what to do with it, and who are now buying farms in farming areas in order to get out of paying excess profits tax. The Minister cannot expect us to vote for a railway line for a community which does not need it as badly as we do.

Although I have a great deal of sympathy with hon. members here, I feel in the circumstances we should not be selfish, and I feel that we should not refuse, simply because railway lines are needed in various constituencies, to give permission for the building of this short line in an area where there has been a tremendous amount of development. The Minister has told us that the station at Apex for instance has become far too small to cope with all the traffic. There is no possibility of enlarging it on account of the development on the mines in that area, and we know that the traffic over the line there has increased tremendously. That is why we should not place any obstacles in the way of the building of this railway line. I feel that when the time comes when railway lines can be built again on the platteland I shall be one of the first to assist hon. members, but I feel that this line has become necessary.

I am sorry to notice that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) is under a complete misapprehension. It seems to me that the hon. member believes that this side of the House is opposed to the towns expanding, and that we only want to have railways for the platteland. That by no means is the case. We object because the Minister states that this railway line cannot be built during wartime. The Government itself believes that the war is going to last a long time. It may perhaps last another four or five years, yet the Minister now wants to buy the land at a time when prices are tremendously high. Now the hon. member for Vredefort comes here and says that we must not begrudge the towns their development. Certainly. But we fail to understand why we should give our approval now to the building of a line after the war. It makes it a bit suspicious. What is behind it all? That is why I want to move an amendment—

The hon. member can move the first portion of his amendment, but not the second portion in regard to other railway lines.

Very well, then I move—

The reason why I move this amendment is in order to give the Administration an opportunity of making a special investigation in regard to the line between Calvinia and Klaver.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member again, but I cannot allow a discussion about other lines.

Very well, I shall leave that point. I am only moving this because the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) has made a promise that the line will be built during this period of five years. Now, I should like to know something from the Minister. Usually the Railway Board makes recommendations in respect of special lines which have to be built. I cannot believe that the Railway Board did say “Look here, this special line has to be built after the war.” Has such a recommendation been made by the Railway Board? We don’t know what is going to happen after the war. Let me make a wild guess. Assuming the Japanese danger which so many people talk about is realised, and the Japanese come here and bomb Springs to pieces. Then that line will no longer be needed after the war. The Minister suffers from a wonderful imagination. He does not know what the position is going to be after the war. If the line from Calvinia to Klaver—in respect of which a promise has been made—is not constructed, I fail to see how I can vote for a special line of this kind after the war. If the Japanese come here they will not be able to bomb farming enterprises in Calvinia and elsewhere, but they will be able to blitz Springs and knock it to smithereens. One does not know what is going to happen after the war. Hence my amendment.

I second, but although I second the amendment I do not want to say that to a large extent I agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Gen. Conroy) that we must not stand in the way of the extension of railway lines. Wherever a railway line is required we should support a proposal for it to be constructed. I also feel that the reasons adduced by hon. members against the building of this line are not adequate. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche), for instance, spoke about a promise made by the Minister of Justice, a promise which he has not carried out, and that is why the hon. member is not prepared to approve of this Bill. Does the hon. member expect the Minister of Justice ever to carry out a promise? I would have thought that in the short space of time the hon. member has been in the House he would at least have learnt that the promises made by the Minister of Justice have very little behind them. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) objected to this Bill because the jam factory at Ashton wants a railway line. Surely that is a very poor reason. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) in turn wants a connection between Cradock and Kaffraria. All of those reasons are very poor. But if there is one line which is more necessary than that between Springs and Apex it is for instance the line from Port Elizabeth over Humansdorp to Knysna which should be converted into a 3ft. 6in. railway line. Of course, I cannot go into details to prove this point, but the very same arguments which are used in connection with the Apex line can be used in connection with this line. Of course, I am not allowed to say it, but if I were allowed to say it then I would say that the traffic over that line is very heavy. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) spoke about a promise by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp), a promise which has not been carried out. But that is not a good reason either. The line I have mentioned, however, is really more necessary than any of the others.

I believe that since 1931 the procedure has been for a Commission appointed by the Railway Board to investigate the construction of new railway lines.

The Railway Board itself does so.

Very well, the Railway Board itself. If a line has to be constructed a recommendation from the Railway Board comes to this House and they show in that recommendation whether it is necessary for a specific line to be built. Have we any information before us from the Railway Board? Have they said that it is a necessary line? The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) tells us that we must not stand in the way of development. Well, we can mention many instances where greater and more important development is being curtailed than in this particular case. I think we should have more data and we should have the recommendations of the Railway Board before us before voting this amount. Why should we now have to vote an amount of £107,000 for a development which may perhaps be necessary when the war is over? I don’t think that that is right. Other applications for very necessary lines have been made and those applications have been turned down. That is why I support this amendment.

I should like to thank the House for the amiable and almost jocular way in which they have dealt with this little Bill of mine, but apart from the fact that I know of course that almost every member of the Opposition has some pet line to push the interests of, very little argument was advanced against the proposal which I now make. The fact that I am coming forward now is really due to the particular circumstances of this line. This line has to be built on proclaimed land and hon. members may recollect that we amended the Gold Law, I think it was either last year or the year before as a result of which we have now a fairly elaborate procedure to go through when we want to lay railway lines on proclaimed land, and it is necessary for us to advertise over a certain period of months our intention to do these things, to give time for the submission of claims and for various other matters, so even when we have the authority to proceed it will probably be at least twelve months before we shall be able to put a spade into the ground. For that reason it is important that where we build a line on proclaimed land we should get authority from this House earlier than in other cases. For that reason I have come here to get that authority. I am not so pessimistic as hon. members on the other side are. I don’t think the war will last four or five years. In fact I am quite satisfied that it will not. Nor am I very much afraid of the possibility of the Japs or anyone else dropping bombs on Springs. If Springs suffers as a result of any war activity, it will be from that kind of activity which members of our own community occasionally indulge in in moments of sprightliness. With regard to the question of the Railway Board reporting on this line, of course they have reported on this railway line, and from the fact that no hon. member seems unaware of the fact I almost think that I should read the report to the House. I think I can spare them that. The Railway Board has investigated this scheme and has recommended it after careful investigation, giving good reasons for it, and its report was laid on the Table of the House this Session, so it has been available to hon. members for some considerable time. In regard to the remarks by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) I can assure him that if he will develop traffic at Swellendam to anything like the extent traffic has recently developed in the Welgedacht Springs area, I shall seriously consider giving him a line too.

Order, order!

I agree I am getting perilously near to contravening your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I must not discuss other lines. As any other remarks of mine might possibly be ruled out of order I think I shall now conclude my remarks by formally moving.

Shortly after I started speaking on this subject the debate was adjourned. I had only said a few words, and it is necessary for me to find a point of contact now. I said in all humility that I did not think that the hon. Minister of Finance had the courage to allow this Act which he does not approve of to continue, as the other Ministers have done. The position is this, that the operation of this Act, it is quite true, had to be extended every year by a resolution of this House. Year after year we ask that this Act should be made a permanent one, so that it will not be operative for one year only, but permanently. The reason for that was that the people who were assisted under that Act, who were assisted because they had got into difficulties owing to circumstances beyond their control, that those people in the course of time would fall away, and the Act would fall away in that way, with the result that the expenditure would also fall away, either when the bonds had been paid off or in the case of those people who could not pay off the bonds when they die. The Minister did not advance a single reason for wanting to alter this Act at this juncture. He did not advance any proof why this Act should be terminated in 1951. He could not do it. He knows as little as I do what the position will be in 1951. He does not know whether it will then be necessary for these people to receive a subsidy, or whether they will be able to do without it. We who deal with this matter know that cases occur under the Act where people were assisted who should not be assisted. What I mean is this, that the Minister has not got the moral courage to deal with this matter as he should deal with it. He ought to alter the Act in such a way that the person requiring assistance will be able to get it as long as he requires it. The Minister also complains that the farmers have not paid off their bonds. I can give him the assurance that there are many farmers who have paid off their bonds. In those cases where they could pay they did so. Those people who did not pay failed to do so because they were in financial difficulties. The farmer is as anxious to pay off his debts as any other person is, and if he is in a position to do so, he will do it. The fact that these farmers have not paid off their bonds is proof that they need the subsidy. I should like to know from the Minister how he is going to determine that in 1951 the farmers who received the subsidy will be able to carry on without it. The whole position, as far as the Minister is concerned, is this, that he is convinced that this Act is wrong. He says that the Act has served its purpose, and he wants to terminate it. But there will be an election this year and he cannot terminate the Act now, because if he did he would lose the support of those farmers who received the subsidy. He now fixes the date at 1951, and he can now go to the farmers and tell them that they will have this Act until 1951, and that they need not be afraid every year that it will fall away. But on the other hand we know that during the past ten years this Act was passed or extended yearly. In the same way, we could have extended it yearly, if we could not put it On a permanent basis, until the time arrived when these people would no longer require it. In my business I come into contact with numerous cases where farmers receive this subsidy, and I can give the Minister the assurance that it has assisted and saved many of these people. I also know of cases where people got the subsidy who should not have got it, and I am prepared to assist the Minister in withholding the subsidy from those people. But that is not the only objection which I have to this Bill. I think it is unreasonable to take away the subsidy in this manner. I feel that a better solution would be for the interest to be fixed at 3½ per cent. The Government pays interest at the rate of 3 per cent. In the big banks we can get no more than 2½ per cent., and if 3½ per cent. is paid today on money, then the security must be weaker, much weaker, than a bond on a farm. The Government did intend the farmers to pay only 3½ per cent. on these bonds, and why cannot the interest be fixed at 3½ per cent. The argument at that time was that because there were poor widows who had money on mortgage, the interest should be fixed at 5 per cent., and although the farmer pays 3½ per cent., a subsidy of 1½ per cent. was paid to those people. It was not the subsidy to the farmer, but to the mortgagor. The mortgagor got the advantage of that, because the rates of interest were 3½ per cent. on an average. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether he realises that when this Act falls away, the provision in connection with interest at 5 per cent. will also fall away. The farmer can then be charged any rate of interest. He will then be unprotected. I know of cases where farmers are paying more than 5 per cent. interest, and if this Act falls away, the bonds which now fall under the Act will also be unprotected, and higher rates of interest could be demanded. I should like to know from the Minister of Finance what his objection is to fixing the rate of interest at 3½ per cent. Why must the farmer pay 5 per cent., although since 1933 the rate of interest has declined, and even at that date the farmer had to pay 3½ per cent. and the subsidy of 1½ per cent. was added to that. Why cannot we simply pass a law saying that the highest rate of interest on a farmer’s bond will be 3½ per cent.? If there is any bondholder who is not satisfied with that, the Government can take over the bond, and pay out this person. Let him receive, more than 3½ per cent. interest if he is prepared to risk that. If it cannot be 3½ per cent., then make it 4 per cent., but 5 per cent. seems to me to be unreasonable. The Government can get all the money it wants at 3½ per cent., definitely all the money which is required, to redeem the bond. For that reason I feel that if the Government really wants to assist the farmer in connection with these bonds, it will introduce a Bill fixing the rate of interest at 3½ per cent., and any mortgagor who is not satisfied with 3½ per cent. can call up his bond, and give notice thereof. Even if the Government increases the interest from 3½ per cent. to 4 per cent., it will not be necessary for them to give a subsidy. Then we get the real state of affairs. If the rate of interest is fixed at 3 per cent. for the farmer, the investor will be satisfied with that, because he will know that he cannot get more, and if he goes to the bank he gets 2½ per cent. and even 2 per cent., and he will not call up his bond. If the position is that people who hold bonds cannot get more than 3½ per cent., why does the Government not lay down in its legislation that they can demand no more than 3½ per cent. on bonds? If there are widows and poor people who are dependent on such interest and who cannot make ends meet, the Government can subsidise those people; but let us make an end to this story that the farmer must continually be subsidised, and let us under the Act subsidise those people who really benefit by the subsidy. But I should like the Minister to understand that even 5 per cent., if this Act falls away, will no longer be the right of the farmer. He will be unprotected and he will have to pay more than 5 per cent. on his bond. The mortgagor could then immediately increase the interest, and if he calls up the farmer’s bond, the farmer would have to borrow money somewhere else, and he will be unprotected in so far as the rate of interest is concerned. Furthermore, he will again have to pay commission and the other charges connected with the bond. The result will be that he and his family will suffer, and that will be due to the fact that the mortgagor will have the right to demand what he pleases. The Minister now says that one of the reasons for this Bill is that these farmers have not reduced their bonds. Did he work out what portion of this subsidy would be paid to the mortgagor, and what this amounts to? Take the man who owes £500. I am not dealing with the position of rich people. Take those people who experience difficulties, the farmer who has a bond of £500. The subsidy which he receives is £7 10s. per annum. If he pays quarterly he will pay off a little less than £2 per quarter on his bond, if he uses the subsidy for that purpose. We cannot expect the bondholder to accept that. If the farmer avails himself of the system of one-eighth and seven-eighths at the end, then it means that he pays off one-eighth of the subsidy, which is less than £1. The bondholder cannot accept that. The money is then deposited, and at the end of eight years it can go towards payment of the capital. It is such a small amount that the mortgagor does not want to be bothered with it, and he will avail himself of his right to call up the bond. We must remember that the bonds on our farms may be large, but those bonds which exist at the moment are safe. They are bonds which have not been called up. The bonds which were unsafe were called up at that time, and were taken over by the Government. If the person concerned wants to pay off a small sum to the mortgagor, and the mortgagor is compelled to take it in the end, then it means that the mortgagee pays off £5 or £10. This will anger the man, and he will call up his bond, and then that farmer will be plunged into further difficulties. The Minister must also remember that we have now taught the farmers that they need not pay more than 3½ per cent. Now he proposes to take this away, and he cannot tell me that in 1951 times will be so prosperous that the individual who has a bond on his farm will not require assistance. He cannot say it. If we must go by what the experts say, we must expect that in 1951 conditions will probably be worse. Why then terminate the subsidy in 1951; why fix a time when he himself does not know what the position is going to be? Then I should like to ask the Minister why he and his department are always trying to do something against the poorer farmer. When they fix the present value of the money which is deposited into the fund, to be paid off eventually, they assess the present value of the money on a basis of 5 per cent. In other words, they assess the value of the money as though 5 per cent. is the rate of interest. The farmer only pays 3½ per cent., and if that money is deposited into the fund, the Government pays 3½ per cent., because the farmer has to pay 5 per cent. Is that reasonable? Is there any reason for it? It may be a small sum where the rate of interest is low. A difference of 1½ per cent. is not much. But it does not seem to me to be reasonable. Then it seems to me that the period which has been fixed is very short. The farmer must apply within six months. Why fix the period at six months and not at twelve months? I will admit that this is a matter of minor importance which can be dealt with in the Committee stage. But I feel that these things should not have been in the Bill, and if the Minister had had any sympathies for the farmer, he would not have inserted those conditions. If I apply for a subsidy, I must state which of the three schemes I accept.

No.

At the time of the first application the farmer must state which of the schemes he accepts. Does he not think that it would have been much simpler if he had inserted this in the application forms? Many farmers have not had the advantage which he and I have had. They had to work hard, and they do not notice such things very quickly. They must fill in the application forms in order to get the subsidy. Why can he not insert this in the application form so that the individual can choose when he completes the application form. He must do so within that time, or he loses certain privileges. Why create those difficulties for the farmer? I do not want to refer to the Bill itself, because neither the Minister nor any member on the other side can expect the farmer who reads this Bill to understand it. Even barristers have to read it three or four times before they can understand it. I, in order to save time, had to go to the department to get an explanation in regard to certain sections, and I still think that they are not altogether right. Reference is made here, for example, to the full subsidy under the Act of 1933. But this Bill amends the Act of 1933, and becomes portion of that Act, and then the subsidy is paid under this Act, and full subsidy under the Act then means the full subsidy under this Bill. The position is that as yet we have no clarity in regard to this Bill. It affects matters concerning the farmers. The farmers are not barristers. Many of them were poor and did not have an opportunity to study extensively, and we expect, therefore, that when a Bill is drafted which affects those people, it must be drafted in such a way that they are able to understand it. I am convinced that we can give this Bill to any farmer, and unless he is very well aducated, he will not be able to understand it, and even those who are educated will not be able to understand it. I feel that in this case, since this Bill affects the farmer, it should be so drafted that the farmer is able to read and understand it. It is not always easy to frame things clearly; I know that. The framers of laws get into a certain groove and they use certain terms. That, too, is the excuse advanced by the Department. They have drafted it in this way because these are the terms which they use in Bills dealing with financial matters. I want to say this, that I agree with the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) when he complains about the involved way in which these Bills are drafted. Then there are a few difficulties in connection with this Bill which I think might possibly be solved if our amendments are accepted in the Committee stage, but when I read this Bill and grasped its meaning, it seemed to me—I do not want to impute wrong motives—that this Bill is an unpleasant business. It simply amounts to this, that the Minister does not want to give the farmer this subsidy, and he now wishes to intimate that he wants to save the farmer in some other manner. Will the subsidy of 10 per cent., which is the amount by which the sum is reduced eventually, save the farmer? Many of these people will not be saved by a redemption of 10 per cent. They are in this position, that after their death the creditor will take their farm. I agree with the Minister that if the farmer is in a position to do so, he should pay off his bond. I agree that there may be farmers who might have done so, but did not. But they are few and far between. The farmer experiences sleepless nights in regard to his bond, and’ he will pay off his bond if he has the money. I know of hundreds who have paid off their bonds. These are people who started well, and who were able to pay off their bonds. In these circumstances I feel that this Bill is not calculated to assist the farmer, but it has been drafted with the object of giving the farmer a pill, but a pill coated with a little sugar. It enables him to swallow the pill. I second the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, and I just want to say this, that the Minister of Finance made the promise in this House that he would give us a bond redemption scheme. He handed the matter over to some relief committee or other, or to the Board of the Land Bank, or something like that. They were to have drawn up a scheme, but in any case the Minister gave us to understand that we would get a bond redemption scheme. The position is, however, that that bond redemption scheme has not been forthcoming. The Minister surely cannot say that this scheme is a bond redemption scheme. At most the farmer can get 10 per cent. in respect of bond redemption under this Bill. Why did the Minister not give us a bond redemption scheme? He tells us that the Commission to whom this matter was referred reported against it. Well, I am very sorry that that is the case, because we are not going to save the farming community in South Africa until such time as we put the bonds on such a basis that the farmers will be in a position to pay their interest, and to progress. If we carry on as we are doing at the moment, the farmers will gradually disappear. There are people today who can afford to buy farms. They are the companies who have millions and who speculate with farms. They do not care. And in this connection I should like to tell the Minister that whenever a farm is sold in Worcester and Robertson, it is not the farmers who buy it, but it is usually a jeweller, an advocate or a shopkeeper who buys it. The farming community, on whom we have to rely, is gradually being eliminated. They are forced to the cities, where they become poor whites, and we must put up with Natives and coloureds. If the Minister has no sympathy for the farmer, and if he is not prepared to assist in saving the farming community, it will be his responsibility. He is the person who should see to this. He should not ask me to accept this Bill on behalf of my constituency. I spoke to the chairman of our Agricultural Union, and I did not gather from him that the position in connection with this Bill was as we had been given to understand. I did not gather from him that they are accepting it willingly. It was put to them, as I understand the position, that they had no other choice. He agrees that if the farmers are not protected in so far as the rate of interest is concerned, matters will certainly not be improved for them. I want to remind the Minister of Finance that today the farmer who wants to buy a farm for his son has to compete with the town dweller and with people who earn thousands of pounds a year. He must compete against the shopkeeper and the business man in the town who has the money to pay for the farm. The farming community is gradually being pushed out, and every one of these laws represents a nail in the coffin of the farmer. If things go on in this way, I do not know what the position will ultimately be. The farmer’s ability to pay has not improved during this war, as it did in other wars. He does not get the benefit of high prices. He must simply accept what is laid down. It may not help to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance, because this Bill shows that he has no sympathy for the farmer. I do nevertheless want to make an urgent appeal to him to make an effort to solve this problem. The farmers do not want to be subsidised continually. It is as great a humiliation for them as it is for other people. But we are faced with this position today that economic laws have been upset. It will not avail us to say that the farmer must see to it that he fends for himself, because we have upset the economic laws of supply and demand by price fixation. We know that the rich people have stood together, and they are abusing the position in which the farmer is placed. One coolie goes to the market and buys for 500 others. There is therefore no competition, because 499 are eliminated. It is not a question of supply and demand. The beer breweries have only one buyer. There is no competition. Whatever that buyer says the farmer must do. The farmers in our district have been compelled to enter into a contract with the brewery. Excellent barley is produced there, but if it does not suit the brewer, he simply says that he is not going to buy it. As long as there is a difference in price, the brewery will not take the barley. Barley cannot be imported, nor can it be obtained anywhere else. Nevertheless the farmers have been driven to a point where they have entered into a one-sided agreement with the breweries, namely that they are compelled to sell their barley to the breweries, but the breweries need not buy if if they do not want to. I say, therefore, that our economic laws have been destroyed by the maintenance of the rights which the rich people enjoy in the country. If therefore this Parliament is not prepared to make some effort to give the farmers a reasonable price for the articles they produce, so that they can exist and be in a position to give their wives and children proper food and clothing, we are looking for trouble. Look at the poor whites, who go to the cities, and just think how their fathers and forefathers cleaned up and developed the country, and then see what happens to our children today. The Minister has no children, but we who have children must take care of them. Possibly our grandchildren only will find themselves in this position, but we should not lay the foundation for that in this legislation. For that reason I make an appeal to the Minister at least to make some plan to protect the farmers. If the Minister is not prepared to do it by way of subsidy, let him then fix a rate of interest for the country, because if the farmers are left to the mercy of the moneyed-people, they will be deprived of everything. I therefore feel that the Minister does not realise what the consequences of this Bill will be. I do not blame him—he does not live amongst them and does not see their difficulties. I have lived amongst them for 30 years and I am acquainted with their difficulties. That is why I ask that the law should remain as it is, and then we can go into the matter again in eight years’ time. The farmers do not want a sixpence from the Government in the way of subsidies, but they want to be in a position to make a living. During the previous war the farmers prospered, and they got £3 for wheat and £2 to £3 for sheep. Today that is not the case. The farmers only get 26/6 for wheat, and prices have been fixed in respect of other articles. When bad times come after this war, how will the farmers be able to manage, if they cannot have the advantage of good prices at this time and if they are not able to pay off their debts. Thousands of bags of potatoes are lying and rotting in my constituency, and at a meeting in Wolseley the people thronged round me and asked whether the Government could not make some plan, or whether they are expected to use their potatoes as manure. But the shopkeepers are still charging 1s. for 7 lbs. of potatoes. There is no proper system of distribution in our country. When prices are low the consumer does not get the benefit. Last year I saw lovely grapes going on to the market for 1s. 3d. and at the Parade the charge was 5s. Talk about control! Only the farmers are controlled. The other people can do as they please. See what happens in the case of mealie control. People say outright that if it had not been for the war, they would have allowed the Government to fall just on the strength of the Mealie Control Board. Surely the farmers represent a solid portion of the population which produces—produces riches for our country. Why must they be treated so unfairly? I make an urgent, appeal to the Minister to see to it that these people are enabled to make a proper living.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) waxed terribly excited as though the law had committed a grave injustice to the farmers of South Africa. Surely the hon. member knows the history of the Party on whose behalf he is speaking.

Leave party politics alone, talk about the Bill.

May I be allowed to say what the position is? Where did the Interest Subsidy Act originate? We know that during the last war there was a serious inflation of prices and thousands of farmers ran into debt; suddenly, prices collapsed and the farmers were caught. In 1929 the great depression started, and I well remember that I, as a member of the Nationalist Party of those days, repeatedly made proposals that the Government should come to the aid of the farmers by reducing the interest and by stopping the calling up of bonds and so on. The Government was unable to do so. Let me refer the hon. member to a statement made by his Leader in those days.

Leave politics out of it.

When I asked for the interest on mortgage bonds to be reduced the Leader of the Opposition stated that that was an economic question which the Government could not interfere in, and farmers went bankrupt.

He never said that. You are just talking nonsense.

I know they will deny it and say that it is so much nonsense. If one listens to the hon. member for Swellendam one would say that the poor farmers are being most unjustly treated by the proposal of the Minister’s. It was Mr. Havenga who in those days introduced the Bill to pay the farmers the subsidy of 1½ per cent. and to fix the rate of interest at 5 per cent. so that the farmers would not pay more than, 3½ per cent. It was a very good law, and if it were not for that law thousands of my fellow farmers would no longer be on their farms today. But was that Bill introduced by the Nationalist Party? No, it was after Coalition, and hon. members opposite—I usually call them the Keeromstreetefs—were not prepared to do anything. They went to the country and said that all the bonds were to be taken up. Why don’t they propose now that all the bonds should be written off? This proposal of the Minister’s, as I understand it, provides that for the next eight years the farmers are to get a 1½ per cent. subsidy.

Not subsidy on their interest.

What is the difference? They still get a subsidy, but it is used in order to reduce their bonds. The man who still needs the subsidy for the payment of his interest can choose, but every year it will be reduced by one-eighth until in the eighth year it will only be ont-eighth. Is that such a terrible injustice? The Bill was introduced as a temporary measure, and it had to be renewed from year and year, and the intention was that it would be repealed as soon as the farmers were again able to pay. Hon. members say that the time is not ripe. From 1907 to 1921 farmers took up bonds on inflation prices. That is the assumption which we start from, and when the war broke out and prices went up I and the farmers were asking ourselves whether the Government was going to continue paying subsidies in future.

What about the price of raisins, sultanas and wine?

Wethers have been sold at prices amounting to £3 even.

We don’t sell any wethers, but we sell potatoes, peas and beans.

The prices we are getting, practically speaking, are inflation prices. We find oxen being sold at £40 and £50 and wethers at £3.

You know that those are very exceptional cases. Why do you speak so much nonsense?

The hon. member knows very little about farming, he knows more about drawing teeth. It is an unfortunate fact that potatoes today are rotting on the ground, but that is due to the fact that there are not so many convoys coming in. Now hon. members will realise what the position would have been if they had remained neutral. I am grateful for this Bill because I know now, and the farmers know that they will get 1½ per cent. for eight years to pay off their bonds. There is one thing I should like to know from the Minister. If a farmer has made his choice and he wants to change over after one or two years, will he be allowed to do so? Say for instance a farmer asks to get another 1 per cent. interest subsidy, to pay his interest, and alter one or two years he finds that he is able to go over to the other basis and that he would prefer to use the money for the reduction of his bond, would the Minister allow him to do so? Farming Coriditions change from time to time, and I agree with the hon. member that it will cause difficulty if the farmers have to make a choice and cannot afterwards change. Say for instance a farmer elects to avail himself of the Government’s assistance for eight years in order to reduce his bond, and after a while he wants to go over to the other basis? Say he pays off on an amount of £1,000, then, so I understand, he will get 1½ per cent. subsidy for eight years in order to pay off his bond, then in eight years it is £12 on £100. Now the Minister provides that he can elect at once to pay off the £12 and then the Minister gives the £12.

£2 10s. less.

This is for eight years. It means that the farmer pays off 24 per cent. of the £100.

If you keep on like that you will arrive at 100 per cent. just now.

That is how I read the Bill. If the farmer says that he wants the £12 immediately and he himself adds £12, the bond is at once reduced by £24. Under the proposal which I made in the days of the old Nationalist Party and the old United Party, when many of my hon. friends opposite were still on our side, I proposed a redemption scheme of five years, and under that scheme 5 per cent. would be paid off every-year, or 25 per cent. over a course of five years. I called that the five year plan. The Minister’s plan very closely approximates the 25 per cent. I am very grateful to the Minister for what he is doing, even if he has not accepted my scheme in its entirety. I notice that hon. members opposite try to make political propaganda out of this matter but we are not afraid of that. What does their proposal, their amendment, mean? It means that the Government has to give the Land Bank sufficient money to take over all the bonds in South Africa.

In cases where it is necessary.

You are not normal.

The hon. member talks about normality, but that is what their proposal amounts to. The Government is to give sufficient money to the Land Bank to take over bonds, and then the Government has to pay 1 per cent. to reduce the bonds to 60 per cent. of their value. If that proposal is agreed to—who is not going to avail himself of it?

Many of the bonds will only be reduced to 60 per cent. and the rich farmers will not benefit from it.

They also want the Bill to apply to bonds registered before the 30th April, 1933, and which were taken up after that time. How shall we then have the right to refuse those benefits to farmers buying farms in five or ten years’ time? That man will also come for his 1½ per cent. and the Government will also have to assist him to pay off to the extent of 60 per cent. No, that proposal is not seriously meant—it has only been made for party political purposes. We on this side, of course, have a greater sense of responsibility. In the difficult times the other side of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, refused to do anything, and now they come with a proposal like this at a time when the country is fighting for its liberty and when millions of pounds have to be spent to defend liberty and freedom. Now they come here and try to start an agitation among the farmers.

I challenge you to go on the same platform with me.

I am quite prepared to do so, and I shall take Hansard with me and I shall challenge the hon. member’s leader and also men like the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. C. R. Swart) who has now become the great leader of the people in the Free State and who talks about the interest of the farmers—I shall challenge him to show me one speech in which he, and the people belonging to his party, have advocated a reduction of interest in this House. I am referring to what happened in the days when thousands of our farmers were driven off the land, and I am quite prepared to meet them on that question. Now they say that it was Mr. Havenga’s work and that they had nothing to do with it, but the Leader of the Opposition was a responsible Minister in the Cabinet of those days when thousands of farmers were driven off the land. I am sorry the hon. member for Ladybrand is not here. Today charges are made against Mr. Havenga and the public are told that the policy followed by him was a miserable policy. But in those days when they stood by him they were quite prepared to eat out of his hands.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that question. The hon. member should confine himself to the Bill before the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for the Bill now before us, although I am sorry the Minister does not see his way to go further than he is doing. I know that thousands of farmers would avail themselves of the opportunity to reduce their liability on the £ for £ system. I am glad that the Minister has accepted this principle which I have advocated for a long time. The hon. member for Swellendam says that this does not constitute a redemption scheme, but what is it but a redemption scheme? If the Government contributes towards the reduction of bonds on the £ for £ system, what else is it? I believe that when the eight years are over there will be very little left of those bonds, and I am convinced that thousands of farmers will avail themselves of this scheme. I admit that there will be exceptions, farmers who will be unable to avail themselves of the offer. For instance there is a farmer in the Colesberg constituency, I believe he is a supporter of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). He approached me with his difficulty and I discussed his case with the Minister and with the Department. I am not making this a party matter. There are such cases. If a farmer has been unfortunate and is hit by the drought and has bad crops, the Minister must make some provision so that a man like that is not sold up. The hon. member for Swellendam asks what guarantee the Minister has that the farmers will be able to carry on without a subsidy in 1951. That time is far off and a great deal of water will run under the bridges before it comes, and if it is found then that the farmers need help, and this Government is in power, then I am convinced that it will take steps to come to the assistance of the farmers.

When the House proceeded to discuss this most important Bill this afternoon a very quiet atmosphere prevailed and I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), has again dragged this question, which affects our farmers, into the political arena.

You did not listen to what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said.

I did listen to him and I can say without prejudice that the hon. member for Swellendam discussed the matter quietly and dispassionately, and that at least he kept it out of the party political arena. I deeply deplore the fact that whenever we try to keep the interests of the farmers, and of farming, out of the political arena, the hon. member for Kimberley, District, proves to be the fly in the ointment and upsets our apple cart. I am not going to follow in the footsteps of the hon. member for Kimberley, District. We are dealing here with a matter which deserves our quiet and dispassionate consideration. I want to admit at once that under this proposal of the Minister’s a certain amount of bond redemption will take place. The hon. member for Swellendam to my mind raised a very important point, and that is that once the farmer has made his choice and comes to the end, the interest subsidy will cease, and if the interst subsidy ceases and the fixing of interest at 5 per cent. no longer prevails, then I can only anticipate that the big moneylenders will immediately raise the interest again, and that is why I want to urge the Minister of Finance to make provision again for adequate capital funds to be in the Land Bank. That is what the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) had in mind with his amendment, so that if the moneylenders should raise their rates of interest and should call up bonds, the Land Bank would be able to take over the bonds. That is a very important point. The hon. member for Victoria West has proposed an amendment, a large part of which I am prepared to support. Let me mention those parts which I wish to support. I wish to support (b) and (c), which read as follows:

1. (b) adequate funds being granted by the Government to the Land and Agricultural Bank with authority to utilise such funds for taking over farm mortgage bonds at a rate of interest of 3½ per cent., and for the contribution by the Government of 1½ per cent. to the redemption of such mortgage bonds until the capital amount of any mortgage bond shall be reduced to 60 per cent. of the value of the farm, as determined by the Bank; and
2. (c) the exemption from income tax of that portion of the income of a farmer utilised for the reduction of an existing farm mortgage bond by an amount or amounts the total of which does not exceed £3,000.”

You see, therefore, and I am convinced of it, that the hon. member has come forward with this amendment with this one and only motive, not to leave the farmer to the mercy of the moneylenders at that stage, but to save him in this way. I do not want to take up the time of the House for long. I think it is the purpose of the Minister of Finance to try and obtain the complete support of this House. He wants us to put our heads together and to do our best to save the future of the farmer when that period arrives. I therefore want to propose as a further amendment the following—

You see, therefore, that if the Minister of Finance will accept that amendment, then we come together in the Select Committee from all parties. We thrash out the matter, we keep it out of the political arena. When we meet, we come to this House with an amended Bill, and it will not take up a third of the time of this House that this Bill will take up. Unfortunately we have had to hear the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), challenging everybody to appear on the platform. It is there where we bring about the downfall of the farming community. And I would like to try to see if we cannot keep this matter outside politics. I submit that when we co-operate on the basis of this amendment then we need not be busy long in the Select Committee. The matter can be completed within a few weeks, and the Minister can come before the House with an amended Bill which we can dispose of in a few days’ time. Then we keep the matter outside party politics. I hope the Minister of Finance will see the reasonableness of this proposal. I want to help him. My friends who represent farmers want to help him; the friends on the other side who belong to the farming community want to help him. Let us solve the matter in such a way that the farmer will not again be made the playball of politics. I hope that the Minister will recognise the reasonableness of the standpoint and that he will accept my amendment.

I shall be brief with the little speech to second this amendment because hon. members are in a hurry, just as I am, to go home. I just want to point out that this Bill is undoubtedly a result of, and in a certain measure an improvement upon, the proposal of the Minister of Finance of last year, when he dealt with the same subject here in this House. As I calculated to the Minister of Finance the previous year, he was doing a great injustice, as his proposal then was, to the poor farmers, the professional farmers, because at the time I calculated for his benefit that his ten years system came down to this, that the man who did not need the interest subsidy would be assisted, while the poor man who had to take the interest subsidy and could not wait ten years, would be assisted by only 4⅛ per cent. The well-to-do man would be assisted by 18 per cent., while the professional farmer, that farmer who is really the backbone of the land, would receive only 4⅛ per cent. It was a wrong principle that the Minister of Finance then followed. He followed the principle of: To him who has shall be given, and to him who has not shall be taken away. Now the Minister has another proposal before us, and I fear that the hon. member for Kimberley, District, was a bit wrong when he explained the Bill here. We have now practically no difference between the professional farmer and the rich farmer, between the real farmer and the capitalist farmer. Both can now receive 12 per cent. In the one case there is a decrease of 6 per cent. and in the other case an increase of about 8 per cent. as compared with last year. To that extent this Bill is more favourable than last year, and it is also more favourable in this respect that it is possible for the person to reduce his debt burden immediately by 97 per cent., provided he himself pays off a similar amount of his debt.

It is not a reduction of 6 per cent. in the one case.

It is of course a question of accumulated interest.

The 18 per cent. includes interest, and the 12 per cent. does not include interest.

In other words, the hon. Minister informs us that this Bill is more favourable in that respect than his proposal of last year. On the other hand I want to point out to the hon. Minister that he himself admits in his Bill that the principle of Bond Redemption must be laid down. Everyone will admit it. It is that principle that is laid down in this Bill, and it is not only a question of interest subsidy. It is a question here of the reduction of the bond burden. Then we come to one strong point mentioned here by members on this side, and that was specially emphasised by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) and I was glad to hear from members on my right side that they do not only want to touch the question but tackle it. The Minister touches the matter only in passing. The friends on this side grapple with it, and with that I have more sympathy. I have also listened with gratification to the utteranec of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). I do not want to touch on politics but I remember a time when the father of this subsidy (Mr. Havenga) was held up more or less as public enemy No. I in South Africa. That was not so many years ago. And yet those members, in spite of that, must now admit that he saved many farmers. That is quite correct. The Minister of Fiance said that £5,500,000 has already come from the Treasury in the form of interest subsidy. That is but a small portion of what this law has done for the farmer. Apart from that, Mr. Havenga stabilised interest on a lower basis than it was at the time, viz. at 5 per cent. In those days interest went much higher than 5 per cent. up to 7 per cent. and more. If we could get the figures, we would find out that that part of Mr. Havenga’s law meant even more to us than the 1½ per cent. interest subsidy. I think the hon. member for Swellendam was right to say that Klaasie Havenga had saved the farmers.

I was the father of that Bill.

I am glad that the hon. member is prepared to accept paternity for that Bill. There are thus two fathers.

We prodded Klaasie until he did it.

Very well, then we shall say that the hon. member was the pace-maker. I also want to say this in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort. The amendment has this advantage that the matter is immediately placed outside party politics. It is a matter that should undoubtedly be outside party politics. Whether a farmer is on the Government side or on this side, their interests are the same. I will therefore suggest, where the Minister himself in his Bill touches the question of the reduction of bonds, that we should try to grapple with the matter in earnest by means of a Select Committee. We know that the farmer is very desirous of paying his debts. Even in the bad times we received figures from the Minister of Finance to show how the farmers were busy meeting their obligations loyally, Where this was not done, the underlying secret is that farming, to say the best of it, is a fluctuating industry. It is a gamble. It is such a gamble that only the farmer who has no debt is safe. As soon as a farmer is burdened with a debt, he is economically unsafe. I think it is the purpose of all of us that we should try to reach such a position for the farmer that he will be able to acquit himself of his debt burden. Then the farming community can be held to be safe, then they can flourish and feed the world in the right way. In all modesty I want to support this amendment strongly, and direct an appeal to all sides of the House, also to the hon. member for Kimberley, District, and his friends on the other side, that we should try to come together once and for all and earnestly endeavour to push this matter through. Mr. Havenga could not do so at the time, because he had to provide sudden measures. He had to help immediately, and he did so. Let us now try to do further thorough work by means of a Select Committee.

I propose—