I move—

In this motion I propose that as from 30th March, Tuesdays will also be set aside for Government business. It is our intention to end the Session somewhere near Easter, i.e., about three weeks after this motion comes into force, and I believe that under the circumstances it is reasonable that we should reserve the last three weeks of the Session for disposing of the work which is still to be done.

I second.

I do not want to oppose the motion of the Prime Minister. I think it is fair that he should come with a request of this nature to reserve Tuesdays also shortly before the end of the Session. As a matter of equity I want to suggest to the Prime Minister that as private members are now being requested to waive their right on the Tuesdays, he should not put unnecessary restrictions on the discussion of financial matters, especially not on the budget debate. There are quite a number of matters which hon. members would have liked to discuss on private member’s days but which they now want to discuss during the budget debate. This will be the only opportunity they have of doing so and for that reason I hope that the Prime Minister will not make use of his majority in this House to put unfair restrictions on the debate.

In reply to the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition I just want to say that it is of course not the intention of the Government to be unfair in regard to this matter, as long as we can make satisfactory progress with the business within the period during which we hope to finish our work. We hope that it will not be necessary to lay down any unfair or too strict rules.

But we ought to have a say in what is fair or not.

We are fully prepared to consult you.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice:

I move, as an unopposed motion:

I move—

As I did last year, I gain wish to express my hope on this occasion that hon. members of this House will consider this matter of the Oudstryders not as a political matter but as a national matter. In 1941 a report was published by a commission which the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, appointed to investigate the position of the Oudstryders, and on the basis of that report the present Minister of Finance took steps and a pension was given to about 3,000 or 4,000 Oudstryders, a pension which is considered to be a premature Old Age pension but which is now called the Oudstryders pension. This pension is granted only to Oudstryders under the age of 65 years who are no longer able to work. We opposed that scheme of the Minister in this House because we felt that this was not all which the Oudstryders were entitled to, for during the Anglo-Boer war the Oudstryders lost and sacrificed everything, their homes, their cattle, their health, and in many cases their wives and children. We cannot compensate them for that, but we felt that we should in any case give them something better than allowing them a pension of £3 per month. The Minister of Finance said at the time that he would afterwards take the Act into reconsideration. Before we came back to the Cape in 1942, a mass meeting was held at the Rand to discuss once more the case of the Oudstryders, and I was instructed to bring the case of the Oudstryders again to the notice of the Minister and the House. At that meeting the request was made that the Oudstryders should receive an amount equal to £7 10s. per month, that the widow of an Oudstryder should be treated on the same lines and that old age pensions should not be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact the Oudstryders were of the opinion that they would receive a lump sum, but we felt that while the war was in progress, it might be impossible to ask that and we therefore fell back on the £7 10s. per month as being a suitable amount. Shortly after my motion came under discussion last year, the Minister of Finance introduced a Pensions Bill under which the Oudstryders were also included and for which I thanked him most cordially in this House on behalf of the Oudstryders, for there were three groups of Oudstryders who benefited under that Act which was a large step in the right direction. There were for instance the Oudstryders who received a pension on account of injuries sustained and they were put on a satisfactory footing. 898 of them came under these provisions. Then there were the widows of Oudstryders who had been killed, and who had not re-married and they received £11 a month each, which was reasonable and in the third place there are a number of Oudstryders who are bedridden and who receive an attendant’s allowance of £1 10s. In the case of these three groups considerable concessions were made and we felt that we at last had a Minister who took the case of the Oudstryders to heart and who apparently had sympathy for the Oudstryders and who would put matters right. Shortly after this the Minister declared that he could not yet change the Act of 1941 but that the Oudstryders should first put their own house in order, and as soon as they had put their own house in order, he would make further provision for them.

No.

He would take the matter into reconsideration again. The Minister said that if the Oudstryders would put their house in order, he would reconsider the matter. Thereupon the Minister received us, i.e. the Executive Committee of the Association of Oudstryders, at the Union Buildings at Pretoria on the 13th March. That Association was reconstituted on a proper basis on the 14th March already and a new Chairman and Secretary were elected, an ideal Chairman and Secretary, whereas the previous Chairman and Secretary had neglected their duties towards the Oudstryders as scandalously as the people as a whole had neglected its duties. The Executive Committee thereupon came together and invited one member from each side of the House to come with them to the Minister. The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) was elected for the United Party, the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) for the Re-united Party, Senator Raubenheimer was to represent the New Order and I myself the Afrikaner Party. Unfortunately Mr. Steytler did not turn up. The Minister received us most sympathetically and we brought the following points to the notice of the Minister as being the wishes of the Oudstryders—

1. (1) (a) Every Oudstryder, irrespective of possessions or income, to receive a pension of £90 per annum; (b) every widow of an Oudstryder who did not re-marry also to receive a pension of £90 per annum; (c) widows who did re-marry, but not with an Oudstryder, should also receive a pension, if in want.
2. (2) Old Age or any other pensions which may already have been granted by legislation, not to be taken into consideration in the granting of this pension.
3. (3) Whilst the majority of Oudstryders are already very advanced in years and because daily some of them die, pensions should be granted immediately to some of them.
4. (4) Oudstryders or widows of Oudstryders residing outside the Union also to be taken into consideration.
5. (5) Oudstryder officers to receive special compensation.
6. (6) A Committee consisting of the Magistrate and two Oudstryders to be appointed in every constituency to deal with applications for pensions from Oudstryders.
7. (7) A Board of Appeal, to be elected by a congress of Oudstryders, to be appointed, the personnel of such Board of Appeal to be approved of by the Government.
8. (8) Where possible, Oudstryders to receive their pensions on special dates when no other pensions are paid.

All these points were discussed with the Minister and he said that he would consider them. As far as the last point is concerned, the Minister, if I did not misunderstand him, at once told us that the Oudstryders can have a separate day on which to receive their pensions. This, of course, encouraged us a great deal, and we felt that the Minister would again consider the whole matter. In the meantime we again strengthened our Oudstrydersbond, branches were formed, and as the chairman and secretary did not have railway passes, they asked me to go around to address the various branches and to establish branches where there were none, so that we might have our organisation in good shape and so that the Minister would be able to go into the legal aspect this year. I held 108 meetings throughout the country, and in respect of most of these meetings the sitting members of Parliament had been invited to attend. I asked the organisers everywhere to invite them, and members from all sides of the House attended the meetings and also addressed them, for this is not a political matter. At all these meetings motions of thanks to the Minister of Finance were passed for his concessions in regard to the increased pensions and for his promise that he would again go into the matter of the Oudstryders during the present Session. At each meeting a motion of thanks was passed. We arranged these organising meetings right through the country and every Oudstryder who knew about it and who was interested put his name and all particulars down on paper, and these particulars were sent to the Minister of Finance. We have about 19,000 names of Oudstryders on the lists and 6,000 names of widows of Oudstryders, but as these old people have already been waiting for such a long time and have become afraid that they might be forgotten for another number of years, some of them did not only put their names down on one list but, to make quite sure, signed on two lists. They were so anxious to be given consideration. For that reason the Minister will perhaps say that there are too many names on the lists. I believe there are not 19,000 Oudstryders; I do not believe that there are 15,000 Oudstryders still living. Those old people have now been waiting for 41 years for something which was promised to them during the Anglo-Boer War. They were promised that they would receive payment. They did not fight for this payment but for the love of their country and people. But seeing that they are in this position and as all other countries make provision for their war veterans, we felt that our country also had grateful citizens, that our country also had persons who sympathise with the Oudstryders, and for that reason we thought that our Oudstryders should also receive a pension which is worth while. In other countries such pensions were granted. Take, for instance, Australia, where they granted £8 12s. per month to the war veteran and his wife; New Zealand, where they gave £6 10s., and if there are minor children, the amount can be increased to a maximum of £234 per annum; in Canada, £9 per month is given, i.e., 480 dollars per year, and I understand that as late as 1936 America still gave a grant to its old war veterans, and the person who told me this said that the grant was quite considerable. Now compare what other countries have done for their old war veterans with what we do. In all those other countries the war veterans, while taking part in the war, received payment, and they were not ruined to the extent our Oudstryders were. Our Oudstryders receive a very meagre pension, and did not receive any pay during the war. We cannot do justice to our young fighters when we do not first of all do justice to our old fighters. I therefore feel that this concession by the Minister of Finance to the Oudstryders shown in the budget does not go far enough, although I am grateful for the small blessings, because one has to be grateful for everything one recieves. We cannot expect the Oudstryders to be satisfied with it. What is the position? The Oudstryders thought that when they were in receipt of an old age pension they could immediately convert that into an Oudstryders pension. If he can convert it into an Oudstryders pension he receives when living in a town £1 4s. 3d. per month extra and if he lives in a village 17s 6d. more per month, that is to say if he has an old age pension of £2 10s. he will receive 17s 6d. more or if he has one of £3, he will receive £1 more. When the person concerned lives in a rural area he receives still less. Some of the Oudstryders receive only 10s. per month and they get 3s 4d. more for the Oudstryders pension; they receive 13s. 4d. because they have served their country faithfully. They are now very aged and decrepit and are nearly dying from starvation in their own country. There is great bitterness, great dissapointment. I received letters from all sides and I have here also a letter from the Pretoria branch about a mass meeting of Oudstryders who also gave vent to their disappointment about the fact that they are being so neglected. They placed great hopes in what the Minister of Finance was going to do, seeing that he first took up such a sympathetic attitude, I have here a letter with the points which were agreed to at the mass meeting at Brakpan. These were adopted unanimously and read as follows—

1. (1) That all Oudstryders notice with grief and deep disappointment your intention to grant a meagre pension of £1 3s. 4d. which has to serve as an increase of the small existing old age pension, and which cannot be considered as anything else but charity given reluctantly.
2. (2) That it appears that the humilating and insulting application form of 1941 has again to be filled in before this small amount of charity can be granted and against which all faithful Oudstryders and widows of Oudstryders protest wholeheartedly.
3. (3) That the shock and disappointment are profound because minister Hofmeyr gave the impression to the deputation under the leadership of Mrs. Badenhorst, “which was formed on his own instructions” that he was sympathetically inclined when they politely but urgently requested that the pension “according to a congress resolution” should be fixed at £7 10s. per month for all loyal Oudstryders irrespective of possessions or income, provided that undeniable proof of being an Oudstryder is given.
4. (4) That the Minister after an interview with the representatives elected by congress, instructed the Commissioner of Pensions to call for lists from the Association of Oudstryders, containing the full names with addresses and particulars of every Oudstryder and widow of an Oudstryder.
5. (5) These lists were thoroughly and completely compiled at the expense of the old people who are already indigent, and contain the names of approximately twenty-seven thousand Oudstryders and widows and were according to instructions handed to the head secretary of the Association; these lists caused the hope and gratitude towards the Minister to flare up considerably.
6. (6) What has been the deplorable result? The Minister now ignores all his sympathy, fine promises etc., etc. and maintains that to accede to our request would cost the Government one million pounds, but conveniently forgets to stress the fact that far more than thirteen million pounds have already been paid to the overseas war veterans of the 1914—’18 war. At the same time we, the Boer Oudstryders take this opportunity to request the Government with all courtesy but also very urgently to remember that the overseas war veterans at the time were sent overseas with blasts of trumpets and an abundance of all sorts of equipment and that they also did not suffer any material loss whatever, whilst on the other hand the Boer Oudstryders had to pay 90 per cent. of the war expenditure out of their own pockets and that they were rightly called “the fathers of South Africa” by Gen. Smuts when speaking at Standerton. They sacrificed both their blood and all their possessions, which compels them to spend the evening of their lives in poverty and misery in the slums of our towns. Is that perhaps a pleasant thought for the persons in authority who live in wealth and plenty as a direct result of the sturdy fighting of the brave Oudstryders who are today being carried to their graves in poverty and with justifiable rancour in their hearts? You, the hon. members of the Government cannot possibly realise with what measure of patience, suffering and misery the formerly well-to-do burgher of the republics of whom between eleven and twelve hundred are carried to their last rest every year now is still filled with rancour and disappointment against an unjust Government during his last remaining years. Finally we pray with due respect and regard that you the hon. members of the Government—seeing that the posts of honour which you occupy today are undoubtedly the fruits of the stubborn fighting of the Oudstryders at their own expense and with such bravery that they forced the enemy to conclude a conditional peace—will not treat us with disdain today and will see to it that the unfair recommendation of Minister Hofmeyr be taken into revision and that the humiliating application forms will also be abolished.

The Oudstryders are very sore about again having to fill in a form in order to be able to obtain the £1 3s. 4d. They thought that they could convert the old age pension by handing in together with the number of their old age pension, the necessary proofs, after which the pension could be converted into an Oudstryders pension. They now feel aggrieved that they have to fill in another form and they think that this is expecting a bit too much of them, seeing that they filled in a complete form in 1941. They therefore ask the Minister that the old age pension should simply be converted into an Oudstryders pension. The small increase will assist the people who are desperately poor and in dire straits, but it is not sufficient to afford them sufficient food, shelter and decent clothing. The cost of living is very high. Today they most likely also receive cost of living allowances. We take that to be the case, but what is the position going to be after the war when the cost of living allowances are going to be taken away again? Then they will again fall back to the scale of £3 10s. and £4. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to bring the pensions of all the Oudstryders to the same level without taking into account whether a man possesses a cow, a horse or a sheep? As the position is at present, not even all the Oudstryders receives the extra £1 3s. 4d. But those who do receive it get £3 10s. and the extra £1 3s. 4d. which brings it up to £4 13s. 4d. Add to that the cost of living allowance and they will have just over £5. I want, however, to plead with the Minister that he be so good as to grant the Oudstryders £7 10s. It is easy enough for the Minister to put through a small Additional Appropriation Act whilst Parliament is in Session. If the Minister had seen in front of him the groups of Oudstryders with their grey heads and bent backs, often blind, with their shrunk bodies which are starving and not sufficiently clothed, he would not be able to harden his heart. If we realise how long these people have already been waiting, we cannot allow that to go on any further. I do not want to be bitter, but I cannot speak without tears filling my eyes when I think of the groups of old people sitting in front of me at the various meetings to ask the Minister to soften his heart. The Minister treated them kindly and with consideration and met them to some extent for which they are most grateful. We now ask the Minister to grant the Oudstryders £7 10s. still during this Session.

I wish to second the motion and in doing so I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs Badenhorst) on the moderate and excellent speech, or should I say plea, which she addressed to the Minister of Finance. I had hoped that we would during this Session hear the last of the grievances of the Oudstryders. I well remember that in 1941 when the Minister had already made provision for Oudstryders’ pensions. I went to him in his bench where he is now sitting and I tried to explain to him that although I appreciated what he was doing, I still wanted to try to make him realise that he should go further and should give a decent pension to those people. His reply to me was: Give it a chance this year, then we shall see next year whether we can better that. That was the reply he gave me. I realised that the question of the Oudstryders was one which we should keep outside the political arena and I therefore told the hon. member for Vrededorp: Look here, I think you should keep away from political meetings and should now tackle the case of the Oudstryders and deal with it on a non-political basis. She did so. We heard that she held 108 meetings for Oudstryders. I remember that after the Oudstryders’ deputation had met the Minister in Pretoria I heard from them that they had laid these points before the Minister and that the Minister had so to say tacitly accepted them. That was the impression they gave me. It also appeared in the newspapers in that way and they also created that impression. Thereafter the hon. member for Vrededorp held her meetings. We heard that at those meetings motions of cordial thanks to the Minister were passed after the hon. member for Vrededorp had reported on the interview which the deputation had with the Minister. If the Minister had felt that the hon. member for Vrededorp or somebody else did not correctly interpret his point of view, why did he not say so, why did he not make a statement through the Press that he never intended going as far as that? The Minister accepted all those motions of thanks and is now as silent as the grave. The people received a wrong impression. They thought that the Minister of Finance would now do justice to those people. If we think again of the Boer War, we realise that those people sacrificed everything and that owing to their perseverance we can today enjoy our white civilisation here and that owing to their perseverance the Minister of Finance is sitting over there exercising control over the finances of the country. They did not get any pay. We see what is happening today. We do not begrudge the soldiers who fight the provision that is being made for them, we do not begrudge the returned soldiers the positions which are being sought for them, but whilst those people are busy taking part in a European war and are receiving full pay, we want to remind you of the fact that the Oudstryders were really fighting for the interests of South Africa, and if we compare their treatment with that given the soldiers of today then I maintain that it is a scandal crying to heaven. There are but few of them still in the land of the living, but there is no comparison between what they sacrificed and the sacrifices which we are making now. Does the Minister know that there are many of them who cannot buy a piece of meat every day? Does he realise it? But the Minister comes along here and wants to humiliate them still further by increasing their meagre pensions by one-third. If I had been the hon. member for Vredefort, I would have said: “No thank you, Minister, keep it,” for what does an increase of one-third mean when the highest Oudstryder’s pension which is granted in the towns amounts to £3 10s.? What does it mean if we notice that in the rural areas some people receive only 10s., 15s. or £1, which is to be increased by one-third? Coloured soldiers and native soldiers, with their wives, receive pay of up to £17 10s. today. Compare the work they do with the sacrifices of the Oudstryders during the Boer War. The least the Minister could have done was to lend his ear to the request of the deputation. I thought that he could even go further. But to increase the small pensions with one-third is a humiliation to the Oudstryders. Those people deserve better. The Prime Minister, who was one of the leaders of the Oudstryders, quite rightly said at Standerton that the future of South Africa was due to the Oudstryders and what they did in the past, and all of us who know what they sacrificed know that they deserve better. Here the Minister comes along and humiliates them in this manner. I imagine if I had been Minister of Finance today and had had to listen to the pleas of the hon. member for Vredefort, who spoke with tears in her eyes, I would have been moved, and I would, in view of what they have done and what they are suffering today, have got up to put matters right. The Minister knows that some of them are blind, have to be assisted and cannot feed themselves any more, and since the Minister is wasting millions so lavishly, he dare not keep back his hand from the Oudstryders any longer. This is not a time to drag politics into this matter, and I do not want to do so. But I do appeal to the sense of justice of the Minister to treat those people in a fair way.

I am feeling very deeply about this motion or request or plea on behalf of the Oudstryders, not only because I feel that I am one of those Oudstryders who sacrificed everything, but also because I am thinking of the Oudstryders and the way they went into the war. We know that they were commandeered on their farms; they had to bring their own rifles and cartridges, their own horses, saddle and bridle, their own blankets and vehicles, and they did so. And they had only one aim, viz., freedom. We know what they did. We know that there was not one among them who ever expected to receive compensation, monetary or otherwise, except their freedom. That was all for which they sacrificed everything. They fought for nearly three years. We sacrificed some of our best men. Every family suffered some loss. After the war they had to come back, without compensation and without a penny. Those who had land had to start right from the beginning again, and the others who had no land went as bywoners to those who did have land. I was one of the officers in a certain district and I remained in touch with those people. I did everything in my power to try and help them. We know, and everybody knows, for history has proved it, that some of these people came back to their farms and found their family living somewhere else under a few sheets of corrugated iron placed against a wall. That is the way they had to make a first start again, without a penny. They had to go and beg from the Repatriation Board for some corned beef and biscuits, while others asked for some mealie meal. We can think back of the heroism of those people as one of the greatest heroic deeds ever performed in our country. They did not mind sacrificing. I know of a man in my district who had two horses left. He had five sons who had gone along with him into the war. He bought a garden plow on credit, and he inspanned those two horses, and his five sons to get something into the soil. Hundreds of others could not do so. At the peace negotiations £3,000,000 were made available to try and compensate those people. But the men who fought to the bitter end could unfortunately not participate in it, for the others who surrendered under certain proclamations got all that money, and they did well out of it. The Oudstryders who persevered to the very last got very little of that money. I know that Gen. Botha, Gen. De Wet, and Gen. De la Rey went to Europe to try and raise funds to save the people. I was one of those who was privileged to serve on a committee for the administration of the funds. But the funds were meant only for widows who could not help themselves. We did not give the money to the widows, but we bought a few cows for them. I shall never forget the gratitude of those people for the little assistance they received. It was our own cattle we had to buy back at a high price, cattle which had been taken away from our farms without payment. They expressed their thanks for the one cow or few cows which we could give them, but the funds were not large. Thereafter came the Miss Hobhouse fund. I do not know whether that also existed in the Transvaal, but in the Free State every district received £200 to buy plows and oxen to get the people going again. I had the privilege to serve on that Commission. In Vrede the Hobhouse fund is still in existence. The other districts did not continue with the fund; they destroyed it. We are the only district which kept it alive, and we handed £400 to the Secretary of the School Committee, the interest of which is being used for assisting poor children. But we know that Gen. Smuts was Secretary of State in the Transvaal. He issued a circular in the Transvaal which promised the burghers who took part in the war 5s. per day. I must honestly admit that Gen. De Wet, who was my general, never mentioned that the burghers who persevered to the end would receive a compensation of 5s. per day. I do not know that it happened in the Free State. But after the war there was an organisation in the Free State and in the Transvaal which sent a Commission to the then Government to ask whether they would not carry out that promise. The reply was that it could not be carried out, and that that circular of Gen. Smuts—I still possess one of the circulars today, but unfortunately have not got it here—had never been approved by the Transvaal Executive Committee, that is to say, the Executive Committee they had there after Oom Paul had left the country. That promise was therefore never confirmed, but still it was the promise on which the people had relied. We also created an organisation, but I always said from the beginning that I could not act on something which had not been promised to me. We could ask for compensation but we in the Free State could not insist on the 5s. per day. We boasted of the fact that we had been fighting without compensation and without remuneration, but only for an ideal. For that reason I could not agree with all their arguments. A demand was, however, made that it should be 5s. per day, but the requests of the Oudstryders were refused again and again at that time. It was said that it was impossible to carry their requests into effect. That created a certain amount of disappointment among the burghers. They felt that all the other countries gave some measure of compensation to their troops; they were compensated but here in our country it was not done. I feel that the difficulty the Minister of Finance is going to have is to decide who is an Oudstryder and who is not. I feel that I am not very far off the mark when I say that when we entered the war, the Transvaal and the Free State were able to muster 60,000 men able to bear arms. Numbers of these surrendered under certain proclamations and received compensation. Others were killed in battle and some were taken prisoner of war. In Paardeberg and the other side of Bethlehem large numbers had to surrender on the command of their officers because they were encircled. They were all transported to some other place. I think that in June 1902 when we surrendered there must have been more or less 18,000 burghers still under arms. At the time I had the privilege to get hold of a copy of the Reviews of Reviews. It was edited by a certain Stead and he pointed out that, including non-Europeans, approximately 65,000 men in South Africa had joined the British forces and they fought together with an army of 300,000 which were used against the Boers. Is it not wonderful to think of that struggle which kept high the name of the Afrikaner? He achieved a fame of which we are still proud today and I therefore think that it becomes us today to grant the Oudstryders the recognition for what they have done. There are not very many of them left today. I know that many of the Oudstryders died in misery. Their neighbours and their friends helped them as far as they could. Hundreds of them were so maimed that they could do not work at all. We know that a Pensions Act was introduced later but I say in all sincerity that the doctors were very unsympathetic towards those poor people. They did not back them up as we expected them to do. The people got compensation but they did not always receive what was due to them, especially not the maimed who could not work any more. I therefore plead together with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) that, although we are grateful for the slight increase the Minister wants to give to the Oudstryders, he should nevertheless consider whether he cannot do more for them. They are the source of that wonderful reputation which we in our country achieved, so that the Afrikaner today can look everybody in the face—so that he can say that he has fought and suffered for freedom and that he has made sacrifices for freedom. For that reason I plead with the Minister of Finance to see whether he cannot do something more. Together with the hon. member for Vrededorp I am grateful for the increase which appears on the Estimates. But it is not sufficient. I am also grateful that we can discuss something here today without dragging politics into it. I do not intend dragging it in and I do not say that the present Minister is in the slightest to blame, for we are dealing here today with something which happened 41 years ago and in the meantime there were others in the Government who suffered together with those people and who ought to have had more sympathy for those people who sacrificed everything they had for their country. It will how be very difficult to determine who is an Oudstryder and who is not, for many of the officers are no longer alive. When the Pensions Act came into force I had to give a number of testimonials for people who had been serving under me. I was astounded when I got the applications from all those persons who had served under me and I was surprised at the number of testimonials I had to give to the effect that they were Oudstryders. Fortunately I was still there and was able to do it. But hundreds of the officers are no longer there. We cannot proceed loosely in a matter of this nature. In connection with the Pensions Act we unfortunately had cases of dishonesty. I shall not mention names but still I want to quote one case of a man who had never been in the field, who never served, but who afterwards had an accident and also appeared before the commission with sworn declarations that he received the injury whilst on active service. Fortunately they came to me, who knew better. I know of another case where a man received an injury from burns on his pulse after the war. He made an oath that it happened during the war. We do not want people, who do not deserve it, receiving this benefit, but that only those people who sacrificed everything and who are actually entitled to it, receive it. I plead for them and I hope that the Minister will see his way clear even at the last moment to give better compensation to these men. I ask for a pension of £7 10s. per month to every Oudstryder.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) who has just sat down. I have often listen with interest to his speeches. I have said before, and I say it again now, that I have the highest respect for every Afrikaner who contributed his share—apart from his political opinion today—to that heroic struggle of our people. I take my hat off for such an Afrikaner for what he has done. What has struck me has been that every time the hon. member for Frankfort has stood up here he complied with what I put forward on the first day when a motion like this was discussed in this House. I said that we who are young and who could not actively take part in that struggle feel deeply when we talk today about that heroic struggle and when we ask here that justice should be done to those who today are old and weak and who took part in that struggle—and how much more deeply than we must those, like the hon. member for Frankfort, who took part in the struggle, not feel. The hon. member for Frankfort pleaded for an increase of the pension on the basis that the Minister proposed. I assume that he pleaded for it from his heart. He took part in that struggle. He pleaded for the people who were with him in it, and I accept his plea in that spirit. He said further that the Minister would find it difficult to decide who is an Oudstryder and who is not. That is no longer a difficulty today. The Minister has already conceded a pension to the Oudstryders, and it is therefore already decided who is an Oudstryder and who is not. That argument collapses today. The Minister once again comes before the House with a budget to give a small increase of one-third on those pensions. It is therefore no longer a question of who is an Oudstryder and who is not. There may be instances in which people want to act dishonestly, but that difficulty no longer exists today. That difficulty falls away, and the difficulties which still exist today are based on different grounds from those mentioned by the hon. member for Frankfort. I want to quote that the hon. member for Frankfort has said here repeatedly—that since 1902 an injustice has been done to the Oudstryders who fought on the Boer side. That injustice was also done when the Pensions Act of 1919 was introduced. The people who sustained wounds, made their claims, and as the hon. member said, the misfortune was that those old heroes of the past encountered unsympathetic doctors, people who were prepared to give everything to those who were injured in the war of 1914-1918, but who were very unsympathetic with regard to the Oudstryders of the Boer War. I want to move an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Vrededorp. In her motion she asks that the House should ask the Government to consider the advisability of introducing legislation this Session to fulfil the promise of the Minister of Finance regarding a pension or allowance for Oudstryders and widows of Oudstryders. In this motion it is said very clearly that the Minister of Finance has made a promise. Whether that promise was given in so many words, or whether it was an impression that he created, the deputation which went to see him definitely gave the impression that he made such a promise. I myself was not present when the deputation went to see the Minister. Unfortunately, I could not be present. But the impression which was obtained by the hon. member for Vrededorp was also obtained by the other members of the deputation, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. J. J. Haywood), received the same impression, because shortly afterwards he recorded his impressions as follows—

That was substantiated by the hon. member for Vrededorp—

The impression was that there was something in prospect which would happen during the Parliamentary Session. That was the impression which the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District, received, and he recorded it afterwards. His impression was—

That, indeed, was the impression that he gave to that deputation, that he had to wait for the Parliamentary Session, and that during that Session consideration would be given to the matter. The impression that was given was that the Minister made a promise that something would come. I just want to point out that the motion of the hon. member for Vrededorp says—

But the motion does not remain at that. The motion mentions something which to me is very important—

It is for those widows who are still living today on the soil of their fatherland that I plead. I quote it especially again in my amendment. The Minister comes here now with an increase of one-third on the pension of Oudstryders, but he does not say a single word about their widows. Apart from any other consideration in regard to the merits of the case—if he gives the Oudstryders, the men, an increase, however meagre it may be, I say that a pension must also be granted to the old mother who co-operated and took her part in that heroic struggle, and if she draws the old age pension, she must also receive an increase. If the cost of living has risen for the man, it has risen still more for that widow who lives in poor circumstances, without a husband and without anyone to support her, without anyone to look after her. When I talk about these aged widows, I want to appeal to the feelings of the Minister of Finance. I want to put it to him in this way: If his father had taken part in that struggle, if his father had been broken in that struggle and had later passed away, and his mother lived today in poor circumstances—if he loved his mother and she were living today in such impoverished circumstances that she had to draw a meagre old age pension, would the heart of her son not bleed to see if he could not do something for the sake of her share in that heroic struggle? Yes, I think he would do it, and I therefore ask him also to pay a pension to the widows of the Oudstryders. My amendment is supplementary to the motion of the hon. member for Vrededorp. I virtually give a narrower definition of the motion, and I now want to propose my amendment as follows—

I want to stress two points. The first is that that generation of heroes is not pleading today for alms. Members on all sides of the House, including the members who sit behind the Minister himself, come to him today and plead not for alms, but for the restoration of the violated rights of those Oudstryders. That is why I talk of the recognition of their services. They rendered services to their people. The hon. member for Frankfort explained to us here that in the military sphere, in the commando system and so on, they did a service to the country. Their achievements are the heritage of our whole people. It is a debt that is owing to them, and not a form of alms. And now I want to say from my heart what I have already said to people privately, and they felt just as I do. It put the question in this way to an English-speaking person: The English-speaking person in his soul is proud of the English people, and say he fought for his people and for his country which was dear to him, and years after the war was over and he was aged and living in poverty, not having enough to eat and drink every day, and the English government then offered him 10s. a month, would he not say it was a scandal. His reply was “Yes.” And several pensions of 10s. a month have been offered to our people. I must say that in a few cases I made representations to the authorities concerned, and to their credit I can say that they increased the pension. But several pensions of 10s. per month were offered. Now the Minister of Finance is going to raise them by one-third. That means that those persons will receive 13s. 4d. instead of 10s. The second point I want to stress in my amendment is that this remuneration to the Oudstryders is a debt of honour to them. I plead with all the force at my disposal that we should pay them that debt of honour. That generation is gradually passing away. Tomorrow and the day after it may be too late for a grateful succeeding generation to do something for those who perhaps sacrificed everything for their country and for what they considered sacred for their country, both materially and spiritually. I just want to say this to the Minister of Finance, that he must think of that debt of honour and that he must think particularly of the widows of that generation of heroes of our people. Let me just repeat to him what I said on the first occasion when I introduced this motion in 1940. I made an appeal to him and to the House. I asked that we should not make a political case of this; come, let us all accept the responsibility together, and then we all have the honour that we at least did something for that passing generation, somehing which would perhaps make life pleasant for them in the country for which they sacrificed so much, and where they are now spending the evening of their lives. I asked that we should do it from all sides of the House, and in that spirit I introduced my motion. Now I want to return briefly to the history of this problem. There is not a problem in the country which touches us so deeply as this. It affects everything that is pure and fine in the past of the Boer nation, and I want just to give a brief summary of what has already happened in connection with this problem. I do not want to take the credit for myself. What I have done I have done out of appreciation for the services of these heroes of our people, out of gratitude and appreciation. I want no thanks and appreciation for it. From time to time this matter has been tackled and brought to the notice of the Government. It has sometimes been made out that previous governments did nothing. I feel that I must remove that impression, and I want in that connection to quote an undertaking which has already been given. As early as May 11,1939—the present Minister took over on September 4, 1939—this letter was written by no one less than General Hertzog, then Prime Minister of South Africa, to an Oudstryder who came to him with the same request. His answer to the Oudstryder was this—

An undertaking had already been given by the previous Government, and the Minister of Finance cannot say that nothing happened previously. A commission of inquiry, to which the hon. member for Vredefort referred, was also appointed by the previous Government, not the present Minister’s Government. I come now to the first motion which I introduced in this House on February 20, 1940. The original motion read as follows—

1. (i) To institute a pensions scheme for all Oudstryders of the Anglo-Boer War and their dependants who are in needy circumstances; and
2. (ii) To provide for widows and orphans of Oudstryders of the Boer Republics who lost their lives in the struggle and whose dependants are at present living in needy circumstances as a result thereof.

From the first day when I introduced this matter in the House, I asked that provision should be made for the widows of the Oudstryders because they contributed their share to that heroic period in the history of our people. That was in 1940. In 1941 I again brought this question before the House. There was a discussion on war pensions, and I pleaded then that that opportunity should be used to enable justice to be done in connection with Oudstryders’ pensions. I pointed out that an injustice was being done to the Oudstryders by simply giving them a premature old age pension. The position was that I proposed that we should at least make that provision of the Act retrospective, so that Oudstryders who were already 65 years old would receive payment for five years. When that Act came into force practically all the Oudstryders were already 65 years old, and all who could comply with the restrictive provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act were already receiving an old age pension. The soldiers of the war of 1914-T8 would, however, have the opportunity as soon as they reached the age of 60 years to receive the premature pension. An injustice was done to the Oudstryders, because the majority of the Oudstryders were excluded from the old age pension. I pleaded then in 1941 that justice should be done to the Oudstryders, and that even if it was £1 a month retrospective, it should be paid to them for the five years, so that they would at least receive £60 for the 5 years. Then they would at least have received a few pounds to enable them to spend the evening of their lives peacefully. The Minister refused to do that. In February, 1942, my motion came up again, and the hon. member for Aliwal North (Captain G. H. F. Strydom) proposed it for me. I had to leave unavoidably. In that I asked for two things. The first was a pension of at least £7 10s. a month for every Oudstryder. For this debt of honour it was little enough. In the second place, I asked that we should remove the restrictive provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. The Old Age Pensions Act contains so many restrictive provisions that a large section of the Oudstryders were excluded. I indicated to the Minister that the cost of living had risen; that there were a large number of Oudstryders who were border-line cases, and who could not comply with the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. I have received letters from persons who have applied year after year for old age pensions, but they could not get them. Those restrictive provisions denied them the old age pension. I proposed those two things, but the Minister of Finance would not concede them. That those pleas were based on the requests and prayers of the Oudstryders of our people I want to substantiate by reading the following decisions of the Oudstryders’ Bond. On April 30, 1941, there was a Conference of Oudstryders at Krugersdorp, which was very well attended, and the following resolutions were taken there—

And we heard from the hon. member for Frankfort that there were about 18,000 of them at the end …

It is the Oudstryders who ask this. Secondly, the conference adopted this resolution—

They must not be excluded from the Oudstryders’ pensions because they receive old age pensions. The old age pension is given to all citizens of the country who are without means, but we regard the Oudstryders’ pension as a debt of honour that we owe to those people who waged that struggle for our country, a struggle of which posterity will be proud into the distant future. The third resolution which this conference of Oudstryders adopted is one that I want to emphasise—

Why should the widow be excluded? And now I want to say this. The Boer women took part in this war of 1899-1902 as was never done in any other war in the history of the world. I want to mention a few figures in that connection. On the battlefield about 4,000 burghers were killed But 26,000 women and children died of hunger in the concentration camps. Ask yourself now who made the greatest sacrifices in this life-and-death struggle of our people. There is only one answer; we must answer unequivocally, the woman and child. Twenty-six thousand of them are lying in the graveyards of our country. They made the greatest sacrifice, and they remind us of those words in the Book of Books: “Greater love has no man than this, that he gave up his life for his neighbours.” A love for their people was more than their love for their husbands and more than their love for their children. They carried their children one after the other to the graveyard as sacrifices on the altar of the freedom of their people. Their sacrifice was 26,000, the sacrifice of the burghers was 4,000. For that reason I make a special plea for these widows of the Oudstryders who are dead. They have not married again. Many of them live in impoverished circumstances. They may perhaps receive an old-age pension, or they do not receive it; they must struggle on in this country which is covered with sacrifices and wet with tears which have flowed over it. The fourth point in the proposal that I have made, refers to the fourth resolution which was adopted by the conference of Oudstryders—

That was the maximum which the Minister proposed in his legislation.

That is precisely what we proposed last year, and we still maintain that the two matters must be kept separate. The Minister has the two things together. The one is an amount owed to those people for something which they did and which the other people did not do. I want to assert that an injustice has been done to the Oudstryders. I want to mention a few of the cases. The soldiers after the war of 1914-T8 received a pension immediately after the war. It was not until twenty years after that struggle which the Boer nation waged that they could claim a pension. I want to name still another case of injustice. From April 1, 1919 to December 31, 1939 an amount of £17,000,000 was paid out in war pensions. In connection with the war of 1914-T8 £12,815,000 was paid out. In connection with the burghers of the war of 1899-1902 £3,958,000 was paid out. South Africa had nothing to do with the world war of 1914-T8. We have already heard from the hon. member for Frankfort how the commission went to work. The doctors cheated many of the old burghers, and the figures that I mentioned here are a proof of the flagrant injustice that was done them.

When business was suspended I was saying that gradually the Oudstryder who took part in the war, in spite of all provisions that have been taken, is still suffering an injustice. I unfortunately have not the time to quote everything. A question which the hon. Minister will probably put to me is this: Last year you proposed a pension of £7 10s.; this year you propose a globular sum of £100 and a pension of £10 a month. Why do you now propose an increased amount? I want to tell the hon. Minister why I do so. If this Government has enough money to spend £100,000,000 in one year on Britain’s war, if this Government has so much money that the Minister of Finance can merely put in a loose-leaf in his Budget and say: Now I again require an extra £8,000,000; if there is money for that, then the Government can surely afford to give £10 a month to that generation of heroes of our people. I also want to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), where he appealed to the hon. Minister of Finance to soften his hard heart. I want to ask him if he cannot give something to those heroes of our people? Now, I just want to read a memorial address that was given to one of the burghers during the war of 1899-1902. It is a memorial address that was given by Gen. P. J. de Villiers to burgher Pieter Cornelius Cilliers. I want to read it to the Minister, and I hope that it will sink to the bottom of his soul—the conditions in which the people found themselves, and in which they still find themselves today. The memorial address reads as follows—

1. 1. Remember, oh Lord, what happened to us; behold it and see our misery.
2. 2. Our heritage has been given to strangers, and our homes to foreigners; we are orphans without a father; our mothers are widows.
3. 3. We must pay for the water we drink; our wood has a price on it.
4. 4. We suffer persecution; we are weary; they do not leave us in peace.
5. 5. Servants rule us; we must buy our bread at the risk of our lives.
6. 6. Our skin has become black as a result of the terrible pangs of hunger.
7. 7. Our foremen have been shot dead by them; the countenance of our parents has not been honoured.

Here is an old generation that is going to its rest and which begs: “Give me the last honour that I am entitled to.”

1. 8. The joy in our heart has ceased; our hymns of joy have changed to hymns of sorrow.
2. 9. They have taken away our young men …

The sons of these old people must today go over the world to take part in a war in Britain’s interest …

There in the slums they must stay …

The youth of our people have ceased to make music.

1. 10. The crown has been taken from our head; our heart is weary; our eyes have become dim. We seek peace!

Those are the conditions of this generation of heroes. That is how they felt in those times, and that is how they feel today more intensely at the end of their lives. That is the message which that generation gives to the Minister, and I hope the Minister will listen to it: “Think of us as we thought of you, who come after us.” I move the amendment as printed in my name.

It is a pleasure for me to second this amendment. The spirit that prevails in this House today is encouraging. We feel that we are not dealing with a political matter, but with a reality. We feel that we are dealing here with a great injustice to worthy people who have made history in South Africa, people who were neglected in the past, people who should have had assistance and who did not get it. I know that the Minister is sympathetic. He has made a beginning, but he has just begun to scratch the crust. Those people’s time is almost over. During the few years that they still have to live they must suffer want. If this House wants to right an injustice that has been committed, then it must come now and give those people what they are entitled to. I do not want to mention figures; the matter is too serious. We know that everything has already been thrashed out in this House. Every small previlege has already been mentioned here. I want to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst). She went about over the length and breadth of the country and she met these poor people. She saw the misery they have to endure, and she came here today in a non-political manner and she pleaded for those people, and I know that the hon. Minister is going to agree to what she has put forward, and to this amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). I just want to say here that under various heads £50,000 has been given to the Queen Wilhelmina Fund. I do not grudge them that. It is for a good cause. £50,000 has been given to the Belgian Relief and £60,000 to the Governor General’s Fund. The Government has regarded these as deserving cases. But why not now also meet these old people? It is only a small sum that is concerned. Every year speeches are repeated in this House over and over. The one says what he said yesterday and what he is going to say tomorrow. We have all these difficulties. Why does the Minister not vote this sum; why does he not give these people what they are entitled to? £80,000 has been given this year. To 1,209 Oudstryders £85,000 is paid; that is £48 per Oudstryder. To 3,343 ex-soldiers of the last war £231,000 was paid, that is £66 per soldier. That is from 1 April 1938 until 31 March 1939. Just look what a difference there is. Why must this difference be made? Most of us who sit here are descendants of the Oudstryders, I want to mention the names today of the Oudstryders whom I can still see here, and every Oudstryder will not plead for himself; they can provide for themselves, but they must think of the misery those Oudstryders outside have to endure. I just want to mention one case, that of Louw Pretorious, a boy who was with me. I am glad that the Chief Pensions Commissioner is here today. This boy received £25 by way of a pension. He is an old man today. He worked temporarily on the Railways and there he earned something. But he had to pay that money back. I then went to the Chief Pensions Officer and told him that this man was not lazy; he has eight children and now he must pay this money back. The Pensions Officer told me that he did not make the law, that he was merely there to carry out the law. He said that he did not make the law. I must say he was very sympathetic. The result was that that person had to pay back 5s. a month. A pension of £25 a year was given to this Oudstryder and now he must pay back 5s. a month. When I saw him last, he was unemployed. I asked him then what was to happen now and his answer was: “Old comrade, I am going to apply again.” Now he is going to apply again, and then he will get the old age pension. In this way worthy old people are treated who waged war for the rights of their country. They did not go and look for war; they waged war to defend their own fatherland. We are tired of coming and asking for alms. We are not asking for alms now. We say that we must give these people what they are entitled to, for the services they have done for their country, and we must give them something that will enable them to live respectfully as people who have fought for their country. It is said now that the people have been met with 15 per cent. We must not count money here. It is a debt of honour that we must pay to our people. And let us meet the people now in such a way so that we remedy the matter once and for all so that we no longer have to discuss the matter here again. I just want to mention the names of the Oudstryders in this House. There is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman), the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Verster), the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe), the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens), the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart), the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) and myself. Those are the people who still sit here and they ought to know what the position is. They ought to have sympathy with this motion. Let us put aside all political considerations in connection with this matter, and make right what is wrong. It is of no use making speeches here, using nice words and making promises. It is of no use saying what we are going to do for those people if we do not do it immediately. Let us today right that injustice and not wait until tomorrow, and then we will not have need to discuss this matter again.

The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) has presented very strongly something which she feels very deeply in connection with this matter. She has also gone to a great deal of trouble in connection with the championing of the interests of Oudstryders. There is definitely no lack of sympathy as far as she is concerned. Nor has she accused me of lack of sympathy. This she definitely could not do. In 1941 I introduced a Bill here, whereby for the first time for almost 40 years concrete assistance was given to the Oudstryders, and in 1942 I again introduced a Bill in which, as she has said, considerable concessions were shown to the Oudstryders. I have now again shown another concession in my Budget speech. My hon. friend will therefore not be able to accuse me of lack of sympathy. But we must take the facts into account. One of the facts is this. For fifteen and a half years the leader of the party to which the hon. member for Vrededorp belongs was Minister of Finance. He also was not lacking in sympathy. He himself was an Oudstryder. He also did not suffer from any lack of money. We have only recently heard that he had so many millions which he used for the repayment of debt. He was also a member of a party which had made many promises to the Oudstryders, even before 1934, before they came to power, and, in spite of this, although he was Minister of Finance for all those years, he did not do anything concrete. It is true, and I accept the fact, that on the 11th May, 1939, he wrote this letter to Gen. Hertzog—

That is after almost fifteen years. His Government began to consider the practicability of a scheme. At about the same time my predecessor instructed the Committee on the Disability Scheme to go into this matter. But it took fifteen years for them to come to that point. Why do I now mention this? Because I want to prove that this matter is not so easy as my hon. friend wants to make out. If my predecessor, with no lack of money, with no lack of sympathy and goodwill, and also with no lack of promises by his party in the time when he was in opposition, if my predecessor waited for fifteen years before he himself took the first step, then this question is not so easy to solve as my hon. friend makes out.

What is the difficulty?

The hon. member must put that question to the leader of the party of the mover of the motion. I say immediately that I cannot accept the motion which the hon. member for Vrededorp has introduced here. She moves—

We will introduce legislation this year. I have indicated that in my Budget speech. But I cannot accept this motion because it will give quite a wrong reflection of the true position. What promises have I made? My hon. friend gives the impression in this motion, and she has created the impression outside that I have made promises which I have not fulfilled. Can she point out in the Hansard report any promises that I have made other than that I would consider the matter? Can she point out anything in the Hansard report that I said here in Parliament by way of a promise which I have not fulfilled? No, she cannot.

You gave us all to understand that.

Where did I do that? My hon. friend says that I received a deputation, a deputation of Oudstryders. That is quite correct. But what did she say further? Let us see what the Press said about this legislation—

Now, my hon. friend says that they received promises. Sympathy is not yet promises. The report says further—

Where is the promise? The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) quoted a note here made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood). What was that note?—

That was what I promised—

Where is the promise? No, my hon. friend cannot come and tell this House that I do not fulfil my promises. She has created the impression in Parliament and outside that I make promises which I have not fulfilled.

Why so cattish?

I am waiting for an answer. This motion is based on a wrong presentation of the facts. There we have what was said in the Press about the deputation and what was recorded by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District. I know that afterwards allegations were made on public platforms that I had made promises. I have denied it in the Press and on public platforms. Now the hon. member for Vrededorp speaks about promises to widows, and the hon. member for Boshof asks about the implementing of promises in respect of widows. What promises? If my hon. friend wants to make a statement, then I will sit down. No, she cannot. There were no promises. My hon. friend has introduced a motion that is based on a wrong presentation of the case, and for that reason I cannot accept the motion. Now I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof. That I also cannot accept. In the first place that amendment makes a very clear discrimination between one class of war veterans and another class. It speaks only of persons who took part on the Boer side in the Anglo Boer War, that to them and their widows certain concessions should be made. We have never yet had that difference in our pensions legislation, and I say definitely and clearly that this Government is not prepared to make that discrimination. The provision we made for the Oudstryders two years ago were not made for only one section of war veterans, but for all. We as a Government are not going to discriminate. If we do something for one section, then we are going to do it for all. The second point is that I certainly cannot undertake to make the provision as indicated. More is being asked for than what the hon. member for Vrededorp has asked for, and also more than the Oudstryders’ Bond has asked for. The hon. member for Boshof gives as a reason for the fact that he is asking more that we are now spending so much money on the war. No, I think the reason is something else. He wants to give the impression that he and his party, and not the friends on the other side, are the true friends of the Oudstryders. They want to do something better than those friends on that side. That is the truth, and he cannot get away from it.

Why must you now drag politics into it?

My hon. friend knows that the Oudstryders’ Bond asked for less. Now he asks for more. Let me remind the House what has happened. In 1940 the committee to which the matter was referred to by Mr. Havenga submitted its report. That report was very clear. They recommended that the problem of war veterans should be dealt with on a basis of a premature old age pension. That recommendation was before the country for years, and I have never had any objection to that principle. The principle was readily accepted by all. In my Budget speech in February, 1941,—I think that was the date—I said that I was going to act according to the recommendation of that committee, and that principle which they laid down, namely, of a premature old age pension. It was accepted with gratitude and the telegrams we received made no objection to it, not even the members on the other side.

I objected.

No, when my hon. friend objected was when I introduced the Bill three months afterwards.

I objected in 1940.

No, it was not in 1940, because then the report of the committee had not yet been submitted. The report was submitted at the end of the Session of 1940. I informed the House in my Budget speech of 1941 that on the basis of that report legislation would be introduced, and no objection was made to it. When the legislation was introduced, then objections were made. Now it is asked: Why not meet the people, and then everything will be over? On what scale must I meet them? If I meet them on the scale of the mover of the motion, then the friends immediately opposite me are dissatisfied. If I meet them on the proposals that are made from opposite, then, again, the other group is dissatisfied. So long as that spirit exists, we will never achieve satisfaction. What is now the position in connection with this matter? The promise I made I have carried out. My promise was that I would consider the proposals which the Oudstryders’ Bond submitted to me. I have considered those proposals, and especially in two directions. In the first place, I ascertained what the acceptance of the’ proposals would cost. I then found that it would cost more than £2,000,000 a year. That is not a bagatelle. The proposals which my hon. friend now makes will cost considerably more than that. The other direction in which I considered the proposal was by way of a comparison with the position in other countries, and from this the following appeared. In the first place, that everywhere in other countries where I could get information, this principle is applied which we have also applied in our country. In other words, the war veterans’ pension is given in the form of a premature old age pension. That principle is applied generally. The effect is that nowhere is it possible for any one who draws an old age pension also to draw a war veteran’s pension. He must draw the one or the other. In the second place, it became clear that in other countries, just as here, there is a means test. Just as in our country, it is also possible in other countries, because a person possesses certain means, he perhaps gets a pension of only 10s. per month. Everywhere there is a means test, so far as I could go into the position. No other country, as far as I could ascertain, gives a pension to a widow of a war veteran. In some countries they also get a gratuity on the death of their husbands. But nowhere is a pension for the widow of a war veteran as such, so far as I could ascertain. That was the result of my investigation, and I then informed the House in my Budget speech that I would introduce a Bill, and what I said then was this—

I made it clear that that matter was related to the general question of old age pensions, and I indicated in my speech that the broader question would be investigated. We accepted, however, that more will have to be done than what is being done at present for old and physically unfit persons. But I have given reasons why we cannot now go further in connection with the Oudstryders, because it is connected with the broader aspect of the matter, and therefore we can only make the provision that I have indicated in my Budget speech, and that is as far as we can go at present.

I am very sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance has regarded the matter in this light. The atmosphere in the House this morning was one of conciliation. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) made a speech here which suited the subject very well. Now the Minister of Finance comes and in a caustic and bitter manner he wants to evade the matter, because he has already decided not to accept this motion. I find that it is a great pity that the Minister acted in this way. We expected that he would deal with this matter in the same spirit of conciliation as that with which it was introduced. We on this side regretted that the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) with his confused eloquence tried to create confusion, and went into channels which could cause confusion. Unfortunately the Minister of Finance greatly exceeded the hon. member for Boshof in that respect. I do not think that it is good of a Minister, to put it mildly, to try and dispose of the matter by throwing around challenges in the House. The second wrong thing he did was to adopt the attitude that two wrongs make a right. He blames the previous Minister of Finance because he did not do this or that, but in the end he adopts the same point of view. He makes charges against the previous government and tries in that way to break down the case that has been built up here. It was not the intention of the hon. member for Vrededorp to come here with accusations. I listened with interest to her. The Minister made the promise that he would consider the matter and in my presence he said that the Oudstryders’ bond should put its house in order. That was done. More than a hundred meetings were held by the hon. member for Vrededorp, myself and other members, because we expected that the Minister meant that he would consider the matter, and that he would consider it favourably if our house was in order. He gave us to understand that he would meet us in connection with the matter. All the newspapers took up the matter and gave the impression that the Minister would do something. But it seems to me as if the die has now been cast. Just as it happens in many cases in this House, it is a waste of breath to discuss this matter further. I wanted to mention a few points yet, but now it is unnecessary for me to say what I wanted to say, because it will not help. I just want to suggest this to the Minister, if he will still accept a suggestion. If he does not want to go any further than he has already gone, then I want to ask him to show this small concession. He spoke here about the means test that is applied when application forms are filled in. I want to ask him now to raise that means test. A person is an Oudstryder; he has a small farm; he can no longer work; a son perhaps conducts the farming; he is poor and cannot provide for his family, but he must provide for the old people. But now the position is that the Oudstryder sits on a small piece of ground and for that reason his pension is reduced. That is the reason why some of them get 10s. a month. I want to ask the Minister to raise that means test, so that a man who has a small property, even if it is a small erf or a small farm, or a few cows or oxen, will find that it will not be taken into account to bring down his pension to 10s. or 15s. a month. The Minister spoke in a reproachful manner about the discrimination between Oudstryders and soldiers but the Minister must realise that there is a great difference between an ex-soldier and an Oudstryder. The ex-soldier did military service, but he received a wage. The Oudstryder fought for an ideal. While the soldier regained his money and possessions, while his wife and children received an allowance and could save, the Oudstryder came back to a burntdown farm on which there was not a single animal alive. He had to begin from the beginning again. There is definitely a difference between the two. The soldier today has a better prospect than other people in the country. The Minister of Lands refuses to give land to any applicant on a settlement. Everything is being held until after the war, so that the soldier can also get an opportunity. All this is proposed. But now the Minister in a reproachful manner argues that we want to make a difference, and he makes reproaches about what has been done in the past. He apparently thinks that two wrongs make a right. It is high time that this matter is tackled seriously and that we see to it that the Oudstryders get their just share.

I want immediately to express my appreciation for the fact that the Minister of Finance has placed £80,000 on his budget to increase the pension of the Oudstryders. That brings the amount that has already been voted altogether to something like a quarter of a million pounds. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Conroy) that it is only an insult to the Oudstryders, and that he, if he were in the position of the member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst), he would have said to the Minister of Finance that he could keep it. If that is the feeling of the hon. member for Vredefort, why then has he not the courage to say that to the Minister himself, and why does he want to push it on to the member for Vrededorp. I hope that he will have the courage to give that answer to the Minister of Finance himself. I can give the Minister of Finance the assurance that the Oudstryders who are receiving the pension today will be very grateful to this concession. The fact that a quarter of a million pounds is being spent to pay pensions to those people will earn for him the everlasting thanks of those people. There is however a point that is not right, and that is the discrimination that is made between Oudstryders. The one gets an old age pension, and the other who possesses a little more, does not get it. It causes a great deal of trouble.

Thank the Minister for that too.

The hon. member should have the courage himself to say what he wants to say. I want to ask the Minister to remove that discrimination. The Minister can lay down the scale himself, but I want to give him the assurance that at the moment it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction among the old burghers. The one is a little better off than the other, and then discrimination is applied. After the reply of the Minister of Finance there remains little to be said about this matter, but I just want to express this thought about the suggestion which the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) has made. There was also one small point in the speech of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) on which I want to remark. Usually I do not take much notice of what he says, but I appreciate this sentence in his speech where he in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) said that he took off his hat to any citizen who has done his duty to his country. I just want to ask that in the future he should show the same respect and that he should not have the bad taste ….

I do not take off my hat to the Imperialists.

… that he will not show the bad taste which he showed the other day when he besmirched the name of the late Gen. Louis Botha.

Order!

If I have said something that I should not have said, then I apologise.

No, the hon. member may not refer to a previous debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will abide by that. I just want to emphasise that I appreciate what the hon. member said this morning and I hope that he will abide by it to the honour of the people whom he so often describes here as his people, and will not again drag the name of that great Afrikaner through the mud.

We know the memory of the Minister of Finance to be a wonderful memory. I am glad therefore to have this opportunity of putting his memory to the test, more particularly where he tried to explain in his speech that he is the first Minister who has done anything to help the Oudstryders. There he went too far, and I think there the Minister was not quite fair—an unfairness which I can only ascribe to a lack of knowledge of the facts. He gave us to understand here that his predecessor (Mr. Havenga) was too neglectful, or procrastinated in looking after the interests of the Oudstryders. He said that promises were indeed made, but that those promises were never carried out. Let me say this to the Minister of Finance, that nothing is less true than that allegation of his. I shall prove it. I think that those members of Parliament who were here with me, who have sat here as long as I have, will be able to endorse the facts I am going to mention here. Otherwise I shall have to go through the Hansard reports and the documents of twenty years ago to deliver the proof to the Minister. I have as yet had no time to do so, but my memory is very clear on that point. What are now the facts in connection with Mr. Havenga and the Oudstryders? The fact is this, that immediately after we came into power in 1924, one of the very first things Mr. Havenga did was to make money available from the meagre funds which he had at his disposal at that time, to whom?

For officials.

I have respect for that hon. member’s youth, but not for his memory. He made that money available for the Oudstryders. In those days the funds of the Government Were far from strong, but he yet made money available to Oudstryders.

What about the surpluses of millions?

We took over from the party that waged war and incurred debt, although not as much as now. But the first money which Mr. Havenga took was money for the Oudstryders. I recall that an organisation of Oudstryders was created in Pretoria and elsewhere which contributed every month to the Oudstryders’ fund.

That never happened.

That hon. member’s memory is bad. I make that statement here today and I challenge anybody to say something else, and to prove the contrary. I state that one of the very first actions of Mr. Havenga was to take money and to give an allowance to the Oudstryders. If Mr. Havenga made a mistake then it was the same mistake that is being made by the present Minister, because from that allowance emerged the commission of enquiry, and the commission of enquiry recommended that there should not only be Oudstryders’ pensions, but in general that there should be old age pensions. That is precisely what the Minister of Finance has now said. Allow me to remind the Minister of this, that at that time there was nothing in the nature of old age pensions. Every man and woman, no matter how poor or miserable they were, had to fend for themselves. The Minister of Finance must remember this and must not say that Mr. Havenga did nothing for the Oudstryders. He was the first Minister of Finance who immediately used some of his meagre funds to help the Oudstryders, and nobody but Klasie Havenga was responsible for the old age pensions. These pensions were a direct result of his action in connection with the Oudstryders. I want to put this matter right once and for all. It has been asked why Mr. Havenga tackeld the matter in this manner, and why the matter should be investigated in this manner. The feeling at the time was very different to what it is now. At that time the Cape was completely against us. They said that the Transvaal people were concerned, and why should they pay anything to the „Vaalpens”.

Was that in 1924?

It was the case before that time. I hope that the Minister of Finance with his steely memory will not make this mistake again. Now I want to say something to the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). He mentioned here the names of Oudstryders. In this motion old veterans are mentioned. This is something different to Oudstryders. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), is also an old veteran, and if he was here he would perhaps have felt very proud. All fighters of such ability and integrity are old veterans. Thus I want to say that there is something to be said for it. I shall give my reasons. Once we start with Oudstryders’ pensions, then we have to scratch open many questions of the past which are today hidden from the eye. We then have to scratch open the past of every individual, also of persons who support the party on my right-hand side. Would it be wise to re-open the old wounds which have fortunately been healed through the effluxion of time, and to reveal to children and grandchildren which people were disloyal; would that be wise? Then I come to the point mentioned here by the hon. member for Boshof, about persons who had foresworn their country. Then they were English, they were traitors to their country, and thereby they made themselves unworthy of assistance. Let us rather remain silent about that past and let us not scratch open such things. It reminds me of the Tommy whom we captured one day and who asked us: “What are you fighting for?” I then said to him: “We are fighting for our freedom.” His answer was: “You are fools, I am fighting for my 1s. 3d. per day.” I would rather grant something to that person than to the man who berayed his country. Then another little point already referred to by the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman), and the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). I also noted down that point, and I would like to emphasise it in the hope that the Minister will take notice of it. The hon. member for Lydenburg elaborated broadly on it, and the hon. member for Rustenburg also did so. It is a matter of principle. The Minister has given an increase to persons who are old veterans, but not to the others who are not veterans. He therefore wants to grant pensions to old veterans which will be one-third higher than the old age pension. To apply that principle consistently he will also have to put one-third higher the basis of income for old veterans to give them an opportunity of receiving old age pension in accordance with the principle laid down. That basis of income is £72 per annum for ordinary old age pensions; for old veterans the basis would have to be put at £96; in other words, old veterans who have an income of £96 or less, will have the right to receive Oudstryders’ pensions. I would like to say to the Minister that the people who will now receive that veterans’ pension did not come into consideration for military crosses. There were no such things. All there was in the old days was: Do your duty towards the country. They did that duty, and I hope the day will come when the Minister will show more sympathy towards those heroes of our people. I hope he will see his way clear shortly to assist these people further. After a short while they will all have gone. I want to ask the Minister to give them a chance of concluding their last days without anxiety.

I would like to give my opinion also in connection with this matter. On various other occasions we have discussed this matter in the House in the past, and we are doing so again. I would not like to add to the recriminations that have been slung from one side of the House to the other. I do not think that will bring us any further. I do not think it is a question of sympathy or lack of sympathy. It is precisely for that reason that I am participating in the debate, because I think that the taxpayer and the people in general will not have any objection to the payment of that amount; because we look upon it today as an amount that is due to those Oudstryders. The Government will have a direct foundation under its feet if it now comes and says: We have decided to make that payment. I do not think it is a question of sympathy; I think there is sufficient sympathy throughout the country, sympathy on the part of the present generation in all four Provinces. I believe that both sections of the people in this country will be willing; I believe that no objection would be raised against a decision by the Government to pay out that amount which we owe the Oudstryders. A sum of £2,000,000 has been mentioned here as the sum that will be necessary for it. I do not want to doubt that figure, but I consider that the greatest proportion of the Oudstryders have already died and that their number is declining annually. It will decrease faster on a pro rata scale in the future. I was very grateful when that antedated old age pension we got here was introduced. I was very grateful when the Minister made that statement. But I think he will agree with me when I say that it looked better superficially than it really is, and one reason why that antedated old age pension did not answer its purpose, is because a drastic means test has been applied in connection with it. The means test that has been applied is quite as strict as in the case of old age pensions.

It is stricter.

In view of the fact that this was a special consideration of the Government I would have thought, if we really wanted to be appreciative, that we would have said that if there was to be a means test in this case, that it should not be the same as in the case of old age pensions, because it eliminates an enormously large number of them as beneficiaries. We can all realise immediately that it is almost unthinkable that there is a parent of 60 or 70 years of age who has not a son or children who care for them partially. Surely there are few people of that age who have no relatives. The Commissioner wants to shift the responsibility partially on the shoulders of the children. The number of persons to whom that antedated old age pension is granted is relatively small compared with the number of Oudstryders there really is. In that case I would have thought that the means would not be so strictly applied. If a man can live in reasonable comfort and does not suffer want in any measure, where he has an income of a few hundred pounds a year, if you include him I would have no objection. But where it is found that there is a child who makes a regular contribution to his parents, then it immediately counts against the parents.

And then they don’t give it.

Then they do not give it, with the result that that antedated old age pension emerges naked in practice, with the result that it is almost worthless. The Minister will ask me what I suggest. I would immediately suggest a …

Ten pounds a month.

I would immediately suggest that if that pension is applied, that you should, in the first place, relax your means test, and that the responsibility should under no circumstances be thrown on the children. Where do we as a Parliament come in if we say: We are now going to shift the responsibility from us; we are going to make your children responsible? If we do that, then we don’t show any appreciation. It is almost a question of overlapping that one finds today in the social services. Any person who is not able to work through sickness can also derive benefit from it, although the scale is much smaller. There is such an overlapping that the person either gets an old age pension or those social services, and it will be strange to find a person who will be able to draw a pension under that antedated scheme. I am thinking of two persons. Both were wounded, and the military pension was granted to the one. Your private doctor says that one of them is 50 per cent. incapacitated, but he has never received a military pension. He gets an old age pension of £2 10s. The other was wounded more lightly. He does not get an old age pension at all. He is still working, and because he still works he is in no way entitled to an old age pension; even though he was wounded in the war he gets neither old age pension nor an Oudstryder’s pension. The means test is being applied so strictly that the number of persons who benefit is very small as against the actual number there is. In view of the willingness that exists in all the Provinces, among the older generation as well as among the present generation, to give that concession, I think the time has come that we must do so. I am one of those who think that it will still happen one day. But I want to urge the Government not to wait until the day when only about seven Oudstryders remain. I want to say this to the Minister: You and I also like a good funeral, but we prefer something good while we live. I have no mandate; I do not speak here on behalf of the Oudstryders. I am speaking simply as one who feels that my case is perfectly sound, as a member of the younger generation towards an older generation. I think that where the matter went wrong in the first instance was years ago in 1924, when a pact was formed between the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party. The Labour Party laid down as one of the conditions an old age pension. I do not want to cast any reflections, but we should then also have said that we want an Oudstryders’ pension. I regret that an Oudstryders’ pension was not laid down at the time. I do not say only to Oudstryders who participated in that war; there are also many of the war of 1914-1918 who are in very sad circumstances. You still find persons today who took part in the first Transvaal war of freedom, who are in a very sad position, and who are excluded from old age pension and from Oudstryders’ pension. I am in favour of it that they should all be included. Let me say this to the Minister: I think we are doing a lot of overlapping work here. We are standing on the threshold of overlapping work, if I assume that in the future we shall have social security in this country. Then everybody will be included. But now I wonder whether we should not remove those reflections from our shoulders. Those people will one day say to us: You spoke a lot about us, but that is all you did for us; that social security has saved us; you only talked and did nothing. I think the Minister will have the sympathy of the country, and I am glad to hear that he is prepared to go into the matter further, but I think the most practical way would be to relax that means test; then you will find that the law will be much more effective. I say that if you make that means test very elastic, then one need not have to bother about the matter any further; then one does not have to increase the amount.

I regret that I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) on having contributed anything of value to the debate, or of having enhanced the level of the debate. He employed considerable sarcasm against hon. members of the Herenigde Nasionale Party, and it is to be deplored that where we are busy pleading for the existence and welfare of a certain section of our people, who are in difficult circumstances, we should be casting reflections against one another in this manner. It was a pity, and it is in contrast with the manner in which the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) introduced the motion. I can congratulate her, and also other hon. members who supported her. Splendid pleas have been directed to the Minister of Finance and I trusted that he would heed these, at least in some measure, but to our bitter disappointment the hon. Minister compared his action with that of Mr. Havenga. We all know that Mr. Havenga was very orthodox, very thrifty, but the present Minister is playing with hundreds of millions, and I therefore do not think that one must compare the attitude of the former Minister with that of the present Minister. It is also unfair to draw comparisons between the people who fought in the Anglo-Boer War and the British soldiers or the soldiers of other countries. There is a difference as the difference between day and night. We have had numbers of cases where burghers returned from the Boer War, mutilated and ruined. All their possessions were gone. Today they are in difficult circumstances. Is it fair of the Minister of Finance to come today and to compare those cases with the soldiers of other countries? I think it is very unfair. If a terrible sum were involved, I would still be able to understand it. I have here, however, a schedule indicating the number of Oudstryders and the ages of the first 609 who were recruited in Klerksdorp to join the Helpmekaar Oudstrydersbond. For the first 590 the average age of 529 men was established at 64.9, and of 61 women at 66. That was three years ago, so that the average age for men now works out at about 68 years and that for women at 69 years. That clearly shows how small the number has become. To compare the case of these people with the case of soldiers of England who received remuneration is not fair. It was Great Britain’s war. They came to attack us here, and we had to defend ourselves. Many of the Oudstryders did not only lose worldly possessions, but often also women and children. To make this comparison is very unfair. What I find peculiar is that the English-speaking members on the other side, who sit behind the United Party, should be sitting so quiet. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) also got up and pleaded for pensions for Oudstryders, and one would have thought that a fine opportunity presented itself here for members on the other side to help us. They talk such a lot about conciliation. We must be conciliatory. But here was an opportunity for them to show their conciliatory nature, and to say to the Minister of Finance: Look, here we now have an opportunity of proving that we mean it. But not one of them stands up to break a lance for the Oudstryders. It would have been a wonderful step in the right direction, and would have contributed towards co-operation. I was on the point of also attacking the Labour Party, but unfortunaely the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) also stood up, and I appreciate his attitude and that he should also have raised his voice on behalf of the Oudstryders. I hope his party colleagues, who are English-speaking, and who always allege that they champion the cause of the poor man, will agree with the attitude adopted by the hon. member. The Minister of Finance seems to be very determined in his refusal to accept the motion. I want to ask him again to give certain concessions. It is sad that at this period we should still have to plead for Oudstryders of the Anglo-Boer War who suffer want.

I listened attentively to the least speaker. He spoke about a conciliatory attitude on the part of English-speaking members. I think he was right there on the broad principle, but on the other hand I want to point out that the English-speaking members here expect us as Afrikaans-speaking members to be better able to interpret the Oudstryders’ case than they can. I also want to recall that when a few days ago a member on this side, of the House who is English-speaking wanted to touch on a matter of culture that affected the Afrikaans-speaking section then he was asked what right he had to speak about such matters. I welcome it that the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) did not take up that attitude. When we see that the English-speaking section are with us we should welcome it. When we discuss pensions of Oudstryders then it seems to me that we mix pensions and gratuities, and payments for deeds of the past. If we consider the deserts of the Oudstryders then there is certainly no payment high enough to compensate them for the sacrifices which they have made. We know the suffering and sorrow they had to endure and we cannot compensate them for it. But we must not mix up those things. An Oudstryders’ pension is something different from a gratuity. Can we now adopt the principle in this country to give a pension to every Oudstryder, to every soldier who has participated in one war or another, whether or not he is mutilated, unfit or wounded? Can we give each of them £112 per year pension? Can we give it to all the soldiers who are fighting today? Can we give them such a pension on their return? In principle it is the same matter. I take it that if it is accepted in this case then it must apply throughout. You cannot adopt such a principle unless you apply it generally. For that reason the case of the Oudstryders has been taken up in such a way that they receive an ante-dated old age pension. I think the name is wrong, because it is not a pension. I also want to accept that there are quite a number of deserving cases of Oudstryders who are wounded, and who do not fall under the Act, but honourable members know that soldiers who were mutilated in the Boer War, those who made out a case before the Board which set, are getting a pension. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) also knows that some cases which have been overlooked are still coming regularly before the Select Committee on Pensions of this House.

We do our best in such cases.

I mention this simply because if a man to-day can make out a good case in connection with his participation in the Boer War he can get a pension by means of a petition to this House, but to say that everyone who participated in the war should get a pension, that is going too far. A gratuity or something of that nature is quite another matter. But the Committee went into this question in 1938—’39, and they set aside the idea of a payment of 5s. per day. They asked for what virtually boils down to an ante-dated old age pension and the other idea was departed from. To give a gratuity according to deserts is a very difficult matter. You must go into the question as to how many days a man was on commando, whether he was a general or a corporal, etc., and all these facts are not in our possession. Therefore we cannot set to work in accordance with that basis, but to come here, as did the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), and to say that the mutilated are now getting a pension of only 10s. and are starving, is not correct. I cannot believe that they get only 10s. under the ante-dated old age pension scheme, as alleged by the hon. member. I cannot believe it, because a person who gets only 10s. old age pension must have other sources of income so that he does not starve, and if there should actually be such a case then it is the moral duty of any member who knows of it, to ensure that a change is brought about in respect of such a case.

They offer 10s.

This is not a question of the sale of a farm or a horse, but we are speaking about a pension. The fact remains that it is the duty of any person who knows of such cases, no matter where these occur, to ensure that such people are assisted. When we speak of pensions for mutilated soldiers, then we come to a different matter. Only last year we had to do with a Pension Law for Soldiers, and mutilated soldiers of the Boer War also fall under that legislation that was adopted, and they get the increased pensions granted under the Act. Why did hon. members on the other side offer opposition at the time to that Bill? Now I get no reply. But the fact remains that the Opposition voted against it at the time. I do not say that what was wrong in the past should not be rectified, but all honour is due to the Minister that he came before the House with that legislation, not in normal times when there was plenty of money, but in this time when exceptional plans have to be made. We live in difficult times with increased taxation, times in which a great deal of money has to be spent, but the Minister nevertheless saw his way clear to help those people. All honour is due to him. I am sorry that the motion appeared before the House today in the manner in which it has appeared. The hon. member spoke of promises the Minister was supposed to have made. In her motion she referred to a promise. I have been closely associated with the matter of old age pensions, as far back as 1938, and I know what went on as regards the Minister of Finance, and that he had no idea whatever that his words would be taken up as a promise by the delegation of those people. The words of the Minister are being abused by certain hon. members by putting those words in a certain light, and if the words later appeared in the Minutes in that form it will be said: “There it stands, the hon. member for Vrededorp would not have said it if no promise was made.” That is not fair, and it would not be fair to put it in that way to the Oudstryders. Where is the fixed promise that the Minister is supposed to have made? If it was a promise, he would have put it down on paper. Although hon. members may not think so, I can say that we approached the Minister and applied some pressure on him, and he then promised to consider the matter and to see if something could be done in the matter. It was a good sign that he saw his way clear to increase the pension of Oudstryders to a certain degree. There is one point in the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) to which I am opposed. I am entirely opposed to a cash sum of £100 being paid out to those people. In many cases these are people who are old and decrepit, and if we give them cash nothing of it will remain in a very short while. I do not think we ought to do that. Some of them will be able to look after the money well, but in most respects it would be a mistake to give a gratuity of £100. It is better to grant them monthly instalments. In this respect I want to plead with the Minister to see if he cannot bring about an improvement for the Oudstryders even under existing conditions. With that I agree, but I am opposed to a gratuity. The hon. member for Vredefort also went a little far and spoke of the prosperous conditions in which these people should exist, or something of that kind. You cannot be prosperous even on a pension of £7 or £10, but you can live and keep body and soul together. The hon. members for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) spoke about the narrowness of the Department in respect of the possessive qualifications of Oudstryders. I think that this unfortunately forms part of the ante-dated pension scheme which we have placed on the same basis as the old age pensions. There is one point, for instance, that bothers me. Where a soldier serving today sends his father a small contribution there the amount is subtracted from the ante-dated war pension of the old veteran. That is wrong. I hope that this and other cases of this nature will be gone into, because it is not fair. These are also men who are fighting for their people and their Fatherland, and when the man saves a few shillings from his remuneration and sends it to his father, then this should not be subtracted from the Oudstryder’s pension. Then I also want to plead for the widows. The Boer War was a peculiar war. Our Boer women participated in the war to a great degree. They often went with the men, and there were also women commandos. They suffered a great deal, and where Oudstryders are no longer alive today their widows who remain behind should have the same privileges that they had. These people went through suffering during the war, and I think we ought to take them into special consideration.

I look upon it as a great scandal, which I want to lay at the door of the Government and of previous Governments, that after a period of nearly 40 years still so little has been done for the Oudstryders, and that we still have to fight on and quarrel and struggle in Parliament to get something done for the section of the population who deserves the most consideration. It is a shame that after forty years we still have to beseech and pray the Government for alleviation for that section of the population. The motion and the amendment have been discussed in a calm atmosphere today, and I gained the impression that both sides of the House were sympathetic towards the matter, and that we would be able to persuade the Government to do justice to that section of the population. But to my great surprise, when the responsible Minister, viz. the Minister of Finance, to whom the Oudstryders throughout the country are looking for help, stood up, he disturbed the fine atmosphere and reflected on us in an acid manner that this side of the House is not honest in its pleas, that the one party wants to outbid the other for party political purposes. He said challengingly to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) that she has no right to say that he had made a promise. He referred challengingly to what Mr. Havenga did, but he also directed a challenge to this side of the House and said: “Not one of you ever protested against the ante-dated old age pension scheme which we introduced for Oudstryders. He challenged us to prove from Hansard that he had made a promise. Well, I want to challenge him as regards the last point, in respect of which he was not correct. If he will only read the speech which the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) made as far back as the 20th of February, 1940 … …

The report was not published then.

We warned as far back as that, in the hope that quack methods will not again be applied. The hon. member for Boshof said this—

In two other places in his speech he made that plea. Now I ask the Minister. If all his data is so correct, on what grounds does he make the accusations against this side of the House? If all his data is of such a nature, then he has no case to defend. We discussed this matter in a calm atmosphere, this serious matter which lies close to the hearts of us Afrikaans-speaking people, and I am sorry that the Minister of Finance should have disturbed that atmosphere. The Minister referred to what other countries are doing. Can he mention one country, any country in the world, which has acted in this way towards the first rank of its citizens who defended their country and lost their freedom, but who again came into power, and which neglected its citizens in this way? Is there any country in the world which has neglected its Oudstryders in this manner? The other countries’ veterans received remuneration on the battlefield. What remuneration did our burghers receive? Is it not then right and fair that they should have special treatment, is it not right to demand that they be remunerated for the services they rendered to the people? They are now old and decrepit and it is a shame to our country that so little has been done. The Minister must not come with the excuse that former Ministers of Finance, and particularly his predecessor (Mr. Havenga), did nothing, and that he is therefore also not going to do anything. The former Ministers neglected that old section of our people, but why should this Minister, who calls himself a Christian and who lives a Christian life, follow in the footsseps of his predecessors, why does he do that? If one is a Christian, one also has a sense of fairness. The Minister is an Afrikaans-speaking Christian and we appeal to his sentiments of justice, his feeling of fairness, in connection with the cry that is going up from this side of the House and from all the Oudstryders. They are appealing to the Minister’s sense of fairness, his Christian feelings of justice. Millions are being spent on the war. Let the Minister set aside a small sum for this purpose, for these deserving people, who have waited so long for fair treatment.

I want to thank the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) for his attempt to bring the debate back to the high level that was maintained by the introducer of the motion. Unfortunately a few hon. members did not emulate her example, and I refer particularly to the hon. members for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) and for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). The last speaker, however, tried to raise the matter above party politics again. It is idle for those hon. members to come here and try to blame the Government in connection with this matter. We again give the assurance that this side does not lack in sympathy for the Oudstryders. We feel as tenderly on this point as hon. members on the other side can think and feel. I am going to make a strong appeal to the Minister of Finance not to forget this matter of the Oudstryders, but we shall not progress if we make this matter a political football.

You are busy doing that now.

Hon. members do that by slinging recriminations to this side. The time for recriminations is past. There is no doubt that previous Governments shamefully neglected their duty towards the Oudstryders, and if there is breach of faith then it cannot be held against us. The hon. member for Harrismith says that the Minister must not follow in the footsteps of his predecessors. The Minister has already considered this matter and has taken steps. The Minister has explained the matter, how he acted in respect of a departmental report, and he himself has acceded to the request of the Oudstrydersbond as far as possible. But I want to admit here frankly that while effect has been given to the report and the ante-dated old age pension scheme for Oudstryders has been introduced, that this is not at all adequate. We should not look upon it as a matter of charity or compensation, but as a small recognition of services rendered by those Oudstryders to our people and our country. It is not a question of being able to pay those people. No money can compensate them. All we want is that our country must not neglect them where they may find themselves in tragic circumstances. An impression has been created that a pension of 10s. has been awarded them. According to the report of the Auditor-General an amount of £129,000 was paid out to Oudstryders up to 31st March of last year, and under this 96 coloureds and Indians were paid out. If we subtract their pensions then £129,000 remains over, which is divided between 4,045 Europeans. This works out at an average of £32 per year. If there is now to be an increase of one-third, then it means that an average of about £40, or something more than £3 per month, would be paid out to Oudstryders in the shape of a pension. I do not want to say that this is adequate. I would like to see the Minister of Finance, who has been the first to pay this pension, investigating the whole mattter fully and that he should eliminate the means test. If he is unable to eliminate the means test in connection with all the old age pensions let him then eliminate it so far as the Oudstryders are concerned. We agree with members of the Opposition that the Oudstryders fall in a special class. They do not suffer any special disability. There the hon. member on the other side was wrong. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom said, if it is a case of physical unfitness, then they can be examined and they can get the same compensation as any other soldier.

If you do not sit down now, then the cock is going to crow.

There is a cock crowing now. We feel that we should make an exception, if this is possible, and in the case of the Oudstryders we must eliminate the means test. If this cannot be done for old age pensioners then it must be so alleviated that it will not apply to the Oudstryders, so that the Oudstryders may be in a position to receive the full allowance. It may cost a few hundred thousand pounds additional, but that is nothing in comparison with the services that these people have rendered in the past. It is a small recognition and a small token of honour for the services they have rendered to the country in the past. I want to support what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said in connection with the allowance received by parents from their sons who render military service today. The Minister must amend the law in such a way that this shall not be calculated as income for old age pension purposes. A boy perhaps sends a few pounds per month to his father, and then the Pensions Department is obliged to take this into consideration. When it is discovered that there has been an excess payment, then there has to be a repayment, and this makes it very difficult for those people. I think it will be a token of appreciation if we can meet the old age pensioners in this respect, and if we do not add the incomes they receive in this way when the means test is applied. It is very easy to say here that not enough is done, and that there is not sufficient sympathy. But I want to express my appreciation to the Pensions Department. We have never yet drawn the attention of the Department to cases where we consider that a person is not receiving a fair payment without the Department being sympathetic, and I know of very few cases in respect of which there has not been alleviation. In practically every case where we could prove by fact that a person does not receive as much as he ought to receive, the Department has always been willing to be of assistance. We can mention dozens of cases in respect of which there have been increases. These were perhaps small increases, but they were increases that were much appreciated by those people. Then I feel that we should do something for the widows. The widow who has lost her husband and who has no bread-winner, deserves almost more sympathy than the man himself. I think that the women of South Africa, particularly in those years of war, have shown that they were even greater heroines than the men. I know of cases where the women went on commando with the men and rendered services by handing out ammunition and by preparing the food. They shared all the suffering of commando life.

Why are you trying to talk the motion to death?

They flouted all the dangers, and I feel that we must not leave those women in the lurch.

You will render them a service if you sit down.

When members on the other side spoke we did not interrupt them.

But you want to talk out the motion.

That hon. member has helped us a great deal in Hottentots-Holland, and evidently he is trying to repeat it.

But why should you now make a political matter of this?

It is the hon. member who is now making a political matter of it. If I could talk him to death, then I will perhaps render the country a service. By this means I want to pay homage to the woman of South Africa for the great services she has rendered the people in the past. Take the wife of General Joubert. After the battle of Majuba, after the burghers had returned, General Joubert asked her where the food was, and she had wagon loads for the burghers. What she did at Amajuba, thousands of women did during the Boer War, and we have an opportunity here today to pay homage to the woman of South Africa, and we dare not let the opportunity pass.

Yet you are afraid to vote on the motion.

We have never been afraid to do anything. This is the only Government that has paid attention to Oudstryders. Members on the other side were not afraid to support a previous Government when thousands of pounds were voted to enrich officials. We know of officials who drew thousands of pounds. One official, who was not even in this country, drew £8,000 or £9,000. Then there was enough sympathy for the officials, and then there was a much better opportunity of doing something for the Oudstryders. But that opportunity was not used to do something for the Oudstryders or their widows. But, no; officials occupying Government posts received allowances that were unnecessary. These people were prosperous, but the Government nevertheless cared for them. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) did not then urge the Government to look after the Oudstryders.

But I will not allow myself to be employed for talking a motion like this to death.

I want to have my say, and I shall have my say. Those hon. members will not succeed with their interjections. That is all we get from them. They know that there is an election impending.

When this debate was adjourned, I was bringing something to the notice of the Minister of Lands.

I am sorry, but this Vote has already been accepted; I have already put the next Vote.

But I got up, Mr. Chairman, and addressed the Chair. I spoke loudly, but you did not see me, and owing to the noise made by other hon. members you apparently did not hear me.

May I say in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member did rise but you did not see him.

I looked around to see whether any member was rising, and without the leave of the House we cannot go back to that Vote.

You may accept my word for it that I did rise when this Vote was put.

The Committee cannot go back to that Vote without the leave of the House. I put Vote No. 38.

May I ask leave that the Committee be allowed to go back to Vote No. 37.

No, that cannot be done either. The hon. member will get another opportunity to discuss that matter.

I notice that an additional amount of £3,500 is asked for in connection with legal charges. In that connection I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether the Minister knows that there are complaints in Cape Town in regard to the division of the Government’s legal work. The legal work is not properly divided as it was in the old days. The Minister will remember that the Nationalist Party Government divided the legal work of the Government amongst the advocates, so that the two sections of the people could have no objection. A few years ago I put a question, and received a reply from the Government that the work was satisfactorily divided. At that time there was a certain amount of satisfaction. That satisfaction no longer exists. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to this and ask him to go into the matter. I am not practising at the moment otherwise I would not have raised the matter. But I know that there are complaints among the advocates that the Government work goes into certain channels only.

I am investigating the matter.

And will you acquaint us with the findings?

Yes.

What is all this standard stock? I see that the original estimate was that we should have standard stock for £1,000, and the result was nobody could get any telephones. Now I see we are going to spend £350,000 in addition to the £1,000 already spent. Does that mean we are going to get telephones?

Mr. Chairman, this additional amount represents duplication of orders, telephone material. Our trouble with regard to telephones is the instruments, and that is why we cannot give you telephones.

Then there is this £3,000.

That provides for cables and other lines, not for telephone instruments.

Oh, we are going to have lines everywhere and no instruments?

I should just like to know from the Minister whether this £16,000 which is being asked for, is intended for the purchase of land for a new potato farm.

If you give a reply yourself, why ask me?

The Minister must not be too hasty. I am scarcely on my feet before he gets annoyed. He does not know yet what I want to say. I would like to have information. We who farm have many difficulties with the Minister. He does not leave it to the Department of Agriculture to teach us how to farm. He wants to give us practical proof how farming should be undertaken. For that reason we are somewhat careful. I should like to know whether this land is being bought with the object of again starting farming in competition with the farmers of South Africa.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said here that I could not teach him how to farm.

I did not say that.

I cannot teach him how to farm, because he is the man who wants to know why the farmer could not let all his lambs grow up into pet lambs. This money is required for the purchase of land at Vereeniging for the erection of a post office.

Is £16,000 required for a site for a post office at Vereeniging? Then I should like to know from the Minister whether this purchase was approved by the Select Committe on Crown Lands, or did it not go to that Committe? The purchase of land is approved by that Select Committee. The Minister of Posts knows that when he bought the post office in Cape Town, that Select Committee enquired into the transaction, and his post office transaction looked like mince meat after the Committee had gone into it. I would like to know whether this matter was referred to the Select Committee. Vereeniging is a progressive town; nevertherless it is not a big city, and to pay £16,000 for a post office site—well, it must be an extraordinary post office.

It was not necessary for this transaction to go to the Select Committe.

Why was it not necessary? The position is that land transactions entered into by the Government are sent to the Select Committee. By whom is this land valued?

It was valued by a sworn appraiser, who placed the value at £16,000.

What is the object of the purchase? I understand that there is a post office at Vereeniging, and £16,000 for the site of a post office is a great deal of money.

The value of land in Vereeniging is very high. There were other buildings on this land.

From whom was this bought? Could you also tell us how big the land is?

The land belonged to Lewis and Marks.

There we have it.

An amount of £400,000 is voted here as a loan to the National Road Board. Will the Minister make a statement in connection with the position of the National Road Board, or will he do so on a later occasion. I am somewhat concerned about the financial position of the Road Board. My difficulty is that the National Road Board has not sufficient funds to carry out its work.

I have already explained why this money has to be voted. We undertook that, if the income from the petrol tax, which is due to the National Road Board, is less than £1,600,000, the amount representing the reduction would be voted by way of an additional loan. Instead of £1,600,000, we expect to be able to give £1,200,000 of the petrol tax to the Road Board, and for that reason this £400,000 must be lent to them.

Will the £1,600,000 enable them to build new roads?

Yes, roads are still being built. I cannot deal with the general question now. This amount is lent to the Road Board, so that it will not be in a worse position.

Is it given to them as a gift, or do they have to pay interest on that money? I understand that £400,000 is the sum which is short on the petrol tax. That is made up by way of a loan, but if the Road Board will now be required to pay interest on this, it would mean that the Board will be in a worse position.

According to law, the Road Board can only obtain money by way of income from the petrol tax, and in the second place by way of a loan. We can only give this money to the Road Board in the form of a loan, on which interest must be paid.

Then the Road Board is in a worse position than usual.

There is an increased amount here in respect of cost of living allowances. I take it that that represents an allowance to people who work in the forests?

No, it relates to the increased scales.

Then we can discuss the work which is done by these people. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring to the Minister’s notice the fact that in the western area, in Stellenbosch and Hottentots-Holland, and also at Grabouw, there are frequently big bush fires, and to ask whether special steps cannot be taken to prevent those fires? If you go to those parts you will see what a terrific amount of damage is caused by those big fires, and I think you will agree with me that it is necessary to take precautionary measures with a view to preventing that destruction. I think that a portion of this money is used to plant trees, and I hope that I am in order.

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase.

When a tree is burnt down, another one must be planted in its place, and this is an unnecessary increase of expenditure.

I have already said that I will make a statement. I shall do so when discussing my vote. I have the particulars, and I shall make a statement.

I should like to know what this £42,000 is for the purchase of land?

I suppose that is also for a new post office.

Where was the land bought, and with what object?

This is land which was purchased from the widow of Mr. Pickstone. As the hon. member knows, those people had large plantations. More specifically, it was bought on behalf of the Deciduous Fruit Board, for the making of fruit boxes. An amount of £10,000 was granted previously, so that together with this sum of £42,000, the purchase price stands at £52,000. That includes the fir trees, the buildings, and the mill which is there. Personally I am convinced that the Government made a good bargain.

As good a bargain as on previous occasions?

In any event, that is the sum which we spent, and it was less than the widow of Mr. Pickstone could get from private people, but she particularly wanted the Government to take the matter in hand, and she therefore met us and fixed the purchase price at a lower sum than she wanted and could get originally.

I should like to have a little more clarity. The Minister says that he requires this money in payment of a certain plantation, and that fruit boxes will be manufactured from the wood. In what way was the value of the plantation fixed? Who was responsible for the valuation? Then there is an extra sum which is asked for in respect of afforestation, viz., £59,000. Is that as a result of expansion which took place, or is it for other purposes? Will the Minister also tell us precisely how the purchase price of the plantation was fixed?

The valuation was made by the Director of Forestry, or let me say by his predecessor, together with the present Director of Forestry. We are quite convinced that we could not have got a better valuation from anybody else. With regard to the sum of £59,000, that is, in the first place, for Italian prisoners of war, £22,000; for the purchase of motor lorries, etc., £12,500 the production of charcoal, £2,000; and £1,000 for the production of resin, and then £26,500 for the exploitation of wood, but I want to point out that the State derives an extra income of £100,000 beyond the original estimates.

May I ask whether cost of living allowances are paid to workers in Weza forestry settlement, and also how the cost of living allowance is paid to contract workers?

I do not know whether I caught the question quite correctly. But if the hon. member asks whether cost of living allowance is paid to forest workers the answer is in the affirmative.

Do contract workers get the cost of living allowance as well?

No; contract workers do not get the cost of living allowance. It is only for ordinary forest workers.

Do contract workers get a higher price?

No.

I should like to know from the Minister whether the position is that we are now borrowing money to pay the wages of Italian prisoners of war for the tapping of resin and similar things? And also in respect of cost of living allowances? Surely we cannot borrow money to pay for those things? If we make more than £100,000 out of forests, these sums must figure under the ordinary estimates, and not under loan votes. Why is money borrowed while there is revenue? And what were the reasons for the purchase of this land? Was it only with a view to obtaining wood?

We bought the wood, together with the saw mill.

I think that we should have more particulars. The Department of Agriculture bought a farm in the neighbourhood, at Paarl, which serves as an experimental farm. When that transaction took place, there were many rumours in the country that one man had an option and sold it to another person, who then, in turn, sold the place to the Government at a big profit. In this case the purchase was apparently direct. Why was that land selected? Is the Government now competing with people who manufacture boxes? I do not believe that the Government can manufacture boxes more cheaply than private people. It seems remarkable to me that the Government should buy this land. They tried other places to see whether they could get it more cheaply. There are other people who have saw mills, and one can buy trees today in various parts of the country. I cannot accept it that these people will sell at a lower price than the plantations are worth, although there is a tendency on the part of people, owing to the tax, to sell the trees on plantations more cheaply than they would otherwise have done. They sell the trees at a comparatively reasonable price in order to avoid the tax.

The Deciduous Fruit Board came to us and told us that they could not get boxes in the country. If the hon. member knows anything about the business, he will know that it is very difficult to obtain boxes. They then suggested that they should buy the plantations with the saw mill and the buildings on it, to meet the need in that way. They tried everywhere to obtain boxes. We then said that we would rather buy the planation instead of their buying it, and that the Government would stand security for it. We made a particularly good bargain this was not bad business. I can give the hon. members the assurance that our information is that we made a particularly fine bargain. According to the calculations, there are 2,000,000 cubic feet of wood, and at 6d. per foot it works out to £50,000. The hon. member will not be able to obtain wood more cheaply. Then there are 1,300 acres of land at £1 10s. per acre—that is already £52,000, apart from the buildings and the saw mill.

Apart also from the cost of sawing the wood.

When the wood is sawed, one gets approximately 5s. per cubic foot instead of 6d. per cubic foot.

I have been told, and I should like to know from the Minister whether that is so, that the wood was planted there with the object of manufacturing boxes, but that it was then found that the wood was too heavy, and that it could noly be used during the war, because it is not possible to import other wood, but that as soon as wood could be imported again, this wood would no longer be used for that purpose. I have seen these boxes. The boxes are nice, but they are really heavy; I estimated that they are twice as heavy as boxes manufactured from other wood, and if we have to compete with the world, as far as export is concerned, the weight of the boxes is of importance. For that reason I should like to know whether that is the position. Mr. Pickstone is dead, and during his lifetime, as far as I know, he did not get suitable wood out of it. I still cannot understand the position fully. Because the Deciduous Fruit Board wanted wood for boxes, the Government proceeded to buy a farm. I cannot imagine that one would pay £42,000 for wood only in order to sell it: and the Minister must not think that the State can manufacture boxes more cheaply than private individuals. I have had too much experience of what the State can do, and the Minister is now competing with other producers. Can the Minister tell me that private people would not have undertaken the matter if it was a paying proposition? Or is this another example of this type of dictatorship under which everything belongs to the State?

I should like to ask the Minister just a few questions with reference to the matter. The Minister has stated that he has done so because the Deciduous Fruit Board recommended that this wood should be purchased with the saw mill. The Minister has also stated that in fact the State has had more than £100,000 in revenue there.

No, not there, but our revenue exceeds the original estimate by £100,000.

Did the Minister arrange for the purchase of the land with the owner himself, or has the land been purchased from the holder of an option? Since the Minister has deemed it necessary to supply the Deciduous Fruit Board with boxwood, would it not have been more profitable for the Minister to have applied the money to the erection of saw mills in our own forests where they have suitable wood for fruit boxes? In the third place, I should like to ask whether the Minister considers it fair—at this time when the Deciduous Fruit Growers already are in trouble, with their fruit virtually perishing here as there is no export—whether it is fair that the Minister should still endeavour to make a profit from the production of box-wood in competition with other people?

We purchased the plantation from the owner himself, or rather from his widow. Mr. Pickstone was a good business man and that alone makes it probable that he would not plant the wrong type of wood. The wood is good. Nor is it a question of depriving other people of business. There is a widespread demand for box-wood in the country. The Citrus-growers are at their wits’ end and do not know where to obtain box-wood. We are endeavouring to help them. Apparently there is no scarcity of other saw-mills, but the difficulty is that there is no wood obtainable. That is the difficulty. I should like to tell the hon. member for Swellendam that as far as my information goes, the wood is extremely suitable for boxes, but if it is too heavy, we shall do still better by selling it as timber. There is a great scarcity of timber too, and the price is continually increasing. I am convinced that we have done particularly good business.

The Minister is now referring to the good business deal he has put through. Why does he not buy a wine farm; on that he should be able to make still more profit in a few years. If the Fruit Board had required the place, the Government could have helped them.

We deemed it better for us to purchase it ourselves.

I should like the Minister, to give the Committee some information as to what this Vote is for. This is an item and there is no information.

As a result of the shortage of agricultural implements in the Union brought about by war conditions and the lack of shipping facilities, consideration has been extended to the question of manufacturing these implements in the Union under the Director-General of War Supplies in terms of War Measure No. 146 of 1942. The preliminary steps are now being taken, to prepare the necessary drawings and specifications, and to convert the existing machinery with a view to seeing how we can make these implements in this country. The amount of this Vote is to cover the preliminary work in regard to making the necessary drawings and investigations and to provide the Director-General of War Supplies with the working capital which is required.

I move—

I think I shall be failing in my duty unless I avail myself of the opportunity of again explaining to the Minister what he is doing. We know the whole history, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat what I have already said with reference to the Bill. There have been bad times, and the bad times have not been caused by the farmers themselves, but through circumstances over which they have had no control whatsoever; so the old Interest Subsidy Act was passed to safeguard the farmers in connection with their mortgages. There was over-capitalisation, the mortgages were too high, and the people were unable to pay a high rate of interest. Two principles were embodied in the legislation. The first principle was that a subsidy was to be paid, and the interest was determined at a fixed rate. The Act provided that the measure could be extended from year to year by a resolution of both Houses of Parlement. It has been done for years. There has been changes of Government. But the resolution has been passed year after year. The resolution has been passed for ten years already, and the Minister of Finance has proposed such a motion annually. Year after year we have urged that the rate of interest should be fixed once and for all, and that the subsidy should be made permanent, at least until such time as circumstances would have undergone such a change that people would no longer be suffering from over-capitalisation. In any case, those were the two principles embodied in the Act, and it has been extended in this manner from year to year. I do quite appreciate that the Act has had certain shortcomings. There are people who have received interest subsidy, but who should never have received it. In this regard I also differ from the Minister. I say that the interest has not been given to the farmers, but to the mortgage holders—through the farmers of course. At the present time the Minister can raise as much money as he likes at 3½ per cent., and even at 3 per cent., I believe. If that is the position, why does he not avail himself of the opportunity? The Minister now proposes to have the Act expire entirely in 1951. He is not in a position to say what the position will be in 1951. It might be that by that time the people will no longer require such assistance, but it might also be that they will have greater need of it than at the present time. But, of course, the Minister wants to have the Act abolished and to avoid interference with business as much as possible. I can understand that from the capitalistic point of view. I have always averred, and to this day I still say that the subsidy has been given to the bondholders and not to the farmers. The rate of interest should have been fixed at 3½ per cent. at the time. Had the rate of interest been fixed at 3½ per cent., the subsidy would not at all have been necessary. The argument then was that if that were done, many widows and orphans who had invested money, would suffer, for that would bring down the rate of interest for them. But what happened? The greater part of the subsidy went to the wealthy Boards, bondholders, and wealthy people. The farmers did not get it. Now it is said that the Act which has been extended from year to year, will now be fixed for eight years. There is not one farmer who desires a subsidy from this Government, but the subsidy is necessary to enable the consumer to obtain the produce cheaply. The Minister now wishes to put a stop to the whole matter. He wishes to avail himself of the abnormal conditions to do so, for hon. members on the opposite side have to vote as they are told, whether it is against the interests of the farmers or not.

We have responsibility.

Keep quiet. You have never done anything good. You cannot even doctor properly. The Minister can, of course, take the step with the people behind him, but he cannot justify it to the country. In his heart of hearts the Minister knows that it is a step in the wrong direction, but he does not care as long as he can put a stop to the thing. What hurts me most is that he does not care what interest the farmer is charged. In this legislation there are two principles. The first is the subsidy on the interest, and the second is the determination of the rate of interest at 5 per cent., that not more than 5 per cent. may be charged to the farmer. I have just dealt with the first point, and I should like to come to the second one. If the bondholders demanded more than 5 per cent. interest on one of those mortgages, the Government took it and refunded it to the mortgagor. There was good machinery for that. If the rate of interest was 7 per cent., there was a tax of 2 per cent. The Government took the 2 per cent. and later refunded it to the farmer. The bondholder saw that it did not pay him to charge a higher rate of interest, and the result was that the interest decreased to 5 per cent. After 1951 the farmers will now be losing that 5 per cent. rate of interest. It will not cost the Government a thing to do what we ask. The rate of interest might be increased. Now the following argument is being used: Why should we fix the rate of interest at 5 per cent., for it is possible that the interest may be less than 5 per cent. at that time? That argument does not hold water. We do not say that it should be fixed at 5 per cent. We merely say that it may not be more than 5 per cent. After all, we do assemble here in Parliament every year, and should it be lower, then we can say that it should be lower. Ordinarily a mortgage on a farm is considered to be a safer investment than a mortgage on an urban property. The fluctuations in the price of properties in the cities are lower, and higher than in the case of rural properties, and for that reason rural property is considered a safer investment. Let the Minister now lay down that the interest may not exceed 5 per cent. Let that privilege remain, then he does do something for the farmer. Nay, I am convinced that the Minister of Finance does not care what becomes of the farmer. As long as he can impose taxation, he is satisfied. The farmers may go to ruin. It reminds me of the English saying: “I am king of the castle; get down, you dirty rascal.” That is the attitude of the Minister of Finance towards the farming community. I am one of those who consider that agricultural matters should be kept out of politics. It is impossible in present circumstances. We are obliged to resort to any weapon, and if the Minister will not help us in a nonpolitical manner, we shall be obliged to say that. Then we are obliged to drag in politics, however regrettable it may be.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is designed to deal with an issue which is of a good deal of practical importance, an issue which really affects every one of us individually. That issue is created by a legal difficulty which arises from the difference between English law and South African law. I think probably I am correct in saying that most of us, when we send a crossed cheque to one of our creditors think that we have thereby discharged our liability, and that the fact that we have crossed the cheque makes the position safe for ourselves. We think that in fact that crossed cheques can only be paid to the account of the payee, and that therefore the matter is settled. In the same way I should think that most of us, when we have received a crossed cheque—we may perhaps be in Cape Town and our banking account is in Pretoria—most of us think that if we endorse that crossed cheque and send it by post to the bank in Pretoria, that we are all right, that that money is safe. Well, sir, that is not the case, and that is why this Bill has to be introduced. A cheque is a Bill of Exchange, and it is dealt with therefore under the laws dealing with Bills of Exchange. We have a Bills of Exchange Act, or law or proclomation or ordinance, it is called by different names, in each of the four provinces—we still have the provincial legislation in regard to Bills of Exchange, and each of the old colonies took over its law in regard to Bills of Exchange almost verbatim from the law in England. When that took place when these enactments were made in 1886, 1893, and 1902 respectively, when these enactments were made in the four colonies, it was not realised that underlying English law there are certain principles, certain rules which do not hold in South African law. I am referring here to the English rule of conversion. Now, under that doctrine of conversion in English law, when an article is stolen and the thief sells it to an innocent purchaser, then the owner may claim its value not only from the thief, but also from the innocent purchaser, or from any person who acquires it, whether with knowledge of or in ignorance of, the theft. That is the law in England. An that being so, it was necessary in the English Bills of Exchange law, to protect the collecting banker in respect of cheques which had been stolen. It was laid down that he would not be held liable in these cases. And when our predecessors in the four colonies appield the English law to South Africa, taking it over practically verbatim, they also took over from the English law that provision protecting the collecting banker. But, of course, since that principle of conversion does not apply in our law, that protection of the collecting banker is not necessary in South Africa. He is protected anyhow, and on that account we propose under this Bill, to repeal that particular provision in the four colonial laws in regard to Bills of Exchange. That repeal is proposed in Clause 1 of this Bill which I have in front of me. But, sir, a further question arises. So far I have merely dealt with the position of the collecting banker in our law. He does not need to be protected as he needs to be protected in England. But what is the position of the drawer of the cheque in our law? A person has made out a cheque, he has crossed it, and he has sent it to his creditor. Now, supposing that crossed cheque is stolen, the thief forges the endorsement, he then goes and buys goods from a shopkeeper, and offers the cheque in payment or in part payment. Then the shopkeeper who has accepted the cheque, hands it to his banker for collection. Well, now, under our law and also under English law, by virtue of the provision which is unnecessary in our case, the collecting banker and the drawee banker, that is, the banker on whom the cheque has been drawn, are both protected, provided they act in good faith, without negligence and in terms of the crossing of the cheque. That being so, the drawer of the cheque cannot recover from the banker; he has no claim either against the collecting banker or the drawee banker. He also has no claim against the shopkeeper, provided the shopkeeper has no knowledge of the theft. His only remedy is, therefore, against the thief or against someone who took that cheque from the thief with the knowledge that it was stolen. That means that either he has to prove male fide in the case of the third party, or if he cannot do that, he can only recover from the thief, who in most cases is a man of straw. That means that the person who has drawn such a cheque and crossed it, thinking he is quite safe, if the cheque is stolen, is virtually without redress. What about the position of the payee of that cheque? The debtor has made out the cheque, crossed it, sent it to his creditor, and the creditor has received the cheque. Well, in that case, the payee has got it. But supposing that cheque is now lost between the payee and the payee’s banker, the position is exactly the same, the payee now has no redress against the banker unless he can prove negligence. But he has no redress against anybody who has received that cheque from the thief, unless he can prove male fides, which is difficult, except against the thief, who is usually a man of straw. That means that a debtor cannot pay his debts by means of a cheque which he sends to his creditor, even if that cheque is crossed, without the risk of losing his money, and the receiver of the cheque cannot send it through the post, for instance, to his bank, without the risk of losing his money. That risk can only be avoided under our present law by that cheque being marked by the drawer or the payee “account payee only”.

[Inaudible.]

No, that does not help you. If you mark it “payee only” I think you are protected, but that course is not always practicable, because the payee may not have a banking account, and therefore that does not take you far enough. This Bill is an attempt to remedy that position. I hope I have made the difficulty clear. I am probably correct in saying that most of us, as individuals who draw cheques from time to time, were not aware of the danger in regard to this matter, and this Bill is an attempt to remedy this position by inserting in the place of these unnecessary clauses, which for reasons I gave we are repealing, a new clause which will provide a means of payment by way of cheque which will minimise the risk which I have indicated. This means of payment that we propose is to mark the crossed cheque “not negotiable”. What we say in effect in this Bill is that if anyone, other than the payee, or the banker, who is protected if he deals with the cheque according to its tenour, takes a cheque which is crossed and marked “not negotiable”, and does not satisfy himself as to the legal rights in that cheque of the person from whom he has taken it, then that person who takes the cheque, will do it at his own risk. In other words, if anybody takes a cheque from some party whose name is not on the cheque, then he has to satisfy himself that that party had a legal right in the cheque, otherwise he will do it at his own risk. To come back to the instance which I gave at the outset, if the thief presents that cheque to the shopkeeper from whom he buys goods, in payment or part payment, then if the shopkeeper does not satisfy himself that the person concerned had a legal right in that cheque, the shopkeeper will accept it at his own risk. We propose to lay down in this Bill that the person who has the legal right in the cheque, will be able to recover from the person who has taken it in that way. The effect, Sir, would be that the law in relation to an ordinary crossed cheque, the law as I have described it, will remain as it is today. If you simply send an ordinary crossed cheque, you will still be facing these risks that I have indicated, the risk of non-recovery in the case of theft. The drawer in such a case will still continue to run the risk in the case of theft, but a further effect will be that the drawer can protect himself against that risk, by going to the additional trouble of marking that cheque “not negotiable.” When that crossed cheque marked so, comes into anybody else’s hands, he must be on his guard, he must not take that cheque unless he is satisfied that the person giving it to him has a legal right in it. That, then, will be the position if this Bill is accepted.

Has not a crossed cheque the same effect?

I do not think my hon. friend was present when I made my explanation, and I do not want to go over it all again. We all think a crossed cheque has that effect, but is has not that effect, and when a drawer sends a crossed cheque out, he runs the risk in the event of that cheque being stolen, of not being able to recover, and when the payee who has received the crossed cheque posts it to his banker, he runs the risk, if it is stolen, of losing his money. It is that position we want to remedy, and our proposal for remedying it is that if the drawer or the payee marks the crossed cheque “not negotiable”, then he will have this protection, that the man who receives it does so at his own risk, unless he satisfies himself that the person from whom he received it has a legal right in it.

What brought this to light, or is it only academic?

No, it is not academic. The Government itself has lost lots of money in this way, and other people have also lost money. We cannot allow the law to continue in this unsatisfactory position. We propose that the provisions of the Bill shall apply also to documents not strictly cheques—crossing them and marking them “not negotiable”. It will apply to warrants for the payment of dividends—the same risk attaches to them—coupons for the payment of interest, postal or money orders to which also the same risk applies today, and also to Government warrant vouchers, which are not cheques in the strict sense of the word. The Government has lost quite a lot of money as the result of Government warrant vouchers being stolen and disposed of.

Or come into the possession of the wrong wife.

Exactly, that is one way in which the trouble comes about. Well, that is the general purpose of this Bill. The law today is unsatisfactory, and I think the Bill presents a reasonable solution of the problem. It is a difficult problem, but I think we are dealing with it in a fair and reasonable way, and I hope the proposal I am making will commend itself to the House.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he will accept the adjournment of the debate. We have made fairly good progress today, and we should like to go still further into this Bill. I move—

I second.

I shall not oppose this motion, but I should like to point out that the Bill has been available to hon. members for quite a while already.

Since the 1st March.

There has been quite a good while available for studying it. But perhaps the hon. members first wanted an explanation of it, and in view of that I shall be prepared to accept the motion.