Yesterday we promised the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that we would allow this vote to pass this morning, but we asked him to reply to a few questions.

I want to say to the hon. member for Paarl, Mr. Hugo, that the matter he has raised is still sub judice and I want to await the finding of the Court before I make any statement. In regard to the attitude adopted by the Censor towards the Youth Bond, I shall go into that question and see what can be done.

What about the guarding of prisoners of war by coloured soldiers?

My difficulty there is this. I would use the Essential Services Brigade for that service if I could get the men. The general impression is that I am able to secure those people in unlimited numbers but in actual fact we are hundreds of men short in that brigade and I find it difficult to obtain the necessary men. Meanwhile, all we can do is use armed coloured men.

But cannot you see to it that the prisoners of war, when they are sent by train, are not guarded by coloured men, so as not to make it conspicuous.

No, I cannot promise that because it is not always possible to obtain white guards.

Surely you only need very few of them and it is there that the public notice that coloured guards are used.

No, I cannot give any such undertaking. The prisoners of war have to be accompanied by guards. They are sent in all directions and if I have no other guards I have to use coloured guards.

But you have white guards at the bridges. Use these coloured men there, then you can let the white men go with the prisoners of war.

These white guards at the bridges are very necessary.

But surely we have a large surplus of soldiers.

No, that’s quite a wrong idea, to think that we have too many soldiers.

Will you put a stop to the publication of “Die Springbok”.

No, I cannot do that. It is edited by officers in the Service and it is useful to our Forces. I am not going to make any change there.

I found it a little bit difficult to hear the Prime Minister as he was talking very softly. I understood, however, that he was talking about the guards at the various camps.

I spoke about the guards who went with the prisoners of war when they travelled by train.

I would like to ask the Minister of Defence whether it would not be possible to use white men instead of coloured men and natives.

No, only coloured men are being used.

Very well, then I want to ask that white soldiers be used instead of coloured men.

I have not got them.

This is the point I want to make. The Prime Minister knows the way white people look upon things if coloured men are used to guard Europeans. It is resented by the white man. The Prime Minister knows what happened in the Second War of Independence. Our prisoners of war had to pass through the streets of Cape Town and we know the kind of remarks that were made about us even by the coloured men. He knows that the Afrikaner resents being guarded by coloured men.

These are Italians, and not Afrikaners.

I assume that these coloured men are used to guard the Italians and Germans. We should not do things to others which we do not want to be done unto ourselves—we should not do this sort of thing from the point of view of our own self respect, and from the point of view of the white man to other white men. I hope the Prime Minister will appreciate the position. It causes friction and dissatisfaction, and if we can do anything to remove such friction we want to ask him to appoint European soldiers as guards at these camps to look after these people. It is degrading to the white man as against the coloured man to do the kind of things we are doing now, and I hope the Prime Minister will take this into consideration. Now, about the war. The Prime Minister knows that from the very start we have been saying that we are opposed to the war—the whole world knows it—but we realise that money is needed, especially in times like the present, for defence measures in this country. We are prepared to give the Government the necessary money for the defence of the country. The Prime Minister will tell us that we have gone over that same ground over and over again, but I am going to go over it again and again because it is essential that I should do so. He said that he was going to clear the enemy out of Africa. Three months ago, when he returned from England, he said that within six weeks or two months the Continent of Africa would be cleared of the enemy. He will admit that his prophecy has been wrong because the enemy is still in Africa, and we find that notwithstanding the very meagre information which we get from the Press the Allied Forces number three to every one German.

But you people told us that the Germans had actually won the war.

I am arguing with the Prime Minister, and now the hon. member interrupts.

It seems that you don’t like it.

We are trying to argue matters out like grown up people. Does not the Prime Minister think the time has arrived for him to take the people and this House into his confidence? This House so far has voted hundreds of millions of pounds for the war, and what do the people know, what does this House know, about the way the money is being spent? In all the Dominions and even in England the Government has taken Parliament into its confidence. It cannot be argued that nobody in England is opposed to the war. There is a section there which is opposed to the war. In spite of that, however, the Prime Minister of Great Britain recently had secret sessions of Parliament and he takes the members into his confidence. Does not the Prime Minister think that he will make very much more progress if he takes this House and the people into his confidence? We notice from the Press that ships are being torpedoed along our coasts, yet the Government keeps as silent as the grave. If these things are happening, and the Government keeps us informed there will be much less agitation. If he takes the public into his confidence and keeps them informed he will promote his own cause very much more than he is doing at present. I want to ask the Prime Minister to take us into his confidence and to tell us at once how the war is getting on, what progress has been made, what he has done on behalf of South Africa, and I want to know from him for instance to what extent he has linked us up with the Atlantic Charter? We don’t know what is going on and we do not know what commitments the Prime Minister has undertaken on behalf of South Africa. We do not know to what extent we are supposed to support those plans for the future, and I do want to ask the Prime Minister to take this House into his confidence and give us the information which he has at his disposal. Why should we have to stand here like a lot of children and beg for a little information? We are entitled to that information, because we are asking for it as the representatives of the people.

We have approached the Rt. Hon. the Minister in regard to the question of the Italian prisoners of war who are made available as labourers on the farms. We approached him through the Minister of Lands, and we have now received a reply from the Minister’s Department to the effect that they are not prepared to help farmers living within 15 miles of the coast with Italian prisoners of war. We received that information this morning from his Department. The Prime Minister knows that this side of the House has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the position in regard to farm labour is particularly acute. He also knows that the recruiting of coloured men has largely contributed to the fact that the farmer today finds himself in the position of being unable to secure sufficient labour. That is why I want to ask the Prime Minister to take this matter into review again, and to reconsider it. I need not tell him again that the labour question is very serious. The wheat farmers have to start sowing within a few weeks, and more than one of them is faced with very serious difficulties. Last week a farmer called on me and told me that he had not got a solitary labourer on his farm; his home is within 15 miles of the coast. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister to reconsider this whole question. Fifteen miles from the coast as the crow flies is a long distance and quite a number of farmers will be cut out as a result of that decision. The farmers are looking to the Prime Minister and are appealing to him to place this labour at their disposal, and that is why I want to ask him again across the floor of this House to take the whole matter into review.

The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he was anxious to help his old friends in the Swartland and in the Moorreesburg area but the Minister’s department has now informed us that farms within 15 miles from the coast are not to have any Italian prisoners of war. There are quite a number of dorps in the wheat areas within 15 miles from the coast, and those wheat farmers will not be able to get any labour. The Government has made an appeal to the wheat farmers to produce, and that being so it should create these facilities so that the farmers will be put in the position of carrying on their sowing operations. Take Philadelphia, Darling, Hopefield, Vredenburg, Aurora—they are all in one line. I mentioned the case of a man at Somerset West, who lived two miles away from the coast and who had been granted Italian prisoners of war labour. I hope the Rt. Hon. the Minister is not going to cut out this area with which he is well acquainted. These people are under proper supervision. I want to join the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) in making an earnest appeal to the Minister. We are anxious to bring this debate to a close but we want the Minister to extend a helping hand to the wheat farmers. These people have to plough now and they have no labour. The coloured men have been recruited for the army from those areas. It may be said that those areas have been closed for recruiting, but we know that lately numerous coloured men who had not joined up have gone to the towns and the villages and that is why I am now making an appeal to the Minister to reconsider this whole matter.

I should like to tell the Prime Minister now what I wanted to say on the Prime Minister’s vote. This is a matter of considerable importance to South Africa’s future. The Atlantic Charter has been referred to, and we should like the Prime Minister to tell us what that Charter contains and how far it affects us.

The hon. member cannot discuss that on the Defence Vote.

Will you allow me to put a question to the Prime Minister? The subject is one coming under Defence. To what extent does his policy affect the Protectorates and the territories to the North of us?

The hon. member cannot discuss that on the Defence Vote.

Let me say in reply to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) that the Atlantic Charter was discussed on the previous Vote. I read out the clauses which were signed by us and the matter was discussed here. That question has now been disposed of and I don’t think we need go back to it. Nothing has been kept secret, nor is there any need to keep anything secret. The clauses in which we are concerned in the Charter have been read out—and those are the clauses which we have signed. In regard to the Italian prisoners of war I want to say that I have not yet had time to consider the question in relation to the coastal districts. The communication about the 15 mile radius was made under the old ruling. I shall go into that question again because I know it is an urgent matter which is of great importance to these people, especially in the wheat districts—it is of great importance that we should supply them with labour as far as it is possible to do so. The labour is there and I shall go into the whole question to see in what way I can meet these people.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—29:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. H. Viljoen.

Noes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst. B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock F. C.

Trollip, Á. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson. H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg. M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie. J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe,

R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Vote No. 6, “Treasury”, £64,000,

I am asking for leave, Mr. Chairman, to speak for thirty minutes and I want to move the following amendment—

I am deliberately putting it at £1,800. This leaves the Minister £700—his Parliamentary allowance. Johannesburg, North, happens to have made the mistake of sending him here and we are prepared to leave him in possession of that allowance until Johannesburg, North, at the next Election settles with him Since the establishment of Union we have had quite a number of Ministers of Finance—good, bad and indifferent. There were good ones among them, there were bad ones and also indifferent ones. Twenty five years ago when we were in more or less the same position as we are in today we also had a Minister of Finance who was headstrong, who was self-satisfied and dom-geleerd (stupidly clever).

And astutely arrogant (slim-astrant).

Yes, dom-geleerd and slim-astrant. It was that attitude which nearly landed South Africa on the rocks in those days. He, too, understood the art of taxing and of spending. We know that. I need not even mention his name—it is unnecessary to do so. We know that he did this country and the people irreparable harm; he damaged the economic and financial structure of South Africa to such an extent that to this day there are parts of the population which have not yet got over the harm which Henry Burton did to South Africa. We are again going in the same direction. I was anxious to see what the country’s reaction would be to the financial policy of the Minister of Finance, as announced in his Budget speech. I have taken the trouble to read almost every paper, English paper as well as Afrikaans paper. The Minister and his friends opposite must agree with me that never before since the days of Henry Burton has the declared policy of the Minister of Finance had such a cold reception in this country as the policy of the present Minister of Finance has had.

What measure do you go by?

It has had a cold reception. If they did not roundly condemn the Minister’s policy, they damned it with very faint praise. It is impossible to read out to the House what the reaction of public opinion has been, but I propose to quote from one newspaper. This is not the paper of an enemy of the Minister’s, it is the paper of a friend of the Minister’s. It is an open letter addressed to him in “Barlow’s Weekly”. [Laughter]. Yes, my hon. friends opposite may laugh. We may differ from Arthur Barlow but there is one thing we know and that is that Arthur Barlow is a journalist and he interprets public opinion. He says what the public thinks.

What does he say about the Leader of the Opposition?

He has stated in his paper what his people think of his leader. He also tells us what his people think of their own Minister of Finance. That is why I am not quoting any extracts from Afrikaans papers, but extracts from papers supporting the Minister, supporting the Minister’s war policy, and I want to read this article to the House. He first of all tells us about the previous Minister of Finance and then he comes to the present Minister of Finance, and he says this to him—

The letter is addressed to—

I must say if those are all the talents they can find in the United Party, then the crop is a very poor one. And this is what Arthur Barlow writes—

Mr. Barlow has a very picturesque way of expressing things—

I recollect that in the Budget debate that question was also put to the Minister from this side of the House—

And the bottle which they split is not a bottle of brandy but a bottle of champagne, because champagne is not taxed.—

I have also heard him described as “the fat boy in Pickwick”—

Is the hon. member in order in reading from a newspaper?

Yes, provided it does not refer to a debate during the current Session.

I shall proceed to quote—

You were once a schoolmaster, weren’t you?

But never a “skunk” journalist.

Now there we have the opinion of people supporting the Government. They cannot leave the Government in the lurch today because they support the Government’s war policy, but this we do know, that they are so fed up with the Minister of Finance and his taxes… .

And they got such a belly full as well… .

Yes, they got a belly full and they are full up to the neck. I can only say this, I am looking forward to the day when the Minister of Finance will have to meet his constituents in Johannesburg North and when he will have to account for all he has done. There are a few matters in connection with the Minister’s financial policy which are causing me very deep concern. Here his own friends say that they have reason to complain of the Government’s extravagance. We have already given him the name here of “Hofmeyr the spendthrift,” and what was his reply? He said: “I am called Hofmeyr the spendthrift, how can I be a spendthrift when my credit is so good? See how much I am able to borrow, and at what rate of interest. How can I be said to be a spendthrift if I am able to borrow money so cheaply?” That is the very point which is so characteristic of every person who is a spendthrift, that he borrows and borrows until in the end he can no longer borrow and then he is bankrupt. That is what the present Minister of Finance does. He borrows and borrows, and he will continue to borrow until South Africa is bankrupt and on the rocks. The only reply the Minister has is this: “There is a war on.” Now I want to pause at that. The Minister says we are at war and money is needed for the war. He says that we on this side of the House are opposed to the war and that being so there is no common ground for us to meet on. But there is a common ground on which we can meet in regard to our public finances. There is a common ground, and that is, as the English expression goes: “A job of work well done”— a job of work which one is instructed to do for a country, and one does it in such a manner that one proves to the country that the work is well done. There we are prepared to meet the Minister. We are critically disposed towards the war but we are not blind and we are not partial. If anything is well done then we are prepared to give credit for it being well done. If our soldiers up North fight well and they score a victory, then we are proud of them because they are Afrikaners. I served on the Cost-plus Committee and whenever any good work was done I was prepared to give credit for such good work. We are prepared to give the Government credit for any good work it has done, but I wish I could disclose what we have had put before us again this year in the Committee room. My mouth is closed about that, but there are certain things which I can speak on. We have spent over £230,000,000 on the war and I wonder if the Prime Minister knows how much of that amount his Government is able to account for. I wonder how much of that amount they can answer for, how much they can show in their books, and say the money has been spent for this or that purpose? £230,000,000 has been spent, and how much of that £230,000,000 can be accounted for in such a manner as to satisfy the Auditor-General? Let me give a few instances. We sent an expedition to Abyssinia to restore Haile Selassie to his Throne. We are able to account for the materials and war equipment as far as Durban where it was put on ships, but what became of it after that none of us know. We can account for it until such time as all these goods were put on board, but nobody knows whether any of these things ever arrived in Abyssinia or in Nairobi. What has become of these things, and how much of the stuff reached the soldiers we don’t know. That is one example. We know what the condition of affairs was in the Pay Division. In the years 1940 and 1941 we know that about £50,000,000 was paid out in pay to the soldiers, but that money cannot be accounted for to the country. I am talking now about the Pay Division, and I say that in those two years about £50,000,000 were spent in pay to soldiers and that money cannot be accounted for. The condition of the books was such that the Auditor-General could not make anything of them. That is the Treasury control there was. I want to give a further instance of the lack of Treasury control. Fortification works were built in Durban to an amount of about £1,000,000 and when they were completed permission was asked for that million pounds to be spent. That is how little notice was taken of the Minister of Finance. They carried on with their programme and after they had spent £1,000,000 they asked the Minister for permission to spend the money. Now let me give another instance. Fortifications along the Coast cost an amount of £10,000,000 for their construction. They bought their own materials for the work. There was no control. Does the Prime Minister know that not a single account was kept in regard to any of the things used on those Fortifications. They cannot submit the books to the country. That is what was done. There is no Treasury control whatsoever today, and if we now allow Parliamentary control to get out of our hands, the last little bit of control we still have over our war expenditure will disappear. There is a spirit loose to spend, and it does not matter what it is for, or how much it is. I say this to the Prime Minister—you cannot win a war by means of inefficient and incompetent methods. It is not only the soldiers who must be competent but the people who remain behind must be competent to carry out their task efficiently. That is the attitude which we on this side of the House adopt. On that basis I am prepared to meet the Minister, but there is a spirit among the Defence Force which, if it is not checked, will lead us to God knows where. On the basis of “a job of work well done” I am prepared to meet the Minister, but we cannot approve if we find that £1,000,000 is spent without his being consulted, if we find that practically no account can be given for the expenditure of £230,000,000. Now, there is one point which I am anxious to deal with, and it is a matter which weighs very heavily with the public, and which I want to place before the House; I am referring to the uneven and unfair incidence of taxation in regard to this war. On a previous occasion I gave the House certain figures, and the impression was created then that my figures were wrong. I thereupon went to the Department of Inland Revenue with my figures and I asked them to check up my figures to see where they were wrong. Now I have the figures of the Department of Inland Revenue here, together with those which I placed before the House. Let us take one tax. I told the House what tax had to be paid by an individual with an income of £2,500 per year, and I compared the salaried man with the doctor or the business man, and with the man drawing interest—and I called them the idle rich.

The Minister accepted your figures, but he did not accept your conclusions.

The impression he created was that my figures were not correct. I said that if a man living on his interest had an income of £2,500 all he paid in taxation was £79, and the Minister got up here and tried to create the impression that my figures were wrong.

I said that that £79 was only super tax.

Of course it does not include the normal tax which is paid by companies from which he gets his income. If the Minister had got up and if he had said that the hon. member for George had given certain figures, but that the country should realise that the companies, from which the individual received dividends amounting to £2,500, had already paid normal tax, then he would have been fair and just. But those were not the Minister’s tactics. The impression he tried to create was that my figures were wrong and unreliable. Even the biggest fool knows that where an individual draws dividends from a company, the company has already been taxed before the man draws his dividends. But even the hon. member for Kensington will admit that my figures were correct. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) said that he could not believe that such a man only paid £79. I gave my figures to the Department of Inland Revenue and they said that the figure of £79 was absolutely correct.

May I point out to the hon. member that Chairmen in the past have ruled that it is out of order to discuss matters affecting legislation or to continue the Budget debate when the House is in Committee. I hope the hon. member will bear this in mind.

I only want to say that the Department says that my figures are correct.

Only if his income consists exclusively of dividends from public companies.

I have the figures here and I have had them scrutinised and I should like to discuss this matter here.

The hon. member will get his opportunity on the motion that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means on the Taxation Proposals.

Assuming the taxation proposals do come before the House, am I not allowed to quote those figures on the Vote for the Minister’s salary? Surely it is an essential part of the Minister’s policy. If I am not allowed to discuss it here, where am I allowed to do so?

The hon. member will get the opportunity when the House goes into Committee of Ways and Means to discuss the taxation proposals.

Very well, then I shall keep my powder dry until that time, if I am not allowed to discuss it now. I hope, however, you will allow me to say that the Minister created the impression that my figures were not reliable and were incorrect, and that what the Minister said constituted an untrue representation of the position, and that the way in which the Minister presented the position was unworthy of him. Then there is another matter which I wish to deal with, namely the evasion of taxes which is going on. I have in my hand a document which was sent to me from Johannesburg. I had this matter enquired into by an actuary in Cape Town and according to his information the statements contained in that document are perfectly correct. It is stated there that there is a convenient way of avoiding excess profits tax which is now being followed by large and rich companies. They have suddenly found that they would like to create a pension scheme for their employees, for their workers. They never had that idea before but the idea has suddenly come into their minds. Here we have one of the largest and richest companies in the country. Their pension scheme came into operation on the 1st January, 1934. If this scheme constituted an honest attempt to care for the staff I would not have the slightest objection to it, but it was to find out exactly what the position was that I submitted it to the careful scrutiny of an actuary and he told me that I should warn the Minister and tell him that these pension schemes should be very carefully scrutinised. In regard to this particular pension scheme this company can set aside every year £50,000 or £100,000 according to the profits made, every year, and make it free of taxation. It is supposed to be set aside for a pension scheme, but it is not put into a pension fund. It is always possible for the company to take back the money which it has set aside for the pension scheme, and according to the information of the actuary the company is able in the course of a couple of years to set aside £250,000 or £500,000 but as soon as bad times arrive it can take back the money and use it again for the company’s services. Today it misleads the Government and tomorrow it may possibly defraud its staff. I don’t know whether this matter has been brought to the Minister’s notice.

I shall be glad to have the details placed before me.

I shall give the Minister the information because I think the position is a serious one. I was in Johannesburg for some considerable time and what did one find there? Where large firms are concerned transactions take place between buyer and seller on a most peculiar basis. If one places a big order one does not send a cheque and it does not go through the books or through the bank, but one has to go personally with one’s lorry to the place and pay cash so that nothing goes through the books. This is done so as to prevent the amount involved being brought into account for excess profits tax. [Time limit].

We have had this morning what we expected we would have, a réchauffé of the hon. gentleman’s budget speech. Today my hon. friend has invoked a new ally. He invokes the Press which he says has given the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance a cold reception. He quotes at great length from a red letter article by Mr. Arthur Barlow. I congratulate him on his new ally. I congratulate him on the new financial genius that he has invoked to his aid. Personally, if I had to choose in this House between Mr. Arthur Barlow and Mr. Albert Werth, I would prefer the latter. Just let me deal briefly with this article which personally I think is a disgraceful article, couched in inflammatory and soap-box language, and containing a bitter and wholly unjustified attack on the Minister of Finance. Let us see how it begins. It is addressed to “Prof. Hofmeyr”. I appeal to hon. members opposite. If there is one man in the public life of this country who is a man of affairs, whose grasp of administrative matters is almost bewildering in its breadth, it is the present Minister of Finance. You may not agree with him in politics, but that is a fact. The insinuation carried by this portion of the wretched article is this: That the hon. Minister of Finance is a professorial gentleman, living in the academic sanctity of his professorial calling, and that he is quite unfit for a practical grasp of financial matters in South Africa. I put it to my hon. friend, does he agree with that? He may or may not agree with the budget of the hon. Minister, he may or may not agree with the way he handles the portfolio of Finance, but does he or any person think that the hon. Minister has not a perfectly unique grasp of affairs, that he is to the very tips of his fingers, a practical man and a practical administrator. I quote this in order to show how utterly worthless is this type of criticism. He says, for instance—that is the sort of tripe the hon. gentleman serves out to South Africa—“Courage, imagination and sympathy; that is what a real Minister of Finance should have today.”

Hear, hear.

Courage, yes; imagination, perhaps; sympathy, for whom?

Nobody:

Sympathy for the poor. I will say this, that what a Minister of Finance in South Africa needs is courage, backbone and character, and that is what the hon. Minister has. Then he winds up, and my hon. friend has the temerity to read it: “It is the budget of a village school master.” I suppose, if I am to allow myself to be as rude to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) as he is to the Minister of Finance, I may say that his speech, with its entire lack of constructive criticism but with its wealth of invective, is the speech of a village school-master. I have only ten minutes at my disposal, and unfortunately I cannot spend any further time on what I call the buffooneries of Barlow. I propose, if I may be allowed to deal with the points of substance which my hon. friend endeavoured to make, to omit his invectives and adjectives and to try to forget his cascading rhetoric. What is the accusation? The accusation that he has read into the words of Arthur Barlow, and with which he has apparently associated himself is this: That this Shylock of a Minister has presented a budget which hits the poor and lets the rich free, so that when they meet, in Mr. Arthur Barlow’s language, endorsed by the hon. member for George, they feel inclined to “split a bottle.” Was ever greater nonsense written in the history of journalism in South Africa, and was ever greater nonsense talked on the floor of this House? Let us get down to facts. Let us throw away all this nonsense. Let us throw that paper into the waste-paper basket, where it deserves to go.

It is a case of professional jealousy between you and Arthur Barlow.

In so far as the poor man is hit by the latest Budget, he is hit in this way: He pays more for his beer; he pays more for his cigarettes and he pays more for his brandy. I wish I could say that he pays more for his wine, but unfortunately I cannot say that; and he pays a little more for his second-class railway fare. Apart from that, the poor man in South Africa is not one whit worse off than he was before this Budget was introduced. He does not pay any more income tax for the simple reason that he does not pay income tax at all. He never has paid income tax. The family man of £300 and £400 a year still does not pay income tax. He does so in the other countries I spoke of the other day; he pays it in every tax-paying country that I can think of; and my hon. friend quotes this Barlow sob-stuff, namely, that the Minister taxes the poor man and leaves the rich man free. I wish I could borrow from the vocabulary of my hon. friend to say what I think of language of that description. Now let me strike a serious note. My hon. friend introduced a note of levity into the debate by producing this article. My hon. friend did attempt towards the end of his speech some serious criticism, and as far as I could make it out, it amounts to this: “Oh, what a tale I could unfold if I could only tell!” Then he went on to say: “But I cannot speak, because the matters on what I want to speak are being discussed in a room upstairs.” But he left the inference that if he could speak he would chill us to the marrow of our bones. Let me advise my hon. friend that the verdict of that Committee will be before the House very shortly, and if he thinks he can make our blood run cold with the story that Committee will tell us, he is welcome to try it. But do not let him anticipate it. Let me tell the hon. Minister of Finance that he need not lose any sleep tonight. He need not think that any of these dreadful things are going to happen that the hon. member has hinted at.

[Inaudible].

If you had a prize in this country for the champion “bangmaker”—I hope my Afrikaans is not faulty—it would go to the hon. member for George.

Are you still the chairman of that Committee?

My hon. friend told the House … .

It seems to me you are prejudiced.

He told the House that nearly £50,000,000 of defence expenditure—if you did not follow him carefully you would gather—had gone down the drain.

I said “could not be accounted for”.

The truth is that every penny of our defence expenditure has been properly accounted for, but there are certain records in the Pay Department which during the first year or two, were admittedly in an unsatisfactory state. [Time limit].

I just want to remind the Committee that the Budget debate should not be continued on Committee of Supplies. I have allowed the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) just to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), but I hope that hon. members will now observe, the salutary rule to which I have referred.

Your ruling, Mr. Chairman, places us in a difficult position, but I presume that I shall at least have the right to go into the policy that the Minister pursues in regard to the imposition of taxes.

No, that is precisely what the hon. member cannot discuss.

Must I then merely make a personal attack on the Minister? I would like to discuss the policy of the Minister, and I think I can do so under a motion to reduce the Minister’s salary. Cannot I discuss the policy of the Minister in connection with the imposition of taxations there?

In so far as it concerns the Administration, yes.

Will I have the right, for instance, of attacking the Minister on the point that he, to my mind, affects a group in the national life the heaviest in the imposition of his taxes?

That is a hypothetical question. I shall see what argument the hon. member develops.

I want to concentrate on only one point, and that is that a particular group of taxpayers are affected particularly heavily by the Minister of Finance, and that is the group with incomes between £300 and £400. It is the group of the middleman … .

The hon. member will have full opportunity to discuss this on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means on the Taxation Proposals.

In the circumstances, in view of the fact that I would rather not make a personal attack on the Minister, I shall leave the matter in abeyance.

In view of the restriction imposed upon hon. members at the moment, it is perhaps desirable that I should say a few words now. This is my vote, and it will perhaps be best to make a few remarks now. I do not want to say anything about the personal aspect of the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Apparently his eloquence left him in the lurch today and he had to seek refuge in a new ally, Mr. Arthur Barlow. I congratulate him on the new friend and ally. I must say that I do not take the opinion of the hon. member or his new friend very seriously. I do not want to enlarge on the personal aspects. At this stage I have to do only with concrete points adduced by the hon. member, and there is hardly much that I need say in connection with those. The hon. member has spoken of common grounds between them and us. I say again, as I have said on previous occasions, that as regards war expenditure, there is no common ground, but when we come to the discussion of the manner in which the war expenditure is made, then there is indeed common ground between us; when it comes to the control over war expenditure, indeed of any expenditure, there is common ground, and I have always made it very clear that I welcome any assistance through the usual Parliamentary channel from any sections of the House as regards control over our expenditure. Parliamentary control is a necessary adjunct of Treasury control. I do not think the hon. member can say that I have not done everything in my power to maintain the prestige of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I have been helpful to them in every possible manner in the execution of their work. I just mention the fact that where the Select Committee recommended last year that a special enquiry should be instituted, we immediately caused the enquiry to be made and we also had the valuable services of the hon. member for George at our disposal in connection with the enquiry—that was the Cost-Plus Committee. But where we welcome the assistance of the hon. member, there we do want to ask him not to exaggerate matters. Take today again. First he said that as regards the payment section £50,000,000 could not be accounted for, and later he went so far as to say that there is £230,000,000 for which we cannot account. In other words, we cannot account for any of the war expenditure. Is that fair? Naturally this is not so.

I asked the Prime Minister how much can be accounted for, for how much he can account for.

The hon. member did not say it in that way. He created the impression that £230,000,000 cannot be accounted for at all. You see the hon. member’s eloquence sometimes carries him further than he intends to go. He loses touch of facts. The hon. member has said, and it is true, that as regards certain amounts the information is incomplete, but the hon. member cannot indicate thereby that the money has been spent improperly. Take for instance the £1,000,000 of the pay section, of which we heard such a lot two years ago. The hon. member knows that the whole amount, with the exception of a few hundred pounds, is now accounted for. While we welcome the assistance of the hon. member, I want to appeal to him not to create the impression that matters are as bad as the sort of statements we get from him would suggest. I will also welcome his assistance in connection with the subject of taxation evasions. The hon. member has raised the matter of taxation evasion year after year in connection with private companies. I acted in the matter at the first opportunity I got, and I locked the door effectively against tax evasion. I shall always be prepared to take into consideration any hints from the hon. member, and will do all in my power to prevent and obstruct evasions. The hon. member has raised a new point that is interesting. To me it is a new point, and he has undertaken to make the information available to me. I would very much like to go into the matter. Where the hon. member reverted to figures which he gave me on a previous occasion, I shall perhaps be permitted to say that the hon. member alleges that I indicated that his figures are wrong. That was not my intention. I said that I could not control all his figures, but that with the exception of one point the figures were in the main correct. The one point is the taxation of the “idle rich”, as the hon. member called them, and there I said that he brought into account the super-tax of such persons, and that he kept no account of the normal taxation paid by the companies. When he came to the private company he did bring this into account, then he brought into account the taxation payable by companies as such, and the taxation of amounts paid out to individuals, but in this case he made the mistake of only bringing into account the super-taxation and not the normal taxation paid by the companies.

Assume they are gold-mining shares?

The same applies there. He pays super-tax, but he gets less in dividends as a result of the fact that the income of the company in which he has shares is taxed.

He bought the shares in the expectation that the dividends will be so much less as a result of the taxation.

But the taxation can be increased. If the hon. member again wants to make such a comparison in future, then I suggest that he should not begin as high as £2,500, but begin with £2,000, because then he will find that the person does not pay a penny taxation, because he then pays no super-tax. But that is a reductio ad absurdum, because the person pays his normal taxation through the company. And if you will permit me to say it, this is a system for which I am not responsible, which I have not introduced. This system of taxation of dividends of companies through companies is a system that has been in existence for as long as I can remember. If there is thus an inequality, then I am not responsible. But what I really want to do is this: I want to remove the impression which the hon. member apparently got of my speech, that I accused him of the use of wrong figures. I simply pointed out to him that for a proper comparison account must also be kept of the normal taxation that is paid through the medium of the company, as well as the super-tax.

I am glad about the new attitude of the Minister. Of late when we come to the Committee stage the hon. Minister is fairly obliging and decent.

Order, Order!

Surely I may say if someone is decent. I would not like to withdraw.

It depends on the sense in which the word was used. The hon. member should not make personal remarks.

I remember that the hon. Minister replied, for instance, to the budget. Then he knew that nobody could rise after him, and then he did not reveal the same obligedness. Before I come to anything else, I want to say that it was quite interesting to see what the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) think of the little paper of Mr. Arthur Barlow. I do not know Mr. Arthur Barlow at all, but I do know that he is a candidate for the United Party for the seat Hospital Hill at the next election, and if perhaps he sits here one of these days then I wonder what the Minister will say of the little paper. Will they then throw the paper aside so easily? It will be interesting to see what they do then. I just want to ask the Minister of Finance if he can say precisely how the cost of living allowances are determined. I see that certain items of expenditure are taken for the calculation. I understand that the Public Service Commission, when it concerns the railway workers for instance, draws up a basis together with the Department of Railways on which the cost of living allowances are worked out, and I understand that they take a man’s domestic budget for instance, what the average person needs per month. Now they take the domestic budget for the year 1938, the year before the war, and on that they base calculations for the nine biggest cities in the country. For 1938 they place the figure at 1,000 and on that basis they then determine the rise or fall in the cost of living. On that the allowances are based. What they take into consideration in domestic requirements are food, fuel, light, rent, and miscellaneous. I would like to tell the Minister what the man in the street thinks about this. A man in my constituency for instance, comes to complain that he cannot come out. He says: Now take anything I have on my body: My hat—he is a poor man—now costs 11s., but formerly I paid 6s. for the hat; my suit of clothes in which I work formerly cost 8s., and now 17s. 6d.; my shoes were 7s., but last week I paid 16s. for the same shoes; I used to pay 6d. per lb. for meat, today I pay 1s. 2d. I mention a few items. Now the latest Government Gazette states that the cost of living has risen by 23 per cent., but these most important items which I have mentioned have risen by 100 per cent. Therefore I would like to know clearly from the Minister how the cost of living allowances are determined. I must say honestly that I do not believe that the cost of living has risen by only 23 per cent. The Minister makes a distinction between the unmarried man and the married man. That is quite correct, because the unmarried man is only one, but the married man, without prospects, is responsible for two. It is a great pity that we have a Minister of Finance who has no practical experience, that if you are married the family does not remain at two, and therefore I want to ask that at the determination of cost of living allowances, particularly for the low-paid, the number of children a man has should be taken into consideration. Let me put it this way: If a man has one child—I now think of needy people—and the maintenance cost of the child rises by 10s. per month, then it means £3 per month more to the man who has 6 children. I do not want to mention personal cases, because I do not want to play on the Minister’s emotions, but I want to suggest seriously that the people with low salaries should be granted increased cost of living allowances in respect of their children at school—I do not speak of children who work—and that the Minister should take into consideration the size of the family. I shall be glad if the Minister will reply to this point.

I have asked the Minister on a previous occasion, before the Minister introduced his Budget, to allow that when the incomes for taxation purposes are fixed, that doctor’s accounts and hospital accounts be deducted from the taxable income. There are persons who are not quite poor, but who also are not well-off, who are often heavily affected thereby. We have not free hospitals and free medical treatment, and these are expenses over which the man has no control. His income often decreases just when he has illness, and then it is particularly unfair that he should pay tax on the income. It was very unfair in the past, but today it is all the more unfair because we find that the man’s cost-of-living has increased. He has additional expenses, and if in addition he gets a big doctor’s account or hospital account, then he is in a difficult position. I want to ask the Minister to meet him at least so far as taxation is concerned.

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

I want to raise an objection against the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance should again have considered it necessary this year to increase the taxes on cigarettes and brandy.

The hon. member cannot discuss that point now.

May we not discuss it under the Minister’s salary?

The hon. member will have full opportunity to discuss it in Committee of Ways and Means.

I had the privilege here this morning of quoting something from a well-known paper, the paper of Mr. Arthur Barlow, a paper that has a big circulation in the country. I explained that I differed from Mr. Arthur Barlow and from his politics, but I look upon him as a good journalist. It seems to me as if I have committed an unforgiveable sin in the eyes of the hon. members on the other side by quoting Mr. Barlow’s paper in this House.

So long as you do not commit any worse sins, you will not have done much harm.

I roused the ire of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). He became so exasperated that he threw the paper from him and—I do not know if you noticed it—when he threw the paper away it alighted on the seat on which the hon. Minister of Justice sits. I do not know if he did it deliberately. I do not know if the hon. member for Kensington thought the Minister of Justice was in his place and that the paper belonged at home with him, but it is strange that the place on which the paper alighted is the seat of the hon. Minister of Justice. I would just like to ask the Minister of Justice if it is collegial of the hon. member for Kensington in respect of a party supporter … .

And an aspirant candidate at that.

Does the hon. Minister think it is collegial of the hon. member to treat the newspaper of a party supporter and his opinion with such contempt in this House? He is not only a party friend and a party supporter, but I think he is a personal friend of the hon. Minister. I am only a humble member on this side of the House, but I protest against the manner in which the hon. member has treated the friends of the Minister of Justice. I have just quoted what Mr. Barlow had to say about the present Minister of Finance, because there you have a political friend who is speaking, and not a political enemy. We know that the paper has a big circulation, and I think the Minister will act wisely if he looks upon it as the writing on the wall. I would now like to touch on another point.

That is right; now come to the merits of the case.

Yesterday I raised a matter under Defence, and you told me that it would be better to raise it under Treasury, and I would now like to take the matter further. It is in connection with the change that has suddenly come about the policy of the Government in respect of the cost-plus system under which the Government is going to work in future. I explained the circumstances of the case yesterday. The Government nominated a Committee to advise it about the matter. The Committee had the Master Builders of South Africa before it and questioned them. The Master Builders gave their opinion to the Committee. Thus before the Committee decided on what system is best, they heard the Master Builders in connection with the matter. Notwithstanding the fact that the Master Builders submitted their views to the Committee, the Committee yet unanimously decided not to heed the objections of the Master Builders but to recommend that there must be competition; even under the cost-plus system it was found necessary to retain this. The Committee recommended it unanimously. When they recommended it, it was to the Government’s taste. They accepted it and they announced it as their policy and informed the departments of it. Then we heard that the Master Builders kicked up a row about it. The next thing we heard was that a conference would be held here in Cape Town, and overnight the Government changed its policy, dropped the recommendation and bowed to the political influence of the Master Builders. I would like the House to know that even before the Committee recommended the cost plus a tendered amount, this was the system to which the Authorities Committee itself gave preference. I hope that the hon. member for Kensington is convinced that this is the system to which the Authorities Committee gave preference before the Committee made it recommendation, because in 1942, when Fortifications were busy constructing big works at Pollsmoor, the Authorities Committee gave instructions to Col. Craig to waive the percentage system and to experiment with the cost plus a tendered amount. Col. Craig did not take notice of this, just as the Defence Department took no notice of the Committee. But it shows that the Authorities Committee was in favour of the system before the Committee reported. We listened to the objection of the Master Builders and found that there was not much in it, and we made the recommendation unanimously, and then suddenly everything was overthrown and the knee was bent to the Master Builders. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Kensington laughs. I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us what new facts have come to light to justify the Government in just changing its policy overnight in connection with the matter. What happened? I would like to ask the Minister this—the other day the hon. member for De la Rey (Mr. Labuschagne) employed what to me is a very expressive remark; he said that if a catastrophe strikes the country then the vultures fatten. I would like to ask the hon. Minister if the vultures have not become fat enough. Does he want them to become still fatter? The system we recommended, the system of which the Authorities Committee was in favour before our recommendation came to them, was a system for the introduction of competition. We retain the cost-plus where there is a case of expedition, but we ask approving contractors to compete with each other as to what fee they are prepared to work on. Supposing it is a project of £50,000. Then they are asked at what sum they are prepared to carry out the project. Three or four contractors come to the Department of Public Works or to Fortifications. They are told it is a job of £50,000. They are approved contractors and for what are they prepared to work. The one says £3,000, and the other perhaps says £2,500. In other words an element of competition enters into the matter. And then we make sure that the work is distributed not by favours or gifts, but on the basis of merit and deserts. An approved contractor can get the work if he is prepared to do it for the Government as cheaply as possible. That is the recommendation. And if the Government rejects it, then we can only come to the conclusion that the Government just does not want the work to be done cheaply.

I rise to put a few questions to the hon. Minister of Finance. We have heard from various parts of the country that there are ideas about who would be the next Prime Minister some day.

Now don’t throw such an apple of discord among the Saps; the competition is very keen.

Yes, the friends on the other side also have their aspirants. Every party must have its aspirant, but in view of the fact that the United Party is the senior or the biggest party in the country, the time has come for us to learn who is who.

Don’t you know yet?

We have to find out who is who in the strongest party. For that reason I want to put a few questions to the Minister of Finance in all good spirit. The task of being Prime Minister may fall upon him.

Will the Minister of Justice not leave the room a little while this discussion is in progress?

If the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) will give me the opportunity, then he will see that I am also going to catechise the Minister of Justice. We must ascertain what is the general tendency and attitude of our aspirant Prime Minister towards the other members of Parliament as a whole, members of the Opposition and members on this side. My first question is this: Does the Minister of Finance agree with the attitude of some of his colleagues in Parliament, viz. to ignore matters and questions that are raised in this House?

May I know from the hon. member what that has to do with this Vote?

It has to do with the attitude of the Minister of Finance.

I am sorry, but the hon. member goes much further than this Vote.

We want to know in how far he is a more effective member of the Cabinet than the other members. My second question will satisfy you more. It is: Is it the opinion of the Minister of Finance, as well as of his colleagues, that members on this side of the House should rather remain quiet than to raise matters on behalf of their constituencies and on behalf of the people?

Rather remain silent.

Let us give the Minister a reasonable chance to give a considered reply. I feel that we are called upon in this House to serve the Government with advice when the Vote of the Minister is under discussion, or no matter whether it is the Minister of Finance or someone else. We are here to give advice in all humility: for that we have been sent here.

To give advice and then to vote like a yes-man.

I ask the hon. member not to interrupt me. He gets every opportunity of bringing his matters before the House. The reason why I am asking these questions is this. So far, at the discussion of all votes and of other matters, among which the Railways were the most important, I have raised a number of matters, and there are other members who have raised a number of matters, and so far as I am concerned I have come to this conclusion that it is either a waste of time in Parliament, or a camouflage of democracy, to stand here and do nothing but talk, and beyond that get nowhere.

The hon. member may ask a question, but I cannot allow him to discuss the matter further.

I want to give the reasons why I put these questions.

Can the hon. member tell me what item he is discussing?

It has been proposed here that the salary of the Minister be reduced. I thought that under this discussion, where we have to do with the salary of the Minister, who is the second most important Minister in the Cabinet, we would be allowed to discuss his attitude and the attitude of his colleagues.

The hon. member has put a question. I allowed it, but I cannot allow him to discuss the matter further, because there is no item under this Vote to which the discussion of the hon. member can refer.

Then I come to another question. I want the Minister of Finance to lead us, and I want to see if we cannot look forward to better leadership than we have had in the past. I am busy finding out who is who. Here in this House we get the opportunity of seeing which members of the Cabinet are the ablest, as regards both the Opposition and this side of the House. I want to see if I have not every right to increase the salary of the Minister of Finance rather than to reduce it. If we get more effective treatment from members of the Cabinet, then we can sometimes increase salaries. But if we do not get better treatment than hitherto, I shall have to make a plan. I do not know what plan I shall have to make.

I must ask the hon. member to revert to the Vote.

If the Minister deals with the questions I have put here, and which I am not permitted to explain, as other questions have been dealt with by his colleagues to whom I put questions, then I will accept, and the House will accept, that he endorses the attitude of his colleagues. Then he will emphasise that we do not sit here in the interests of our constituencies to ventilate their interests here, but simply to say “yes” and “amen” when we are expected to do so, and to say “no” when that is expected of us. I think that this House can no longer tolerate that state of affairs. We feel that unjustified accusations are being flung against this Parliament, and we on this side are blamed that we do not ventilate the views of our constituencies, and that we are loth to represent the interests of our constituencies, and all the time it is the members of the Cabinet who create this trouble. It is not the members of the Government who are lax. We do our best to serve the Government with advice, and this is the treatment we receive. We are then unjustly accused that we do absolutely nothing, and that we do not ventilate the feelings of our constituencies.

I do not propose following the inquisitiveness of my hon. friend who has just sat down.

Except to say that supporters of the Government have a considerable opportunity of influencing the policy of the Government.

I have just reminded the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. v. d. Berg) that he was out of order so I hope the hon. member who is now speaking is not going to follow him.

No, I do not propose doing so, nor do I propose following the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in his incursions into “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” which I should state has a very wide circulation. May I just say to the hon. member in regard to his quotations from “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” that Mr. Arthur Barlow does not differentiate in his criticism. He will criticise everybody alike—but however much Mr. Arthur Barlow may criticise the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Defence he prefers the United Party to the Opposition and he is still prepared to follow the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance and to join the United Party, and even to find a seat in this House under the aegis of the United Party. In regard to other matters raised by the hon. member for George I feel that I would also like the Minister to take more drastic action against the wealthy people and I hope he will particularly tax those people who today are using their wealth in order to become even richer, and, may I say, he is moving in that direction. In regard to the unpopularity or the alleged unpopularity of the Minister of Finance, I don’t think there has ever been a Minister of Finance, who, when he has had to impose heavy taxes, has been popular. But I would say this, that generally speaking the public of South Africa are satisfied with the Minister’s proposals. Now, in regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for George about the recommendations of the Cost-plus Committee, I associate myself with him in regretting that the recommendation of the Committee about the cost-plus system being amended into a cost-plus fee system is not being carried out. We understand that the Association of Master Builders have objected to it, and that they have succeeded in preventing that recommendation being given effect to. Of course, the Master Builders are in a position of simply being able to say: “We are not prepared to compete on those lines” and one immediately has the same objection as one had against the tender system. But that recommendation of the Committee having been accepted by the Government, I am sorry that they are now forced into the position of not being able to give effect to it, and I would suggest to the Minister putting into force the regulation whereby the State can take over the necessary plant and machinery from people possessing such plant and machinery, if those people are not willing to use it for war purposes in the way the Government want it to be used. The Government has the power to take over the machinery and to say: “We shall do the work ourselves”, and I believe that if the Government were prepared to take such steps, all the trouble would disappear.

Might I ask the Minister what effect it will have on the application of an increase by one third on the pensions of the Oudstryders …

That question can be discussed under the “Pensions” Vote.

This is an application of a purely administrative Act.

Will the hon. member explain?

You will remember, sir, that legislation was introduced in regard to old age pensions. Legislation was also introduced in regard to blind people. In the past the pensions for blinded people was 10s. per month in excess of the old age pension. Now, the moment this new Act introduced by the Minister came into force, the position of the blinded people became entirely different.

May I suggest to the hon. member that it would be far better to discuss this matter under the “Pensions” Vote.

I want again to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to revise the Government scheme of the cost of living allowances which operates under Treasury Circular. I have raised this matter on one or two earlier occasions, but I think that the House still does not quite appreciate the weaknesses of that scheme as I see it, otherwise they would have supported my plea for some change in the scheme. This scheme, which was introduced in 1940 I think, provides for a cost of living allowance to Government servants according to grades, according to income, as the cost of living rises, on the index accepted by the Government. Now, this scheme has no colour bar in respect of employees who earn more than £100 a year, but I am particularly concerned with the group earning £100 and less per year in respect of which there is a colour bar. Under the scheme the group earning up to £100 gets the benefit of the cost of living allowance before any other group, which is perfectly reasonable on the assumption that any rise in the cost of living affects the lowest income group first, and in the most serious way; and so far as this group is concerned, it gets the full percentage rise in the cost of living. That is when the cost of living is assumed to have risen 6 per cent., they get £6 and so on as the cost of living rises. At present they are being paid 18 per cent., that is £18 where their income is £100 or less—if they are Europeans. But this income group earning up to £100 is divided into Europeans and non-Europeans, and the non-European group is again divided into two sections, those earning up to £60 and those earning between £60 and £100. Those earning up to £60 get ⅜ of what is given to Europeans—that is ⅜ of the percentage cost of living rise. Those who get between £60 and £100—and in both cases I am talking of married people, not of single people—those earning between £60 and £100 get ¾ of the European percentage, that is three quarters of the percentage cost of living rise. Now my contention is that this discrimination has no justification whatever. There is no discrimination between European and non-European Government employees who earn more than £100 on the assumption that those earning more than £100 are maintaining a civilised standard of living. My contention is that anyone earning less than £100 is not in a position to maintain a civilised standard of living, that they are concerned merely with keeping alive, and therefore I could have understood a discrimination better above £100 rather than below £100. On the showing of a memorandum, presented as a result of questions of mine to the Department, it was found by the Civil Service Commission that the bulk of the non-Europeans employed by the Government were not even earning £60 a year. It says here that although the lower group maximum was fixed at £60 very few of the employees in the group earned more than £50. That is, the bulk of the non-European employees are in fact earning anything up to £50 per year. So the bulk fall into this lower limit. That in itself makes this discrimination indefensible. People earning that sort of wage have to struggle just to keep themselves and their families alive. But there is a worse feature still and that is that the application of this principle of three-eighths of the percentage cost of living rise gets them in fact less than they would get if they were given the full percentage rise in the cost of living on their own income group. It sounds involved but it really is quite simple. The man earning £50, if he were given the same percentage rise as the man getting £100 would be getting £9 per year cost of living allowance at the present time instead of getting, as he is, £6 15s. This surely is a discrimination which is quite indefensible. These people earning £50 and less a year are a blot on our national record, but when the cost of living is rising, to cut them down to a fraction of what is given to other groups, to give them less than the percentage rise in the cost of living, is distinctly unfair; so I ask the Minister to reconsider this whole scheme and to wipe out the colour bar in it, and simply to apply the scheme in its main provisions to all employees in the Government service, giving everyone who earns less than £100 per year the rate which is now laid down for Europeans in this group. I think that is only common justice and only common sense. Everyone knows that any rise in the cost of food operates more harshly on those who earn least, and to suggest that the pressure is less on the native population is to fail to take cognisance of what has been happening in the case for instance of maize prices in recent years; it is to fail to take into consideration the position as it really is. And there is another weakness in this scheme and that is that the cost of living allowance only rises as the percentage increase is discovered to have risen 2 per cent. over three months. That, I think, is a serious hardship on everyone, European and non-European alike, and I think that steps should be taken to relieve this burden. At the present time, the cost of living according to the Government’s own figures is 19.30 per cent. above pre-war costs but the rate of allowance being paid is only 18 per cent. I do trust the Minister will give this his serious consideration. I also want to ask him to consider the application of his system to African soldiers; the cost of living allowance there applies only in respect of a wife who is getting an allotment from a man who has gone to the Front. If a native soldier makes an allotment to an aged father or an aged mother, he or she does not get any cost of living allowance at all. Well, that seems a most extraordinary position. These people are suffering from the same pressure in the cost of living. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow her into all the details she has been dealing with. This is a general public service question. The scheme in regard to the cost of living allowances has been worked out by the Public Service Commission, which falls under the Minister of the Interior, and that has been done as a result of investigations and representations made by two bodies representing the Public Service and the Railways respectively. I am afraid I have not got on my finger tips all the details which will enable me to answer questions in regard to that scheme. This matter would more appropriately be raised on the Vote of the Minister of the Interior, but I shall see to it that the points which the hon. member has raised are brought to the notice of the Public Service Commission.

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has put a certain question to me in connection with my attitude towards my colleagues. I think that if he had put the question to the Prime Minister when his Vote was under discussion, it would perhaps have been more suitable. Naturally he puts the question to me in order to ascertain whether I would be a suitable person to be Prime Minister. I give him the assurance that I am no aspirant for the position, and therefore I cannot answer the question. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has asked a question in connection with the cost-plus system. The Cost-plus Contract Committee has made a recommendation which embodies three alternatives, namely (1) the tender system, and where it cannot be carried out fully; (2) a system of cost plus a fixed amount; or (3) cost plus a percentage. The system which has now been approved as a result of further consideration by the Authorities Committee is a dual system. The third alternative has been completely eliminated, and I think the hon. member will welcome it. Under no circumstances do we allow contracts to be concluded under the system of cost plus a percentage. This possibility disappears completely. We remain therefore at the tender system, where it is at all possible, but where it is not possible, we have the alternative of the system of cost plus a fixed amount, and the method by which we propose the amount, should be fixed, is that in the first place a special committee has been appointed to recommend wat the fixed amount will be, and then eventually the contract as a whole, excluding the fixed amount is subject, to the approval of the Tender Board. I do not know how the matter can be better safeguarded.

What made the Government decide to make the change?

The hon. member is quite correct. There was a discussion with the Master Builders, and they made an objection, but the Government thinks that the system as it is applied now is better than the recommendation of the Cost-plus Contract Committee. In the first place the percentage basis disappears completely and in the second place you get the position that if you give out a contract purely on the basis of tenders as regards the fee, then the tender is concerned only with a very small portion of the costs, say 3 or 4 or 5 per cent., and there is therefore a smaller margin and less competition. In the second place you have the position that a contractor with good equipment can apparently carry out the work at a lower cost than a contractor with an equipment that is not so good, but the contractor with good equipment will be for this reason inclined to charge more, if you have a fixed fee, than the contractor with an inferior equipment. Therefore the result of the system of cost plus a tendered fee will be the inclination to eliminate the contractor with good equipment. We think therefore that where you have a double advantage, it is desirable that we should replace the system as proposed by the Cost-plus Committee by the one that we now intend to carry out, and I think that if the hon. member will go into the matter a little further, he will find that it is an improvement on the position and not a step backwards. In any case the Authorities Committee has gone into the matter carefully, and they are satisfied that it will be an improvement. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has raised a matter of considerable importance, namely, the possibility of taking into account for the purpose of rebates in respect of taxation, medical accounts and hospital accounts. This is something which at present is being done in other countries where the rate of taxation is very high, as for example Canada. But the rate of taxation in Canada is considerably higher than it is in South Africa. I have already stated in another place that with the possible further developments we will in the development of our taxation system perhaps come so far as to consider such a matter. I leave it at the possibility but I cannot consider it now and at the present moment I can promise nothing.

Are you prepared to do it during this Session?

It cannot be applied on the present scale of taxation. It will take some time yet. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has again raised the question of cost of living allowances. As I have already made it clear, this falls under the Minister of the Interior, but while he has raised the matter in a general sense I want to reply to him. Our system is that the Department of Census and Statistics calculates index figures of the cost of living. It is done on a scientific basis. The Department of Statistics publishes these figures. That index figure is calculated on the basis of a large series of articles. I do not know how many articles are included, but it is a very large series and the Department of Census also decides what weight must be attached to every article in the calculation. Therefore, when in every month such a calculation takes place, then you get the figure for everyone of the articles, and then they apply to that the weight that must be attached to the figure in respect of the article concerned. In this way the index figure is calculated. Take for example a hat. It is perhaps twice as high as it was before, but this does not mean that the index figure must be almost twice as high, because the price of bread is lower than before.

But bread is a mixture.

In any case the price of bread is not much higher, it is lower, rent has not increased by 50 per cent. The Department of Census must in its calculation of the index take into account all the articles and the weight that must be attached to every article. Some time ago there was an interesting article, I think in the “Outspan”, by Dr. Malherbe, Director of Census. If I can get hold of it, I will give it to the hon. member. Now we come to the second point, the calculation of the cost of living allowance. There we follow a system laid down as a result of the recommendations of two commissions, namely the Public Service Commission and the Railway Service Commission, and these recommendations are based on the index figure. The cost of living allowance is fixed on the basis of the index figure. The system therefore works so that the higher you go in respect of salaries, the smaller the percentage of the allowance on the salary becomes. A person with a large salary cannot expect to get a cost of living allowance which will be equal to the increase in his cost of living. Therefore the scale diminishes the higher you go. A difference is also made between married persons and unmarried persons, but I think that from an administrative point of view, it would be impossible or at any rate very difficult to make a difference in respect of children. It would make the matter very difficult. In any case the cost of living is so calculated that in the lowest category the married man gets an allowance in accordance with the full increase in the cost of living, calculated on the basis of the index figure.

In connection with the cost of living allowance, I would like to raise the matter here as a matter of general policy.

That falls under the Minister of the Interior.

I want to deal with the general policy that is followed, and I think that it fits in here. We on this side of the House have continually pleaded for an equal burden of taxation, that taxation should not press more heavily on one group of the population than on another group, and where as a result of circumstances the cost of living increases, relief should be given. With a view to this we are entitled to point out in what way the burden of taxation is not equal. To explain what I mean, I would like to give an example to the Minister. If my information is correct, and I have every reason to believe that it is correct, then you have for example an unfair position in respect of the road workers in the Free State. The position there is that people who get 12s. 6d. and less a working day receive, if they are married, a cost of living allowance of £2 5s. and the unmarried get a cost of living allowance of 15s. a month, but when the employees receive 30s. a day and more, then there is another scale and the married persons get £3 15s., and the unmarried £1 in allowance, which is considerably more than in the first-mentioned cases. We say that the cost of living has risen for all the people. The man who gets 12s. 6d. a day or less, pays just as much as regards his cost of living as the man who gets more than 12s. 6d. Therefore it appears as if the relief in the form of a cost of living allowance is less favourable for the less privileged than it is for the more privileged. This causes grievances. It is in fact the less-privileged section who get a meagre wage of 12s. 6d. a day or less who suffer the most. They were not in a position to put away something for a rainy day, and it is not fair that they should be treated less favourably in respect of the cost of living allowance. I would be glad if the Minister will bring it to the attention of the authorities. I would like to know what his policy is in connection with this.

I would like to discuss briefly this question of doctors’ accounts which the Minister has brushed aside. I believe that the Minister has not really gone into the matter.

The hon. member may not advocate legislation.

An improvement can be brought about only by legislation.

I regret, but then I cannot allow the plea of the hon. member.

I accept what the Minister has said, that the Public Service Commission makes recommendations in respect of cost of living allowances, but now I also know that the Minister of Finance holds the purse strings and they must get past him after they have made the recommendations. Strong representations have been made in my constituency by both political parties, or by members of both political parties, which took the form of a deputation to plead for a new scale. I am not pleading for new legislation.

But the hon. member cannot propose a new scale under this Vote. It falls under the Vote “Interior”.

I am prepared to do so, but the Minister of Finance can, by refusing money, destroy the recommendation.

Everything eventually falls under Treasury control, but therefore everything cannot be discussed under the Vote of the Minister of Finance.

Then I will discuss it under another Vote.

I am greatly disappointed with the answer of the Minister. I feel that the request that I have addressed to him is very reasonable. When someone is faced with sickness and adversity, then he has expenditure over which he has no control, and the Minister still taxes this expenditure. I therefore want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to our request.

That is again a matter of legislation. I cannot allow the discussion.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Werth put and negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 7.—“Public Debt”, £9,238,000,

I would like to ask the Minister a question. The other day a message appeared in the newspaper about a new comparatively short term loan that the Minister wants to conclude. Previously loans were always for a period of 30 or 40 years, but the Minister now comes with a loan which is repayable over six years, I think. I think it is correct. It is a loan that expires after six years. Why does he conclude this type of loan? What hope has the Minister that we will have the money in six years time to repay the loan? If the loan expires in six years time, it will possibly be just the time when we will be in a great depression. Today the Minister can borrow money at three per cent., but if the loan expires after six years, we will again most probably have to pay five per cent. or six per cent. Why these short term loans?

In connection with this matter, I cannot help asking if the Minister thinks that it is in the interest of South Africa to pay off our external loans. The other day he took exception because this side said that it was a weak policy to borrow all the money internally and to pay off the external loans, because we do not know whether perhaps after the war there will be writings off. The Minister regards it as immoral to think about such a thing. Now I want to say that we must take into account the conditions which can exist in the world after the war. It may be different from after the last war, but certainly different from before this war. It is possible that the external market will be closed for our money. We know what destruction is going on overseas, and as a result of this it can perhaps become impossible for us to conclude loans. Now we see that the Minister is taking the unwise step of seizing all the capital in the interior, and if tomorrow or the next day we cannot borrow any more money internally, because we have used up all the money, and we cannot borrow money overseas, what will be the position? I agree with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that this is a wrong policy. No one would advocate that you should evade your debts. No one in the world, at any rate no responsible person, will advocate that you should openly aim at not paying your debts, but we must take into account the developments in the world. We know what happened in the last war. Now South Africa is engaged in a war which is not her war and hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on a war into which she has been taken in tow by Britain. If Britain after this war does what she did after the last war, and she repudiates her debts, then South Africa will come back to the Minister and point out to him his foolishness. We are now seizing all the money in the country to pay off debts overseas while we are entering into a dangerous time, and I cannot fail to warn the Minister seriously.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has asked why we are now issuing short term loans. This is not a new policy. I think it is the third short term loan we have issued.

For what amounts?

The last one we concluded amounted to £13,500,000. We could have got more.

For what period?

For 6 or 6½ years.

At what percentage?

With every consecutive short term loan we have increased the period slightly, which means that we get slightly better terms, and we take into account the fact that we may not be in a position to repay so much money on a certain date. We do our best to spread out as much as possible the loans that have to be repaid. We carefully examine what other loans have been repaid and the period for which we must issue a new loan. Therefore we carefully consider this aspect of the matter. But it is naturally an important point. The hon. member asks why we issue short term loans at this time. The most important reason is that many investors are not prepared to lend money on a long term basis. They are prepared to lend money on a short term basis. In respect of long term loans, we have also advanced the period further in the future, and we have now already arrived at 20 and 22 years loans, which are very favourable as far as we are concerned, but where we advance the loans further in the future, it means that a large number of people are not prepared to tie up their money for such a long time. Therefore we give them this opportunity to lend money for a short term because we naturally also want to get hold of their money. We however restrict the amount which we are prepared to take on this basis. And I do not think that we have done anything that is contrary to financial security. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has come back to the question of the repayment of external loans. I think that it has always been the policy of all sides of the House that we should replace our external debts by internal debts. I think that this is the first time during this, Session that there has been opposition to that policy. I still think that it is a good thing and that it is in our interest that our external debts should be replaced by internal debt. It is better to pay the interest to our own people rather than to people overseas.

It also hinders internal development.

I do not believe that we are today hindering internal development, because there is sufficient money in the country for that purpose. But the hon. member is touching on an important matter when he asks the question whether there will be sufficient money after the war. Apparently there will be less money in circulation, but when I look at the financial position of the Reserve Bank, I cannot fear that after the war we will not be in a position to overcome the difficulty.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 8.—“Pensions”, £7,084,000,

I should like to avail myself of the rule permitting me to speak for thirty minutes. Upon the discussion of this Vote an opportunity is given to members of this House to comment upon the administration of the War Pensions Act of 1942, which was passed with assurances that the then existing dissatisfaction among the dependants of soldiers would be removed by the benefits conferred upon them last year by the new Act. Let me say at the outset that I propose to show in no uncertain manner that the Military Pensions Board has acted contrary to the intention of the Act in the cases which I propose to bring before hon. members today. It is because I take a serious view of this dereliction of duty on the part of the Pensions Board that it is my intention to appeal to the Minister for a complete change in the personnel of that Board, for I maintain that their action is without justification or excuse. The Minister of Finance has courteously written to me in reply to my representations and he himself has decided that the worst case to which I shall make reference must be referred back to the Military Pensions Board, but that course of action is in itself in my opinion not sufficient. I wish to refer to the case of a widow at Brakpan whose two sons, aged 19 years and 17 years, went to the front and took part in the fighting in North Africa. The younger of the two sons made over to his mother his monthly allowance of £10 from the company employing him, with a further sum of £3 army pay allotment, making £13 in all. He was the first to be killed. And when the Military Pensions Board considered the position of his mother in relation to the support she received from him, namely £13 per month of 30 days, they in their generosity granted her £13 per year of 365 days. No man living, be he Chairman of the Military Pensions Board or the holder of any more important office, can possibly justify the award of the minimum pension in such a case when the law empowers and authorises him to award to parents up to a miximum of £100 per annum, “on the ground of their dependence on the volunteer”—I quote the words of Sec. 23 of the Act. Not long afterwards, the second son was killed. He had granted an allotment of £9 per month to his mother from his army pay. Before he went on active service he took on the responsibility of the home, and while his father was in his last illness, the son used to devote his cheque of £22 per month towards the support of the home. He held himself responsible for payment of the rent of the house in which his mother and sister lived. His contribution whilst on active service was not less than £9 per month plus the payment of house rent. When he was killed, the Military Pensions Board was fully empowered by Section 23 of the Act to pay the mother who had lost her two sons not more than £144 per annum. What amount did they award to her? A beggarly sum of £7 per month which represents her monthly pension in respect of the two sons who between them were contributing £22 per month plus rent when they went on active service. The awards made by the Military Pensions Board to this mother disclose a deliberate intention to disregard in the first instance the amount which the younger son contributed to his mother’s support, namely £13 per month, and to award to her the lowest pension mentioned in Section 23 of the Act, namely £13 per annum when they were empowered by the Act to award a maximum pension of £100 per annum because of her dependence upon her son. This is bad work, sir, unutterably bad work. When the second son was killed the onus was placed upon the Military Pensions Board of deciding what pension the mother was to be awarded in respect of the loss of her two sons who contributed together to her support £22 per month plus rent. The board was fully entitled to award the mother £144 per annum, but they deliberately disregarded the monthly payment of £22 plus rent, made by her two sons to her, and awarded her £7 per month, a little less than half the amount to which she was fully entitled. The law is very clear on what their duty was. I refer hon. members to Section 23 of the Act passed by this House. Is there any man who will dare say that that woman was not dependent on her younger son who decided to make an allowance from his military and his civil pay of £13 per month?

What reason did the Board give?

I do not know.

Did she ask for leave to appeal to the Appeal Board?

I do not think so. I understand that awards to parents under Section 23 of the Act are subject to review by the Board—there is some provision to that effect in the Section. But I am not sure whether review does not only mean “downward review”. I should think the Board is all out for “downward review”. I have brought up this case because I demand that the mother of these two sons shall have the maximum pension which the law obviously intended for a case of this kind, but let me say that that maximum is miserably insufficient for the loss which the mother has suffered in this case. I maintain, Sir, that where the holder of an office has been guilty of bad work in his office, the most salutory thing is to remove him from that office, and to appoint another in his place, and that is the simple remedy I want the Minister to enforce in the case of the Military Pensions Board. I do not hesitate to characterise this work as the worst work that can possibly be done in the serious state of affairs which the country is confronted with. I cannot imagine anyone seriously endeavouring to justify decisions that are arrived at on so unsatisfactory a basis in disregard of evidence placed before them. The Board can, surely, have no doubt as to the course which should have been followed in this case, and no kind of special pleading should avail to prolong the term of office of the present members of the Military Pensions Board. The position …

Have you given these people the chance of putting their side of the case?

I do not think there is any need. The law is so clear. I have written to the Minister … .

And you have had a reply from the Minister.

Yes, the Minister said he would arrange for this matter to be referred back to the Military Pensions Board. The position in the country is too serious to permit of the continuance in office of people who have failed to be guided by the simplest rules of justice.

You are not abiding by these rules. You are condeming them without a hearing.

I have given them every chance to work their will. They alone have had all the say. They have pronounced one unfair decision after another. Must I listen to all the futilities which may be sent to me to justify decisions like that? Time is to valuable to admit of that. Let me draw attention to another case: The two sons of a Johannesburg resident joined up. Before the war their father represented a firm of Scandinavian Importers, but he was left without occupation when the business had to close down. The two sons then assumed responsibility for the support of their father and each of them made him an allotment from their army pay. The elder son who was a pilot in the S.A.A.F. was killed. His contribution towards the support of his father had ben at the rate of 6s. 8d. per day—£10 per month. Immediately after the son’s death the father was assured by the Army Pay Department that the allotment in slightly reduced form would be continued for four months, or until a pension had been awarded. Now, although the eldest son was supporting his father to the extent of £10 per month, the Military Pensions Board has awarded the father £13 per annum, equalling £1 1s. 8d. per month, but this award, besides being unjust has led to a demand from the Army Pay Department that the father should refund all allotments of 6s. 8d. per day drawn by him since his son’s death, because the award of £13 per annum proved that he had not been dependent upon his son. The perversity of the Military Pensions Board in disregarding the son’s contribution of £10 per month to his father’s support is now used by the Army Pay Department as a basis for demanding the refund of the allotment made to him by his son during his lifetime, when his occupation had been brought to an end by the war. I wish to quote another case in which a father and mother in my constituency lost a son who was, with other members of his regiment, shot under the White Flag during the Abyssinian campaign. There was intense feeling in his regiment about this incident. This was only allayed by the assurance that the Government would be bound to deal generously with the case. This young man was in charge of the farm which belonged to his parents but from the nature of the case it was difficult to produce evidence of his parents monetary dependence upon him. It was an undoubted fact, however, that whatever was earned on the farm was dependent upon his work as manager of the farming operations. In the case of his parents the mother was awarded the token pension of £13 per annum, and her treatment has been heard of with indignation by members of the Natal Carbineers who have recently returned with the First Division.

I think I should reply immediately to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). The hon. member has made very serious charges against the Military Pensions Board and I really don’t think that I can allow these charges to pass. He has based those charges on individual cases. He has not mentioned any names, and I do feel that hon. members must realise that they put Ministers in a very difficult position when they come here and raise individual cases of which except in one instance they have not advised me in advance. They must realise how difficult it is to reply to general statements without the courtesy having been given to the Minister of mentioning which cases are going to be raised. It was done in regard to one case but not in regard to the other two. Now, in regard to the first case to which the hon. member has referred, I would say that the facts are as follows: I shall state the position as it was before the Military Pensions Board. In the first place, the lady referred to, owned property. In the second place she received a fixed income from two different sources. Those obviously are matters of which the Military Pensions Board should take account.

What was the amount of the income?

I am advised about £110 per annum. That she held property worth about £1,300. I am advised also that according to the information before the Military Pensions Board the allotment made by the first son was not £13 per month but £4 per month, and that the pension award was not £13 per year but £30 per year. That may not be correct, but that is how I understand the matter was put before the Pensions Board. The hon. member seems to think that dependency means the amount of actual allotment. I don’t think that is what it means. You may have parents in receipt of £500 or £600 per year to whom a son allots portion of his pay, perhaps to buy things for his own benefit. It surely is not contemplated that the Military Pensions Board should automatically assess as the degree of dependency the amount of actual allotment made by that son. The Board must take account of other factors as well. As I tried to point out to the hon. member by way of interjection, this lady had the right of appeal to the Appeal Board—she could have appealed with leave of the Minister, and everyone knows that that leave is never refused. As far as I am aware no such appeal was made. Why then should the Board be so violently indicated as it was today? The hon. member wrote a letter to me a week ago to which he attached certain statements, and in the light of those statements, in addition to the information which the Board had before it, I replied to the hon. member—I am sorry my hon. friend did not admit this except under pressure—that the case was one which should receive further consideration, and that I propose referring it back to the Board. Really, I don’t think the hon. member was justified on the basis of these facts to make the sweeping allegations which he made, today. The second case to which he referred I know nothing of. I cannot therefore say whether the Board was right or not, in regarding that dependency for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act had been proved, but there is another factor which is important, and that is the factor that when the Military Pensions Board held that dependency had not been established, the pay department of the Defence Department called for a refund of the amounts which had been paid in the meantime. Now, that is distinctly a hardship and only recently similar cases have been brought to my notice for the first time. I do not think the hon. member brought this to my notice, but similar cases were brought to my notice and I can inform the House that a ruling has been given that the policy in that regard is to be changed. That ruling was given only yesterday. That hardship will now disappear. The hon. member raised another case but he did not give any indication as to what case he was raising. I think I know what case he was referring to, but I can only base my reply on what I believe to be the case to which he was referring. In that the facts are these, that on March 19th, 1941, the father of the unfortunate soldier was advised of the provisions of the law and told that if he wished to apply for a pension, he could do so, and he should ask for a form. The father did not ask for a form. Then eight months afterwards, the hon. member himself wrote to the Department asking for a form which was sent. Three months later that form was duly returned, and it appeared that the applicant was the owner of a farm from which an income of £300 a year was being derived. On the basis of that information supplied, there was no evidence at all of pre-enlistment dependence of the parents on the son.

I said so.

Then my hon. friend cannot say that the Board acted in conflict with the law; he may criticise the law, but he cannot blame the Board.

I say his parents were dependent upon him.

My hon. friend admits that there was no evidence of dependence, and he cannot blame the Board in those circumstances. It may be an unfortunate case, but that is certainly not a ground on which to lay a charge of grave dereliction of duty, and that is not a ground for saying that a Board of this kind should be dismissed without even being given the chance of stating its case. I think the hon. member has gone rather far in some of his statements this afternoon. In that case also the minimum payment was awarded, and at the same time the parents were told that if their circumstances changed their case could be reconsidered with a view to a further award. Frankly, Sir, I don’t see how under the law the Board can be blamed in regard to that last case. As far as the second case is concerned. I cannot say whether the Board was right or not. I do not know what the case is, but in so far as there has been a hardship as the result of the relationship between the Pay Department of Defence and the Pensions Department, that has been removed. As far as the first case is concerned, I have already undertaken to refer the matter back to the Board for reconsideration.

Following on what the Minister has said, the difficulty has really not been removed by the assurance that he has given us today. The hon. Minister knows, and so does the Commissioner of Pensions and the Pay Department, that representations were consistently made to them about the continuation of the allotment. Now they have the authority to continue the allotment for a period of four months. I know of a widow who had not proved her dependence but whose son was a flying officer in the South African Air Force. He crashed and was killed. He allotted her out of his pay £20 a month, and under the regulation that was then ruling at the time of his death, it was incumbent upon the Pay Department to continue to the mother that allotment for four months. A regulation countermanding that general instruction came in about two and a half months or three months after the mother was getting this allotment. So in fact, before she had received her £20 allotment for the month, it was found that the general instruction had been withdrawn from the Pay Department, and countermanded by another one to the effect that she must prove dependence in order to be entitled to this four months regulation. That allotment had stopped, and most of the cases had stopped in the interim period. I want to ask the Minister to restore that, so that in every instance where it has been stopped the allottees shall in fact be given the four months period during which the allotment under the previous regulation was authorised. So that no interpretation of that authorisation will be permitted to prejudice the allottees. We are grateful for the assurance that the Minister has given us today. I want also to say that the intimation to the allottees that they are entitled to make application for this pension under this particular provision should be subject to this four months payment. That four months was given in order that during that period the application for a pension might be made and the circumstances investigated. The period, however, is not sufficient. There are people, and I give one instance of a widow whose boy was in the air and who was killed, has no fixed income, or at least only the rent from one house. That is all she has, and her pay, for she also has joined the service of the country. She is dependent, and I feel, sir, that the time is not sufficiently long, and some greater indulgence will have to be given to these people, or the work of the various departments under the Minister will have to be expedited. May I say with regard to the personnel of the Military Pensions Board, that I have worked in close personal contact with that board for 20 years, and I want to say that with one exception, Col. Lawrence and all the rest of the people who work under him, are sympathetic. You could not find more sympathetic, more human interpreters of what they consider they are allowed to do under the law, than the members of the Board. With regard to the Commissioner of Pensions, I say there is no more sympathetic ex-serviceman than the present holder of that office. For 20 years he has been identified with ex-servicemen’s organisations, giving to them the largest possible measure of sympathy that can be extracted from the very stern and very hard and very unsympathetic Act. Had it not been for the administration of the present holder of the post of Commissioner of Pensions, the clamour and the complaints would have been very much greater than they are today. I want to say with regard to the decisions of the Board, that there is now an appeal as a right. Previously there was a distinction drawn between appeals of right and appeals with the leave of the Minister. That distinction has now been abandoned. That has been removed, and now every person with a grievance against the pensions can appeal as of right, to the Military Pensions Appeal Board. May I now bring to the notice of the Minister certain effects of administrative action. We appreciate very much the gesture which the Minister has made by this increase of one-third to the “Oudstryders” war pensions. It took many years before the Government appreciated the necessity for those pensions. Mr. Havenga, prior to the introduction of Old Age Pensions, placed upon the Pensions Vote £80,000 for this purpose. In some instances, the pension was given on the basis of what would have been the old age pension provision, and we have today war veterans, all of whom were granted pensions prior to the Old Age Pensions Act, and we have a great number with war services and who are drawing old age pensions, who by their indigencies are entitled to the War Veterans Pension.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the difference that is made between the amount of the old age pension in the city and on the platteland. I believe that the difference was made on the grounds that the cost of living in the cities was higher. At that time already I considered that it was an unfair argument. But however that may be, I want to say that in the circumstances of today that difference in the cost of Jiving no longer exists. The biggest thing which the old age pensioner must pay is house rent. The Minister knows that in the cities the people have had to pay fairly dearly for their houses and rooms, but since the Rent Board has taken action there is a fair amount of protection, so that they do not have to pay more than the value of their house or room. On the platteland the rent was always very much lower than what the houses should yield. At the moment however, there is a serious shortage of houses and, because, of the shortage, house rent has increased, hot higher than the real value of those houses, but it means that the people now pay a higher rent than what they had to pay before, with the result that the difference which previously existed between the city and the platteland has disappeared. Then I want to mention other considerations to him. The goods which must be sold in the shops the people receive more cheaply than on the platteland. Vegetables and such things they get at the same price, and therefore I think that they have every right to ask that the difference between the pension in the city and on the platteland should be abolished. It should be made the same. I think that the Minister has sufficient knowledge of the platteland to know that this is the state of affairs. The cost of living has increased more than it has in the cities. Here in the cities there is more competition, and consequently we have every right to ask that the amount should be made the same. I argue now on the basis of the reasons that were given for the difference. I was never satisfied with those reasons. I considered that the platteland should get the same as the cities, but the Minister gave those reasons a short while ago why there should be a difference in the pensions. I do not know whether I am entitled to say it here, but I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that these people live under difficult conditions. The people who receive old age pensions must sometimes live very sparingly. They have received a few shillings extra a month as a cost of living allowance, and they are thankful for it. It was necessary because they have had a difficult time. Everything has increased in price. Clothing has gone up, food has gone up, everything which the poor people require has gone up, and they are living under difficult conditions. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister, to ask him to make a plan that the people on the platteland should get the same as the old people in the cities get. Then I want to appeal to him in connection with the semi-fit people. If an old man is altogether unfit, then he gets a pension, but if he is semi-fit, then he does not get a pension. I have received a letter from a person in Swellendam. He has a wife and children and he is too ill to work. But the doctors say that he is not too ill to do light jobs. That may be so. But on the platteland you cannot get work for that class of people. There is no variation of work as you get in the cities. If a person cannot work with a spade, if for example he has a lame leg, no one will employ him. If they employ him, then they employ him out of charity. There is no opportunity for him to work in a lift, or to stand on guard, or to get one of those jobs which we have in the cities. On the platteland these people have a very bad time. This man has a wife and seven children and not one of those children is in a position to help to maintain the home. He has made himself ill working in the Government service as a labourer in Forestry plantations. He has worked in the mountains and contracted asthma. His health has been lost in this way. Today he is sitting in a small town and he cannot get employment. The A.C.V.V. gives him a few shillings; the Church gives him a little money and the State gives him rations. The Minister of Finance knows himself what the rations are. It is not too much and the people cannot live on them. I do not know whether it is possible under the existing law—I know that the Minister in the first year that he was in Parliament came with a Bill for pensions for the semi-fit—but I want to ask him to think of it that these people are having a very bad time. They are poor. Most of them have children, and the result is that they cannot exist. Can he not do something for those people? They require very much more than the totally unfit. The totally unfit receive assistance from all sides, but the semi-fit are altogether without assistance. Usually the totally unfit person is old and he no longer has a family. He gets a pension. But the semi-fit person has a wife and child and he receives no assistance. Therefore I feel that I am entitled to make this request. I do not object that there is an increase of £700,000 on the Estimates to pay pensions to physically unfit sodiers. For old age pensions there is an increase of £289,000. I have no objection to the increase. If they require it, then it is right.

It is according to law.

But as far as these other people are concerned, the Minister must make a plan. He can also give instructions to the Old Age Pensions Committee to treat the people better and to see that they receive more than they receive at the moment. It appears that those Committees think that they are there to see that State funds are not paid out. Their duty is to see that the people get the pensions to which they are entitled. Money is now plentiful. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the war and I think that we must give the old people the pensions to which they are entitled. They are our flesh and blood. This applies also to the semi-fit who have become impoverished because one thing or another has happened in their lives. They are in very great need of a pension. In conclusion I want to say that I feel that I am fully justified in asking the Minister to bring the old age pension in the country up to the same basis as that in the cities, so that everyone will have a better chance to live. These people are now having a very difficult time.

I want to refer to invalidity pensions in relation to a civilised standard of living.

They are not on this Vote. They come under Social Welfare.

In regard to military pensions, has the Minister considered the case of mothers of soldiers who have been killed, and the fact that they are earning something is held to make them ineligible for pensions as dependants? In the course of a few years they may no longer be able to earn anything.

Oh yes. We certainly contemplate that. We always tell them they can come back. They are always dealt with.

I just want to bring a small matter to the attention of the Minister in connection with pensions for the police. One thinks that all persons who serve in the civil service are important. But I think that if there is one section in the civil service who serve the public and who have a very difficult time, although it is not always recognised and appreciated, then it is the police, and among the poorest, namely the constables. When at night we lie sleeping quietly and peacefully, then they must stand on guard, and in my opinion we do not treat them properly when they are old. In these expensive times it is those people who are having a particularly bad time in their old age. They become sickly from service and the parades which they have to attend at any time of the day or night, and then they do not get proper compensation. They must carry out their duty in the cold when we sleep nice and warmly and in their old age they are also left out in the cold. I want to mention a few cases from my constituency and I can say that everywhere I go I come in contact with such cases. I have taken up a few, and I want to mention them here. I will not mention names. Here is one person who retired in 1942. He has had 25 years service. He was a sergeant, and was a first class sergeant for twelve years. He received a globular sum of £282 and a pension of £8 a month. He has a wife and a family. Another case is that of a person whom I know well. He retired on 15 November, 1942, after 25 years service. He received £480 and a pension of £7 5s. He has a wife and six children. In addition he is a sickly man. I mention another case of a constable who for medical reasons had to leave the service. He has had 24 years service. His pension is £6 11s. When he left the service he had his ninth child christened. I see that the Minister smiles. I have told him on a previous occasion that he is a man without prospects. He cannot put himself in the position of such a family. I come into contact with those people. I do not feel so sorry for the man and his wife, but for the children. I met one of those people at Burghersdorp on a cold winter’s night. A child of six years was lying in the front room with double pneumonia. The father told met that the child had measles and then it went over to double pneumonia, and in the cold Burghersdorp, where a person can almost not stand it, that child slept under one cotton blanket. It is far-reaching to think that a person after all those years of faithful service should be placed in such a position where he must maintain a wife and nine children on £6 11s. a month. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to assist these people. We can appreciate it that the Government has said that it wants to give children one meal a day, but this still does not enable the children to sleep warmly. Those of us who are married, can place ourselves in the position and understand what goes on in the heart of the parent when he knows that his child is hungry and sleeps cold at night. The prospect is held out for the people that after the war there would be a heaven. It does not help them now in any way. They must fight in the war for a new world, but in the meantime their children must suffer hunger and sleep cold. I want to ask the Minister to forget all politics and elections now, and assist these people. Where we have to do with these children, where the father is physically unfit, so that they cannot maintain their wife and children, we must show mercy to those children. I hope that the Minister will reply and say that there is a possibility of giving these people a better prospect in these expensive times in which we are living.

I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on increasing the various forms of pensions in his Budget. I see he has various increases including an increase in the old age pensions. But there is one form of pension which I am not altogether satisfied with and that is the pension for the blind persons. I know at this stage of the debate we cannot come forward and ask for an increased amount for any class of person, but what I would like to have seen is some larger amount being provided so that the blind person’s pension could be extended to more people than is the case now. One need only go to the larger cities and see the number of indigent blind who are not in receipt of any pension at all. I do not think the means test applies but there is something amiss and I should like to know why these persons are not able to avail themselves of the blind person’s pension scheme. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration and see whether it is not possible in the future to extend the blind person’s pension scheme to more people than are now getting it. I know I cannot advocate an increase in the old age pension, but I want to acquaint the Minister of what happened at an important meeting in Johannesburg recently. The Minister had the opportunity and the privilege of addressing a very large gathering at which there were delegates representing about 200,000 people or more, and one of the most important discussions at that gathering was on the question of old age pensions. I know I am treading on dangerous ground, as the House is in Committee, but I want to remind the Minister that after considerable discussion it was decided to ask the Government to increase the old age pension to £5. The first request was that it should be raised to £10 but that was not carried, but the request that it be raised to £5 was carried unanimously. I must thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity of raising this matter, and I hope the Minister will keep this very important matter in mind.

I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to our request to raise the means test in connection with “Oudstryders”. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has made it clear that on the platteland today the cost of living is the same as it is in the cities. Now an application is dealt with of a pensioner who happens to be living with his children, and then the lodging of the pensioner is taken into consideration to a certain amount, and if he happens to have a cow, it is also taken into consideration.

The hon. member is now going very far in advocating new legislation. He may ask the Minister a question.

I would just like to know clearly what the position is. Then in connection with old age pensions, I want to raise the question of widows who have again married and thereby have lost their pensions.

Are you talking about war pensions?

No, ordinary old age pensions. If a widow is married again to a man who is also needy and who finds it difficult to make a living, then the pension should not be taken away from the wife. I know of one recent case. The widower who married a widow had a small piece of ground, and then the pension was taken away because of this. He is in arrears with the Land Bank in his payment of interest, and has a large loan from the Assistance Board, but because these assets exist, or the so-called assets, the widow loses her small pension. I want to ask the Minister to instruct the Commissioner to handle these matters with more sympathy than he has in the past.

I want to enquire from the Minister what the position is in regard to the policy followed by the Military Pensions Board in cases of complete inability to work and to earn income, and I want to draw his attention to some facts. My enquiry is in respect of the method followed to arrived at the percentage of the award and I want to tell the Minister what the effect is on the public mind of some of the awards made. I can do so best by illustrating two cases. These are volunteers, who have returned from up North and who through disabilities arising from service are unable to follow any occupation. In one case the award made was based at 30 per cent. disability. I must explain that that was just prior to the introduction of the new Act last year. The pension granted amounted to £50 a year. I never could quite understand how the award of 30 per cent. was arrived at, and it had this effect, that all those in touch with this particular volunteer was very disgruntled, because they held that here was a man who had gone North, who had come back unable to support himself, and who was granted £50 per year for himself and his wife to live on. Admittedly when the new Act came into force and this case was reviewed, it was found possible under one clause of the new Act to regard his case as having been wholly aggravated as a result of the war, and his percentage was increased to a 100 per cent. basis. The amount was then based on the alternative award and increased to £450. People cannot understand why this person, who originally was granted £50, should on a review of his case have had his pension raised to £450.

That is because of the new Act.

Yes, but apart from the amount I want to lay stress on the increase in percentage of disability from 30 per cent. to 100 per cent. Now, I come to the other case, which only falls under the new Act. This is the case of a woman who served in the W.A.A.S. She went to Cairo and came back invalided, unable to follow any occupation. She has two children solely dependent on her and she has recently been awarded a 50 per cent. pension. Now here is a case where a person is unable to follow any occupation, and is awarded 50 per cent. Admittedly she has the right of appeal and is availing herself of it. What I want to draw the Minister’s attention to is the dissatisfaction which is aroused in the minds of people in touch with these cases. This woman has two children dependent on her, and she is awarded 50 per cent. and not 100 per cent. What is the policy of the Board in such cases? How can the Board, in the case of persons unable to do any work and derive income, arrive at assessments of 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. I do not want to impress on the Minister that the process of arriving at such percentages and awarding them to volunteers creates a great deal of serious dissatisfaction, and that the dissatisfaction disappears entirely when ultimately the award is increased. People are unfortunately beginning to feel that only when representations are made are the assessments put on a fair and reasonable basis. I think it is a pity that that feeling should get about. It seems to me that it would be far better, if the Military Pensions Board would consider these cases more carefully at the outset, and if they were to arrive at an appropriate award after such careful consideration in order to save the necessity and trouble of appealing and to obviate the adverse feelings which arise.

The attention of the Minister has been drawn to the fact that on the platteland today pensions should be practically the same as in the cities, owing to the fact that the cost of living is just as high on the platteland as it is in the cities. I even want to prove the opposite, and claim that the cost of living in certain parts of the platteland is more expensive than it is in the cities. I am speaking here especially on behalf of the North-western Cape. The Minister will in the first case take house rent. The position is that in the cities old people often live with their family, but on the platteland you get this to a lesser extent. The old people are usually in the village and the children are spread everywhere throughout the country. They just rent a small house, and that argument of the Minister does not amount to much. The prices of commodities have to a certain extent been fixed, and the same for all, but in many respects the platteland is worse off. You get some of the old people, and if on the platteland they want to buy a bucket of meal, at most places they pay on a basis of £1 19s. 6d. a bag, while you can buy it here in the city at £1 15s. a bag. In respect of bread the cost of living on the platteland is more expensive. I take clothing. I can give the Minister the assurance you can get clothing more cheaply here than on the platteland. That is also understandable, because railage has to be added. Take vegetables. There are very few places in the North-western Cape where vegetables can be produced and in many cases the vegetables come from Cape Town and elsewhere and in some cases they pay 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. more than here. Take groceries. Then again you get railage which increases the price. Some of the small towns are situated a long way from the railway line, 60, 80 and 90 miles and still further, and the goods must be conveyed by lorry. It increases the cost of living much higher than it is in the city. How does the Minister justify the difference between the old age pension in the city and on the platteland? The time has come when the Minister should investigate the matter, and I feel that on the platteland 10s. or £1 more should be paid than in the city, because the cost of living on the platteland is higher. The Minister mentions house rent. I have already dealt with that. Perhaps he will also say that meat is cheaper on the platteland. But the man who draws an old age pension on the platteland, cannot buy meat at all, whether it costs 11d. or 13d. I want to ask the Minister to make a statement that he will give instructions that everyone should be treated on an equal basis. That is a reasonable request.

There are two questions that I would like to ask the Minister. The one is in connection with the Medical Military Appeal Boards. I want to know whether members of Parliament are entitled to attend the hearing of an appeal. I ask this because I have had one case which came before the Select Committee on Pensions of this House. It was a pension for an old veteran of the Boer War. The Select Committee recommended that a payment should be made and Parliament approved it. When the man applied to the Commissioner of Pensions, then the Commissioner said: “Yes, but now you must appear before the Medical Board so that they can ascertain the percentage of your disability.” Then the person came back and said that they had never examined him properly, but that they had given him a choking off and sent him home. Therefore I would like to see how the people are treated when they appear before the Medical Board. In connection with a second case I wrote and asked that where a man had to appear before the Medical Appeal Board which had to determine his disability, and also whether it could be attributed to military service which he had done, whether I could attend the hearing of the appeal to ascertain whether the person received the same treatment as the previous one. I have waited for many months already, but I have not yet had a reply.

To whom did you write?

To the Commissioner of Pensions. I did not get a reply. I have often received complaints that people who appear before the Medical Appeal Board receive everything but sympathetic treatment. Then a second question. Does the Minister not think that the time has come when he should revise his policy in connection with the means test and the locality where old age pensioners live. I want to associate myself with the request which has already been made repeatedly today to the Minister that applicants on the platteland should be afforded the same treatment as those who live in the cities. I am speaking now of old age pensions. The reason has always been given that the cost of living in the large cities is higher than it is on the platteland, but if that argument is used and is applied in practice, then it simply means that we have defeated our own ends. The result was that many of our old people in the past, because they learnt that they will get a higher old age pension in the city, moved away from the platteland to the large cities. Today we hear about a shortage of houses in the cities. Here we have a means to do something in this matter by laying down that the old age pensions in the small places on the platteland will be the same as they are in the large cities. It is always difficult for people who have grown old in small places to move to the large cities, but the attraction of a larger pension was there. I go further and say that where the housing problem in South Africa is becoming so acute, the same old age pension should also be paid on the farms as is paid in the cities. The scale must be the same throughout.

It will perhaps be a good thing if I reply now to the points that have so far been raised here. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and various other members have raised the point of the existing differentiation between the old age pensions in the city and on the platteland. This is naturally something we do in accordance with the provisions of the law. We must give careful consideration to the different circumstances in the different parts of the country. Now hon. members say that there is no difference. In other words that the cost of living is just as high as it is in the large cities. That is their opinion. My opinion is different. But it is in any case a matter that must be decided scientifically, and I am quite prepared to have the matter investigated by the Department of Census and Statistics. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has spoken about pensions for the police. They too are paid out under the general law which deals with pensions for civil servants on the basis of period of service and disability. I can therefore do nothing contrary to the law. The only thing to do is to amend the law, but so far I have not had particular grievances before me in connection with the police. I want, however, to point out that the people of which the hon. member was thinking, will probably get assistance under the special cost of living allowance, which we are now prepared to pay in the case of certain civil pensioners. The hon. member for Swellendam has also spoken about semi-fit persons. That does not fall under this Vote.

You know about that.

It is assumed that I should know a lot of things that fall under other departments, because it falls under our financial control, but I cannot be expected to reply to everything that falls under other departments. It is, however, a general question and I just want to say something about it. It falls under practically the same scale as old age pensions, and it cannot be amended without legislation. Disability pensions are paid out without legislation, and they would also probably be able to be increased without legislation, but old age pensions are fixed by law. I have tried to make the case clear in my budget speech and I also said clearly that the Government was not unsympathetic about providing for aged and physically unfit persons, but I pointed out that it was a matter of great dimensions. If you touch one aspect of the matter, then you must deal with the whole matter. I have also pointed out in my reply to the budget debate that it was a matter that would have to be considered as a whole, as a part of the social security proposals, but that in view of the extent of the matter, we did not find ourselves able during this Session to do anything by way of legislation or otherwise. The same also applies in respect of the point raised by the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman), in respect of the means test for Oudstryders which is the same as is applied to old age pensioners. A change would require an amendment of the law. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has asked whether members of Parliament are entitled to be present at appeals by the Medical Military Appeal Board. No, those are technical matters, and I do not think that it will be fitting for members of Parliament to be present, but if the hon. member has a grievance about a particular case, I will be glad if he will bring it to my attention and I will go into it. I regert to hear that persons are treated unfairly and impolitely. I will be glad to get the details.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) raised certain questions in regard to the working of the Military Pensions Board, more particularly as far as the fixing of percentages was concerned. I think the hon. member will agree that he can hardly expect me to reply where I know nothing of the individual cases to which he has referred, but if there is any grievance against the percentages fixed by the Military Pensions Board, there is always an appeal to the Medical Appeal Board. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has raised the question of pensions payable to the blind, but that is part of the general pensions question which I referred to in my budget speech.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter affecting Oudstryders’ pensions and also old age pensions. Many of the pensioners on the platteland must go a long way to draw their pension. Some live 20 or 30 miles from the post office where they must draw their pension, and if a pension of 10s. is to be paid the pensioner must perhaps spend almost 10s. on the journey to go and get the pension. I have already said that I think that it is a disgrace that any Oudstryder should be offered a pension of 10s., but I think it will be a good thing if the Minister will give local committees and also magistrates to understand that the pensioners should be met as much as possible. It is surely impossible to spend 10s. every month to go and fetch a pension of 10s. I also want to bring the following matter to the attention of the Minister, and it is a matter which affects the position of widows, women and mothers who draw an old age pension. They naturally do not draw an Oudstryders’ pension. It therefore only applies to those who draw an old age pension. We get the case where an old couple live in a house on the platteland or in the village. They get only very little. Jointly they get perhaps £5 per month. But now one of the spouses falls away and the moment that the one falls away, the old age pension falls away that is applied to one of the spouses. The one who remains behind cannot possibly come out on the old age pension which he or she receives. Suppose that the man falls away. The woman must still live in that house. She must still live. She must still rent a house or a room. Some of these people still perhaps have minor children. When one of the spouses falls away, then that pension falls away, and so the widow remains behind without any increase. She must now manage on that pension that was applicable to only one of the spouses. The people must surely live somewhere. They must provide for themselves because they cannot come out on the decreased pension. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether the maximum cannot be applied in these cases even without legislation, so as at least to enable the surviving spouse to remain alive. I would like the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would not now take the opportunity to make an alteration in connection with the means test in respect of old-age pensions. It appears to me that the means test amounts to a measure against thrift. In my constituency there is a case of an old-age pensioner who because of her age is entitled to an old-age pension but during her lifetime she has saved enough money to buy a house to the value of £1,000 and the result is that she cannot draw an old-age pension. I think that the law in such cases should be changed so that people who are placed in those circumstances can draw the old-age pension. I think that such cases cause great hardship, and I think that such an alteration will be greeted with applause everywhere.

I am grateful for the indulgence of the Minister where he promised to institute an enquiry into life on the platteland and life in the city. But I do not know why he still wants to institute an enquiry. If he had listened to the arguments that came from both sides of the House, then the situation would have been clear to him. He must either believe the members or disbelieve them. Life on the platteland is more expensive today than in the cities. I do not speak of the case of a man who goes to live in an expensive hotel. The old people on the platteland are dependent on other people. They do not even have the opportunity of going to fetch their pension at the post office. They get it through the goodwill of other people. If other people do not go and fetch their pensions for them at the post office, then I do not know if they will ever get them. Somebody must either go and get the pensions for them or otherwise they have to give them to the shopkeeper. They seldom or never fetch the pensions themselves. The time has passed when these people can remain on the farms free of charge. Precisely because they get an old age pension they must pay today, whereas before they remained free on the farms in most cases. And why should the farmers give the old people houses for nothing? In many cases the old people are not relatives of theirs. If the State wants to help the old people it must help them adequately. I would like to know from the Minister why the old people in the city should get more than the old people on the farms? I know of people who have to pay 10s. in house rent; I know of others who have to pay £1 per month or even £2 per month for house rent on the farms. When these old people need a doctor, then they have to send for him and they have to pay for it. I would like the Minister to take this into account. The Minister himself knows, I think, that when a man on a farm goes to a town, or when he goes to Cape Town, he is usually asked to bring back with him all sorts of things for the people on the platteland. Why? It is because he can get the commodities cheaper in the towns. I say that those people on the platteland should rather get more than the people in the towns. I think it is a good thing that the Minister wants to institute an enquiry, but I do not think it is necessary. As I have said, he must either believe the members of Parliament, or he must disbelieve them.

Mr. Chairman, may I say that the concession to “Oudstryders” and war veterans generally is one which the country accepts with pleasure. It amounts to a general increase all round of £14 on the maximum pensions. I want to point out that there are probably some hundreds of old age pensioners today who would, had the War Veterans Pension been introduced 15 years ago, have been in receipt of such a pension. Will these people be entitled to demand this increase of £14 per annum? Will it be possible for the Minister to take into review the old age pensions list in order to extend to the war veterans who are today in receipt merely of old age pensions, the indulgence of this concession, which we gratefully accept as a gesture. I want to remind the Minister that the old age pension was introduced some years ago on a flat rate of £2 10s. per month. Subsequently the Blind Pensions Act was introduced, and that granted a pension the same as the old age pension, plus 10s. In fact, the blind person from the age of 19 was entitled to the benefit of 10s. per month more than he would have got had he been 65 years of age and entitled to the old age pension. As an administrative act some years ago, the predecessor of the hon. Minister increased the old age pension by £1 per month, but no such increase was given to the blind pensioner. The blind pensioners did not participate in that indulgence given to the old age pensioner, unless of course, they were over 65 years of age. That, I think, was an anomaly which was never intended when the Minister’s predecessor was in office. The result has been that the general statistics collated every year have anticipated that there has been a transfer of many blind people from the Blind Pensions Act to the Old Age Pensions Act. I would ask the hon. Minister to correct the position administratively, and do away with an omission and an anomaly that was never foreseen. I want, in fact, to restore the relative position of the blind and the old age pensions, in order that the blind person who carries this additional disability shall have the benefit of this extra 10s. over and above the pensioner who merely carries the disability of old age. I want to extend to the Minister the country’s appreciation of the fact that the urban native blind pensioners will now receive 100 per cent. increase in their pensions, and I also want to thank him for giving the blind native living in villages and also in the city, 15s. a month. While I am on this question of pensions, I believe it has been accepted as a policy of justice that some effective alterations and amendments are to be made to the Blind Pensions Act, and if that is so, I hope the Minister will afford an early opportunity for discussion and not leave it as it was left in the last instance, to the dying days of the last Session, when we had no opportunity of criticising or suggesting amendments to the pensions, which admittedly were generous. I do appeal to the Minister to allow these members who have made a study of blind and military pensions, an opportunity of helping him in the framing of amendments, so that pensioners may receive the maximum amount of benefit, which we feel it is the intention and the desire of the Cabinet and the country to extend to them. I want to revert again to the soldiers’ allotments, which are continued for four months after the notification of the death of a soldier. Then after the four months, the authorities automatically presume that the person who is the allottee is not a dependant, and they will place that person on the £13 basis. I think we must grant an additional period over the period during which the allotment continues, in order to make it possible for these people who receive the nice little cheque sent out by the Commissioner of Pensions, and the latter extending sympathy and asking the receiver not to measure the sympathy of the Government by this meagre amount of £13 per annum, make it possible for those people to prove their dependence, so that there will not be that gap which means so much, and which is heavily undermining the good faith with which the public generally interpret the Pensions Act and the administration of the Government.

There are a few matters I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I would like to bring it to the attention of the Minister that I believe that the means test on the platteland is in many cases applied unfairly. I have before me here the case of an old man, and I want to bring it up here because I believe that this is actually a case that bears out the opinion of this side of the House that the means test is not being applied fairly. Here we have the case of an old farmer. He has a bit of ground registered in his name, but the bond on that piece of land is so high that he is obliged to let the land, and in fact that old man does not receive a single penny. His sons are today working on the road, but because that old man has a piece of land standing in his name, and because he has a few sheep, he does not get a single penny in pension. He is 73 years old, and his wife is 72 years. His wife has been bedridden for years. But because the old man has a piece of land registered in his name, and because he has a few sheep, that old man cannot get old age pension, and he lives today in one of the towns in my constituency on the kindness and charity of other people. Such are cases that actually exist on the platteland. I have had another case in my constituency of an old man farming out in the district. He had a small group of stock, but the stock belonged to the Farmers Assistance Board. While he was living on the farm, however, he could pay his interest and redemption. But that is about all he could do. He actually had nothing to live on. He tried over and over again to get an old age pension, but he could not get it. Ultimately the stock was taken back by the Farmers Assistance Board, and the stock was then sold and the State suffered considerable loss. That old man then went to the town and there he got a pension of £3 per month. Is it fair to apply the means test in this manner? Here you have a man who had a bit of land on which the bond burden was so high that he could get no penny out of it. Will the Minister not ensure that people in such cases should receive the old age pension? We know that a cost of living allowance is today being paid to persons who draw the old age pension. But actually that cost of living allowance which is being given does not even cover the meat account of those old people. The old people in our town cannot afford to buy meat; but if such an old couple eat meat once or twice per month then it swallows the whole increase. It sometimes happens that such old people do a little job here and there in order to earn a few extra shillings. Those old people are not in fixed occupation, but it happens that they get a little job to do here and there. Then they are notified that they must not do that work. I know that this is in conflict with the law. We do not ask that old people should be permitted to undertake permanent work, but in these days of shortage of labour, in these days of increased cost of living, I want to plead with the Minister to notify his officials on the platteland that where old people work for a few days every month, that they should overlook it in heaven’s name and not repeatedly obstruct it.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage may I make some comments in reply to the Minister’s statement on the case which I brought forward during an earlier part of the afternoon? The Minister suggested a doubt as to whether a pension as small as £13 per annum had been awarded in the case mentioned by me, by the Military Pensions Board. I am in a position to say without fear of contradiction, notwithstanding the Minister’s doubts, that the Military Pensions Board first awarded £13 per annum in this case. If he wishes to verify that, he may look at the correspondence that took place. The statement of the mother of these boys is to this effect, that her pension was increased from £1 1s. 8d. a month to £2 10s. per month. Now that was done after her member of Parliament had intervened, and it was increased, let me remind the Minister, from the first award of £13 per annum to £30 per annum. The original grant was £13, notwithstanding the Minister’s doubt. It has now, after the death of the second son, been raised to £7 per month. That is the highest pension this board has seen fit to award to a woman who has suffered the loss of two devoted sons. One would imagine from what the Minister said that the law contemplated that beneficiaries under the Act should be subjected to a means test. I must demur completely to that and to the suggestion of the Minister that the mother of the two sons was provided with a fixed income and owned profitable property. Does he consider a Phthisis Board award in respect of her husband’s services, of. £5 6s. 6d. a month and a pension of £3 10s. which her late husband received for injuries in the 1922 strike, a fixed income? These are the sources from which she received any money at the time when her pension award was under consideration. A further statement of the Minister was that she was the owner of property valued at £1,000.

Thirteen hundred pounds.

£1,300 then. How much does that property yield in any shape or form, and what expense has been incurred annually in the maintenance of that property? How does this so-called fixed income compare with the solid support of £260 per annum contributed by her sons? It would be well if the Military Pensions Board came forward and told us how the mother of these two boys stood in the matter of this fixed income which, in fact, is no fixed income at all. In the one case it is derived from a Phthisis Board award, and in the other from a pension granted to her husband for injuries in the 1922 strike. Now I want to deal with the suggestion of the Minister that we must not regard military allotments as evidence of the support of the persons in whose favour they are made. If that is so perhaps he will tell us why evidence of all such allotments is invariably demanded by the Military Pensions Board before any pension award is made? If it is valueless as evidence, why is it always sought by the Board before they make any award? I want to refer to the wording of the Act to show that it is not contemplated that extraneous matters such as total income should be brought in to cloud the issue. When these soldiers have made the supreme sacrifice, the Military Pensions Board presumes to come along and disregard the evidence of the parent’s dependence as proved by actual allotments, and to reduce the pension to £7 a month, when in this case the woman was entitled to £144 per annum. One would imagine that the Military Pensions Board should be a body chosen for its knowledge of the soldiers’ need, but I think I am not mistaken in believing that the chairman of the board is the Secretary to the Treasury, and what sympathy has he with the soldier? I have said before, and I repeat, that the Military Pensions Board is too close to the interests of the Treasury and too far removed from the interests of the soldier, and I say it is high time that the Board was reorganised, and that the whole personnel should disappear and give way to men who will administer the Act wisely and sympathetically. At the present moment it is administered in a haggling spirit, in a spirit of requiring people to come to the lowest possible income they can live upon, in order to get an award from the Board. The people to whom I have referred have been accustomed to live on the standard which their own sons had recognised in the amount of their allotments when they went to the Front. If these boys were willing to allot their people £22 a month, surely that should be accepted as evidence of their intention that their mother and sister for whom they fought, should enjoy approximately that measure of support, or at least should be awarded £144 per annum. [Time limit.]

The Minister of Finance will recall that there are various persons who receive old age pensions and who are Oudstryders, and that they will possibly apply to have the old age pensions transformed into Oudstryders’ pensions. Will he allow this without all the complicated forms having to be filled in, provided these people give proof—which was provided when they made their applications for their old age pension—that they are entitled to the pensions? Secondly, will he give them time to provide the proof, and if the proof has been provided, will he permit the increased pension to be made payable from 1st April? I would like to have a reply to the following points: (1) Whether he will allow the old age pensions to be transformed into Oudstryders’ pensions; (2) if he will do away with the forms that these people will again have to fill in, and if he will be satisfied with the forms they have already filled in, and that they should only provide proof that they are Oudstryders; and (3) if he will make the increase retrospective to 1st April.

The increased pension will in any case be operative from 1st April. We shall not be able to allot it automatically to persons who receive old age pensions today.

Provided they deliver proof.

Yes, but that means a new application. I cannot give a reply now as regards the question of the machinery that will have to be used. I will have to go into that. It is an administrative matter, and I have not yet considered it.

The same point was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen) where he referred to old age pensioners who would be eligible for war veterans’ pensions; the hon. member raised the question of their getting the additional amount. Well, it cannot be done as a matter of automatic working. After all, these people have to prove that they are old age pensioners and to that end they will have to make application, but the form of machinery to be evolved is a matter to which I have not yet been able to give my attention. At any rate the increase will be applicable as from the 1st April. It is my intention to introduce an amending War Pensions Act as soon as possible. We are working very hard on it to-day, but my hon. friend must appreciate that these matters are not easy to deal with. Then the hon. member raised the position of blind pensioners. I shall go into that but I think my hon. friend was wrong when he said that my predecessor raised the pension of the old pensioners by Administrative Act. That is not so; it was raised by Act of Parliament. In the same way the pensions to coloured blind was increased by legislation.

*As regards the point on which the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) touched, I want to ask that where there are individual cases these must be brought to my attention. I am prepared to give personal attention to such cases. But I cannot go into particulars here in connection with cases of which I have no knowledge. The cost of living allowance in connection with old age pensions is 15s. per month. I shall look into the points mentioned by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein).

I am very much concerned over the invalidity pension which is granted to indigent parents in so far as the serving soldier is concerned. The position today is that our Pensions Board have a schedule … .

That is Social Welfare. But we are hoping to deal with that point.

It is as far as the single soldier is concerned.

It affects the amount paid as an invalidity pension but we are hoping to deal with the point by legislation.

I was hoping to be able to get past the Chairman with this matter. I am very pleased to hear the Minister’s reply. I had urged this in the House before, during the present Session, but I have not had a reply from the Minister and that is why I got up this afternoon. I thought I might possibly be able to get a reply. I did not quite hear what the Minister said, but I believe he has intimated the possibility of bringing in legislation and I sincerely hope that it is coming about. I feel in a quandary—I don’t know whether the Minister has considered this matter before—I have had no reply to the questions which I have put to him on this matter.

Order! The matter cannot be discussed on this Vote.

The Minister has left out two points. I hope when he makes it possible for these burnt out veterans to make application under the War Veterans Vote that the idea of zoning will disappear and that the 33⅓ per cent. increase as a concession to the war veterans is going to be a 33⅓ per cent. increase and that it is going to be a flat rate increase irrespective of where the man comes from, whether it is a little place outside on the platteland or whether it is a man coming from the heart of Cape Town. I feel that this increase means an automatic increase of £14 and should be a flat rate increase. Just as a reason for asking the Minister to extend the period during which an allottee should receive the allotment from her son …

That is a defence matter, not a pensions matter. That is why I did not reply in detail.

The Minister did not give the assurance that the regulation had gone by the Board.

I am afraid I cannot go into too great detail. It is a defence matter and I hope my hon. friend will not press me on it.

I hope the Minister will grant me this indulgence.

The Minister says it does not come under this Vote.

Yes, but you cannot always take what the Minister says so very literally.

Order!

I am merely asking you, Mr. Chairman, to listen to this aspect of the case. In every one of these instances the Commissioner of Pensioners, on behalf of the Treasury and the Government, expresses very sincere sympathy with the person and asks him to make application for an increased pension if he feels that the £13 per annum is insufficient. If that is not a pension matter then I don’t know what it is. I only say that the time given to the allottee to make application is not sufficient, if the period is to be only four months, and I ask for an extension in order to allow the allottee to make application. Now, there is another matter which I brought to the Minister’s notice and that is the case of these old age pensioners under the 1919 Act who by virtue of the indulgence of the Commissioner of Pensions in the old days were permitted to commute their pension—as a result of that a tremendous amount of hard cases have occurred. Those people who are still alive have been deprived of the benefit of their pension by virtue of the fact that it was commuted. When the Minister of Finance some ten years ago extended indulgence to these pensioners whose pensions had been commuted, he allowed them to apply for the re-instatement of their pension on two grounds. He said: “We are prepared to restore and revise these war disability pensions provided the measure of your war disability has been increased and secondly, you must not have taken more out of your computation than would have been given to you had you not commuted your pension.” So that if a person commuted his pension for £230 and was only in receipt of a disability pension of £50, if he had commuted his pension, despite the indulgence that had been extended, he would not be in receipt of any benefits—unless he had been in receipt of a pension for five years. Now, let me put this case. He can get his pension back if his disability has increased. In some cases the disability was as high as 60 or 80 per cent. You cannot show, crippled and maimed as a man is, and handicapped and disabled as he has been for more than 23 or 24 years, that his disability is now 81 or 82 per cent. He has probably been deprived as a result of his commutation by three or four times the amount of his commutation. His commutation was less by three or four times than would have been the amount he would have received had he not commuted. I ask the Minister not to have the man both ways. I ask the Minister not to insist on the man having to revive his pension—always provided that the Treasury is not on the wrong side. The Minister has shown a large measure of practical sympathy to the disabled soldiers in this war. I ask him that these people who commuted their pension in the early days shall now receive his favourable consideration. It is impossible for him to prove that their disability has increased. I feel that a great injustice will be removed if the Minister can see his way to come to the aid of these people, and if he will revive 50 per cent. of the war disability pension to them as though their pensions had not been commuted. The Minister will not lose anything by it. The man has lost three or four times the amount of his computation. Revive the pension to what it was before and the Treasury will still be showing a very large profit out of these people. I think that this is going to be the real test of the measure of the Government’s sympathy for our soldiers.

May I just ask the Minister to reply to the two points which I brought to his attention?

I have made a note of them.

I would very much like the Minister to give his attention to them.

I have said I will do so.

In view of the Minister’s statement that he proposes to bring in an Amending Pensions Bill I should like to draw his attention to one difficulty which has arisen in regard to the allowance for children laid down in the existing Pensions Act. According to the third schedule of that Act children are allowed an amount of £30 per annum. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Children’s Aid Society which allows foster parents £2 10s. per month, plus additional assistance in the way of clothing and other amenities, is now finding it impossible to get people to take children for that amount.

The hon. member is now asking for legislation; she cannot discuss a question of that kind on any Vote in Committee.

I am merely drawing the Minister’s attention to legislation which he himself has mentioned.

No; the hon. member is asking for legislation and that cannot be discussed in Committee. The Minister merely gave intimation to the House.

I would like to support the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen) in his plea that the gratuity granted in the years 1919-1922 should be taken into review. We find the same position in connection with the Oudstryders. The pension was taken away and a gratuity was granted them instead. With the age that they have now attained they find themselves in a very serious position. The Oudstryders were very grateful for the increased disability pension. But all the Oudstryders who received the gratuity have asked whether the Minister would not take their position into review, and I promised to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and to ask the Minister if he cannot meet them. Cannot their gratuity be amplified in some way or another? We would greatly appreciate it.

I would like to focus the attention of the Minister on this point in connection with the Oudstryders who receive gratuities.

It would require legislation.

Then I want to support what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) said here in connection with the increased Oudstryders’ pensions and the transformation of old age pensions into Oudstryders’ pensions. I want to ask the Minister if we can meet the old people as regards the forms.

I have not yet had time to go into the machinery. I shall make it as easy as possible.

It will remove a terrible bother for those old people,

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administrations,” £7,349,400,

In connection with this Vote, I want to move the following amendment—

Something occurred recently in the Orange Free State Province that has never occurred since the inception of the Provincial Council in 1910, and, in my opinion has also never occurred in any other province of the country. A motion was adopted by the Provincial Council, without a division. Only two persons spoke against the motion, but the other 22 members supported it unanimously, and the two who spoke against the motion did not even have the courage to ask for a division. The motion that was adopted unanimously reads as follows—[Translation]—

I say again that this motion was adopted without a division by the Council. I would not have raised the matter here if the Administrator on that occasion could have given a reasonable explanation, and if he had tried in his speech to obtain the co-operation of the Provincial Council. I was present in person when the discussion took place. On the contrary, he got up and said: “I did it, and I shall do it again in future.” He indicated that, if he considered it necessary, he would again in future violate the majority decision and simply ignore it. I want to point out what the position is in terms of the South Africa Act. Clause 80 of the South Africa Act contains the following provision—

All functions concerning the Free State as a province, fall under the control of the Executive Committee. And then we find the following in Clause 82—

In other words, the Executive Committee is the body which has control on behalf of the Provincial Councils over the domestic affairs of the Province. Its decisions are taken by majority votes and the Administrator has a casting vote only if there is an equality of votes. Otherwise he has an ordinary vote. What happened here is that applications were called for two school inspectors in the Free State. There were 23 applications. One of them was late, having come in after the fixed date. The Executive Committee referred the applications to a subcommittee for the purpose of having the applications sorted, and having a number of the best applications submitted to the Executive Committee. Ultimately it came before the Director of Education, and he made two particular recommendations. I do not want to mention the names of the persons here. I shall say that the Director of Education recommended Messrs. A. and B. Then it came to the question of appointment. The recommendation of Mr. A. by the Director of Education was confirmed by a majority decision of the Executive Committee. The Administrator said immediately thereafter that he was not going to abide by that decision, and that he was going to make representations to the Government and to the Public Service Commission in order to get someone else appointed, and that someone else was the person whose application came in late, namely, after the stipulated date. The Executive Committee spoke to him nicely, and told him not to do it. They pointed out to him that this had never happened before. But he said he was going to do it, and that he would do everything in his power not to get their selection appointed. It was not a question of qualification. This person, Mr. A., was the best qualified and the first recommendation of the Director of Education. He is the head of one of the biggest schools in the country. Then the Administrator went to the Public Service Commission and he recommended Mr. C., whose application came in late, and the Public Service Commission, in spite of the Executive Committee’s decision, appointed Mr. C. At the discussion on the motion in the Provincial Council, the Administrator told what a wonderful man Mr. C. is, but it appears that he mentioned only the good things; but he did not mention the unfavourable part of the report of the Director of Education about Mr. C. in the Provincial Council, and thereby compelled members of the Executive Committee to do so. Now we dome to the second appointment. Mr. B. was recommended by the Director of Education. The Executive Committee did not recommend him, but recommended Mr. D. by 4 votes to 1. Only the Administrator voted against him. All four elected members voted for Mr. D. But the Administrator went forth and recommended that Mr. E. be appointed. This person was not even among the seven who were selected by the subcommittee of the Executive Committee. He goes and recommends Mr. C. to the Public Service Commission, a person whose application came in late, and in the second instance he recommends a person who did not even fall under the seven persons selected by the Executive Committee. The qualifications of the persons are not concerned here. The Administrator tried to mention the qualifications. It was not a question of qualification. He could bring in nothing against the qualifications or suitability of the persons recommended by the Executive Committee. I want to say here that Mr. Jack Reitz, the Leader of the Afrikaner Party, voted with the Administrator in the first case. But when the matter came before the Provincial Council, he strongly supported the motion which I have quoted, in principle. He later also introduced another motion in which the Government is asked to take the appointment of inspectors out of the hands of the Public Service Commission. So strongly did he feel about the matter, that even though he agreed on the merits of the candidate, he said that the principle was so wrong that the Administrator should have gone against the Executive Committee, that he introduced that motion. Such a thing has never before occurred in the Free State. The Free State is a Nationalist province. The members of the Provincial Council were nearly always 100 per cent. Nationalists, and previous Governments appointed Saps as administrators, as for instance Sir Cornelius Wessels and Mr. E. R. Grobler, but those difficulties never occurred. Those men were also in a minority sometimes. It was often the case, but they stood by their colleagues. They said: There is the South Africa Act, which provides that the majority decision shall prevail, and they stood by their colleagues. But the Administrator has now come and taken a decision in conflict with it. [Time limit.]

I want to support the plea of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and to say that we as Free Staters shall be neglecting our duty towards our province if we do not lodge serious protest. I want to refer to Clause 80 of the South Africa Act—

There the position is pinned down. Then follows the rest of the paragraph which says what must be done if there is no quorum. But the portion which I quoted clearly provides that the Executive Committee must exercise control on behalf of the Provincial Council, and only immediately after an election of the Provincial Council is there a period when the Administrator exercises control, until the members of the Executive Committee are chosen. There is only that one exception. I also refer to the following clause that provides that the Administrator has the right to vote on the Executive Committee, and only in the event of an equality of votes does the Administrator have a casting vote. It is very clearly defined in the South Africa Act. If there is no equality of votes, the Administrator must submit to the decision of the majority of the Executive Committee. Clause 28 says—

Here we have had to cases. In the one case the majority was 3 to 2 and in the other case 4 to 1. The decision of the majority therefore stands. Only were there is an equal number of votes has the Administrator a deciding vote, but here there was no question of an equality of votes. Then we come to the following Clause 83—

Here is is clearly provided that the Executive Committee has authority also as regards officers, with a few exceptions. Then follows Clause 84—

Only if cases occur that do not legally fall under the Executive Committee can the Administrator take upon himself certain obligations at the request of the Governor General. Now we ask where the Administrator gets the right to infringe the South Africa Act as he has done? Legal opinion has been obtained in connection with the matter, and I may say that the opinion is that without doubt the majority decision of the Executive Committee is binding on the Administrator. If the Administrator transgresses his powers, the Minister can dismiss him. Here we have to do with a matter that went so far that a public discussion took place in the Provincial Council. Not only was the decision of the Executive Committee ignored, but the matter was referred back and discussed in a public debate in the Provincial Council, and the Provincial Council by a great majority extended its support to the Executive Committee, because it would be a prostitution of the powers of the Executive Committee and of the Provincial Council if the Administrator were allowed to act as he did. I just want to point to the following. It is said that there is a shortage of inspectors who have knowledge of science and it is also said that the appointed person would mainly have to do with primary education. There was also a third recommendation. The first, as said, was that there was a shortage of persons in the Free State Inspectorate with a knowledge of science, but in the third place it was said that there was not one person on the Free State Inspectorate with a knowledge of German, and in view of the large number of pupils who take German as a subject it was imperative that there should be one person on the Inspectorate with a knowledge of German. And the person who was elected and recommended by the Executive Committee and the Director of Education was precisely a person who had taken German as the main subject and who had taught German for years. In this way the requirement that there should be at least one person on the Inspectorate with a knowledge of German was fulfilled. The procedure of the Executive Committee was as follows: They received 32 applications, and then a Committee was appointed to investigate these 32 applications, and to recommend a smaller number. They then selected seven, and the seven names were referred to the Director of Education of the Free State. We can surely accept that he is the man who has the best knowledge of the teaching staff in the Free State, and his recommendation conformed to the recommendation of the Executive Committee. In spite of the fact that the recommendation of the Director of Education was the same as the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Administrator went against the decision and appointed another person. I have been informed that at the previous appointment the person now put number one by the Executive Committee and the Director of Education was second; then the other man was appointed. This strengthens the recommendation of the Director of Education. Where the man was second at that time he ought now to be taken into special consideration. But the Administrator goes and appoints someone who was not even among the selected seven. If this process is allowed in the Free State then one must not continue speaking of national government, and must not say that the Executive Committee in the Free State and the Provincial Council have the power delegated to them by the South Africa Act.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C, R. Swart) has made an attack on someone who cannot be here to defend himself. I regret that he did not notify us of the matter beforehand.

Surely you saw what appeared in the newspapers about it.

I have no knowledge of the matter. If he had notified me that he would raise the matter then I would have been in position to ascertain from the person concerned what the position, according to him, is.

But the hon. Minister does read newspapers?

I have a great many other things to do. I have no knowledge of the matter. If I understand the position correctly—I can only go by what has been brought under discussion here—an inspector, or inspectors, had to be appointed. According to law the Public Service Commission has to make a recommendation. A decision is then taken after the recommendation has been sent to the Executive Committee. That is the legal position.

How does the first recommendation originate?

No statutory power is vested in the Executive Committee for making a recommendation from their side. The position is that the recommendation is made by the Public Service Commission. Then it goes to the Executive Committee, and then the Executive Committee can accept or reject is. If they reject the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, it goes to the Governor-General-in-Council.

Who deals with the applications?

The Public Service Commission.

That was not the defence of the Administrator. He did not say a word about that. That stage was evidently not yet reached.

Then we evidently have to do with something that took place before the statutory process began. The Public Service Commission had to make a recommendation.

And if a recommendation is made?

It goes to the Executive Committee whose decision is final, but if the Executive Committee does not accept the recommendation, the matter must go before the Governor-General-in-Council. The Administrator can do nothing.

And if the Executive Committee does not approve the recommendation of the Public Service Commission?

Then it must go to the Governor-General-in-Council.

But then it is a matter that must be raised here.

I have no objection to it being raised here, but I am simply putting the position as I see it. The hon. member’s objection is evidently an objection against the Administrator in connection with something that took place before the statutory process began. This raises the point: With whom may the Public Service, Commission consult before it makes its recommendation? May it consult the Administrator? May it consult the Executive Committee? I think the reply to both questions is in the affirmative.

The position is that the Executive Committee was consulted.

Even that does not prevent the Administrator from expression his personal opinion to the Public Service Commission if they are prepared to receive it. I myself was Administrator, and I can clearly remember cases in respect of which my advice was obtained by the Public Service Commission without the advice of the Executive Committee being asked, and if anyone should have told me at the time that I, as Administrator, did not have the power to express my own personal opinion to the Public Service Commission, then I would have resigned my post.

I cannot say today whether the Public Service Commission obtained advice in the first instance, but the matter was submitted to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee decided to recommend Mr. A, and then the Administrator went behind their back—he did notify them of it—and gave advice.

I think he had the right to do it.

The majority of the Executive Committee have obtained legal advice and it is to the effect that the Administrator is bound by the decision of the Executive Committee. I think it is a case to which the Minister must devote his careful attention. If it is correct what the Minister says, then I want to ask him not to give the Executive Committee a slap in the face in this case where the Administrator wants to go against the opinion of the Executive Committee. An impossible position will be created where the Director of Education recommends a person, and the Executive Committee by a majority vote is in favour of that person, that the Administrator should then go and bring about that another person is appointed. I want to go further. During the discussion on the matter in the Provincial Council one of the members of the Executive Committee, Mr. Schoeman, said that clashes had taken place time and again between the Executive Committee and the Administrator. He said that since he had become a member of the Executive Committee there had been repeated clashes. If the Administrator could not get his way, then he threatened not to allow one or other budget vote to go through.

Threatened whom?

He threatened the Executive Committee. That is the complaint against the Administrator from an Executive Committee member. Other cases were mentioned. There was for instance the amending Ordinance in connection with local authorities, to introduce the ward system in Bloemfontein. The Provincial Council by an overwhelming majority of 22 votes to 2 adopted the Ordinance, and the Executive Committee was in favour of it, but the Administrator refused to accept the recommendation of the whole council.

The Government refused.

Yes, but the Administrator interfered, and he said that he refused to address the request to the Government that the measure should be approved. The Administrator went against the desire of the overwhelming majority of the Provincial Council in connection with provisions in an Ordinance that obtain in other Provinces. He acted in conflict with the decision of the Provincial Council and the Executive Committee. During the discussion attention was drawn to the challenging attitude of the Administrator. “I have done it, and I shall do it again,” that was the attitude of the Administrator, as it appeared from the discussions. There are still other cases of interference. This makes co-operation extremely difficult, and an untenable position has arisen in the Free State, to such an extent that members of the Executive Committee have said that they cannot go on in this way. The Administrator, who is the link between the Provincial Council and the Government, works against them. It is not right towards the province. It happened several times that there was an Administrator in the Free State who did not share the political views of the majority, but in the past the Administrator always abided by the decisions of the majority. Now the position has arisen that the Administrator acts independently of them. If he is not satisfied with the decision, he runs to the Government, to the Minister of Justice, and to the Public Service Commission, and tries to enforce his will. The Minister will admit that this cannot work well and that it cannot give satisfaction. There are four members of the Executive Committee, two of the Nationalist Party, one of the Afrikaner Party and one who calls himself a representative of the Ossewa-Brandwag. It is almost impossible for them to co-operate with the Administrator on account of the attitude he adopts. I hope the Government will go in the matter. I hope the Government will ensure that effect is given to the recommendation of the Executive Committee.

When I spoke just now I intentionally quoted quite a few clauses of the South Africa Act, which clearly prescribes the powers of the Executive Committee. The Minister cannot deny the powers. They are clearly laid down in the South Africa Act. But now the execution of the powers is being made impossible by an unsympathetic Administrator. He wants the right. But it is the Executive Committee majority decision that is decisive. The Minister now says that the Administrator has the right to direct representations to the Public Service Commission, but the Administrator was present when the recommendation was made and the whole matter was discussed. He presided at the Executive Committee meeting where the matter was discussed and decided. Very probably the first part of the procedure was first completed. Now the recommendations come back from the Public Service Commission, and the Executive Committee, with the Administrator present, discusses the matter. The Administrator has a deciding vote in certain cases, but no such situation arose here. Now the Minister considers that if the Administrator loses, then he has the right to go to the Public Service Commission to try to influence them. Is that a correct interpretation of the position? History maintains our standpoint. What has happened now has never before happened in the Free State. There have been many Administrators who also belonged to another party than the majority of the Executive Committee and the majority of the Provincial Council, but what has happened now since the appointment of the present Administrator has never happened before. This is not the first clash that has occurred. There was a big clash in connection with the ordinance relating to the ward system. We have now to do with an Administrator who intrigues—it comes down to that—with the Governor-General-in-Council to use its veto against the decision of the Provincial Council. It is a domestic function in connection with which this has happened. Another case was mentioned during the sitting of the Provincial Council. Trouble arose about a report in connection with the Agricultural School at Tweespruit. The Executive Committee in the presence of the Administrator decided to appoint a commission. He went and telephoned a certain person in the place concerned and asked him to draw up another report and to send it to him. If that sort of thing goes on then we might as well abolish the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council, and suspend the South Africa Act as regards the clauses I have quoted. It can only result in a complete conflict between the Executive Committee and the Administrator, and it will bring the Administration to a blind alley. It is a very serious matter. The conflicts cause an unpleasant spirit that permeates through the whole Administration, and in this way no good work can be done.

I do not want to involve myself in the matter, but I nevertheless want to express a thought. From what has been brought up here, it appears clearly that the Administrator of the Free State does not understand his functions and powers correctly. Apparently he thinks that he as Administrator, in so far as provincial affairs are concerned, stands in the same position as the Prime Minister with regard to Union affairs. He considers that his position in respect of the Executive Committee is the same as that of the Prime Minister in regard to his Cabinet. There is, however, a very wide difference, according to the Constitution. The Prime Minister governs the country, with the other Ministers as his advisors, but he bears responsibility for all. As for the Administrator of a Province, he is not in that position according to the definition. He is not a person, he is Administrator of his Executive Committee.

He is indeed a person in certain respects.

He does not stand in the same position as the Prime Minister. He cannot act independently of the Executive Committee, they bear responsibility with him, and if in the circumstances the Administrator acts otherwise than the Executive Committee has decided, then he does not act as Administrator, but as a private person. In other words, he comes as a private person and undermines the authority of the body of which he is a member. If an Administrator does that, then only great trouble can originate from it.

I want to ask the Minister under this Vote whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the idea is taking root among some teachers in the Transvaal that if one does not belong to the Free Masons then one’s chances are slender, then qualifications do not count. That is the idea that has taken strong root among the teachers, and I would like the Minister to make a statement regarding the matter. The one is better qualified, but the other applicant gets the appointment, and if we go into the matter then we find that the one who got the post belongs tot the Free Masons. It is creating a lot of unpleasantness. It is said that that sort of thing already exists on the Railways. It has taken root there, and now it is taking root in the educational sphere. I shall be very glad if the Minister will make a statement as to the measure in which this sort of thing plays a rôle in the educational sphere.

I cannot make a statement on this. I have no knowledge of the particulars of the work of the Provincial Administrations. It cannot be expected of me as Minister of Finance to have a knowledge of this. All I do is to make provision in accordance with the provisions of the law for the subsidies payable to the Provinces. It will be better if my hon. friend can arrange for this important matter which he has raised here to be raised in the Transvaal Provincial Council. We cannot speak on it here.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—37:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—58:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock F. C.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administrations”, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th January, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 19th March.