as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, as follows:

1. (1) That it recommends: The grant, under the provisions of section eighteen (4) of Act No. 18 of 1936, by the South African Native Trust in favour of Frederick Cloete Harris, of a certain piece of land, in extent approximately five morgen three hundred and ninety-nine square roods, being the Bluegums Trading Site, situate in Location No. 3, District of Herschel, subject to such conditions as the Trustee may approve.
2. (2) That it has no comments to offer upon the Proclamations and Government Notices.

A. B. Payn, Chairman.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House on 5th April.

I move—

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the Minister of Public Health accused me of exaggeration—that I exaggerated the matter considerably, and that I did not give the Government sufficient credit for what it has actually done in the past three-and-a-half years in respect of sub-economic housing. The Minister has given certain figures to show the amount of money which the Government has made available for housing, and he also gave figures showing the number of sub-economic houses that have been built in the last three-and-a-half years. The Minister has, however, neglected to give the figures for houses built for the occupation of Europeans, and by way of an interjection I asked him what those figures were, and he promised that he would get those figures and submit them to the House; I hope therefore that the Minister will give us the figures on this occasion. But what the Minister has also neglected to do is to say something in connection with the Government’s policy as regards the present serious housing distress. I went into that matter in my second reading speech, and imparted facts to the House as to what the actual position is at present. I mentioned facts and quoted figures to indicate what a serious and urgent shortage of houses there exists at the moment. There is not only a shortage of sub-economic housing, but a shortage of houses in general, and the position is becoming worse day by day. Reports have been received from Pretoria, for instance, that European families are obliged to take up their abode in stables. There are no houses or rooms available, and they are compelled to live in stables. There was one case in Pretoria where a European family of a man, a woman and children, had to pitch a tent on a big erf in which to live. There are no houses and no rooms, and it is imperative for the Minister to say what the Government intends doing in connection with this matter. It does not help to inform the House that the Government is busy making plans, or that it is going to institute a national survey. If a national survey is to be undertaken it will necessarily take a few years before the Minister will have the necessary information at his disposal. If plans have to be made designed to be carried out after the national survey is completed, that will also take two or three years. What the country wants to know is what the Government intends doing at this juncture to provide for the housing needs of the population. Recently the Government proclaimed new emergency regulations which determined that when a person buys a house he has no power to give the tenant notice to move out. The buyer can therefore not go and live in that house even when he has bought it; he must wait until the tenant moves out voluntarily. That emergency regulation will do nothing to improve the shortage in any sense. Whether a person buys a house and does not live in it, or whether the tenant is allowed to remain in the house, will make no difference to the housing shortage that exists today. The Government has the power to do something in this connection. The shortage is principally due to the fact that there is a shortage of building material, to the fact that building activities have been practically stopped. It is also due to the fact that employers in the building industry have been placed under control and many of them have been inspanned to do Government work. But although there was a shortage of building material, we learn that the shortage has in a great measure been done away with. I have here a cutting from one of the daily newspapers of a few days ago, in which it is stated, inter alia, that the Housing Board has informed some housing company or other that the difficulty in connection with building material for the continuation of sub-economic housing schemes has been removed in a great measure as the result of a new method of construction under which the use of imported building material is well-nigh eliminated, or in any case reduced to a minimum. They also mention that the substance used instead of building material is permanent, and that there is no question of it having to be substituted at a later stage by ordinary material. In other words, the Housing Board states that it is now possible to substitute locally-manufactured material for imported material, and that as a result of this sub-economic scheme can be proceeded with. Now. I want to ask the Minister if this will not enable the Government to ensure that the building industry shall be set going again to a large extent. The Government must extend assistance to reduce the housing shortage that exists, not only on a sub-economic basis, but also in general, and if the Government is in a position to release building materials or to make available a substitute for imported building material, then the housing distress can be alleviated to a great extent shortly. Then there is another way in which the Minister can perhaps contribute to remove this housing shortage. Under the Act of 1937 provision is made for building loans to private persons through building societies, but I learn that although the provision still exists in the Act, the Government is making available no money to enable persons to obtain a loan. The. House will recall that the provision in the Act provides for loans to persons through the medium of building societies. It applies only to persons who receive an annual salary below a certain amount, namely less than £600. Then they are entitled to a loan from a building society, but it is a loan that covers 90 per cent. of the building costs of the property. At the moment building societies only give a maximum of 75 per cent. of the cost, but under the provisions of Act No. 41 of 1937 a Building Society can advance up to 90 per cent. of the full purchase price. The Government gives one-third of that amount, and the building society itself advances two-thirds. The Joan is granted at a very easy rate of interest, and the repayment extends over a long period. The provision is to the great benefit of ordinary wage earners, and enables them to have houses built in view of the easy period of repayment, and it also enables them to do this with a small amount of cash, for 90 per cent. of the total costs are allotted to them. I think, however, that for some time now the Government has made no money available to building societies for this scheme. The position is, moreover, that the scheme applies only to the building of houses, and not to the purchase of houses, and, where that is so, it will not be of much use to make money available in view of the fact that of recent years no building material has been available, and the building industry has come almost to a standstill. I want to ask the Minister to instruct his department to go into the matter of the provision of building material, or the substitution of material manufactured in our country for imported material, and I want to ask him further to bear in mind that the Act should be amended so that the person who gets the money should not only build, but that he should also be placed in a position to buy, without the necessity of having to build. At present the loans are being granted only for building, but the Minister, through a simple amendment of the definition of “building loans,” can enable persons to buy houses as well as to build them. This will be of great assistance, and it will contribute largely to enable wage earners to acquire their own homes. In conclusion, I want to urge the Minister again to inform the House and the country in his reply of what the Government intends doing at this stage in connection with the serious shortage of housing that exists.

I have been and still am in general agreement with the principle of this Bill. But from the beginning I have had a very uneasy feeling about clause 3 of the Bill, a feeling which has steadily grown as this Bill has moved from one stage to another in this House. That uneasiness is due to the implications of this clause in relation to the property rights of the coloured people, of the non-Europeans. When the Bill was first introduced, I think the Minister did slightly mislead the House—not intentionally, by saying that there was no change implied here in the Common Law. I endeavoured to probe that situation, and on the information I got I was inclined to believe that that was in general true. Yesterday morning in the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister did say that he had made a mistake about that, but even under his explanation I thought there was going to be no great change in the administration of the Law, that is that the powers to be taken were powers which would not alter in effect what could be done under the Common Law. My impression still was that under the Common Law it was possible not only for private owners of land, but for public owners of land, to sell particular pieces of land with a servitude in regard to racial occupation and ownership. I find, however, that that is not the case and I am now clear that this clause does introduce a new principle, and to me a very grave new principle, particularly as affecting the Cape. Here, for the first time, under this Bill the public authorities of this Province will have the power to impose a racial servitude on land which they are proposing to alienate. It is true that that power will be limited at present to land which will be used for the erection of housing schemes under money voted by the Housing Board. But that is a limitation—of which I am glad at present—which does not alter my anxiety about the clause as a whole. This new principle is an exceedingly dangerous principle in the Law of the country; it is a precedent which can now be extended to any length, and I am particularly anxious about the possibility of that precedent being used in that the Minister has repeatedly made it clear to the House that his action in regard to this Bill is based on the terms of the statement made by the late Genl. Hertzog to this House in 1939. I remember being very anxious about that statement at the time, and one of the few small consolations I had in 1939 for the outbreak of this tragic war was that we thereby got a change of Government which I hoped would not be committed to the position supported in that statement. We knew that Genl. Hertzog’s policy, the statement he had made, would have been implemented, that the policy be there laid down was to be carried when he came back the following year. I have now read the statement again, and I am still more anxious about the future if that statement is after all, to be the basis of this Government’s policy and is to be acted upon. The Minister has based this piece of legislation on the ground that it is merely implementing the statement which Genl. Hertzog made. Now that statement goes a great deal further than the law which the Minister is now making. It suggests that it will be necessary to legislate in order to empower public bodies, when selling or letting land, to limit the occupation or ownership to Europeans or to non-Europeans. Now I know it is too late to get the Minister to change his intention in regard to the present Bill and drop this clause 3; although I still feel that the present Government has made a mistake in introducing it. I concede and I am willing to support the general contention that the principle of residential separation is, in the conditions existing in this country, probably a sound one. But that only necessitates a servitude on occupation, and that I am prepared to support, but the servitude which is taken here is a servitude on ownership, and there is no reason, so far as I can see, why the Minister should not follow up this step by further legislation which will empower bodies not only to place a servitude on land on which housing schemes are erected, but on any land.

Many coloured persons have asked that this should be done to protect them because of Europeans buying up property in coloured settlements.

I feel that the coloured people who have asked for that are unaware of the possible ramifications of what they are asking, and that is why I feel that the coloured people are in a difficult position because neither by education, experience or advice, are they able to see the long range dangers of proposals they may make or be willing to accept to meet immediate difficulties. I feel so strongly about this because of my long association with the Native position in this country. I am prepared to accept the principle that residential separation is the best thing in this country in view of the present attitude of the public mind. But I view with the gravest alarm any attack on property rights as such. I have seen what has happened to the native population. We began with the principle of social segregation. Then we went from social separation to residential segregation, and then we went to limit their property rights—which is largely the explanation, not merely of the present poverty of the Native population but of the hopeless lack of any future for the Native population of this country. We are now apparently beginning to embark on the same road with our coloured people. It is easy to begin with residential separation on social grounds, and then to take the next step and say that the limitation of property rights only applies to small areas; and from there it is all too easy to go further and to justify, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has done, the taking away of further rights by saying that what is asked for operates both to Europeans as well as to coloureds. It does not work out like that in practice. The intention of this whole move is to separate the coloured people from the Europeans and it ends by giving the coloured people only such property rights as the Europeans are prepared to allow them and do not themselves want. It is so easy to say that Europeans will not be able to buy in coloured areas and that therefore similarly coloured people should not be allowed to buy property in European areas. It is a very specious argument, the effect of which we have seen in respect of the native. The areas set aside for coloured occupation will be areas where the property rights are not only less valuable, but will be closely circumscribed. We have to see these things in the light of the prejudice prevailing in this country, and we find that no matter what the intentions are the results are usually to the detriment of the weaker sections. In the Native field, it was only the year before we came into Parliament—that legislation was hurried through, and hurried through before we should come into Parliament—under which Parliament abolished the right which up to that time the Native population had had to buy land in urban areas. Always in the past the native population has had the power to buy land in urban areas even where they could not occupy it; but it was easy to say: “Why should they buy land in areas where they cannot occupy it?” So that right was taken away under the Native Laws Amendment Act of 1937, and when that was taken away a very important property right was taken away, a right on which the native population might have been able to build up some foundation for progress. And it is the same sort of development which I fear from this Bill, from this clause, and it is for that reason that I am so anxious about the power which the Government is instituting here. The only thing I can now ask for is that the Minister will make a statement of what his intentions are in regard to this declaration by Gen. Hertzog — what his intentions are as to the future policy of the country. I know he has said in other places and at other times that it is not his intention to interfere with the property rights of the coloured people, but this is the first step towards that interference, and if he has any intention of implementing in full Gen. Hertzog’s declaration, then there can be no doubt of interference with the property rights of the coloured people. I hope he will at least give us the assurance that this is the last step in that direction which his Government intends to take and that so far as this Government is concerned, there will be no further interference into the property rights of the coloured people.

I sat here and listened to the speaker who just sat down, and while I listened to her it occurred to me what the cause is of the trouble we have had with the coloureds on the train, and of the perpetual clashes we have seen in the cities with the coloureds. It is because these people are told that they are being deprived of their rights, and because they are perpetually incited by people who ought to know better.

It is so easy to call an opponent an agitator.

I can understand—this speaker represents natives—that she is anxious to get for those people even more than the European persons have. We are heartsore because the Government has not come forward immediately with a scheme to remove once and for all those evil conditions that exist in the cities, and also on the Platteland, where coloureds and Europeans live cheek by jowl. She said that she was also in favour of separate residential areas. But now there is something else—she wants the coloureds to have the right to be the landlords of the Europeans. I say that we are disappointed with this legislation, because the Government comes year after year with bits of patchwork, instead of thrashing out the matter once and for all and coming to light with a comprehensive scheme under which this matter, which is of vital concern, can be dealt with. It avails us nothing, and it avails members on the other side nothing if they win this war and have to comtemplate posterity becoming bastardised. And then we find that people such as those we have now heard coming here to ask why coloureds cannot be the owners of land in European residential areas, and why European persons should not have the right of buying property in coloured residential areas, and why they may not buy land in native territories and vice versa. All this might be correct in theory, but we must look at the practical outcome of matters of this nature. Assuming that a European person goes to live in a coloured locality, what will the position ultimately become? No, we say that European persons must not have the right to own land in native and coloured territories, and it is only right and fair that natives and coloureds must not own land in European residential areas. That is all we ask and demand of the Government, that it should introduce legislation to put a stop to the state of affairs in Cape Town. It we allow people to live together, and if they come into contact with one another socially, then we cannot prevent the process of bastardisation. Only a few weeks ago I was told that a woman here in Cape Town was married to a coloured person before the magistrate. We cannot curb that sort of thing unless we make provision for the people to live apart. We must determine where European people must live and where the coloureds must live. We cannot simply let those things go on because inciters such as the last speaker whom we heard here bring the people into resistance against this. I say that coloureds and natives ought not to possess land in European residential areas, and vice versa. I don’t think there is a single decent European person who would like to go and live among coloureds. I am disappointed in this Bill. I am so disappointed that I feel one ought to do something to shake the Minister awake. He is busy dealing with this matter, and does the man not see what the position in the country is? I do not want to mention all the figures here again. The Minister has heard the figures repeatedly and ad nauseam. He knows what the housing distress in the country is, what to me is a little ray of light in connection with the matter, is that the Minister after all these years of pleas from this side of the House has now awakened and has come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State to care for the housing of poor people, because the municipalities are not in a position to take upon themselves the responsibility for that work.

Some municipalities, but not all.

The smaller areas are something different. The point is simply this. I congratulated the Minister by way of an interjection that he had come to that conclusion, and then he replied that I had never asked for it. I want to say to the Minister that the first speech which I delivered in this House related to housing. I specifically raised this point. I delivered that speech on 28th July, 1939, and since that time I have raised the matter here year after year. I said to this House what I want to say again, and I cannot do it better than to repeat what I said on that occasion—

The following year I quoted letters which I had received from Smithfield where the position arose that the municipality had to pay the interest on houses, and they could not sell or let the houses. That sometimes happens on the Platteland. The poor people must be encouraged by the Government to acquire their own houses. It imparts a sense of responsibility to those people. If they own a house then they know that they have a stake in the country and they like to retain it. The Minister of Finance has often spoke about thrift. What does a man care if he has no furture? If he possesses nothing; if he has no prospects of possessing his own house, what does he then care, and what sort of an asset is such a man to the State? He simply spends his money. If a man has a house, then he saves his money first to pay the taxes and thereafter to redeem the bond, and if the house becomes his own then he feels he is a citizen of the country and that he has a stake in the country. He feels that if he owns his own house then he possess at least something. I say frankly, if we see the houses in which some people live then we cannot expect their children to grow up as decent citizens. There are some houses in which the people cannot even take a bath. If a man cannot even keep his body clean how can he keep his soul clean? The Minister must realise that the need is there, and he must realise in addition that the smaller municipalities are not in a position to lend money for housing. Why should this happen through the municipalities? The municipalities will be prepared to administer the matter for the Government and to give advice. They will be prepared to help with the erection of houses and in keeping supervision over the houses, but why cannot the State take upon itself the responsibility for the loans? In any case the Government gives the money to the municipalities to lend out; let the Government make the loans direct so that we can get better conditions. We have to look upon these chaotic conditions in the country today. It goes with houses as it sometimes goes with money. Money is plentiful, and then again one finds that money is scarce, and one does not know where it disappears to. In the same way we find that there are times when houses are scarce, and we do not know what became of the houses. But then again there are times when houses are plentiful, and when there is a surplus of houses. This is the difficulty with which municipalities are faced. They do not know how long the houses will remain let, and they do not know if a time will come when houses will stand empty and when the municipalities will not be able to sell them. On the other hand we have the position that people perpetually fear today that they will not have a roof over their heads tomorrow. The law has been framed in such a way that a house may not be let over their heads. But it may be sold over their heads, and the people are perpetually faced with that anxiety. What I feel is this, that every citizen in the country should be able to acquire a house. We have timber in South Africa, we have land and bricks, and we have the artisans to build the houses. Let us build the houses for these people of our own wood and materials, and give them a chance to pay for those houses. When one day they have paid them off, then they are an asset to the State, then those people will feel that they can push out their chests and look the world in the eye. The man then feels that he need not be afraid that his wife and children will be put out on the street some day. It gives him self-respect; it gives him a feeling of responsibility. The man feels that he has something to lose in the land if things go wrong, and that in turn gives him a feeling of responsibility. I feel really disappointed, for year after year we get bits and pieces, and only patchwork such as this is done. I feel that there should be a planned scheme. The Minister must submit a plan to us so that we can enable people to arrive at the position some day where they can say that their houses are their own. I want to congratulate the Minister on Clause 3 which he has inserted. I hope that it is the thin end of the wedge. We cannot allow white and coloured to live cheek by jowl. This will mean that the children grow up together and later intermarry, and bastardisation takes place. I am glad for that reason that there has now been incorporated in the law a provision that in such a European residential area a coloured person may not own property, and vice versa. We give the coloured people the same rights in their area as we give the Europeans in their area. The Europeans also have not the right to acquire property in the area of the coloureds. I think the country is more than ripe for such a step. I think that the election in Paarl was won on the basis of separate residential areas, and if the Government does not heed this cry then the Government will, as sure as I stand here, come to a fall on that point, and it will fall very far.

This matter of housing is obviously bound up intimately with the whole question of public health in South Africa. And, as with the subject of public health, there has been in recent times a sudden but very heartening growth of public opinion, demanding changes, sweeping changes, almost revolutionary changes. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and other members who have spoken, that we have to build more houses than have been built in the past. I agree that there is a lamentable shortage of houses for all sections of the community. I have already said that I consider the Government itself should in the case of smaller municipalities, the less financially stable municipalities, assist in a larger measure than it has done in the past. But no Government can act ahead of public opinion. It is most interesting hearing these things now and most encouraging. The Public Health Department has been hammering at these things for years, but if public opinion had been awakened to the need for a new deal in public health, for hospitals, for housing—would public opinion ever have allowed this Parliament to pass Public Health Estimates amounting to £200,000 or £300,000 year after year. Yet that has been done calmly for many years gone by. Now-a-days public opinion is alive to these things. But in the past, when other Governments were in power, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Interior and Minister of Public Health, there was no such demand. I am not trying to make party capital out of this.

But you always do.

Do not let my hon. friend’s conscience prick him. It is unfortunate that when any matter of national importance is discussed here there are always some members who try to bring the discussion down to the common denominator of party politics. I am not trying to make party politics out of the fact that these things have not been done in the past. I give hon. members these facts and I tell them that members of this House were prepared year after year to tolerate a Public Health Vote of £200,000 or £300,000.

You have been in this House since 1929.

Yes, I was here and I was just as guilty as any other member in allowing these estimates to pass through this House in the form in which they did pass through. But what I was saying is that if public opinion had been as strong as it is now, if public opinion had been as wide awake as it is now, members of Parliament would never have allowed these things to happen, but I say again that no Government can act in advance of public opinion.

That’s a very poor excuse.

It is not an excuse, it is a fact. But thanks to the health propaganda which we have seen carried on by the Public Health Department continually—thanks to the enthusiastic work by officials of the Public Health Department, the position has changed. The public conscience has become awakened to these needs, and the Department of Public Health and the Government are now taking advantage of this change of public opinion, and they are taking advantage of this period of transition from the old to a better social order, in order to seize the opportunity for the preparation of plans for the future. I would have thought that hon. members, instead of submitting merely carping criticism, would have welcomed the proposals which have been submitted to the Government in regard to housing. The hon. member for Fordsburg has once again asked: “What is the Government going to do about the shortage of housing?” The Government cannot wave a wand and immediately produce all the houses necessary. It is, however, going to have a national housing survey, and it has been decided that the Committee which will undertake this survey will consist of three or four persons well qualified to undertake that investigation, and one of the members of that Committee will be a woman.

How long will that take?

I do not think it will take more than three or four months.

Will it take the form of a Commission.

No, it will be a Committee which will travel round the country and make this investigation with the utmost speed. The members invited to act on this Committee have been told that it is expected that they will report with the utmost expedition.

Will they take evidence?

If the hon. member is interested he will have adequate opportunity of discussing the matter with me at any time in my office, or with the Secretary for Public Health.

The whole House is interested.

I am trying to explain the position, but I find it very difficult to do so when I am subjected to a running fire of cross examination. Of course, the hon. member is only interested in his own questions. He is not interested in the general subject. Let me say that this Committee will undertake this national housing survey. I anticipate that its findings will disclose a most serious state of affairs indeed. I believe that in Johannesburg and its environments alone it is estimated that there is a need for about 20,000 sub-economic houses.

10,000 in Cape Town.

That survey may show that there is a shortage in South Africa at present in the neighbourhood of 50,000 or 60,000 sub-economic houses. I have no doubt that the findings of the survey will startle the public, but I think hon. members should be grateful to the Government for facing up to that position, however unpalatable the facts may be.

Is this survey only going to be in regard to the need for sub-economic housing?

No, it will be a survey in regard to all housing needs. I think I have already told the House that it will not have regard to platteland needs, other than the needs of platteland towns and dorps.

How about the poor farmers?

This Committee will not be charged with going into the question of housing on farms. That is not within the scope of the Housing Board. This Committee will concern itself with the housing needs of all sections of the population in the large towns, and the small towns, and the villages of the platteland. I hope the announcement of the personnel of the Committee will be made shortly, and I am confident that that personnel will commend itself to the country. Now the hon. member has asked what we are going to do about the shortage. Well, I have told him that we have now appointed this Housing Survey Committee. In addition to that steps are being taken to reshape the Housing Board itself. The Housing Board consists of certain members who meet from time to time. Some are appointed for their technical qualifications but at present these technical members are engaged almost full time in working out technical details of schemes submitted to them. The Department of Public Health is in fact reshaping the whole Board by having a Board analagous to the National Roads Board, which will meet at regular intervals in order to shape policy, and it will have a full-time Chairman. It will have a staff of technical officials, who will do the technical side of the work, and leave the Board members free to shape and direct policy. But not only is the Government making these plans for the future. It has been enabling the local authorities to carry on with the work of bulling housing schemes, and in this Bill it is taking powers to press the local authorities to a greater extent than was done in the past. I think it is necessary that when we are able to map out a scheme on a national basis, something on which we may have to have the assistance of the Social and Economic Planning Council — when these plans are made the Government will probably have to subsidise to a much larger extent those local authorities which cannot bear their share — the Government may have to subsidise them to a much larger extent than is the case at present. I think that will have to be done if we are to face up to this housing problem in all its aspects. In the meantime the funds have been and are being provided. Now the hon. member for Fordsburg has asked me to give figures of European housing. In the last three years, that is up to the 30th June, 1942, I find that 74 houses have been built for European aged poor, 1,259 economic houses, and 708 sub-economic houses, making a total of 2,113.

That’s not very impressive.

If my hon. friend will wait and listen to all the figures, he may think differently. I find that apart from the building of houses, steady progress has been made in the ownership of houses. That is reflected in the Census of rents in 1942. During 1942 6,123 houses in sixteen different local authority areas which had been rented in 1941, were owned by the occupants. That is to say, those houses which in 1941 were rented, were owned by the occupants in 1942. I gave the figures up to the 30th June, 1942, and for the year 1942-’43 loan application totalling £1,748,896 involving the erection or the enlargement of 4,596 dwellings were approved.

They cannot be uitilised, there is no building material.

My hon. friend says they cannot be utilised. May I just say this. That the economic loans during 1942-’43 were £63,345, all in respect of European housing. The loans are granted to local authorities who apply for them. Under our present system it is the local authority which takes the initiative for action. The local authority is charged with the duty of clearing up slum areas and putting up houses. And let me further say this, that during the last three years great progress has been made in the building of sub-economic houses for the non-European section, and the majority of houses built, sub-economic houses, during this period, has been for non-Europeans. I have given figures to show that housing has also gone on apace in regard to the Europeans, and I think my hon. friend will agree that if we are to tackle this problem at all we must tackle it as a whole. It is no use just building houses for Europeans and not for non-Europeans. The figures show that considerable progress has been made. It is the local authority who has asked to build these non-European schemes. And they have done very excellent work in clearing up their slum areas. The hon. member has suggested that work has come to a standstill because of the lack of building materials. That is not correct in regard to sub-economic housing. The building controller has laid down the policy that he will not restrict the building of sub-economic houses. There have been difficulties in regard to the materials themselves but the Government at an early date expressed its positive wish that housing should not be held up and so the Housing Board at an early date, appreciating the difficulty, arranged for the construction of sub-economic and economic dwellings with a what is known as pre-cast single unit asphalted type of roofing. This type of construction, which has its origin in Southern Rhodesia, brought relief to a large number of local authorities, which through shortage of building materials, had despaired of being able to proceed with their housing schemes. Unfortunately this type of construction was brought to a standstill because the necessary elements, the asphalt sheeting, could not be obtained. The Housing Board was alive to the situation and was experimenting all the time anticipating that such difficulties might arise, and it arranged for an alternative type to be used. This design has been tried out and has proved to be entirely effective and suitable for both European and non-European economic and sub-economic types of dwellings, with or without ceilings. If ceilings are required they can be manufactured of South African cement. Steps were also adopted to erect dwellings with flat roofs constructed of asbestos and cement. This type is to take the place of other materials not obtainable. One of the merits of a concrete roof is that the roof and the ceiling are one whole. Then the obvious importance of using only South African products in this type of construction was not overlooked. Among the South African articles used were concrete, and cement and asbestos window frames, doors, sinks and so on. The problem of a suitable substitute for wood and asphalt sheeting will, it is hoped, be solved by using more asbestos, or pressed wood composition, with a bitumen suface. These experiments are meeting with excellent results. Hon. members have probably heard of the experiments that are being made on the Rand where we have now evolved a form of house made of South African materials, which can be used for all types of sub-economic houses.

Why don’t you induce the Minister of Defence to use that for Defence purposes?

One of our difficulties was that no sooner had we found a substitute for imported articles than the Defence Department stepped in and took over our local articles and froze the materials. That, however, has now ceased, and I can assure the hon. member, and I can assure the House, that there is no reason whatever for any local authority to contend that it is unable to carry on with sub-economic schemes because of lack of housing materials. In regard to Pretoria, recently a deputation saw me and they have been given authority to proceed at once with a sub-economic housing scheme for Europeans. They have been given authority to proceed with the building of 500 houses for Europeans. That is a very big scheme indeed, which will materially ease the position in Pretoria.

What about Cape Town?

The hon. member for Fordsburg has referred to the emergency regulations and he has suggested that they would not ease the position. I would refer him to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of these regulations, which have been brought into effect not for the purpose of building houses, but for the purpose of dealing with the shortage. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has once again returned to Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill does nothing more than give statutory sanction to the practice which has been in operation for many years. In actual fact local authorities have been setting aside townships, housing schemes, for one or other of the racial groups of the country. European, coloured, native and Indian housing schemes have been set out. It has been the intention of these local authorities that these housing schemes should be occupied only by members of one particular racial group. This provision in the Bill does no more, it goes no further than to regularise that position.

Does it not give power to alienate?

In the vast majority of these cases the owner of the property is the local authority itself.

Has it no power to alienate?

The idea, as I understand it, will be that there will be no power to alienate in the case of any new owner; presumably the local authority would not need that servitude because it is master of its own affairs. I have not gone into the specific case which the hon. member has raised. But whether or not it is so, this clause merely gives effect to what is actually being done now. It has been found, however, that there have been certain places where the precaution of having the servitude included has not been taken. My attention was recently drawn to the case of certain coloured persons in a settlement near Wellington, and certain members of the coloured community complained that Europeans were coming in and were buying their properties. This clause will have the effect of protecting those persons.

An occupational servitude would protect those persons.

I cannot see with the best will in the world any difference in principle between an occupational servitude and a servitude against alienation. If the hon. member is prepared to accept the one, then the same principle applies. What use will it be to have a servitude against occupation by another race, if you did not have a servitude against alienation? In actual fact, these questions of property right do not loom very large in relation to this question of sub-economic housing, and if I may be allowed to say so, with all due respect, my hon. friend’s argument is becoming a little doctrinaire. I do not believe that we are furthering the interests of the non-European community if we do not face up to the realities, and the reality of the situation is that these housing schemes are for the good of the non-European community, they are accepted by them, and this clause will not alter the practical position one iota, except to ensure that the intentions of these local authorities have a solid statutory backing. Take a township like Q Township which is mapped out near Cape Town for coloured people. Already coloured organisations are collecting funds to start co-operative stores there. They are very nervous of European commercial persons coming in and trading there. They are very anxious to trade themselves, and it is a very excellent thing. This clause will enable them to do so. I appeal to my hon. friend not to let her natural sentiments for the non-Europeans—not to let her heart overrule her head in these matters. Yes, I realise that I am on very delicate and dangerous ground now.

It is a very charming view indeed.

But I can assure the hon. member that this Government has no intention whatever of adopting a policy of compulsory separation—it proposes to carry on with the policy as laid down by the previous Government, and to arrange for separation along voluntary lines without giving offence to any section of the community. That is it’s fixed policy.

Is this as far as the Government intends going?

The statement made by the late Gen. Hertzog contemplated this legislation, and this legislation is here now.

It contemplated very much more than this legislation.

No, I do not agree with the hon. member, but I do not propose to allow myself to be dragged into a discussion which is not germane to the subject before the House. The Government has no intention of interfering with the existing political rights of the coloured community. That is all I want to say. I think I have now covered all the matters raised by hon. members, and I hope the hon. member for Cape Eastern will withdraw the objection she has to this clause. I am afraid I cannot drop it. I do not propose dropping it now, nor do I propose dropping it in the Senate. Nor do I propose going any further than the existing provisions.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This is a Bill into the preparation of which a very great deal of labour and study has gone. The importance of the subject, I think, merits all the work that has been done in regard to this measure. It was first introduced into this House after a good deal of preliminary work two years ago. Its introduction took place at a fairly late stage of the Session, and although the Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, that Select Committee could not complete the taking of evidence. It took a certain amount of evidence, and reported accordingly but it was not able to take the matter further at that stage. By that introduction, however, the Bill received a good deal of publicity and during the recess which followed the Session of 1941 various conferences took place, and specific points received further consideration. As a result of that the Bill was redrafted and submitted again last Session. But once again the introduction of the Bill was too late for the matter to be proceeded with then. It was, therefore, re-introduced at the commencement of the present Session and immediately sent to a Select Committee. That Select Committee has been at work on this Bill for a large part of the Session. It has, I think, done excellent work, and the draft Bill, as prepared by the Select Committee, containing a certain number of amendments to the original departmental draft, is now before us. We have in South Africa an Insurance Act. We have had an Insurance Act for the last twenty years. That Act is based on the principle of the English law. It is, however, only based on the English Law of 1909. Our Insurance legislation takes no account of amending Acts passed in England in 1933 and 1935 which to some extent modified the principles of the law of 1909. The basis of our legislation today, therefore, is still the oasis of the 1909 law not modified by subsequent legislation. The underlying principle is that of the minimum of interference with the maximum of publicity. That is the principle of our law today. The insurance companies are required to have actuarial investigations at least once in every five years. They have to submit annual returns to the Treasury. These returns are open to inspection by the public, and they are published by the Treasury in summarised form so that the public is assumed to be in a position to judge the financial conditions of the insurance companies. The companies, however, are allowed almost complete freedom—the widest possible freedom in the conduct of their business. The Treasury may apply to the courts for the cancellation of the registration of an insurance company, if it has failed to comply with some material provision of the Act. But otherwise the Treasury has no power whatever to safeguard the interests of the policy holder. I say again that we are today still on the basis of the Act of 1909 in Great Britain unmodified by subsequent legislation. In other parts of the British Commonwealth, as for instance Canada and India, more up date insurance legislation has been enacted, but we have not so far done that. The policy holder according to the conditions of our present law, has to protect, himself. The State merely assists him in protecting himself by providing information, by making information available, which it gets from the companies. That may be alright in theory, but I do not think we can continue to be content with that, as from the practical point of view policy holders really have no proper protection. These insurance company returns and the actuarial reports are all the policy holder has. There are very few policy holders who could get very much guidance and help from the returns of insurance companies as published by the Treasury today. Indeed I doubt if many policy holders ever look at these published returns. Moreover, if a company should get into difficulties, there is nothing the Treasury can do. We cannot intervene in the interest of the policy holders, we can only intervene if the company has failed to comply with a material condition of the Act. I think the House will agree with me that it is not desirable that that state of affairs should be allowed to continue. We have in recent years taken steps to protect the savings of the people in building societies, and banks and similar institutions. There is a very large amount of the savings of the people invested in insurance companies, and I think we would be failing in our duty if we did not take steps to protect these savings as well. It may be said that we have had the Insurance Act in operation since 1923, and that no serious incidents have taken place. That is quite true. But the country does not owe that to the operation of the law passed by Parliament twenty years ago. The country owes that happy fact solely to sheer good luck, and I do not think we can go on trusting to luck in this matter. Moreover, I think we must face the possibility at least of there being post-war difficulties. I think it will be accepted as most desirable, having regard to the possibility of such difficulties, that all companies operating in South Africa, should have a fully covered position. I say again we shall be failing in our duty if we dot not take steps to put the control of insurance companies on a sound basis. This Bill is designed to do that, and I believe, and hope, that it will be accepted as an up-to-date and effective measure from the point of view of the achievement of that particular end. The most important principle of the Bill is to be found, I think, in Section 17. That section lays it down in the words of the marginal note, that the value of the Insurer’s assets in the Union must equal his liabilities in respect of his business in the Union. In other words, under this Bill the insurer in the Union will in future have to have a fully covered position. Section 18 takes the matter a little further. The insurer must hold assets in the Union equal to his Union liability. But, of course, these need not all be Union assets, Union investments, and so Section 18 takes us a little further and says that of all these assets which make up the fully covered position, 75 per cent. must be Union investments. And then the clause goes on to say that of these Union investments 53⅓ per cent., which works out at 40 per cent. of the whole of the assets held in the Union, must be of a gilt edged nature, as specified in Sub-Section 3. The net result is then that a company will have to hold in the Union assets sufficient to cover its liabilities, of which 40 per cent. must be gilt edged Union investments, 35 per cent. may be other Union investments, and the remaining 25 per cent. may be non-Union investments—which must be in the Union.

What do you call gilt edged?

That is defined in Sub-Section 3. I am using that as a compendious description. In order to make it reasonably possible for companies who cannot comply with these requirements today, the same clause, namely Clause 18, lays down a period during which the requirements of the Bill in this particular respect will have to be met by various stages. I think I can say that it is to this particular part of the Bill that the greatest amount of study and thought was given and I am glad to note that the Select Committee has in effect endorsed, certainly as far as Section 18 is concerned, the proposals which were submitted by me when I first introduced this Bill this Session. In connection with the determination of the financial position of a company, in connection with the decision as to whether its position is fully covered or not, the method of calculating a company’s liabilities is necessarily of very great importance, and with that in view the minimum basis for such a calculation has been laid down in the Second Schedule of the Bill. This schedule has been based on the advice of the Government actuary, who is satisfied that the proposals therein contained are reasonable proposals, but at the same time commensurate with the safety of the policy holders’ interests. Actually I think there are some life companies today which adopt a more stringent basis of valuation than is contained in the schedule. But I would repeat, that taking the position as a whole, that basis is a reasonable basis and at the same time will give security to the policy holder. The next important point of principle in the Bill is the following. In some countries which have modernised their insurance legislation, there have been created insurance departments with pretty considerable powers of administration. Probably it is the United States of America that goes furthest in that regard. Now, sir, in this Bill we are not proposing to bureaucratise insurance to quite the same extent as has been done in those countries to which I have referred. We content ourselves in effect with the creation of the office of Registrar of Insurance, which is dealt with in some of the earlier clauses of the Bill. But while we are not going to administer the work of insurance companies in the same detail as is done in some other countries, we still regard it as essential that the accuracy of the statements of the companies should be ensured. We regard that, however, as being the task of the companies’ own auditors and actuaries. We propose to place on auditors and actuaries the responsibility for that part of the work, but in view of the responsibility which the auditors and actuaries will have to bear, we propose to lay it down that their appointment should be subject to approval, and we also propose to give the Registrar the power in exceptional cases, to insist on the appointment of a new auditor and actuary. Those provisions are laid down in Sections 9 and 10. You will see that in these respects the Registrar will have important powers, although nothing like as far-reaching as the head of the insurance department has in other countries. But the Registrar will exercise his power subject to control by the Minister, and we propose to lay it down in the Bill that an aggrieved party will be given the right of appeal to the Minister against the Registrar’s decision. Then I think I should draw attention to Section 4 Sub-Section (3) which deals with the entry into the business of insurance of a non-Union company in the future. At present the position is that any insurance company may come from outside the Union and may start writing life assurance in the Union, merely after having deposited the prescribed security of £10,000, and the filing of certain documents. Treasury has nothing to say in regard to the soundness or otherwise of that company. Section 4 (3) will now lay down certain requirements in that connection. It lays down that such a company will have to satisfy the Registrar that it has been carrying on insurance business for at least twenty years. It lays down further that the Registrar will have to be satisfied as to its financial soundness. The next important clause is Clause 24. That clause deals with insurance companies which are still in existence, but are no longer writing new business in the Union. They, however, have policies still in force in the Union, or possibly there may be cases of companies which may wish to discontinue the writing of new business in the future, while, of course, retaining their obligations to existing policy holders. We do not propose—I think it is unnecessary—to apply all the provisions of the law to these companies, but we wish to lay down that they have to submit returns to the Registrar, and he will have certain powers over them in order to protect policy holders. Then Sections 25 to 27 deal with amalgamation or transfer of insurance businesses, and then we have an important section in Section 29, which lays down that—

That is a power which we have not got today, but which I think we should definitely have if we are to do our duty to policy holders. That, I think will give the House some idea of the proposals in the first chapter of the Bill, Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, which is a short one, there are specific proposals dealing with the judicial management and winding up of insurance businesses. I do not think I need give the House details regarding them. Then in Chapter 3 we set forth certain provisions of a more detailed nature relating to different classes of insurance businesses. There are four sections to that chapter. The first deals with life insurance companies, and in that connection I think I should draw particular attention to the provisions of Sections 39 to 46, which deal with the protection of policies during the lifetime and in the event of the death of the policy holder, as, for instance, in the event of insolvency in relation to the administration of the estate. The second head of this chapter deals with industrial businesses, and for the most part is based merely on the application of certain of the provisions which are applicable in relation to life companies. Then we have a further section dealing with funeral businesses, burial societies. Hon. members will probably remember that in 1937 a Select Committee of this House sat in regard to burial societies, and legislation was then prepared. It would have been proceeded with before now, but it was felt that it had better stand over until it could be embodied in this more comprehensive insurance Bill. It was quite clear as the result of the investigations of that Select Committee that some of the smaller burial societies are not really in a sound actuarial position, and there again in order to protect the savings of the people, it is necessary for us to intervene and lay down certain canons of security which will have to be complied with in the future. The provisions of the Bill as drafted will give the societies a chance to establish themselves on a sound basis. The proposals, I think, are of a reasonable nature, and hold a due balance between the position of the societies, which might perhaps be put out of business if we acted too drastically, and the position of the investor who might be in danger of losing his money if action is not taken. The other sub-head of this particular chapter, sub-head D deals with sinking fund businesses and merely applies certain previous sections to business of that type. Then there is a fourth chapter in this Bill, which deals with the work of insurance by agents in South Africa, by brokers who act as agents for Lloyds’ underwriters. Under the present law such brokers, if they want to initiate business in the Union on behalf of Lloyds have to deposit security with the Treasury to the value of £2,000, whereas a company has to make a deposit of £10,000, which, of course, covers its branches. This Bill tightens up the provisions of the law in regard to companies by insisting on their having a fully covered position. That, however, is inapplicable in relation to these brokers because of the fact that they are merely acting as agents for Lloyds. We cannot therefore make that provision in their regard. But it does seem to be reasonable to tighten up the position in regard to Lloyds agents in other respects. The question of security is not really of any importance here. I do not think anybody need question the security of Lloyds, but the question is rather one of competition between the agents and the insurance companies. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that the scope of the business of an agent of this kind is not strictly comparable with the scope of the business of a company, and that therefore it would not be fair to require these agents to deposit as large an amount as the companies, namely £10,000. The Select Committee thought, however, that the amount should be more than £2,000, which is the figure today, and the proposal in this Bill is that the deposit should be £5,000. At the same time Lloyds itself will be required to deposit a lump sum of £30,000. It is further provided in Section 60 that Lloyds’ brokers, the agents for Lloyds, will have to pay 2½ per cent. of the aggregate on all premiums in respect of policies written by them. That is in consideration of the fact that the underwriters of Lloyds, for whom they are acting, escape our income tax on the profits they make on Union policies. I recognise that there may be a difference of opinion in regard to these proposals, but I think that on the whole the Select Committee has struck a fair balance in the suggestions which it has made, and which I therefore support. Then there is a final chapter in the Bill, Chapter 5, which deals with various supplementary provisions, mostly of a detailed character. I need not weary the House by enumerating those details. I would only draw attention to the most important clause in that chapter, Clause 62, which provides for various things. It provides for a period of grace for the payment of the premium on life policies. It provides for the issue of a paid-up policy on a basis not less generous than that laid down in the third schedule. It also provides in a new sub-section for notification to policy holders of the possibility of their policies lapsing. As I have said, I do not think I need delay the House by dealing with the other proposals in this chapter. They can be better considered in Committee if need be. I have contented myself with attempting to give the House a general picture of this Bill. As to the necessity of legislation of this type, I have no doubt whatever, and that, I am glad to note was the decision to which the Select Committee came, and I believe the House will agree with that, and therefore be prepared to accept the second reading of the Bill. I feel that the provisions of the Bill will be found to be fair and reasonable and adequately meeting the position. I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the second reading of the Bill today. I do not intend to rush the Committee stage. If the second reading is taken today, I shall put the Committee stage down for next Thursday, and I hope hon. members will take advantage of that fairly lengthy period by putting their amendments on the Order Paper so that they may receive proper consideration.

This Bill, as the Minister of Finance remarked in his speech, will be welcomed by all. It fills a very great need, and particularly since it makes thorough provision for the protection of the investor and the policy-holder it will, so far as this is concerned, be very acceptable. I am also glad to see that the Government is revealing an increased tendency to exercise more and greater State control over the economy of the country. It is a policy to which this side of the House subscribes and which this side of the House has repeatedly preached, and we can thus view with pleasure that the Government is busy preparing the way for us so that when we take over the Government it will not cause such a great revolution in the economy of the country. The Bill, as the Minister of Finance said, was dealt with by a Select Committee. Considerable evidence was taken, and so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned there was, with one exception, complete unanimity. There is one provision, as I have said, however, on which the Committee did not agree, and it is a matter which I at least consider so important that I feel called upon to refer to it now at the second reading. It is a matter of principle, namely whether the interests of South Africa should be subservient to the interests of another country. Clause 60 of the Bill deals with the insurance company Lloyds, which is established in England. It is a foreign company with its head office and all its control activities in England. Here in South Africa it only has representatives, agents or brokers. Altogether there are eight representatives of Lloyds in South Africa. But these eight agents of Lloyds do considerable insurance business. Now Lloyds, as we know, is one of the best-known insurance companies in the world. They undertake all sorts of insurance. We find that they also undertake kinds of insurance work that are not usually undertaken by other companies. Lloyds would be quite prepared, for instance, to insure any hon. member of this House against the danger that his wife might have twins. I think that the Minister of Finance particularly will be a very good risk! But one thing which even Lloyds would not be pared to undertake would be to insure hon. members on the other side against the loss of their seats. If Lloyds now was restricted to that sort of insurance, namely the classes of insurance that are not undertaken by other companies, then there would have been no objection from this side against the provisions of Clause 60 of the Bill, for then we would have admitted immediately that Lloyds fills a certain need that exists in the country, namely that it is prepared to undertake insurance for which the other companies do not provide. That is so far as Lloyds is concerned. But the greatest part of their business is precisely the same sort of business as that which is undertaken by the local insurance companies, namely insurance against fire, maritime dangers, etc.—to a large extent the sort of business that is undertaken in South Africa, and business for which our local insurance companies do provide. I say that there are eight agents of Lloyds in South Africa, and although there are only eight agents they collect premiums and they do just as much of this kind of insurance work as all the other ocal insurance companies together. According to the figures that are available, they collect approximately £168,000 per annum in premiums. That is a premium amount that is more than the total amount collected by all the South African insurance companies for this sort of insurance business. That at any rate is the information which the Select Committee received. It will immediately be seen that our South African companies were considerably perturbed about the position. They felt: Look, here is a competitor, a foreign company, which pays no income tax in the Union, a company which does not have its head office in South Africa, which has none of its shareholders in South Africa; in other words a company that is exclusively an overseas company and which merely has its agents in the Union of South Africa. This company is such a strong competitor that it does as much of a certain kind of business in South Africa as all the other South African insurance companies put together That has been the case, and the result has been that the South African insurance companies have directed representations to the Government. They wanted protection against the competition of Lloyds, which is a foreign company and which has no actual interest in South Africa. The principle involved is this: Is it the policy of this House and this Government to make the interests of South Africa subservient to the interests of another country? If that is not the policy of the Government then it is the duty of the Government to protect the interests of South African undertakings against foreign competition. That, when all is said and done, is what the matter boils down to. If it is the policy of the Government to protect South African interests and to place these interests over and above those of any other country, then the Government must take all possible steps to protect South African undertakings against foreign competition. I repeat: Lloyds has no office in the Union, except its agent and brokers. Secondly, Lloyds pays no taxation to our Government. Provision has indeed now been made for the brokers to pay 2½ per cent. on the premiums which they collect. Thirdly, none of the profits which Lloyds makes as a result of the business it conducts in South Africa are spent in the Union. All the profits that are made go out of the country, and they are paid out to shareholders or to the members of Lloyds who are resident in England. In other words, the Union of South Africa derives no benefit as a result of the business that Lloyds does in South Africa. The profits go out of the country to investors overseas, and they pay no taxation to the Union, except in respect of the provision that is now made. As a result of the representations of the South African companies the Government has realised this to some extent, and in the original Bill the Government incorporated a provision which would have made it more difficult to increase the number of Lloyds agents in the Union. It was not the intention to eliminate the present agents and to make it impossible for them to conduct their business. But what the Minister did was to insert a provision in the original Bill that would have prevented an increase in the number of Lloyds’ agents in South Africa. The provision was that every broker of Lloyds—and there are only eight of them—had to deposit a sum of £10,000 with the Treasury as security against their Union connections. It was felt that this provision would prevent an increase in the number of agents, because every new agent would be compelled to make an immediate deposit of £10,000 with the Treasury, and it was accepted that no new agents would make their appearance in the Union. There was no talk that Lloyds as such had to provide any security for its connections in the Union although there was the provision that any other foreign company must keep sufficient assets in the Union to cover all its possible connections in the Union. Lloyds did not fall under that provision. It was rightly felt that there could be no question of Lloyds as such not being good security. That I also accept. Well, Lloyds sent two witnesses from Britain specially to come and submit this matter to the Select Committee. They were very concerned about this provision that every broker would have to deposit £10,000 with the Treasury, and they proposed that instead of every broker having to deposit £10,000 Lloyds as a whole would deposit from England a sum of £30,000 with the Treasury as security against connections. The Select Committee considered that evidence and arrived at a compromise by way of a majority of votes, namely that it should be demanded of Lloyds that they should deposit £30,000, but that every broker should deposit £5,000 with the Treasury instead of £10,000. That is where the important difference comes in — that every broker should be allowed to deposit £5,000, and then he could proceed with his business. I want to say immediately that it is not the intention of members of this side to compel any of the existing brokers of Lloyds to close their doors. The existing brokers in the Union who do Lloyds insurance business in the Union are all big undertakings, but that business is but a small subsidiary part of their activities. Their principal business is in another direction. If they themselves have to leave Lloyds business then they will still not be compelled to close their doors. Lloyds insurance business is a subsidiary part of their activities, and it was therefore not the intention and plan of this side of the House to compel those eight brokers to close their doors immediately as a result of this new provision in the Bill. But on the other hand we on this side feel that it is essential that all possible steps be taken to protect our South African companies against foreign competition. We felt that any departure even from the original provisions would simply be to the detriment of our own local companies. It simply means that our local companies will not be able to compete with Lloyds, a foreign company. This is an important matter to the local undertaking. We must do all in our power to build up and to encourage the South African undertakings. We must help them, and I think that it is the duty of the Government that it should also do everything in its power to protect South African interests. We view this matter as a serious matter, as a matter of principle, and I therefore request the Minister of Finance—he is not to blame for this, for it is the Select Committee who inserted the new provision—to give his serious consideration to this matter and to meet us in this matter. During the Committee stage we on this side will move that the sum of £10,000 be substituted for the sum of £5,000, and I trust that the Minister of Finance will give serious consideration to the matter so that he will be able to accept this amendment, and so that we can extend a greater measure of protection to the South African companies.

I find myself at a disadvantage in speaking on this Bill today, because the Bill was only issued to members late on Tuesday afternoon, and it was quite impossible for me, at any rate, to have made such a careful study of the Bill as a Bill of this kind deserves. It is also brought up in a much more difficult form, because usually when a Bill is referred to a Select Committee the Bill comes back, and it is marked, and those portions which are inserted or left out by the Select Committee are marked. In this case it is impossible for us to say at a glance which portion is the old Bill and which portion was put in by the Select Committee, so the time required to study this Bill is very much greater than would have been the case if the Bill had been marked in accordance with the old procedure. I think that it is a great pity that such a complicated measure of this kind, which consolidates the law, should be given to us at such short notice. One did not know until this morning that the Bill was so high up on the Order Paper. I find myself at very considerable disadvantage in dealing with this Bill, and I think it would have been better if the second reading had been postponed in order to give members an opportunity to study the Bill carefully. One’s difficulty is that the evidence given before the Select Committee is not before us, and that makes the position still more difficult. The hon. Minister has indicated that he wants the second reading taken today. I hope the Minister will reconsider that decision and give an opportunity to deal with this Bill as it deserves to be dealt with. It is a lengthy Bill, and I am afraid that unless members of Parliament have nothing else to do except to study this Bill, it will be quite impossible to give it the critical attention that this Bill deserves. What one would like to know is what has happened to the recommendations that were put before the Select Committee. Those who have given a hasty study to the measure inform me that the recommendations of the very representative body, representing all the life insurance companies in the Union, were almost entirely ignored. I cannot say whether that is correct or not, because I have not had time to compare the old Bill with this Bill, but that is the information given to me, that the recommendations made by the leading insurance bodies have been entirely ignored. If that is so, I think it is all the more reason for our being given more time to study this Bill very carefully. So far as I have been able to study the Bill, it appears to me that this Bill might be described as the Bill of the two R’s, the Registrar and the Regulations. The Registrar, right throughout the Bill, is given the most extraordinary powers, powers dealing not only with matters of form but with matters of substance, such as the appointment of officials. He has to be consulted in regard to the appointments. He may appoint someone else. These are extraordinary powers. It is true that there is an appeal to the Minister. But I submit that in matters of real moment and matters of extreme importance there should have been an appeal to an outside body; there should have been an appeal to the Court and not to the Minister who is overburdened with work, as it is. One knows that the Minister will give as much time to any appeals that may be made as he possibly can, but I am afraid that the decision of the Registrar will be upheld every time. The Registrar has supreme power in about 57 matters under this Bill. Some of these matters are of extreme importance, and I think there should be an appeal to the Court and not to the Minister in some of these matters. The hon. Minister has indicated that although he is taking the second reading today, he is prepared to leave the Committee stage over until next Thursday. There again I would urge that that is hardly sufficient time for all the various amendments to be made, in view of the fact that there is no evidence before us; there is no indication that the evidence will be before us by next Thursday. I would suggest to the Minister that he should at least give a clear week. We are already half-way through this Thursday, and I would suggest that the Committee stage should not be taken before Monday the 12th April. That would give us an opportunity of going into this Bill more carefully. And in this connection there is another point which I want to put to the Minister. It may be that the Bill will be able to go through more quickly if my suggestion is adopted, because many of our present difficulties may disappear when we come to study the Bill. But at the moment it appears that there are extraordinary powers to the Registrar, and that there is no proper appeal against hasty or wrong decisions. Then I do not know whether the Select Committee went into the question as to whether it would not be better to have one insurance Bill for life business and one Bill dealing with other branches of insurance. These two are entirely different; entirely different issues are involved. It may be that the Select Committee did consider that. But not having been given an opportunity of knowing what happened at the Select Committee, I cannot say whether that point was dealt with. I should like to know whether the Committee dealt with the question as to whether it would not have been better to have a simple Bill amending the old Act in those respects where it proved ineffective, giving the State more control, which I agree the State should have without the necessity of introducing this complicated Bill at this stage. Then I would like to know whether the Select Committee went into the question of lapses, especially where monthly payments of premiums are made. Then there is another point. It is usual, I think, in matters of this kind, where forms are of the greatest importance, to include the principal forms, at any rate, in one of the schedules of the Bill, and I think perhaps it would have been better if that had been done in the present instance too. Then there is one important omission I would like to refer to. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has dealt with the question of Lloyds generally. But I would like to refer to the question of the omission of a very important provision that existed under Act 37 of 1923. I cannot see any reason why there should not be a South African Lloyds. It is true that Lloyds is of world-wide repute, but we have institutions and societies and companies of very great magnitude in South Africa, and in 1923, at any rate, it was considered that the time had arrived to consider whether a South African Lloyds should not be erected. This question is referred to in the first section of the Act of 1923. After saying that this Act shall apply to various companies is says—

That has been left out of the present Bill, and I should like to know the reason for it. There again, I do not know; if one had the proceedings of the Select Committee before one, one would know whether it was a deliberate omission or whether it was just a per in curiam. Unless you put some similar provision in this Bill, it is no longer possible for a South African Lloyds to come into existence. I do not know why was this not done under Act 37 of 1923. There may have been various reasons for that. I am not in a position to say, but I do think that if an opportunity were given now, it is quite possible—I am told that it is not only possible but contemplated—that a similar organisation could and would be formed in South Africa. After all, why should Lloyds be given a monopoly in South Africa? The only people who can do Lloyds work under this Bill are people who act for Lloyds in London. Under the Act or 1923, we can do it in South Africa. And if it is maintained that it can be done in any case, then I hope there will be no objection to amending the Bill, but my information is that if this section in the Act of 1923 is left out, they will not be able to do it. If it is possible under the new Bill, I would like to know under what section it would be possible for an association to be formed in South Africa. If there is no objection in principle to the formation of a South African Lloyds, it should not be left out of the Act. If there is no objection to that, then an amendment should be brought forward, and I think the hon. Minister should agree to incorporate the provision which I have read from Section 1 of the existing Act. If you take that in conjunction with Sections 44 and 45 of that Act of 1923, it gives you an indication of what particular requirements had to be complied with by any agent or member of Lloyds. The words which I quoted just now again occur in Section 44 of the existing Act. If those words were put in again, this particular objection would be met. As I say, it is difficult to consider this Bill in the very short time that has been at our disposal, and without the evidence and without any of the memoranda that were actually put before the Committee. One has information about some of the things that were submitted, but it is impossible really to say how many of these suggestions were adopted by the Select Committee, and if it is the case that these recommendations were to a large extent ignored, then I think the matter should be given very much more critical attention during the Committee stage than would be possible if the Committee stage were taken as early as next Thursday.

I wish at the outset to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in relation to Lloyds insurance. In the Draft Bill which was submitted to the Select Committee it was provided that brokers of Lloyds, carrying on business in South Africa, would each have to deposit securities to the extent of £10,000, and in addition to that provision, a tax of 2½ per cent. was levied on the aggregate of premiums collected by Lloyds’ brokers in South Africa. I understand that these provisions were inserted in the Draft Bill after consultation between the Treasury and the Union casualty companies. The Lloyds representatives, who appeared before the Select Committee, submitted certain counter-proposals to the suggestions contained in the Draft Bill. They showed us, in the first instance, that Lloyds was a unique body. It is not a corporation in the ordinary sense of the term. It is a conglomeration of underwriters who divide up any risk amongst themselves. It was also shown in evidence that as far as their security and stability was concerned, there could be no question about that, because in addition to complying with certain stringent provisions of the 1909 British Insurance Act, they also had a fund which they had created by taxing themselves, of over £1,000,000, which was set aside to meet claims and for other purposes. So, I think, we might say that the Select Committee was perfectly satisfied as to the stability and security of Lloyds. There was no question or doubt about that and the point therefore of a covered position in South Africa never arose. By that I mean that not a single member of the Committee suggested that we would have to apply the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill to Lloyds. Clause 17, as hon. members know, sets out what the covered position of all insurance companies in South Africa should be. That is to say that their liabilities must be covered by Union assets. I say, therefore, that as far as that aspect of the case was concerned, we were all perfectly satisfied that there was no question about the stability and security of Lloyds.

Have you got to go to England to sue them?

No, we have made provision in the Bill that you can sue Lloyds in South Africa, if any claim is disputed.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was dealing with the position of Lloyds, and I indicated that there was no question about the stability and security of Lloyds. The representatives of Lloyds submitted certain counter-proposals to those contained in the Draft Bill. In those counterproposals they suggested that the present security of £2,000 should be allowed to stand, and in addition they would deposit with the Treasury a sum of £30,000 in securities. They based their figure of £30,000 on the amount laid down in the Bill for transacting all classes of insurance. If hon. members will refer to Schedule 1 they will see that the amount required in respect of all classes of insurance is £30,000, and Lloyds suggested that they would deposit £30,000 and in addition to that each broker would deposit £2,000. They also suggested that instead of paying 2½ per cent. on the aggregate premiums, they would be prepared to pay 1¾ per cent., and they demonstrated to the Committee how they arrived at 1¾ per cent. They took an arbitrary figure of 10 per cent. profit on premiums and worked that out on a company’s tax of 3s. 6d. The Committee considered these proposals very carefully and it was unanimous in rejecting the plea for a reduction of the tax from 2½ per cent. to 1¾ per cent., because, apart from other factors, the company’s tax had been increased from 3s. 6d. to 4s. The Committee felt that it was only fair and reasonable that Lloyds should pay some taxation in the Union of South Africa. In regard to the proposal of £2,000, it was pointed out that if the Committee insisted on the original amount provided in the Bill, if £10,000 was allowed to stand, it could easily be evaded by the brokers being reduced to one, and then he would only be required to deposit £10,000. The others would then simply act as agents and sub-agents to the one broker. I think the House will agree with me that the Committee was faced with the position that Lloyds proposals in regard to the deposit of £30,000 was eminently fair and reasonable, and it was only a question of how much each individual broker should deposit. In considering that question, the Committee were motivated by the fact that they did not want to entrench the existing brokers to the exclusion of all other brokers; in other words, they did not want to create a monopoly, and they thought in their wisdom that a fair compromise would be £5,000. I would like the House to understand that we did not wish to discourage Lloyds from doing business in South Africa, because, in our opinion, Lloyds fulfills a very useful function. Our principal reason for retaining Lloyds was that Lloyds initiates and transacts classes of business in South Africa and elsewhere which no insurance company will touch, and I am reminded very forcibly of that, as a matter of fact, when I look at my hon. friend, the member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward). He recently purchased a very valuable bull. No, it was a ram.

Do you know the difference?

Well, the idea is the same. The only company that would carry the insurance was Lloyds. I give that as an example. I feel certain that my farming friends on both sides of the House will agree with me that Lloyds company is the only company that will undertake livestock insurance, and if we are going to discourage them, if we are going to introduce restrictions which are going to hamper their activities to any great extent, it would be a great pity. It would be a great pity to put Lloyds out of business or to restrict them, because apart from the facts I have mentioned, the competition of Lloyds as against tariff companies is a good thing. The result of competition on the part of Lloyds is that the charges of tariff companies have to be brought down in order to enable them to compete with Lloyds. The Minister of Finance has raised a point that I was going to touch on; he says: “as long as you make sure that their office is in South Africa.” We have stipulated in the Bill that not only must Lloyds be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts in South Africa, but they must also have an office in South Africa which will be their registered office. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) rather brought the House under a wrong impression, quite unintentionally, as far as Lloyds insurance business in South Africa is concerned. He stated that they collect in premiums a total amount of £168,000 per annum, which is more than all other classes of insurance, or other insurance transacted by South African companies. What the hon. member meant to convey by that was this, that Lloyds collected more in premiums in that particular class of business—that is casualty business—than the South African companies. Lloyds only transact casualty and indemnity business. They do not transact life business.

I said that.

As long as the House is clear on that. That sum represents casualty business only. I say, Mr. Speaker, we as a Committee felt that we were prepared to discriminate in favour of the Union companies. I think that was, generally, the feeling of the Committee, but, at the same time, we felt that we had to be fair and reasonable as far as Lloyds were concerned. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in his criticism of Lloyds, raised three questions. The first was that they had no office in South Africa. That point has been met, and it is provided for in the Bill. Secondly, he said that they paid no taxation in South Africa. We have provided for that; in future they will pay 2½ per cent. on all premiums collected in South Africa. Thirdly, he said that they did not spend their profits in the Union. Well, I do not think that is a criticism which can be levelled at Lloyds only. It applies to every non-Union insurance company, and is of general application to all of them, and, therefore, I do not think it should be levelled at Lloyds in particular. Before I leave Lloyds, I would like to say that during the luncheon interval I had an opportunity of considering the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), and I think there is some substance in the point that he made when he pointed out that in the Bill now before the House, the right has been taken away from persons in South Africa, to form a Lloyds if they wished to do so. In other words, it appears that his contention that Lloyds had been granted a monopoly in South Africa is correct. I have referred to the 1923 Act which he mentioned, and I have compared it with the Bill now before us, and it is obvious that there has been an omission. This matter was never placed before the Select Committee. This is the first intimation we have had of it, and I am sure the Minister will consider the point. I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that it is not the intention of the House that Lloyds should enjoy a monopoly of this class of business in South Africa. In other words, if any other company of persons wished to start a business similar to Lloyds in South Africa, there is no reason why they should not do so. There appears to be an error in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will see that it is put right, and that the provision which was contained in the 1923 Act will be incorporated in the Bill before us. Very voluminous evidence was placed before the Committee on all aspects of this Bill. The principal evidence was led by the Life Offices Association and they took up quite a lot of time in trying to convince the Committee that this legislation was not necessary. They pointed to the fact that the 1923 Act had been in operation for many years, and that it had worked very well. The Committee considered this matter very carefully, and it felt that the 1923 Act was purely negative in its character. It had been founded on the English Act of 1909 and when it came to the question of enforcing certain provisions of the 1923 Act in regard to the rendering of returns by companies, the Treasury found they had not the power to do so, and the result was that their control became practically ineffective. I think we can all agree with the Minister that we are thankful there have been no major disasters in South Africa since 1923 that might have been averted by legislation such as you now have before you. I would like to refer shortly to some evidence that was put in which I consider to have a very important bearing on this question as to whether we should have legislation now or not, particularly in view of the fact that the evidence of the Committee is not now before the House. I should like to quote a passage from a report of 1927 known as the Clauson Report. This Committee in Britain was constituted for the specific purpose of overhauling the insurance laws in Britain and, after exhaustive enquiry, they brought out a most interesting report. On this question as to whether we should have legislation or not at this stage, dealing with insurance companies, I would like to quote from page 21 of the memo, by the Board of Trade which is contained in this Clauson Report—

I do not think there can be any doubt but that this legislation is necessary and is due, and the Committee, therefore unanimously decided that the Bill now before us should be placed before the House. It was suggested that there should be different pieces of legislation dealing with different classes of insurance. For instance, it was pointed out that life insurance is entirely different from fire, industrial, funeral benefits insurance and so on. Well, the Committee realised that there might be something in that contention, but we felt that there was a certain amount of overlapping, because there were companies operating in the Union conducting all classes of insurance, life, fire, industrial and so on. We came to the conclusion that any further enquiry should be postponed for two or three years until all the insurance companies had been properly domciled under this Bill and controlled, and after some years of experiment, the Government might well consider introducing legislation dealing separately with these different branches of insurance. I am sure that the Government will cosely watch this Act when it is in operation, so that if important changes take place in the industrial and funeral society business, they will take steps to have further legislation introduced. The point was made by my hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Castle that the Registrar, under this Bill, has very wide powers. I think one of his complaints was that he had not had very much time to study the Bill, but he was able to tell the House that there were 57 points in the Bill which placed certain plenary powers in the hands of the Registrar. I suggest that indicates a very close study of the Bill. Well, this question was considered very carefully by the Committee, and we felt that unless the Government were in a position to appoint a superintendent of insurance, unless the Government could establish a big insurance department and themselves keep a watch on the activities of insurance companies, unless they could do that then it is absolutely essential for the proper administration of the insurance laws that a Registrar should be appointed, and once you concede the principle that a Registrar has to be appointed, then I think hon. members will agree with me that you must give him fairly wide powers. We felt that provided we circumscribed those powers to the extent of making his acts subject to the approval of the Minister and subject to appeal to the Minister, that would meet the objection raised. I feel the House will agree with me when I say that no responsible Minister is going to confirm, approve or uphold the actions of the Registrar unless they are fair and reasonable, because we in Parliament can criticise that Minister, he is open to the criticism of the House, and I think it is idle to suggest that any Minister will allow a Registrar such as the Registrar of Insurance, to be a dictator of insurance in South Africa. The Minister has said this Bill is one of a series of Bills dealing with trust companies. The House last year, for instance, passed a Banking Bill and similar powers were given to the Registrar of Banking, and I heard no criticism of that. The Select Committee which sat on the Banking Bill considered very carefully the extent of the powers which were granted to the Registrar, and there we also made provision that those powers would be subject to the control of and appeal to the Minister. What objection can there be to the Registrar, for instance, calling for returns from insurance companies; what objection can there be to framing regulations to ensure that the Registrar gets proper returns. What are these returns? They are simply accounts, balance sheets, valuations and returns of particulars of assets, and of the business conducted by the company. I say, what reputable insurance company would be afraid to make these returns to the Registrar. I may point out that in the 1923 Act, which has been in operation for 20 years, similar provisions were contained—the Governor-General-in-Council had power to make regulations for certain purposes. As I stated, it was found that when the Treasury wanted to enforce the rendering of these returns, it was found they had not the power to do so. A great point was made before the Select Committee by the Life Offices Association that this legislation discriminated against non-Union companies. That was one of their chief points, and it was pointed out by the Committee that we were not discriminating against non-Union companies, but what we were doing was that we were discriminating in favour of Union companies, which, I submit, we are perfectly entitled to do. We are legitimately entitled to encourage our own companies.

Quite right.

We are entitled to place restrictions on non-Union companies which come into the Union to conduct their business. Personally, I can see no substance in that criticism. There are one or two points which were not touched on in this Bill, which I would like to discuss, because I regard them as of very great importance. One thing which is of very great importance is the question of re-insurance. That subject was not touched on in the Bill, and it was never discussed. I have come in contact with certain schools of thought in South Africa which seems to point to the fact that the bulk of our re-insurance business goes out of the country overseas. I think that is a position which the Government will have to watch very carefully if they want to encourage our Union insurance companies to transact their business here and do their re-insurance in South Africa. I should think it may be possible for the Government to encourage some company in South Africa, or if not they can do it themselves, to transact re-insurance business, and I would very strongly urge on the Minister after a year or two when the Government has had experience of the working of this particular Bill, that they should consider this question of re-insurance, because it is one which bulks very largely in the insurance world, and is of supreme importance to the Union of South Africa. These are shortly the observations which I wish to make on the Bill. We had very great difficulty with certain sections. Section 17 which is the pillar of the Bill, makes provision for what is known as the covered position of insurance companies, that is to say, that their assets must be equal to their liabilities in the Union. We also had very great difficulty with Section 62, which deals with the question of lapsed policies, and hon. members will see that we have made provision whereby the insured is to have every opportunity before his policy is cancelled, or is to lapse; we have made provision that certain notices have to be given in addition to the ordinary notices which insurance companies now give. We have laid it down as an obligation upon insurance companies that they have to give at least 30 days notice before a policy lapses. We want to ensure that the policy holder has had every opportunity of paying his arrears, and of complying with the provisions of the policy before it is finally cancelled. These were some of the difficulties we had. Then I just want to say a word or two about the two classes of insurance which affect the poorer classes. Industrial insurance is conducted now by only two companies in South Africa, the African Life and the African Homes Trust. Certain representations were made to us by the South African Trades and Labour Council. They stated that there has been an undue percentage of industrial policies lapsing, and they pointed to that as being a bad feature of industrial insurance. Well, we heard some evidence on that, and we took some evidence from Dr. Louw of the African Homes Trust, and we found that the position was not as bad as we had thought it was. Nevertheless we think the time will come in the near future when we shall have to have some other legislation dealing with industrial insurance. They found in Britain in 1923, that they had to introduce a special industrial Bill to deal with that kind of insurance. The position is not so bad in South Africa.

It is pretty bad.

The policy of industrial companies is to keep the policy alive. Their policy is not to cancel these policies. Still, I think this is an aspect that the Government will have to consider.

They pay their agents very badly.

Their agents are paid on a commission basis. Then there is the question of funeral insurance. We have incorporated certain provisions in this Bill which were recommended by the 1937 Select Committee, but it was felt that this matter of funeral insurance is becoming unwieldy in certain quarters, is becoming weak, and we have placed certain restrictions on these companies. We feel that as the result of certain latitude which we have allowed in the present Bill it will enable these companies to put their house in order. If there are any failures of these companies, then the Government will have to consider taking further steps at a later date. I say that the Bill which the House has before it is a workable Bill, one may call it a pioneer Bill in the insurance world, and we feel that after an experimental stage of three or four years, the weaknesses of the Bill will become apparent and the Government will then be able, in its wisdom, to come back to the House to combat these weaknesses and strengthen the Bill in order to protect what, after all, is really the object of the Bill, to protect and secure the small policy holder, and even the big policy holder, and in the matter of industrial insurance particularly to protect the poorer classes.

I have listened with very great interest and much admiration to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) who, as we know, was Chairman of the Select Committee on this Bill. There is one point, however, on which I cannot agree with him. He said there was very little risk in connection with the large discretion given to the Registrar under this Bill, that there was very little risk of the Registrar being able to impose his will on the Minister. Well, I wish that was true. I do not think that with our present Minister of Finance there is very much risk of his will being overridden by the Registrar. We all know he is a man of great force of character, and great stubbornness.

Hear, hear.

But our present Minister of Finance, unfortunately, may not always be Minister of Finance, and I doubt very much whether it is always the case, as the hon. member for Brakpan implied, that Ministers are able to resist the pressure of their heads of departments. I think one of the weaknesses of our democratic system today is the increasing power of heads of departments, who are very often people who ride roughshod over their Ministers, and who become practical dictators in their own departments. We are very fortunate in our Minister of Finance at this moment, because we have a Minister about whom that cannot be said. I am not, of course, referring to my hon. friend who sits on my right (Mr. Madeley). He has also a very dictatorial streak in his composition. But that is rather beside the point. My point is that Parliament really has not had sufficient time to give proper consideration to this Bill, and will not have sufficient opportunity before the end of this Session. The hon. member for Brakpan himself blurted out the fact that even the Select Committee had hardly the time to do its work properly. It took a large amount of evidence, but that evidence is not before this House, and how are we ordinary members, on a complicated Bill of this kind, in regard to which our only guide must be the evidence given before the Committee—how can we be competent to consider a Bill like this in the few days that remain before this Parliament descends into its honoured grave? I do hope that the hon. Minister will not insist on having this Bill thrust through Parliament at this stage. I am sure many hon. members in this House will agree with me that the tendency in this Parliament to put important Bills on the Order Paper, as now, during the last days of the Session when it is quite impossible for ordinary members to give proper consideration to them, that that tendency has been lamentable, and it is a tendency which has greatly increased during the life of this Parliament. Here is a very conspicuous instance of that, so conspicuous that I hope the hon. Minister will not insist on shoving this Bill through. I do not prentend myself to have any real knowledge of this Bill, and it has been impossible, as I say in the absence of evidence given before the Committee, for any member to acquire since the Bill was printed, and put on our desks, a proper knowledge of the Bill. I am told by representatives of the insurance companies who gave evidence, that they are extremely discontented with the result of their evidence as exhibited in the Bill. They say that they brought a large number of important points before the Select Committee, and that of those important points only a very small minimum have been incorporated in the Bill. They say that if they were given a chance they could bring very powerful arguments against this Bill this Session. They argue that it is not fair to them that hon. members of the House, when they are asked to consider this Bill and to pass it so quickly, should not have that evidence before them before they make up their minds about the Bill. I am bound to say I agree with that point of view. I do not for a moment stand here as a champion of insurance companies. I think if I were put to the test I should be a very severe critic of insurance companies. But I do say that it is only fair to them, before we pass the Bill this Session, that their point of view as given in their evidence before the committee, should be available for the proper study of the House. The hon. Minister argued that there was a real need for this Bill before this Parliament comes to its end. He said there had been no amendments of the insurance laws since 1923, and that the fact that in those twenty years there had been no major scandal connected with insurance was sheer luck. He argued that even in the interval between the end of this Parliament and the assembly of the next, we could not be sure that sheer luck would continue, and therefore it was necessary for us to pass this Bill before the end of the Session. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister went rather far in suggesting that though the 1923 Act has proved sufficient for twenty years, the short interval between this Parliament and the arrival of its successor, would be liable to be met by one of those scandals in the insurance world which we have hitherto avoided. And I do not think really the Minister was very fair to the Insurance Companies in saying that it was sheer luck that we had escaped any major scandal since the 1923 Act was passed. Surely he might attribute some of that immunity from scandal to the good conduct of the companies themselves. It is a little hard to suggest that in the insurance world, which has subsisted since the passing of the 1923 Act, the complete absence of any major scandal is not due to their carefulness, integrity and good management—to suggest that it is not that which has avoided anything of that kind. If this has been sufficient to safeguard our country against one of these scandals to which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has referred, for 20 years, surely we are entitled to conclude that for the few months which will be necessary for a new Parliament to succeed the present one, we might place some reliance on the continuance of that favourable state of affairs which is due to the careful management of the Insurance Companies. So I would urge on the Minister, if I may, very humbly, that in his zeal for this legislation he should not ask Parliament to do a thing which is really inconsistent with his duty in passing this measure. It is entirely wrong in my opinion that a major measure of this kind should be forced through the House by the application of the Party Whip merely because the Minister wants to get it through before this Session ends. I suggest that it is impossible for the ordinary member in the absence of the evidence given before the Select Committee, to give proper consideration to this Bill, and I would almost suggest—though I don’t want to go too far in this matter—that the Minister’s action in wanting to put this Bill through almost amounts to contempt of Parliament. It is really an example of the bureaucratic tendency which has taken such a hold on our Institutions. It is a very flagrant example, if I may say so, of the way in which the Departments think that anything they can put before us can just be swallowed practically without examination, and I would beg the Minister, who I know is a real democrat, and has a proper respect for the dignity and duty of Parliament, not to finish his career as Minister of Finance in this Parliament by trenching so nearly on what I might call contempt of Parliament.

If I had actually not known the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) so well, and if I had not known that he is sober in the services he renders, then I would almost have said that he has been asleep since he has come into this House in connection with the subject of insurance. In 1937 there was a Select Committee who sat for weeks and weeks in connection with the matter of funeral insurance. Thereafter the House had a few revelations — I remember well how the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) took a prominent part at the time in shaking this House awake in connection with the dangers that existed and the practices that already prevailed in the insurance world, and which could not be approved. We also remember the disclosures made by Prof. Arndt. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Gardens if he knows nothing about these things, that he should now come here and level the accusation that legislation is being introduced that brings the matter to the attention of the House of Assembly for the first time for five years.

The Bill is already three years old.

But evidently the hon. member for Gardens knows nothing of what is going on. The hon. member must not take it amiss of us if we really feel that if he had studied and followed the Blue Books that have been issued and the reports of the Commission that have been submitted, and all the discussions that have gone on, then the onus is on him to prove why he did not do his duty in those three years in connection with this important matter. It has become very clear that it is necessary to adopt legislation. The hon. member for Gardens says that this Parliament has almost come to the end of its period of office, and he wants a new Parliament to begin with it. If it has to be postponed until the next Parliament how long will it take that Parliament, if they adopt an attitude such as that displayed by the hon. member for Gardens, before legislation will one day pass on to the Statute Book? Will the new Parliament not also require five years to study the legislation if we have to proceed at the pace indicated by the hon. member for Gardens in his speech. This legislation, after the painstaking study that it has had from all who take an interest in insurance, is highly essential, and it is necessary that it should be adopted before the end of this Session. If it was necessary to protect the investors who invest their money in the banks by means of legislation that was adopted last year, then it is equally necessary to protect also the small investor who does not leave money lying in the bank but who tries to insure his life through the medium of insurance premiums, in order thereby to secure the future so far as his family is concerned. I want to address myself particularly to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), in respect of his remark in connection with Clause 60 which deals with the requirements which agents of Lloyds must fulfil. The hon. member has made an allegation here that members of the Select Committee who voted for the new Clause which has been inserted shamefully neglected their duty and did not take into consideration the interest of our internal insurance companies. The hon. member for Fordsburg practically gave us to understand that he was the only patron in the Select Committee of the interests of internal insurance companies. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that to my mind he has not given proper consideration to the Clause, that he has not taken proper notice of the evidence and the discussion in Committee that was given on the day before the voting on this Clause took place. He did not attend the meeting and evidently did not acquaint himself with the state of affairs.

I voted on the Clause.

Yes, on the day of the voting the hon. member was there, but the previous day when the Clause was comprehensively discussed by the Committee he was not there.

I was there.

Not on the day preceding the voting. The hon. member now wants to pose as the only patron in the Select Committee of internal companies and wants to give this House to understand that we as a Select Committee have given Lloyds preference. The hon. member has never taken the trouble of acquainting himself of the position. Before we amended the Clause Lloyds could simply send one of its brokers here and pay £10,000, and then they could write all the insurance they wished.

You are confusing the two. It has nothing to do with security.

The hon. member for Fordsburg still does not understand the Clause. Lloyds brokers could deposit £10,000. That was all that was necessary to set his business going in South Africa. If the broker fails, then there is only £10,000 against the demand. Instead of that Lloyds makes a proposal of depositing £30,000 as security. The Select Committee has decided to impose another £5,000 on the broker’s licence, so that the pool that is created becomes available to persons who must have coverage in the event of losses being suffered. There is thus £35,000 security as against £10,000 in the past. Let the hon. member say if he really does not want overseas companies to be permitted here. Then we can delete the section in connection with Lloyds. But he admits that he is not opposed to Lloyds operating here. What prevents an internal company which pays £30,000 to take out a licence in connection with a special part of insurance and to operate in competition with Lloyds? There is no limitation in the Bill, nor in the existing laws. The hon. member for Fordsburg has compromised his Party by saying that he wants the Clause amended. Before he does that, he should rather consider whether he will not place his Party in a wrong position by proposing such an amendment.

I should like to say at once that I entirely agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) when he says that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) has selected a singularly unhappy example on which to base the case he endeavoured to convey to the House. This Bill has been on the Stocks for at least three years to my certain knowledge, it has been brought before this House from time to time, and faced two Select Committees and there has been every opportunity for everyone to find out what the position was—and they must have had a pretty shrewd idea of what the subject matter of this Bill was likely to be. But while I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron on this particular point, I do agree with the hon. member for Gardens that it is unfortunate that the evidence produced before the Select Committee was not available to the House before this Bill was brought up for consideration. I think it is a great pity, and I think so for a variety of reasons. First of all it would have given the House some indication of the very voluminous evidence that was given and it would give the House an idea of the very careful way the Select Committee handled that evidence, and it would have served to do away with much of the criticism of this Bill, which is obviously based on a complete lack of knowledge of what the evidence before the Committee was. It must obviously stand to reason that merely because evidence is laid before a Select Committee it does not necessarily follow that that evidence is either germane or convincing, or must necessarily be adopted, or must even be acceptable. The hon. member for Gardens has rather given the impression that because many of the points raised by the life offices were not included in this Draft Bill, they were not given sufficient consideration, or that fair consideration was not given to them. Well, now, the two great points made by the life offices were firstly that no Bill was necessary at all, and secondly if a Bill was considered necessary, it was asked that they should have a Bill dealing purely with life insurance business and nothing else. Let me tell the House that before the Committee considered any other points, before they even considered any portions of the Bill at all, they sat on judgment on these two points. We had exhaustive discussions on these points and it was felt that there was no doubt that public opinion was definitely alarmed and had been alarmed at the lack of control over insurance business in this country and that there was undoubtedly a case for revision and for recasting of the insurance law. The Committee was entirely unanimous that it was essential that this legislation should be tackled. That disposes of the first point, that no consideration was given to the evidence of the life companies. And the other point was that they should have a Bill to themselves, or no Bill at all. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has dealt with that aspect, and the Committee came to the conclusion that the present time was not opportune to do anything, but to bring in a comprehensive Bill to deal with insurance business as a whole. The matter was considered at length, and the view of the Committee was that the whole of the procedure of insurance companies should be brought under the aegis of one Bill. That disposes of that point, that no consideration was given to these two major issues brought up on the Administrative side by the Life Companies. Now let me point out this, that the matters brought up for consideration of the Select Committee must be divided into two halves. The one half dealt with administrative matters and the second part was the actuarial side. As regards the second part I don’t think there was anyone on the Select Committee who was competent to deal with that question, and I don’t think it would be possible to select a Select Committee from this House which would be able to do justice to that side. On that side one must be guided by the best actuarial advice one can get, and I suggest that the best actuarial advice was forthcoming in guiding us in that matter. It may be that the actuarial advice which we had did not coincide with the idea of the life societies, but I think I am perfectly safe in saying that we must be guided in regard to actuarial matters by the advice given by our experts even where it was in conflict with the ideas of the life societies. But apart from that, hon. members will find that there are a great number of matters which the life societies put before us and where it was obvious that they had reason on their side, where it was obvious that they could produce cogent arguments, we endeavoured to fall in with their suggestions. Of course, one could not agree with every one of their contentions, but wherever it was possible to meet them, we did so. Now, they say that we only met them on minor matters. There were three matters. Two of them I have dealt with. There was another one where they took objection, and that has also been raised by the hon. member for Gardens, and there I am in agreement with him, and that is on this question of regulations. There is no one who is more averse to Government by regulation than I am. I think it is creeping more and more into our general method of legislation and I regard it not only as dangerous but as most undesirable. But in a Bill of this nature obviously regulations have to be laid down to begin with. These regulations were submitted to the societies who, I understand, agreed in the main with their provisions. As far as the actuarial side was concerned, I cannot express an opinion on that, but the regulations were more or less agreed to, and they are incorporated in this Bill. Now, it may become necessary, in fact it will be extraordinary if it does not become necessary in the effluxion of time, that there may be conditions requiring the amendment of the regulations. It was suggested that no regulations should be made without coming to Parliament. There, they are dealing with a question in which I am in sympathy with them, but in a Bill of this nature, such a suggestion would be impracticable. What we did suggest, although one could not put it in the Bill, was to give more or less an undertaking that no alteration of regulations would take place without the societies having a chance of seeing and considering them. That meets one of the greatest objections of the life societies, and that goes a long way towards proving the bona tides of the Select Committee to meet them wherever possible. But it stands to reason that we could not meet them in all cases, although I think we went as far as we could everywhere to meet their views. Now the question of Lloyds has been brought before this House very extensively, and I do not want to go into that very much further, except to say that I think everyone will agree, as the hon. member for Brakpan has pointed out, that the standing and the financial stability of Lloyds is undoubted, and therefore, bearing in mind the class of business which they do—which as has been pointed out is a casual business—contracts which may be renewed from year to year—it stands to reason that the amount of cover required is different from the class of cover in the case of ordinary life insurance business which deals with contracts lasting for years and years. The hon. member for Fordsburg seems to think that there is discrimination in favour of Lloyds. There is nothing of the sort. As the hon. member for Heilbron has pointed out—the whole aspect of the Select Committee was to see that the security of the policy holder was safeguarded. Now there is one aspect of this Lloyds business which I want to touch upon. It was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). Owing to the omission of certain clauses which were in the previous Bill it would appear that it would not be possible for any combination of people in this country to start what might be termed a South African Lloyds. I cannot see why it should be impossible for any combination who subscribe to the provisions laid down in the Act, to start anything of the sort if they want to. But there is this vital aspect. One has to bear in mind that Lloyds is a concern of world wide reputation, an institution the financial integrity of which is beyond all possible question, and if it is suggested to set up a local replica of Lloyds, I am not at all certain that the safeguards to be put into force would not have to be increased, in other words the safeguards which are laid down to cover Lloyds would be adequate in the case of the London concern, but to cover an institution of that sort, starting in this country, that is a different question. I would suggest to the Minister to consider whether if people started an institution of that kind here, it would not be necessary to have much more stringent conditions than are laid down for Lloyds of London. Another question was that of the powers of the Registrar. On that there was a multiplicity of evidence. It stands to reason that if you are going to have a Registrar to administer the Act, he must have the necessary powers. If you have not got a man who is able and competent to do the job, you may have all sorts of difficulties. We should have liked to have had a competent actuary as a man to administer this Act, but it was pointed out what globular salaries these people could command, and there was not the slightest hope of our being able to obtain such a man at a salary we could afford to pay. Of course, a great deal will depend on the selection of the man who is to do the job. He must have wide powers if he is to administer this Act properly. We have endeavoured in certain respects to restrict his powers by making his powers in certain cases subject to review by the Minister. It was suggested that we should go further and have an appeal to court. I doubt whether that would be practicable but I do suggest that the Minister should exercise a very wise discretion in the appointment he makes to this post, because by the nature of the post the man would have to have very far-reaching and extensive powers indeed. There is only one other question I want to touch upon, and that is the whole question of the Bill itself. This is a Bill which has been asked for very definitely by the public. It is a Bill which is required by the public, for the control of the insurance business—a control which has been definitely lacking in the past. I don’t think it is sufficient to say that we have never had any major disasters, and that we have never had a major crisis. It is not proper to leave the position as it is. I think there is need for this Bill and I think it will be a great pity if this Bill is not passed this Session, but in all fairness to the Select Committee I think the evidence given before that Select Committee should be placed before the House, so that the House can judge of the magnitude of the task with which the Select Committee was confronted. I think if that evidence is made available to the House so that members may study it and really understand the implications of it, then I see no reason why at a respectable interval, this Bill should not be carried on with this Session.

We on this side welcome the Bill for the protection of the spare pennies of the people. We are glad that now for the first time provision is made, particularly in respect of insurance companies, that they should have proper coverage in South Africa when they do business here. I am sorry that the Minister has placed members of this House in the position of exercising the criticism that is now being expressed. I wonder if the Minister will not consider publishing and making available to members the evidence before the Select Committee before the Committee stage of this measure is reached?

We are doing our best.

It is clear that hon. members do not understand the whole scope of this Bill. It is a very technical Bill. We had to do with technical men who appeared before us, and we do not blame hon. members if they do not think that the Minister does right in bringing this Bill before the House in this manner, where they are in the dark about the details of the Bill. There is such an important matter, for instance, as industrial insurance, and policies in connection with industrial insurance, to which the Minister of Labour attaches so much value. Here we have had a very good report from one of the persons who gave evidence before us. It was from Dr. Louw, and when we consider the details in connection with the surrender of industrial policies then we find that it is not so tremendously great. After eighteen weeks there is no longer such a great surrender of policies. It was only during the first fourteen weeks that there was a great lapse, and after the eighteenth week we no longer find it because they give four weeks in addition. We find that after that period the policies are maintained fairly systematically. There are various facts that should have been brought to the attention of the House. Then I just want to say to the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) that members of the Select Committee have had the opportunity of hearing the representatives of the biggest life insurance companies. They submitted a bulky memorandum to us. That memorandum was dealt with point by point, and I can give the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens the assurance that this was done throughout except in respect of a few subsidiary points, but the most of their recommendations, if not all of them, were adopted. We did not look upon this matter as a little matter, but as a national matter. May I say to the Minister that there was a great measure of unanimity in the Select Committee on this matter. We feel that the Minister should put through this Bill during the present Session. We feel that international circumstances are developing so tremendously that if we delay in having this Bill adopted then it will quite possibly be the spare pennies of a large portion of the people that will be endangered. I think it is the duty of this House to ensure that the people are made safe, and therefore we on this side are very anxious that this Bill should be adopted. There is just one matter in respect of which we differ from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) and that is in connection with Lloyds. We have no quarrel about the coverage. The coverage that Lloyds gives is entirely good, but we go out from the standpoint that in this sphere it is a foreign company that collects £168,000 per annum in premiums in our country. To point out how important Lloyds considers this matter I want to say that they sent a delegation from London to appear before us and to give evidence. They had with them the original Bill. They say what we demanded from them, and yet they were willing, without any quibbling, to give more than we asked in that Bill. They suggested that they would be willing to deposit £30,000, just as the other companies. That is a proof to us that it is a paying business for Lloyds. They do not want to go off the South African market as regards accident insurance. They are afraid that we shall harm them by drastic legislation. Our standpoint is simply this, that we have our own companies which deal with accident insurance, and we want to protect those companies. That is the standpoint from which we go out. There is no other. We want Lloyds, where it has its underwriters in this country to be in the position that every underwriter must deposit £10,000. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has said that it can now happen that this company may deposit £30,000 and on the other hand there may be only one underwriter who is in a position to deposit £10,000, and then he has a monopoly. We argue quite differently. We say, let those people deposit £10,000, and then it may be that some of them will go out of the market and South African companies will then come and they will enter that market to do business. We as a people, particularly at this stage of our development, would like to see our own companies participating in the business that Lloyds now does. We have not the least objection to Lloyds. It is a great and powerful company. It offered even more than we asked.

It did not offer more.

But it is said that so far as the underwriters are concerned we must be satisfied with £5,000 for each. If they are not in a position to deposit that amount then they will disappear, and the South African undertakings will then enter that market. I want to bring it to the attention of the House once again that Lloyds thought it essential, in order to retain this business, to send a delegation from London to try to protect this business. There is nothing to it except that we feel for our own interests and our own people. As I have already said, there are in our country today numbers of our companies who do accident insurance and who are busy finding their way into that sphere. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) will agree that those companies are keen that Lloyds should be curtailed a bit in our country. There were representations before the Select Committee from these companies, and one of the things which they said was this, that they are subject to provisions to which the underwriters of Lloyds are not subject. Now we have this Bill which partially lays more burdens on them, but nevertheless our people are under greater obligations towards the State than the underwriters of Lloyds, and we on this side merely feel that this is discrimination, and that if there should be discrimination then we feel that that discrimination should be in favour of our own companies.

As a member of the Select Committee which considered this Bill, I should like to say a few words. In the first place, I would like to pay a compliment to the Chairman of the Committee for the manner in which he carried through this complicated measure. I do not know whether it is usual to pay compliments to chairmen of committees, but I think the hon. member deserves some word of praise for the manner in which he mastered the task. I support the Bill in its general principles, but there are one or two points about which I am not very happy, although I do not say for a moment that I am going to oppose the Bill because of those points. The first is the dictatorial powers which are conceded to the Registrar of insurance companies. We have already one dictator in this country, I refer to the hon. Minister of Labour, and by the powers that have been given to the Registrar of insurance companies, I think we shall have another. One thing I objected to was empowering the Registrar to make regulations. I endeavoured to persuade the Committee to have the regulations subject to the approval of Parliament, but I am afraid I was overruled. That is not the only point. We were told at the Select Committee that the Treasury had agreed that before any new regulations were promulgated, the insurance companies would be consulted. I want to put that on record, sir, and I hope that when the hon. Minister of Finance replies to the second reading debate, he will give us the assurance that that will be carried out; that any new regulations not in the Bill before being promulgated, will be submitted to the insurance companies for their consideration. Another matter which I am not happy about is the wording of Clause 38. This clause which is very long and complicated purports to give some advantage to members of the air force and naval units who are restricted by insurance companies. I have read through this clause and I find it very difficult to discover what benefit these two services are going to receive by reason of this clause. For instance, one section states that any naval man who meets with his death outside the Union will be treated in a certain way. How the Minister expects any naval units to meet their deaths inside the Union I do not know; when they go to war they will be fighting outside the Union, unless the words of the song “Pretoria rules the waves” has any bearing on this particular clause. At the Committee stage I hope to be able to place an amended clause before the House, so that this matter may be cleared up. With regard to the clause, in relation to forfeiture, which the hon. member for Brakpan has already referred to, I am very glad to see that clause introduced into the Bill. I know of one glaring case—there may be thousands of glaring cases which we are not aware of—but I do know of one where a policy holder had his policy cancelled and was not given a fair opportunity of renewing it, although he applied for it to be reinstated. I think that this is a very necessary clause in this new Bill. That is all I have to say on the subject. I hope the Bill, in view of all the trouble that has been taken by the Select Committee to make it a useful piece of legislation, will be allowed to go through this Session.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) that as a general rule of practice where a matter has been referred to a Select Committee, hon. members should not be asked to consider the Bill concerned until they have an opportunity of reading the evidence, and being able to judge upon that evidence the grounds upon which the Committee based their judgment. Today I am in the fortunate position of being a member of the Select Committee. I saw the memoranda submitted and heard the evidence, and I was able to take part in the deliberations. Tomorrow I am put at a disadvantage if I am not a member of the Select Committee which brings forward an amended Bill, and therefore, sir, I think for myself I would like to see this accepted as a definite rule of procedure, that where Bills are brought back from Select Committee, the evidence and the documents upon which that Select Committee based its judgment, should be placed before each hon. member so that he may form his own judgment. There are one or two things I would like to make clear as they appear to me as a member of the Committee. I realise that this is really an experimental Bill, or may I say at an experimental stage. I have no doubt that when this Bill has been in operation for three or four years the result of experience will be that further legislation will be needed, and it may well be that we shall then have a separate Bill for each separate class of insurance. We may then have legislation for life offices, another for industrial and burial insurance. This is a comprehensive measure to give an opportunity to the country to see how, in actual practice, these matters can be regulated. Experience may show that further provision is needed, because there may be a complete change in one direction or another under the various headings under which insurance falls. I want to say one thing, and that is that I do not think there is a single member of the Committee who likes the wide powers that are given to the Registrar, nor is there a single member of the Committee who likes legislation by regulation. Those of us who have to deal with this subject in our everyday life, realise the difficulty of referring to an Act and then finding that you have to refer to a host of regulations which have to be amended from time to time. But the Committee had to look at this from a practical point of view, and whichever way we looked at the matter we found that there had to be one person who must have authority in regard to the administration of the Bill. And we went to the length of saying that when any question arose in which the Registrar has exercised his powers, those powers should be subject to appeal to the Minister responsible. I unhesitatingly give that power to the Registrar so long as I know that there is that power of appeal to the responsible Minister. Therefore in regard to that I have no fear, I don’t like it, but from a purely practical point of view it seemed to me the only way was to give this power to an official, coupled with the power of appeal. Nor is this the first time we have done this. In regard to regulations, I want hon. members to understand that we did not come to a decision hapharzard or without due deliberation. We fully and carefully considered it, and I want to say that these matters were considered with a full sense of responsibility by every member. We came to the conclusion that these regulations could, after all, be mentioned on the floor of the House if any injustice or hardship was apparent. Moreover, the assurance was given by the last hon. member who spoke, that even in so far as these regulations are concerned, the insurance companies will be consulted before they are actually put into force, so as to give them an opportunity of making any representations they wish. The final judgment will be with the Regisrar, and through him to the Minister in charge. There are one or two other things I want to say. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) is perfectly correct, and again I want to say that one must look at these matters in a practical sense. You are not going to drive Lloyds out of the insurance world by the fact that they have got to deposit an amount either large or small. They are an institution in the insurance world, and while I would welcome any association of underwriters in our own country doing that business, and the position may arise sooner than we think wherein it might be highly desirable that an association of that kind should be brought into being—I think the necessary provision should be made in this Bill by which that can be brought into existence—I say that the question of whether £2,000 or £5,000 is to be deposited in respect of agents does not affect Lloyds. It might very easily be that you would drive the business of Lloyds into one or two channels. We have accepted the suggestion of Lloyds in regard to the deposit of £30,000, being the same as other companies, and we have increased the amount of £2,000 to £5,000„ which is accepted by Lloyds to ensure the bona fides of their own agents. So I think we can forget the idea of driving Lloyds out of existence. We do not want to drive them out of existence, although we perhaps would welcome an organisation of the same type in so far as the business in our own country is concerned. I think if we realise that this Bill has been introduced to give the necessary control which will ensure security to the insurer, that the Registrar is subject to appeal to the Minister, and that the regulations will be submitted to those affected by them, I think the major objection which has been raised will disappear, and I hope that the measure will get on the Statute Book as early as possible.

The hon. member who has just spoken and other hon. members, have made it clear that even the Select Committee considered they did not have enough time to consider this Bill as it should be considered. We gather that the Committee has put in extremely valuable work, but we gather at the same time that the Select Committee felt their time was really much too limited, and moreover, it has been admitted even by the Chairman that it would have been better to have had Bills for each class of insurance.

Not at this stage.

Well, let it be an experimental measure, and after the experiment has been tried for some years, let us then have separate Bills if necessary. I am one of those who, not for a year or two years but for the last fourteen or fifteen years have felt that a large amount of control is necessary with regard to the activities of certain companies, and for that reason I welcome the possibility of a certain amount of control. But I say that where the Committee has only just finished its work and where it has not been possible to put the evidence in the hands of members of the House, members who after all have to Vote on this measure, I feel that the time at our disposal is really much too limited to proceed to make a final decision on all these intricate matters. If it must go on, then at least we require weeks of time before we can approach the Committee stage of this Bill, where every single clause had to be carefully considered. There are clauses here which don’t quite make sense. There is a clause which says that notices must be given a month before the premium is due, a month before the policy is due to lapse, and in the self-same clause or rather a sub-clause of the same section, it says that a month before the policy lapses a registered letter must be sent to the party who has to pay the premium. Now, Mr. Speaker, a clause like that shows that the practical side of the matter was never considered at all. That is only a matter of detail, but it shows that it was not possible for the Select Committee to consider the details of an important clause like that. It is quite unnecessary, I think, for a company to send out registered letters, which in postage alone will amount to about £6,000 a year, a month before the policy is due to lapse. If it were imperative to send out a registered letter to say that the policy has lapsed, that is a different matter; but to say that a registered letter must be sent a month before the policy is due to lapse is to me only an indication that it has not been possible fully to consider this Bill. It is very difficult from a casual study of the provisions with regard to the Registrar to make up one’s mind as to the full implications of the powers vested in the Registrar. Surely that matter must first of all be thoroughly gone into, and the companies concerned must first have an opportunity of ascertaining the full implication of the powers which have been given to the Registrar, and if it then finds it necessary to make certain representations to hon. members in this House, they must have an opportunity at a later stage to move such amendments as are calculated to make the Bill workable. That cannot happen if in the course of the next two or three weeks the Committee stage of this Bill is taken. The evidence of the Select Committee will not be available to members for another eight or ten days. That brings us to the middle of April, and it really seems to me to be impossible to carry on with this important measure in this way. I repeat again that I am very strongly in favour of control or supervision, which may be distasteful to some companies, but it won’t be distasteful to companies which have done their business satisfactorily to all concerned. I feel that we should have the fullest opportunity for the consideration of every detail in this Bill, and that cannot possibly be done unless we have sufficient time, and I hope the Minister will give us the necessary time.

I agree very largely with those who deplore the haste with which we are proceeding with this Bill, without giving members an opportunity of reading the evidence that has been laid before the Select Committee. We ought to be the judges as to whether that evidence is complete in its necessary facts. There are many of us who will not be satisfied with that evidence if it does not disclose the methods adopted by certain societies to increase turnover in the insurance business, and the methods they have adopted from time to time to evade their responsibilities. There is no doubt that to legislate for people of deep designs, you want to know what has been going on, and this House will only be able to provide against the eventualities when it knows more about them. But if the evidence produced has simply been evidence of the rectitude of the societies concerned, then I for one will be very far from satisfied with its effect upon the public mind. The longer one lives, the less faith one has in the universal righteousness of mankind, and I consider that our duty is to legislate against the thieves. It is desirable to be on our guard against that very numerous and undeserving class of the community. I know, sir, of a number of cases in which men have gone on active service believing that their families were protected under their policies after their deaths. I notice that in Section 38 of the Bill there is an effort to provide in general that the lives of such persons shall be protected in the future, but I should like the people who have repudiated any obligations to make good their default. Whether it was a legal default or not, I should like to see that no person is allowed to escape an obligation which was implied up to the time the man laid down his life. I know of quite a revival of business that occurred through the outbreak of war. Quite a number of policies were issued by certain companies to men on active service. Fairly subtle methods were followed in order to discard those policies. I myself have had great pains to try and saddle the right person with the responsibility for the nonpayment of the premium on the due date, because that seems to be the most convenient method adopted by some of these companies. But it has been a most difficult matter. With an Army Pay Department that has not been too wonderful in its work and a company that is ruthless in the requirement of payment of premiums by the due date, the wretched fellow who has been insured and found towards the end of his service that his policy has lapsed, has been in a bad way. The result is that a man has had the experience of paying for a policy through the nose for a certain number of months, only to find that the policy itself has gone west and that he himself is no better off. I am sorry that in regard to funeral societies the hall-mark of respectability has been placed on these rather shady concerns. There is scarcely a man who lives below the breadline who has not been inveigled into some sort of obligation through a burial society. He is supposed to be assured of a respectable burial and that is about all he has to look forward to.

It is one of the first charges on family income.

It is one of the few things the poor wretches have to look forward to and they are sometimes cheated out of that. I have a fairly extensive experience, I won’t say a very satisfactory experience, of the woes of those who have contributed to these burial societies, and I am sorry to say that if they are to be put on a level with the insurance societies, some of which enjoy quite a respectable reputation, it will be more than they deserve. I should imagine that the ordinary insurance society would shudder to its very marrow to be classed alongside some of the burial societies that exist today. I see that the Act even goes so far as to give the burial societies a sort of easy entrance into the respectable community dealt with under the Bill, by saying that the Registrar can let them in as coming within the Act, even though they do not provide security of the proportions laid down by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. That seems to me an act of kindness which is scarcely necessary in the circumstances. I should be grateful for a very drastic discipline to be exercised over these burial societies, and I should prefer a very good, healthy overhauling of their doings beforehand, so that those who have sinned against the Light should be dealt with accordingly. To my mind a separate Act should be provided to deal with the peculiar methods that a vast number of these societies are following. In regard to Section 38 of the Bill—I know this is not the time to go into detail—Section 38 of the Bill sets out to protect in general those who have died while on military or naval service, and I suggest that that section is too full of stipulations, that it is too full of provisos. A person who goes to the front and imagines that in general his life is protected by insurance, will find or rather his relatives will find that he is far from protected. By one stipulation or another the society will be let out from its obligations, and the dependants of men who have given their lives for the country will be left without the protection which they thought they would enjoy. I should like a very plain and simple statement to be embodied in the Act as to the obligations of insurance companies to men on active service. Let us protect these men, so that if any man goes forward on military or naval service, he is fully safeguarded in his rights under the Act. There are many of these societies who are proud of the fact that their policies are unchallengeable. Let us not hear of these cases in which men who have gone on active service have been killed and their dependants have found that the terms of the policy of insurance and of Acts of Parliament have enabled the societies to evade their responsibilities.

I had hoped that the Minister would say that he would not take the second reading of this Bill. After he had listened to the speeches, I hoped that he would say that he would take the matter into review and would change his attitude, and that he would not let the second reading pass this afternoon. He has listened to arguments from both sides of the House as to why the second reading should in any case not be taken this afternoon. The Minister will realise that we must have an opportunity of studying the Bill. It is not correct that this Bill in its present form has been before the House for a number of years. Amendments have been brought about every time, perhaps not big amendments, but yet amendments that made it necessary for the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee. Otherwise the Bill would not have been sent to a Select Committee again this year. In what position is the Minister placing the House? The Bill was sent to a Select Committee which had certain evidence before it, but without us having seen anything of that evidence we have to vote for the second reading. Surely it is a ridiculous position in which we are being placed. The haste with which the Minister wants to put this Bill through the second reading leaves an unsavoury taste. I simply do not comprehend it. Here we have one of the most intricate Bills that we shall have before the House. One would like to hear the opinions of the various companies who are concerned in the matter to see whether new light has been thrown on the various aspects of the Bill in Select Committee. The Minister has now heard the opinion of hon. members on this side and also on the other side, that if the second reading is accepted a number of other amendments will have to be made. The Bill in fact has been before the House only for a matter of hours in its amended form, and it was placed in the hands of hon. members only yesterday. That is the position so far as our members are concerned. What is the position of people outside who are concerned with it? It is clear that nobody is opposed to the principle of control of our insurance system. The Minister also has said that this is not a point of objection. In this respect the Bill as such is acceptable, but it demands study. The people must have an opportunity of going into it. The amendments that have been incorporated must be studied. We want to know for instance why the evidence of the life insurance companies was entirely ignored.

That is not true.

I hear this complaint, and reasons are being given for the complaint. We require more information. We are not opposed to control, but we cannot accept anything. There are for instance the provisions in Clause 60 as regards Lloyds. I do not know why the Minister, who alleges that he has the interests of South Africa also at heart, should come sidelong and incorporate such a measure. I cannot understand how the Select Committee can propose it. What are the facts in connection with the matter, so far as I could ascertain them in the short time I have had? It comes down to this, that the Act of 1923 is being radically amended. In the Act of 1923 the provisions in connection with underwriters are laid down. There it is not only stipulated that there may be underwriters such as Lloyds, but also other underwriters can come forward and ask for a licence to act as individual underwriters in South Africa. It has also happened in other countries as in South Africa, in the United States of America, for instance, and in France. There are other underwriters who handle the matter. Now it is said that here in South Africa no one else appears. I do not know if this is correct. It is said that Lloyds alone has come forward during the past 20 years, and that it alone can obtain a monopoly of underwriting, and as I understand the Bill the provisions of the Act of 1923, which made it possible for individual underwriters in South Africa to promote their affairs on the basis of Lloyds, disappear entirely. Lloyds is given a monopoly. The name of this Bill is wrong. It should have been called the “Lloyds Monopoly Bill”. The Minister wants us to swallow a good thing in the form of better control over insurance companies, but in addition he comes with a bitter pill in connection with Lloyds, which leaves an unpleasant aftertaste in one’s mouth. The opportunity that existed of building up other underwriter’s associations is removed by one stroke of the pen. As I understand the provisions of the Bill, individual underwriters will no longer be able to apply for a licence no matter what deposit they want to provide. During the last few months opposition has developed that makes it even more undesirable. We have enormously expanded our import from South America to the benefit of our country. It has developed in such a way that Lloyds is overwritten. The big merchants who want to import from South America cannot get any more accommodation from Lloyds. As a result of that they cannot get credit from the banks. As the Bill now stands individual underwriters cannot combine and also ask for a licence to act as underwriters. I understand that a number of big financial men in South Africa are busy working up South African underwriting, and I learn that they have got to the stage of drafting the statutes. If this Bill is accepted they will come to a dead end will not be able to get a licence. Lloyds will have the monopoly. We shall no longer be able to get the commodities from South America which we would otherwise have been able to get. If I am wrong in my conception I shall be glad if the Minister will put me right, but it appears incomprehensible to me that the Minister on the strength of the argument that nobody in the past twenty years made use of the right that is given by Act No. 37 of 1923, to build up our own underwriting in South Africa, should want to delete the provision and give Lloyds a monopoly.

Read 60 (e).

I understand that there are also other companies, such as the Prudential for instance, who perhaps also can come into consideration for a monopoly. Clause 60 forms an integral part of the Bill. It is not an independent clause that can be altered in Committee, but it touches the old principle of the Bill. For if Clause 60 is deleted, the Minister must bring about a whole change in the Bill as regards the definition of “underwriting”. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister not to be in too great a hurry, and not to accept the second reading now.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) dealt so ably and effectively with the speeches which preceded his, and by anticipation with the speeches which followed his, that there is really very little left for me to say. There are, however, one or two points on which I think I should touch. In the first place I would like to express my regret that hon. members have not available at this stage of the discussion of the Bill the report of the Select Committee and the evidence taken by it. But I can assure hon. members that the Committee stage will not be taken until that report is in their hands. I believe—and what I have heard here confirms my belief—that this House wants this Bill, and wants this Bill this Session, and that being so, in order to give ample time between the second reading stage and the Committee stage which, as I said at the outset, I was anxious to do, it was necessary to take the second reading stage on this early date. Of course, sir, there are those who do not want this Bill this Session. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) is one of them. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) who has just sat down, also do not want this Bill this Session, but I do not think that that is the attitude of the House as a whole. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, even went so far as to accuse me of something approaching contempt of Parliament. I will come to that in a moment. But let me state succinctly why I believe that this Bill is necessary this Session, and why I believe that the House wants the Bill this Session. This Bill contemplates a 5½ year period before its provisions will be fully effective. I refer hon. members to Section 18. Now, sir, it is already two years since this Bill was introduced. The Bill is therefore overdue. If this Bill is not passed this Session, it does not mean a delay of a few months. It means a delay of another year; it means that 8½ years will have elapsed before this Bill is fully effective from the time this legislation was first introduced. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) was perfectly correct when in this connection he referred to the dangers of the post-war situation. I referred to that myself when I introduced the Bill, and I say that this House would be failing in its duty if it did not do all it could to ensure that this further delay is prevented. The hon. member for Gardens talked about the bureaucratic tendency and a contempt of Parliament. Does not the hon. member know that this Bill was introduced two years ago, that it was discussed in the fullest possible way with the insurance companies? There were conferences one after the other; there were deputations; there were long discussions. Is that bureaucracy? When the Bill was introduced again this Session it was sent to a Select Committee. Is that bureaucracy? No, sir, if the hon. member does not know these things then I am afraid he is rather like Rip van Winkle. But if he does know these things, he was certainly doing us less than justice in levelling this accusation against us in regard to this particular Bill. There have been very few Bills introduced into this House where there have been fuller opportunities for the interested parties to state their case, and where there has been a longer period during which the various issues could be more fully discussed and canvassed. The House will have the evidence before it, before the Committee stage. The principle of this Bill has been before this House for three years. Surely the House is at this stage able to express its view. The question is this, does the House want to protect the policy holder? Of course it does. And then I say again we cannot brook any further delay of even one year such as the hon. member for Gardens asks for. Then there has been a good deal of discussion in regard to the position of the Registrar. We have heard about his extraordinary powers and his dictatorial powers. I would repeat, as has been said before, that these powers will be subject to appeal to the Minister. It is immaterial who the Minister is. The whole point is that the Minister is responsible to Parliament, and ultimately, therefore, in the exercise of these powers the Registrar will be responsible to Parliament through the Minister. There is that safeguard and the importance of that must not be overlooked. If we are to have effective control, we must exercise that control in one of two ways. We must either do it in the way they do it in Canada or the United States, where they have a Department of Insurance with very much fuller powers than given to the Registrar, or we must take the line of this Bill. There is no other way. And the only alternative to which the hon. member for Gardens and others have objected is a system under which the bureaucratic powers will be far greater than those embodied in this Bill. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to have control, you must have some means of exercising that control, and this, in relation to the legislation in other countries, is by no means bureaucratic.

What about your regulations?

If the hon. member will permit me I shall come to those in a minute. I shall repeat again that in the powers which we have given the Registrar we have followed the precedent laid down on previous occasions, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) was the first to raise this question of the extraordinary powers of the Registrar. Well, I am going to appeal from the hon. member for Castle to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle in this matter. I won’t say that I appeal from Phillip Drunk to Phillip Sober, but I appeal from the hon. member for Cape Town Castle as a critic of these powers, to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle, as a member of the Select Committee which drew up the Banking Act last year. In that case the powers of the Registrar are wider than they are in this Bill, and the hon. member for Cape Town Castle was a member of that Select Committee which drew up that legislation. Now, we have heard a good deal about regulations. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) talks about the Registrar’s power to make regulations. Where has he the power to make regulations? If he has, perhaps the hon. member will make an amendment in the Committee stage. It is the Governor General who makes regulations, not the Registrar. Where has the Registrar the power to make regulations? I may not have read the Bill as carefully as the hon. member for Stamford Hill has done—I don’t know of anyone having the power to make regulations other than the Governor General. Now, the hon. member for Castle also took up this question of the power to make regulations. He thought that we should not have any power at all to make regulations, we should specify everything in the Bill. At the same time the hon. member appealed for a simpler Bill. How can you have it both ways? How can you have a simpler Bill and at the same time include everything which should be done by regulation? These cliches come so easily. Hon. members want all these things, but they forget that you cannot have all these things at the same time. I don’t think I need say much about Lloyds. That particular point has been argued out from both sides. The protagonists of Lloyds have put their views on the Select Committee and I must say that the view of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) appears to me to be the correct one. It is not a question of security.

We also say so.

Yes, quite so. It is a question whether the competition is fair or not. That is the real point. Now, is it necessary where your company with all its branches has to put up a deposit of £10,000, is it necessary to require as large a deposit from a Lloyd’s Agent.

Merely on the basis of discrimination.

The scope of business is much bigger in the case of a company.

It is a question of discrimination between people from outside and inside.

No, I am putting it on the basis of whether the competition on the lines suggested by the Select Committee would be fair or not, and I think, taking everything into consideration, the proposal is fair. There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg about the amount of business done by Lloyds. I think as he put his figures—I am sure he did so unintentionally—a wrong impression was created. The actual premium received by brokers in the Union in respect of Lloyds is £166,000. The actual premium received by all Union Companies is over £6,500,000, and by non-Union companies £6,600,000, so that the total premiums represent about £13,000,000. The actual amount in premiums received by Lloyds is £166,000. My hon. friend was comparing these premiums received by Lloyds with premiums received not by all companies, but only by Union companies in those lines of business in which Lloyds is merely operative. Then his figure is correct, but I don’t think his figure as he stated it was correct. I think the hon. member should see the position in its true perspective. The amount of business done by Lloyds is £166,000. That is only a relatively small fraction of the whole insurance business. The other point raised was the question of the establishment of a South African Association of Underwriters, and in that connection reference was made to the fact that under the existing law, the law of 1923, provision is made for certain parts of that law to apply, not only to agents of Lloyds, but also to members of similar associations of underwriters. It has been said, I think by the hon. member for Brakpan, that that has never been given effect to, never been made use of. One reason I think is that it would be extremely difficult to know what exactly qualifies an association to be regarded as an association similar to Lloyds. Lloyds is a very peculiar association. It is the creature of a century of tradition, and it will be extremely difficult to create an association similar to Lloyds. I doubt very much whether it would be much use repeating this provision in the law in this particular form. I am prepared, if hon. members wish to move an amendment, to consider its insertion in some other form, but at any rate there is no question of a monopoly. If the people for whom the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) spoke, want to start in this business, there is nothing to stop them from starting. Lloyds have no monopoly. There is no business which Lloyds are doing here which cannot be done by any other insurer.

The only thing which is taken away is that clause which talks of “a similar association”.

Specially approved of by the Minister.

We have never had an application for such an association to be approved of, and I doubt very much whether it would be possible to form an association similar to Lloyds. It would not help my friends to repeat that provision in its present form. If they desire to introduce something similar in the Bill, I shall be prepared to consider it, but the terms will have to be gone into very carefully. I think there is only one other point to which I need refer, and that is the point raised by the hon. member for Stamford Hill which I had some difficulty in following. He referred to the position of soldiers under Section 38 (3). All we do is to apply the provisions of the law passed by this Parliament in the interests of the soldiers, not in the interest of insurance companies, three years ago. And there is no discrimination in this clause between airmen and naval men. There is simply special reference to the person who suffers death anywhere in an aircraft, in flight, or in an attempt at flight, because that would not necessarily be covered by the words “outside the Union”. My hon. friend need not be axious about any wrong interpretation being given to this clause. It seems we are simply carrying on the provision which was made consciously and unanimously by Parliament three years ago.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House go into Committee on the Bill on 8th April.

I said what I had to say on this Clause at the second reading of the Bill, and I am going to try to do what I consider it is my duty to do, namely to propose the following amendment—

This clause deals with cheques that are stolen or lost. I want to be honest and say that I do not know why a thing that is lost should give rights to another person before it is found. I do not know what “true owner” means. There is no difinition of this expression in the original Act. Is the man who signed the cheque the “payor” or the “drawer”, as he is called, the “true owner”, or the man to whom the cheque is sent? What is the “true owner” more than the ordinary “owner”. It appears to me that this has to be defined so that we can see clearly what is meant by it. The best would be to give a definition of “true owner”. I take it that the Minister means that the “true owner” is the man to whom the cheque or order is sent.; the man who receives it and who lost it, or the man from whom it was stolen. While the cheque is lost or stolen the position is that the man in whose favour it is made out is the “true owner”. I do not know why the law refers to “owner” and “true owner”. If we have a definition in the law then we shall understand the position better. I would like the Minister to understand that he is busy here assisting neglectful people. The man who lost the cheque or put it away in such a way that it can be stolen is protected no matter how neglectful he may have been. I feel that this conflicts with the common law. The principle in our common law is this: If a person steals a cow and it is sold to two or three parties in between without them knowing that it was stolen, then one cannot institute any claim against those persons in between. One can only institute a claim against the thief or against the person who has the cow. According to the authorities I have quoted, it appears to me that Clause 80 was unnecessary because in England the system is quite different. There the system is that if I steal a cow and I give it to someone else, and he again gives the cow to the next person, then the person from whom the cow was stolen can claim the value from any of the persons in between. But in our country we cannot do this. We can only claim it from the thief or from the person who is in possession of it. Our common law goes still further. Where money is stolen and spent it cannot be claimed back. Now the position is that the Government issues cheques and those cheques get lost. Well, if those cheques get lost before they come to the man to whom they are made out, then it is the Government’s loss. If the cheque reaches the man, however, and he loses it subsequently, then it is his loss and not the loss of the Government. The difficulty exists merely when the cheque gets lost before it reaches the person to whom it is made out. If I lose a cheque or if it is stolen from me, and someone gets it and is able to draw the money from the bank, then it is my loss. That is in accordance with the law. What the Minister is now busy doing is to prostitute our common law by introducing the “doctrine of conversion” into our country. In other words, if I send a cheque to someone and it gets lost because the Government was neglectful in the transfer of that cheque, or because my clerks were neglectful and someone gets that cheque or order, and signs the name of the person to whom it was made out, and he gets the money, and the cheque has perhaps gone to B, C and D, then the Minister provides now that the person who sent the cheque and who was probably neglectful, shall have the right to claim damage from any one of those persons. Then we come to another point. The fact that a cheque is crossed is yet not a protection to the person who made it out, because the judicial system in our country is so, and he now wants to protect those people. The bank is entirely protected if it pays out. The bank is always protected. The result now is that a person perhaps obtains that cheque unwittingly and completely in good faith, and then compensation can be claimed from him if the cheque is lost or stolen. For that reason I propose my amendment, that if someone obtains the cheque bona fide and after proper investigation then he should be exempted. Now take this case. The Provincial Administration sends a crossed cheque to a native teacher in the Transkei. The teacher has no banking account and he therefore goes to a shopkeeper or to the owner of the hotel with whom he deals. They give him the money, and he gives them the cheque so that it can be paid into the banking account. The hotel owner or the shopkeeper do this purely to help the man, because he has no banking account and it is a crossed cheque. I have also done this very often in my business to help people. Assuming now that this cheque was stolen or lost, even through the neglect of the person who sent it, then damage can be claimed from that shopkeeper or hotel owner. The result will be that these people simply cannot be assisted in future. We are going to place many people in a terribly difficult position. Then I come to another point, and that is that this Bill provides that the cheque shall be both crossed and marked “non-negotiable”. The crossing means that the cheque must be paid into a banking account. If it is marked “non-negotiable” then it means that it is a personal cheque. I think that the Government is incorporating both these provisions to protect itself. Why is it not sufficient if the cheque is either crossed or marked “non-negotiable.” [Time limit.]

I think it is desirable that at the discussion of a Bill such as this we should have the amendments before us. For that reason I waited a good few weeks—a whole month—before the Committee stage of the Bill, in the expectation that hon. members would place their amendments on the Order Paper. Now my hon. friend comes forward with an amendment that is not on the Order Paper. I am now prepared to move that progress be reported, and then his amendment can appear on the Order Paper. But then I want to ask other hon. members who also want to move amendments to place those amendments on the Order Paper. It is not fair to consider a Bill of this nature unless we have the amendments before us. In order to give my hon. friend the opportunity of doing this, I now move—

I ask other hon. members who want to move amendments to place their amendments on the Order Paper.

I am sorry that I could not put my amendment on the Order Paper. I have not a staff here, and the work is plentiful. As soon as I had the amendment drafted I submitted it to the Minister.

Yes, but it was only this afternoon.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 2nd April.

I want to complete the picture for the delectation of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and for the Committee in general of this school feeding scheme. I have advised the hon. member privately, but it is just as well for the House to know that the £50,000 which has been estimated, as the first contribution to the scheme, is not all—that is in addition to the £150,000. That makes it £200,000, and it is only in the first stage.

The £150,000 is for the milk and butter scheme.

Does the milk and butter scheme disappear?

No, it remains but is is absorbed in this scheme.

So the children have to get in at 11 o’clock to get that meal.

The question of time is a matter of arrangement; the Provincial authorities have to arrange the scheme. The £200,000 is the total amount, let us concentrate on the £50,000. But £50,000 is only the beginning of the scheme, whilst we are getting it into shape. In addition to that, of course, the central authority, as represented by myself, will be contributing 50 per cent. of the capital cost, which will be non-recurrent, the capital cost of the equipment necessary such as kitchens and what not, that will be required for the actual preparation. Now my hon. friend said that he visualises this amount ultimately reaching £1,000,000, Well, he is rather conservative, as a matter of fact we assume …

I said £2,500,000 at the rate of 3d. per meal, as stated by one hon. member.

Is my friend not mixing up the figures? However, it does not matter; all we want is the facts. We anticipate that the State’s contribution will be in the neighbourhood of £1,650,000.

Per year.

Per year.

And not perhaps.

Not perhaps, actually; to which must be added the Provincial authorities’ contribution, and that means another £800,000 odd. So that will reach the figure my hon. friend has just mentioned of £2,500,000.

That is what was said at first.

My hon. friend has shown remarkable prescience, our estimate then is roughly the same; you say it will be £2,500,000 and I say it will be £2,500,000. I have never known such unanimity to occur in Committee before. All right then, £2,500,000 is what we expect we shall have to pay for this school-feeding scheme. Again I say it is an unfortunate circumstance that we have got to do this. But I find myself within the limitations imposed upon me, and I am admittedly putting ointment on the sore. But we have got to do it, and I suppose we shall do it. Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) drew my attention to the position of special guards on Railways. I do not know what the position is there, and I am glad my hon. friend has brought it to me.

I said warders.

Well, whatever they are, I know what the hon. member is driving at. I am causing enquiries to be made, and I want to confer with the Minister of Railways to see if we cannot alter that state of affairs. I quite agree that we should provide for our workers in the country having regular holidays, and amongst other things, overtime rates when they work overtime. I propose to look into that matter. If my hon. friend will leave it to me I will do my very best. I am calling a comprehensive conference of everybody concerned, including the principals of industrial schools, trade schools, technical colleges, trades unions and employers, with a view to hammering out a measure which will make it possible for us to fit in everybody that is receiving training or semi-training in the course of this war, and I hope my hon. friends will be satisfied with that. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) asked me what is being done with regard to wages in the Transkei. Well, I am advised that the vast majority of the natives in the Transkei are employed in agricultural pursuits, and as a consequence we are debarred by legislation from interfering with the wages there. More is the pity. Nevertheless it is true, and I have to bow to the inevitable. He says that the Transkeian Territories General Council are employers of labour there, and I am informed that the wages that they pay are inordinately low. Well, I am afraid I cannot promise him at once an investigation into the conditions there, and in trading stores, hotels and what not. I cannot promise him an investigation immediately or in the near future because our Wage Board is engaged in investigations of very much larger matters than the Transkeian employment position. But as soon as I can I will, and I do want to tell him this, that I think the time is rapidly approaching when the cost of living allowances will have to be extended by regulation over the whole Union. With that I hope the hon. member will rest reasonably satisfied. I must now draw attention to a very unpleasant interlude that occurred during the Budget debate. Owing to the restricted time imposed upon members of the House, I did not feel inclined to intrude myself at that time, but I think this is an appropriate moment to do so. I refer to the very vicious attack that was made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) upon the inspectors of labour, the charge being that these inspectors of labour, some of them, not all of them, were engaged in sabotaging the effort that is being made to place returned soldiers in reasonable work. I resent not so much the drawing attention to it, but the manner of doing so. I am very sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, but I must now review what he said. He took the only time left to him in the Budget debate to make this charge against officials who are honestly trying to do their duty in the best possible way. Now, sir, had the hon. member been desirous of having the thing rectified, surely it was reasonable for me to expect, and reasonable for him to come to me and tell me this was going on. Nothing of the sort; he seized the opportunity to make what I can call nothing less than a vicious attack upon these officials, who are honestly and honourably endeavouring to do their duty in the best possible way. The reason I am referring to the matter in this fashion lies in the remarkably different attitude that he adopted in more minor things. I very much fear that this has got something to do with his attack, that his own business was involved. Inspectors had had to pull him up with a round term.

[Inaudible.]

Not fair? When a man deliberately attacks in public fashion men who cannot answer for themselves? He could have come to me and asked me for an interview.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

That is not wrong at all. I am surprised at my hon. friend springing to attention in defence of the hon. member for Rosettenville.

We have become used to it in the last few weeks.

Another squabble over there.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to rulings which have been frequently given to the effort that members must not continue the Budget debate when the House is in Committee of Supply. I am sorry I cannot allow the Minister to continue the Budget debate; the hon. Minister will have to take some other opportunity.

I do not know what other opportunity I shall have. It is my Vote, sir, and the Labour Department is being passed under review this afternoon. It has come to my notice that an attack has been made upon officials in my department.

Order. The hon. Minister must observe that that attack was not made during the course of the discussion in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister what the policy of his Department is with regard to labour inspectors and their activities? I think that will give the hon. Minister the opportunity he desires.

The activities of inspectors in the Labour Department are many various and diverse, and amongsts other things—I thank my hon. friend for this opportunity—and among the activities assigned to them is this question of placing returned soldiers in work. These charges have been levelled against them, these charges of sabotaging the efforts we are making to get these men employed.

You must give us a statement on that.

Yes, and I feel perfectly certain my hon. friend would be satisfied with that statement.

I hope other members will be too.

I think the majority will be satisfied, with the possible exception of one hon. member. Now, I make the complaint that no opportunity was given to me to investigate the charge or charges, and to inflict punishment if punishment were needed, no opportunity was given me.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is like a small boy with a stone which he throws at a window, because he likes to hear the ping. That seems to have been the hon. member’s chief occupation all through this Session. Well, sir, my Department immediately the charge was brought to our notice, asked for cases, and no reply has been received, no reply at all of a specific case. On the contrary, I desire to read to the Committee, for its information, certain letters that I have received. This one says “I notice in the ‘Rand Daily Mail’—

If the letter refers to a debate during this Session, the hon. Minister cannot read it.

Well, sir, this is the strongest deprecation of certain remarks that have been made, and is signed by D. J. Opperman, Secretary of the United Party in Pretoria. He refers with great pleasure to the co-operation and good feeling existing between his office and the Labour Department in connection with this matter.

Is there collaboration between the United Party and the Labour Department?

Yes, and there would be with the Nationalist Party if they were prepared to place hundreds of these soldiers in employment. We collaborate and co-operate with the Springbok Legion, and we collaborate with any other organisation that are willing and anxious to place returned soldiers.

And other people, apart from returned soldiers?

Oh yes, emphatically so, we do not confine our activities in that regard to returned soldiers, but we have a special charge upon our consciences, a special responsibility devolving upon us to find employment for returned soldiers, and I propose to fulfil that responsibility. There is also a letter from a returned soldier expressing great and deep regret at the references that have been made to inspectors, and at the same time expressing his gratitude to the Labour Department and its officials concerned in placing returned soldiers in employment, for the manner in which they are doing it. Sir, in view of the restrictions that have been placed upon me, I cannot be more explicit, but I think I have removed now in retrospect any misunderstanding that may have entered the minds of hon. members of this House as the result of the unfortunate incident that occurred during the Budget debate. Then my hon. friend the members for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) urges upon me that I should go in for a five-year plan. This five-year plan which emanated from Russia seems to have caught the imagination of a great many people. I am glad that is happening in regard to the outlook for the future. Well, Sir, that is what we got the Planning Council together for. I believe they are going along well, they are taking their job very seriously indeed, and we can hope as the result of their investigations and planning, that we shall have a plan first of all for five years with the option of another five years. Then the hon. member drew attention to the disparity between the invalidity pensions and old age pensions. Neither of them is sufficiently high, and that is a matter which is having the serious consideration of the Government at present. Now with regard to this bugbear, the question of the wasting of fruit. That is a matter which has caused me a tremendous amount of concern. It seems to me to be a terrible thing that fruit which should be used to feed the people should be wasted and destroyed. My Department is busy endeavouring to formulate a plan so that we shall not waste one single apple, pear, banana or anything else. We want to bring the fruit to the mouths of the people, and we propose to do that. My hon. friend wants to know if we will announce what the scheme is. I know he would like to hear my voice over the wireless. I don’t like speaking to the microphone, I like to see animated countenances before me. I like to see receptivity. It seems so like talking into vacancy. Perhaps that is the same today. But I will overcome all my repugnance in order to announce to the South African world a plan which the Social Welfare Department is formulating. I think, Sir, I have now replied to all the points, and I hope everybody is satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Labour has a way with him of always managing to amuse the House, and I am sure that if the electors of Benoni, decide that the hon. Minister should not come back we will miss him at least on that account. The hon. Minister stated yesterday that my speech was the same year after year. Now I admit, Mr. Chairman, that in some respects my speech was the same as last year, but surely, sir, the cause of that is that the misdeeds of the Minister are the same year after year, and if the Minister had not committed so very many misdeeds there would be no necessity as he asserts to repeat my speech year after year. The hon. Minister is also very indignant at the charge that he is not carrying out the principles for which he stood in the past. He told the House he was in this Government to win the war, and that he came into the Government with no conditions whatever. In the first Session after the outbreak of war, the Minister proclaimed that he entered the Cabinet unconditionally. Mr. Chairman, can we still apply that “unconditionally” to the present day? I recollect that only a few months ago the hon. Minister suddenly decided that he was going to place certain conditions on his continued support of the Government. Unconditional in the beginning and now after three years, the hon. Minister has decided to place certain conditions before the Prime Minister, on which his continued support of the Government will be based. Those conditions were that the Government should adopt two parts of the Labour Party’s policy. The Minister, in his reply yesterday, said he was delighted with his association with the Government, and also that his negotiations with the Government were very fruitful. The negotiations with the Government in regard to seats were very fruitful indeed. These were evidently some of the conditions that the Minister laid down for his continued support of the Government. The Minister has also replied to my charge that when the Factories Act and the Workmen’s Compensation were before the House, he consistently refused all amendments from this side, designed to improve the benefits to the workers. The Minister stated that we were out to obstruct the passage of the Bill, but at the same time he admitted that our amendments were designed to improve the Bill, and that they were amendments which he was fully in agreement with. He stated that he was afraid the majority of the House would not agree. The Minister was well aware of the fact that these Bills had considerable limitations, and that considerably increased benefits could have been conferred on the worker, and that it was his duty as a Labour protagonist to accept these additional benefits. The Minister states he is still in favour of a 35-hour week, but the furthest he has gone during the past three and a half years is to legislate for a 46-hour week in the Factories Act. The Minister agrees that conditions are terrible in the country, that there is poverty and want, that wages are low, and he agrees that instead of giving the children one warm meal per day, the wages of their parents should be increased. All the criticisms that are made he fully agrees with, but at the same time while agreeing with the criticisms he raises his hands helplessly, and is absolutely unable to do anything. The position of course is that the Minister cannot do anything on his own account, he has to go hat in hand to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and beg for small concessions. If the Minister had taken his courage into his hands from the beginning, put his foot down and told the Government he wanted improvements in regard to social and economic conditions, and also told the Government that the party support would only be given on the condition that these things were agreed to, very much more would have been done. One sees how quickly the Government knuckled down when the Labour Party negotiated with them in regard to seats. The Government was quite prepared to give them additional seats because they want the continued support of the Labour Party. How much more would the Prime Minister not have been prepared to accede if the Minister had put his foot down from the beginning. On the contrary, he was satisfied merely with the crumbs that fell from the Prime Minister’s table. If this continues, the workers can expect very little in the future. The workers cannot expect much from a Labour protagonist who sits on the same benches as the representatives of the Capitalists of this country. But he uses as an argument as to why nothing is done, that all these evils are due to the profit-making system. The hon. Minister has done absolutely nothing in the direction of ultimately abolishing this profit-making system. In regard to the proposal to feed school children, I do not consider that as something to boast about; I consider it to be a blot on the career of the hon. Minister of Labour, that after 3½ years he should tacitly admit that the wages of the people are so disgracefully low that it is necessary for the Government to feed the children of the people. I say that it will be regarded as a blot on the career of the Minister that the wages of these people are so low that the Government is now compelled to vote money so that these children can receive one hot meal a day. And, sir, the House is completely misled in regard to that matter. When this scheme was announced everyone expected that all the children would get one hot meal a day. £150,000 was voted in connection with the milk and butter scheme. Now they have voted an additional £50,000. But that total sum of £200,000 will not be sufficient to give one-fifth of the children of this country one hot meal a day. Then too, no provision is made for those children who are not of school-going age and who do not attend school. [Time limit.]

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Minister of Labour, from the time when he as a member of the Opposition made a promise that he would commence all unskilled labourers with a wage of 10s. per day. I have always waited for the time to arrive for him to pay all the unskilled labourers a commencing wage of 10s. per day. If he does that, then it will not be necessary for him to give a meal each day to school children. Their parents will then be prepared and will have enough to feed the children themselves. When we speak of officials who work in the Department of Labour then I must say that I cannot do otherwise than express praise for them. There is one person who has indeed been a trial to them, and who has bothered them almost daily, then it is I, because in my constituency there are many unemployed. I know for that reason I have always received assistance from those officials; where I required assistance I got it. But what I want to say is that the truth of the matter is that our soldiers who return from the North cannot get work. There is no work for them. It is not the fault of the officials. I have taken soldiers to them and I also obtained work for some of them at the Labour Office. But they cannot assist them all with work. I have already said in this House that a statement has been made that in Johannesburg approximately 500 soldiers are walking the streets without work. We see them there. What I have against the Labour Office—not against the officials, because this is really something that stands to the account of the Government—is that they have laid down the policy that unless a person is medically unfit to go to the war he cannot get any work. It is said that this war is being conducted with volunteers, but it is not so, because if we go with people to the Labour Office to obtain work for them then the first question put to them is whether they can show a certificate showing that they are medically unfit to go and fight. No matter how poor a person is, he must first of all prove that he is medically unfit before he can obtain work.

A few weeks ago I put a question to the hon. Minister as to the labour employed in the munition factory in Kimberley, which is conducted by the Mint. In reply to me he stated that coloured girls who had passed Standard VI were employed there on semi-skilled work on a wage of 32s. per week, that what natives were employed were employed as labourers at 20s. a week. I asked the Minister as to whether a native girl who has the same qualifications as a coloured girl, could not be employed in the factory. He replied: “No”. Now I want to appeal to the hon. Minister to reconsider this matter. If there are native girls locally who are capable of doing this work, why should they not be employed? On the efficiency basis there is presumably no reason to suppose that they would not do this work as well as the coloured girls, and I may tell the Minister from my experience that in Kimberley the coloured and native people are not used to discrimination between them. The wage determination and industrial agreements that they have in force in Kimberley, lay down wages for certain grades of work irrespective of the race of the worker. I have been told actually that coloured female labour has been brought into Kimberley. They have not only employed local labour, but coloured female labour has been brought into Kimberley to do this work, when there is native labour available locally. I do ask the hon. Minister to reconsider this matter. There is no precedent, as far as I know for this kind of thing in private employment, and I may tell him that it is causing bitterness among the non-European population in Kimberley, between the native and coloured population, that there is this discrimination. They feel very strongly about it, and I am quite certain that the Minister would not wish this discrimination to take place. If a young native girl is capable of doing this work, surely there is no harm in her being employed rather than bringing in other coloured labour. Another matter I want to raise with the Minister also concerns Kimberley. There is, as he knows, a fairly comprehensive unskilled wage determination in force, and that determination is administered by his Department, as all these determinations are. Moreover, the native and coloured population at Kimberley is more or less a stable one. One does not find many natives coming in from the rural areas and going back again. The population there is more or less stable. They have asked me to request the Minister to establish a labour exchange in Kimberley which shall include the native workers. In this particular case in Kimberley, there is no reason why the activities of the labour exchange should not cover all unskilled workers, and I hope that the Minister will go into this question.

What do you mean by a labour exchange?

I was using the English term. I refer to the employment bureau which is at present run by the Department for European and coloured workers.

Do you include the natives?

No, I am asking for the inclusion of the natives, having regard to the conditions in Kimberley which I have explained. The Minister stated last night that he intended to call a conference of all interested in the question of the recognition of native trade unions, and in view of that statement I am not going to deal with the matter now except to say that I would like such a conference to include the representatives of the native and of native trade unions. I am not saying anything more on this issue now, in view of the Minister’s statement, except that I must make it clear that it is because of that statement that we are not saying anything more at this stage, because the promulgation of War Measure 145 has caused us the gravest concern—not because we want strikes in wartime or indeed at any time—but the reason why we view it with concern is this: The provision of compulsory arbitration which is welcomed in itself, needs in our belief, to make it effective, recognition of the workers’ organisation which will be in a position to bring cases to the notice of the Minister and to set the arbitration machinery in motion. The Minister may say that in fact that is the position at the present time. The difficulty is that the employers, in fact, very often deny that a particular organisation of a particular industry is represented. I do not say that the Minister’s Department always accepts that, but that is the difficulty. I do not want to say anything more on this issue. I welcome the Minister’s statement of a conference, and I hope that it will be held as soon as possible.

The Minister of Labour became eloquent yesterday about the low-paid officials, and he felt so happy because since he became Minister of Labour the low-paid officials had landed in a new heaven. This afternoon we have to hear that he puts his hand into the one pocket and takes out from there to put into another pocket. We have had the system of cheese and milk for children at school. We considered that the meal was something additional. Now we must hear that the meal takes the place of the cheese and milk. I wonder if the Minister of Labour agrees with the Minister of Native Affairs on what was said in this House that this meal for the school children works out at 3d. per meal per child. I would now like to know, in these expensive times, what sort of a meal that will contain all the necessary constituents for the building up of the child can be provided to the school children at 3d. per meal. And then I want to ask the Minister of Labour; when for all those years he sat on this side of the House and said that as soon as the State comes forward with subsidies and with schemes to provide the children with milk and cheese, then it proves that the people are not getting enough wages—I want to ask him: Does he still agree with that statement? If he still agrees with it, then why does he stand up here and quarrel with us on this side? He says yes and amen to what we propose on this side but, he says, the House does not agree with him. It means that that side of the House does not agree with him. Yet the poor Minister quarrels the whole day with us on this side. He quarrels with us while the other side does not agree with him. Nevertheless he found something against the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth), and I am glad that he came out with it, because it showed the grudge in his heart against those members on the other side. The Minister of the Interior said the other day that it was totally unknown to him that there were people in Government service who got 4s. per day. I pleaded for an increase in the cost of living allowances. He said that he did not know that there were such people in the Government service. The Minister of Labour knows that there are such people. As recently as January 1942 he replied here that on subsidised works, such as for instance the eradication of noxious weeds, erosion works, and municipal works, the people get a minimum wage of 4s. per day with a maximum of 5s. 6d. That is what the Minister of Labour replied, and it is so. I do not want to tarry at this, but I want to come to the non-subsidised works and the wage scales paid by the Government. The Department of Agriculture and Forestry pays 5s. 4d. per day minimum and 6s. 4d. maximum; the Department of the Interior pays £96 per annum minimum—which is something more than 6s. per day—with a maximum of £132. The Department of Irrigation pays a minimum of 6s. per day and a maximum of 8s., while on the schemes the minimum is 3s. 6d. and the maximum 7s. per day. The Department of Lands pays 3s. 6d. minimum and 7s. 6d. maximum. The Department of Public Works pays 9d. to 1s. per hour in the cities and from 7½d. to 9d. per hour on the Platteland. That comes to about 6s. per day. The Provincial Administration pays 4s. minimum and 5s. maximum. If I had to sit on the other side with that Minister, whom I know feels in his heart as I do about this matter, then I would understand that he sometimes throws up his hands in despair. But we find that the Minister tries to fight with us and to glorify what he has done. Let me say that I think he should sleep restlessly at night. He should feel ashamed that those poor people should get a starvation wage. Now he says that a change has been brought about. What is that change? There is a little concession regarding extra holiday, but no increase of wages in these very difficult times. The Minister’s conscience should prick him in respect of the condition in which these people find themselves. What is the number of those people. They are not one or two. No, they are 4,555.

Do they get no holiday?

No, I have said that they have received a concession as regards holiday. But they have not received higher wages. Now I want to put this question to the Minister. I did it on the other Votes, and I want to ask him here if he will apply to the Minister of the Interior for an increased cost of living allowance for these people, and that it shall be paid on the basis of the number of children in a family, because these people with families have a bitterly hard time to come out on their meagre salaries. I do not think I am asking for something impossible. I brought the matter up the other day on the Vote of the Minister of the Interior. To him it was merely a joke. He merely laughed at the difficult position and the starvation wages that those people with big families receive. I have worked out that a man with six children who gets 6s. per day has to feed and clothe each member of his family for 6d. per day. How in heaven’s name can he do this; how in heaven’s name can those children be fed?

How did they do it under previous Governments?

That does not matter. It does not matter what they got in those days. Two wrongs do not make a right. All I know is that the cost of living has risen enormously and it is not possible for those people to live as decent white people. All Governments have made mistakes, but there sits the Minister of Labour who is the leader of a Labour Party. If he is worth his salt and really has any feeling for those people then he will shake up the Cabinet, or he will leave it. He must not tell me that he is there to see the war through. These people are also waging war—a war against starvation that stares them in the face. Wage this war together with them, and do not only wage war on behalf of the Capitalists on the other side who make large sums of money out of the war. Help to wage the war of those people who are fighting against hunger, and then I will believe in you. I want to say this to the Minister of Labour. I think in his heart he feels with us. But it does not bring anything into the pockets of those people if he merely says that he sympathises with the member who is speaking. Persuade the Cabinet to give those people a higher wage, and to pay an allowance for cost of living per child to the people who get a meagre wage, and then alone the working classes will believe in you. If you do not do that, then they and I will not believe in you.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and one does feel that it is only since the war started that he has been converted to the needs and wants of the working classes and the unemployed of this country, because, Sir, he sat in the United Party Government under the late Gen. Hertzog.

Not in the Government.

Well, a supporter of the Government, the same as I am.

I was just a humble back-bencher.

And for several Sessions he was in this House and made a number of speeches, and then he was the champion of the railways, and he was eulogising what was being done on the railways. He did not indulge in very much adverse criticism of the administration of the railways at that time.

Surely, you did not read my speeches.

As a matter of fact, I got out Hansard last week, and I looked up the speeches of the hon. member for Fordsburg, not to see what he had to say with regard to the railways, because one knew that that was his particular hobby, but I looked them up in order to see what he had to say about labour and the need for the Government to take drastic measures to deal with the conditions which were prevailing in this country as far as low wages, starvation, malnutrition and things of that sort were concerned; and I did not find a single word on the subject. I cannot help thinking, Sir, that the hon. member is a Daniel come to judgment. He has come rather late, and I hope he will get his sentence in the near future. I was very interested in his remarks and his attempt to castigate the Minister of Labour. Of course, one realises that when one wants to catch birds with salt, one has to put it on their tails very quickly, or one does not catch them, and the hon. member for Fordsburg will have to throw a whole lot of salt before he can catch the Minister of Labour.

But he has not got a tail.

The Minister of Labour and we on this side saw the light as to the needs of our working classes, our unemployed, I suppose long before the hon. member for Fordsburg knew that there were working classes, and I suppose that he will tell us that we have not got much to show for our efforts. But on the other hand if the hon. member for Fordsburg had to work under the conditions that both the Minister of Labour and I worked under more than 40 years ago, he would do as we do, and that is to pat ourselves on the back because of what has taken place between then and now. And I want to say, Sir, that a very great improvement has taken place. But certainly not nearly sufficient, and I have no objection to the hon. member for Fordsburg asking for more to be done. But when he decries the efforts of the Minister of Labour in the manner that he was doing this afternoon, well, I do not think the hon. member can understand the term “play cricket”. Take his remarks, or shall I say his version of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour yesterday afternoon when he said that Labour associations with the United Party had been very fruitful and had got results which were beyond anticipations to the hon. Minister. Well, that is a plain result which was beyond the anticipation of many of us; I mean with regard to legislation which is beneficial to the working classes. But he hon. Minister of Labour was not for one moment attempting to refer to anything pertaining to the forthcoming election. He was dealing with the past and not the future. But my hon. friend very ingeniously attempted to turn it round, that the Minister of Labour was referring to the future only. While that may be fairly good electioneering tactics, it is very poor tactics to employ in this House amongst a number of members who are just as experienced in the game as the hon. member for Fordsburg himself. Then he goes on to jeer at the Minister of Labour because he attained so little from the connection of the Labour Party with the Government. He goes on to say that conditions are bad, that wages are poor; and that the whole fact of the matter is that the Minister of Labour has obtained so little because his hands are tied. Well, Sir, I can quite understand with what delight the hon. member for Fordsburg and his colleagues would have viewed an attempt on the part of the Minister of Labour to force the hands of the Government by saying: “If you are not going to give us all we want, we are going to cross over to the other side and co Hades with your war.” I can quite understand that they would have delighted in that attitude, but unfortunately during a war period such as that we are now going through, one has to temper justice with mercy, or shall we say, to transpose it a little bit. One has to use a good deal of discretion and be very thankful what can be got which is of benefit, rather than jeopardise the whole position of this country. And I myself commend the Minister and his Party for their attitude during this very trying period since the war started in 1939. And I am very pleased myself because I have a lot of sympathy with the Labour Movement—I classify myself as having the interests of the working classes and of the poor as much at heart as even the hon. member for Fordsburg, and even as much as members of the Labour Party. Although we do not quite see eye to eye in everything. But one can admire their efforts and one can admire their loyalty to the obligation they undertook when they entered the Government and decided to see the war through, and I am sure the country in the coming Elections will give them credit for that. The hon. member said that this scheme of school feeding would be a blot on the Minister because there was only an addition of £50,000 provided for the scheme. Well, one would have liked to have seen more, and I would suggest that the hon. member for Fordsburg and any other hon. members if they are interested in this scheme should go across to the Department and have a chat with the Secretary for Social Welfare, and I am quite sure he would be able to tell them many things which would be valuable information to them, and also would prove of great assistance to them, and would probably eliminate many misconceptions, and make them realise the magnitude of the scheme which apparently they do not understand at present. And one has to realise that it is going to take some time to get a scheme of this nature into working order. It is going to entail an enormous amount of organisation, and when one hears the explanation given, one can quite understand that it is possible that even the money available will not be entirely spent. But what one can also understand is that the Minister will have to make much larger provision for next year and the year after than he has made this year.

I just want to associate myself with the plea made yesterday by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in connection with the position of boys in trade schools. I want to mention a specific case. In my constituency there is a trade school at Jacobsdal where there are regularly 100 boys in the school. So far as I know all the boys have passed Standard VI.

It is an industrial school?

I understand that it is a course of three years. They remain there more or less for three years and at the end of that period they reach a standard equivalent to Junior Matric. Possibly they may remain a year longer at the school. But what is the position then? After the boys have completed the course, and have received thorough vocational training, they must leave the school and try to be absorbed in some vocation or other. But in consequence of the study of two to four years in the trade school the boys may have passed the age of 18½ years and cannot then be taken up as an apprentice who has received preparatory apprenticeship training. The maximum age is 18½ years and the boys are older than that. They have had thorough vocational training, but now they have to find work and cannot be taken on as apprentices. They find their way to the Railways, or on to the roads or the irrigation works, and their whole vocational training is then valueless to them. They have to start on the same basis as boys who have had no training. I want to make a particular plea for the boys in the trade school at Jacobsdal. I want to invite the Minister to go there and see what they are achieving there. The Minister will be astonished to see what sort of work the boys can do after a year or two of training. The trade school has various branches, engineering, motor mechanics, woodwork, leather work—I think the Minister will be proud to wear a pair of shoes made by the children there. They receive instruction in the making of shoes and harness, tailoring, nearly all the branches of trade, and after they have spent their time there, and the parents have spent their money, the boys are in precisely the same position as the other boys who have had no training. It may happen that employers take the boys into employ for a probationary period of three months because the boys are useful, but after three months they have to receive a higher wage and then the employer says: You may go, we shall take in someone else. In this way their vocational training means nothing to them, even though it is thorough training. I want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the matter and to ensure that proper employment circles are created for those boys. The Minister admits that the position is untenable. Something must be done for those boys so that they may be taken up in a trade. Now I want to come to something else. The Minister has painted a little picture in connection with the allotment of one meal per day. The admission of the Minister yesterday was another charge against him, and indeed against the whole Government. The Minister said that the measure was an emergency measure. There is distress. People are starving. Therefore from the goodness of his heart he gives them a meal. My plea was and is still today what his plea was for years and years when he sat on this side of the House. We can still hear his voice resounding from those days: We are pleading for a living wage.

Evidently those pleas of mine have had their effect.

Yesterday the Minister asked: “What do you consider a living wage?”

At 6.10 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 11th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 2nd April.