The Irrigation Districts Adjustment Bill is a hybrid Bill and under Standing Orders No. 264 (Public Business) and No. 45 (Private Bills) the petition should be signed by the petitioners themselves. Actually it has been signed by only the petitioners, the other three having authorised Mr. I. C. Silberbauer, by powers of attorney, to sign on their behalf. I am satisfied, however, that in this instance it was not possible for these three petitioners to sign the petition personally within the time required. Their powers of attorney were yesterday lodged with the Clerk of the House and as today is the last day on which a petition of this nature can be effective I have passed it for presentation.

Petition referred to the Select Committee on the Irrigation Districts Adjustment Bill.

I move—

In moving the second reading of this Bill I am bound to confess that during the last two years the objectors to the Bill have achieved a measure of success. Nevertheless I am undaunted in my determination that the Bill should go through the House and be placed on the statute book. I am hopeful, too, that with the support of hon. members of this House I shall get the second reading of this Bill through this afternoon. I intend, therefore, to be brief, and I Want to assure those members, few in number I hope, who are opposed to this Bill, that provided I am given the opportunity before the time limit, I shall answer all the points that may be raised. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is similar in every respect to the City of Durban’s Savings Bank and Housing Bill. The amendments recommended by the Select Committee on the Bill have been included: You will remember, Sir, that Bill was approved of in a second reading in this House. A further addition to this Bill are all the amendments that the Minister of Finance and his departments suggested, and which have been laid on the Table; those amendments too, have been included with the Bill. However, this Bill differs fundamentally in one respect from the previous Bill, in that the principle of this Bill has been extended to cover all the local authorities in the Union, provided of course, that in the opinion of the Minister of Finance such local authorities are capable of conducting such an institution as that envisaged in the Bill. The principle of the Bill briefly is that it is an endeavour to encourage thrift through the medium of savings, and the utilisation of such savings, subject of course to certain safeguards and within certain limitations, in the direction of facilitating the ownership of homes. The scope and purpose of the Bill is limited. First, it is confined to the erection of dwellings, and it cannot in any way be used to deal with flats and similar buildings or business premises. Secondly, such dwelling houses can only be built within the jurisdiction of a local authority, and cannot be built in any place in any part of the Union. In regard to the amounts these are limited in the following manner: Firstly, the maximum amount that can be advanced to any one individual is £2,000. His total deposits cannot at any one time exceed £2,000, and his individual deposits must not exceed £1,000 on current account, and £10,000 for fixed periods. Fourthly, not more than 70 per cent. of his deposits can be invested in stocks, debentures, bonds, etc., and one further point is that the Bill provides for the savings and housing institutions, but let me say that these provisions are in no way obligatory upon any local authority, and such institutions are of a non-profit-bearing nature, and by virtue of that fact and the fact that the administrative charges are reduced to a bare minimum, the following facts will emerge: (1) Money can be borrowed at very cheap rates; (2) because there are low administration and management costs, it is obvious that money can be lent at a very reasonable rate of interest. With those few facts, which briefly cover the provisions of the Bill, subject as I said to necessary safeguards in regard to the Provincial Administration or the Administrator having from time to time to check and audit the accounts, and to approve of loans. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is also subject to the provisions of the Housing Act; and I believe in these times, when one is thinking in terms of progressive social legislation, that this indeed is a move in the direction of tackling what is perhaps the major problem in our time, namely, housing. I am not unmindful of the fact that the responsibility for sub-economic housing is one that rests with this Government, but I do feel in regard to economic housing and in regard to the finding of funds, that this Government can wisely cooperate with local authorities in allowing them to accept a measure of responsibility in conjunction with the Government, to provide these housing schemes. In view of the facts I have given in regard to the low rate of interest—money on short term at 2½ per cent. and long term money at 3 per cent.—with low administration and management expenses, it is definitely within the bounds of probability that the local authorities, subject to certain safeguards and limitations, will be able to advance these moneys at a reasonable rate of 3 per cent. to 3¼ per cent. As I said, in view of the fact that this is a major social measure in the direction of providing homes and in encouraging ownership, which after all is one of the most fundamental principles of family life in this country, I hope that this House will approve of the second reading this afternoon. That being so, I again reiterate that provided I am given the opportunity this afternoon, I shall answer all the objections that are raised in this House, and with these few words I move, Sir.

The mover of this motion has been very commendably brief, commendably brief from his own point of view, but he has given the House no real information about the Bill, and we recognise the fact that the Bill is mainly concerned with housing and the provision of homes. As a matter of fact, if one examines the Bill one finds that the housing is only a peg to hang the savings bank on, and a very cursory examination of the Bill will show that there is no obligation whatever on the municipalities to institute a housing section of the savings bank. That is a point which has been pressed upon the House in 1942 and in 1943. But the hon. member has resisted every endeavour to improve the Bill in this respect, and making it a Housing Bill in reality. I want to refer to a statement by the hon. member for Fordsburg, then Umbilo, (Mr. Burnside) in which he stated that the 1941 Bill was withdrawn for the purpose of re-introducing it to the Provincial Council. The records which I consulted made no reference to this, and I want to make reparation, if I may call it this, and say I have examined the records of the Provincial Council, and I find that the ordinance was duly introduced into the Provincial Council in 1941. I hope my hon. friend will accept that. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and the Select Committee received intimation from the law advisers—I do not know whether it was the Government law advisers or their own law advisers—that it was ultra vires the powers of the Provincial Council, and for that reason the Select Committee reported that they could not go on with the Bill. For that reason it was discharged. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has been very industrious in his endeavours to saddle the opposition to the Bill on the Dominion Party. He has never lost an opportunity of saying that it was the Dominion Party that resisted the Bill. Now may I say that my own opposition to the Bill was due to the conviction which was forced upon me when I was a member of the Select Committee on the Durban Savings Bank Bill. My conviction was that it was a bad Bill, and even a pernicious Bill, and my opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the Dominion Party. As a matter of fact, you had the spectacle the other day when I resisted the motion for the introduction of the Bill, of my co-bencher opposing my view; so I want the House to realise that this opposition is not the opposition of the Dominion Party but my personal opposition, due to the conviction that the Bill is a bad one. May I just get on with the Bill itself? May I refer hon. members to Clause 6, where it states that the deposits received shall be invested in one or more of the following forms of security, and in no other manner. The sub-section (a) reads—

Now the principal Act specifies the sort of security in which that money may be invested, and if I may, I should like to refer to Act 62 of 1934. Section 24 which states that such portion of the funds of a registered society as are not held in cash or on deposit in the bank, shall be invested in certain forms of security, and Section 24 (e) states—

I join issue with the hon. member when he says “not less than,” for actually they may invest as much more above the 25 per cent. as they wish to. That is the absolute meaning of the clause. It means that, in their own minds they can insert “and as much more as they wish.” It is not a case of not less than 25 per cent., but as much more as they may wish—to quote Clause 6 (a)—

Mark those words, Mr. Speaker, “the balance thereof.” There may be no balance. To support my contention that the funds invested in the savings bank are liable to be invested in stock as laid down there, I would refer to a speech that was made last year by the hon. member who has moved this motion. This is an extract from the speech of his. I cannot put my hands on it, but in any case this is the gist of it, that if there is not sufficient demand for the funds of the savings bank for the purpose of erecting houses, between 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the total amount of the deposits may be invested in gilt-edged securities, municipal loans and funds of that sort, including the Electricity Supply Commission and others; and that goes to prove that there is no limitation or obligation on any municipality enjoying these powers, to establish a housing section, but they may at their own discretion invest between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the amounts put into the savings bank, either on current account or fixed deposit, in various Union securities, and not in housing. There is no obligation whatever on any municipality to establish a housing section in connection with the savings bank. It is purely optional. That is why I say the housing part of this Bill is merely a peg to hang the savings bank portion of it on. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, the mover of this motion, rebuked me for the attitude I took up when the Bill was introduced, and said that as there were 53 new members in the House, they were entitled to see the provisions of this Bill. I am afraid that the 53 new members are not taking sufficient interest in the debate, nor in the Bill, to be present in this House to be enlightened on its provisions. That is exactly where I join issue with my hon. friends. This is not a private fight. It was a private fight last year. But we have got away from that position, and it is so no longer. All the representatives of municipalities can join in for the simple reason that the provisions of this Bill now apply not only to Durban, but to every town of any size with a rateable valuation which may be approved by the Minister of Finance. As such, I think it is the duty of hon. members to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the provisions of this Bill, so that they may not allow matters to go by default simply through their own neglect. The hon. member, the mover, has stated that the administrative charges in connection with this savings bank and with any housing section established in connection therewith, are so minute as to enable the municipality to advance these moneys at a very low rate of interest. That matter cropped up in the Select Committee on the Private Bill, and the Town Treasurer of Durban stated that the existing municipal staff would be able to deal with this savings bank business in their stride, and that in fact there was no need for any additional staff whatsoever; with the machines they had, there would be no trouble and no additional expense. But I asked a question of the Town Treasurer of Durban, and the question was whether there was any congestion at the counters of the Town Treasury in Durban at that time, and he had to confess that there was considerable congestion, with long queues of people waiting to pay their ordinary municipal accounts, electric light and so forth. But he said additional premises were being brought into use by the municipality, and by that means it was hoped to relieve the congestion. How then could they open a savings department and a housing section in another building and still do without an additional expensive staff? I think that the matter is too absurb for words. The institution of such a savings bank and the institution of a housing section in connection with it will involve so much increased work that there would have to be additional staff provision, and therefore the reason given by the hon. the mover for supporting the Bill that a low rate of interest could be charged, falls to the ground. Now I want to deal with the duties placed on the Provincial Council. According to the Bill the auditors are enpowered to audit the whole of the accounts of the savings bank and housing scheme, and the auditors have to send all the documents and the report to the Registrar of Building Societies, I believe. An account and a report have also to be sent to the Administrator, who has to lay them before the Provincial Council. But there is nothing in the Bill to state that the Provincial Council may pass any strictures on the conduct of the department. In imposing duties upon the Provincial Council I think it is important that the provincial councils should be enabled to express an opinion on this Bill as it is today. I believe that quite recently the opinion has been expressed, at least by the Natal Provincial Council, to the Minister of Finance, that no legislation shall be introduced into the House of Assembly or Parliament of the Union, without the Provincial Council first being informed and consulted. Whether the Minister of Finance has yet replied to that representation or not, I do not know, but it was a perfectly logical request which I am sure the Minister of Finance should have replied to, and probably will reply to in due course. This is a Bill which imposes certain duties on the Provincial Councils and the Administrators of the Provinces; and later I shall move an amendment which will have the effect, if carried, of referring this Bill to the Provincial Councils of the Union for their examination and for their report. As to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Council with regard to audits and matters of that kind, if it were restricted to any particular province—well, in this connection I should like to repeat what the Minister of Finance stated on the 14th February, 1941. My hon. friend the member for Fordsburg stated definitely only a few weeks ago, that the question as to whether the Provincial Council had authority to pass such an Ordinance had been settled and, was no longer open to question. It has not been settled but I want to show my hon. friend what the actual position is. And for that purpose I shall first of all just refer to a statement by the Minister of Finance in 1941. This is what the Minister said—

as he was then—

Municipal Institutions is one of the powers quoted in the South Africa Act which the Provincial Councils of the Union may pass ordinances upon. Now, my opinion, and the opinion of the Minister, are reinforced by the proceedings of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Union. In the course of argument by one of the K.C.’s it was stated and supported by references to cases already established—

That was in the course of an appeal by the Durban Borough Council against a decision of the Natal Division of the Supreme Court in which the Municipality of Durban sought a declaration that the Provincial Council of Natal should pass an ordinance of this kind. I think if anything is needed to emphasise the fact that the Provincial Councils are the proper bodies to legislate on matters of this kind, then I think it is summed up very admirably in the speech of the Minister of Finance on that occasion. Now, I have been at some pains to discover what the motive is behind the persistent attitude of the instigators of a Bill of this kind, and candidly I must confess that I cannot discover it.

What about the findings of the Select Committee?

Perhaps the Select Committee members were not the equal of Mr. Graham Mackeurtan who was presenting the case for the Durban Borough Council. Now, looking at this Bill we find that the Bill was submitted to Parliament in 1942, and that it emerged from the Select Committee and was again submitted in 1943? But there was no reference there to bribery and corruption or to gifts in connection with the Administration. But in 1943 the Minister of Finance introduced an amendment which he placed on the Order Paper which set out certain offences and the penalties for such offences. Now I believe that the ordinary law of the country provides for the punishment on conviction of offenders in this connection. If a person is found guilty of bribery and corruption certain penalties can be imposed. Evidently it has been found necessary in this Bill to introduce a special clause to deal with bribery and corruption, and evidently if a councillor or an auditor is guilty of receiving a gift in connection with his duties, then the penalty provided is a fine of £100. And he is liable to a further six months’ imprisonment if he refuses to pay to the local authority the amount of such gift. But now should an official be guilty of anything of this sort, and be convicted, very short work is made of him. He gets his discharge from the service, and he gets no reference, and he finds it exceedingly difficult to find another job. But when it comes to the councillor the position is quite different. A councillor found guilty of corruption is liable to a penalty of £100. We had a case while the Select Committee was sitting. A councillor was convicted and fined £50. The case was under appeal while the Select Committee was sitting and the appeal was dismissed, and after it was dismissed the seat of the councillor was declared vacant because of some clause in the Ordinance. That, of course, is a deterrent to some extent, but it is not the punishment which would be inflicted on an auditor or an official, and I certainly think, if there is to be a punishment like that, it should be at least five times as much as what is provided now. I think I have said as much as need be said to explain to the House that this Bill is one for the establishment of a Savings Bank, and not necessarily for a housing scheme. The housing section of the Bill is merely a peg to hang the savings bank on. I suppose the prime mover in this matter is to be commended for his persistent efforts extending over more than ten years to bring this Bill on to the Statute Book. Certainly the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) was not the instigator of this. I believe the hon. member for Fordsburg was originally entrusted with the fortunes of the Bill. Unfortunately he met with a serious accident last year and the duty devolved upon the hon. member for Point. Actually this is a Bill introduced by one who is a member of the Durban City Council, and I say his persistence has been so great that I am sure it would be a proper reward for him if he could see it on the Statute Book. But he has to make it a very much different and very much better Bill before this House can allow it to go past the Committee stage. I say again that this Bill is a matter for the Provincial Councils, and I therefore want to move the following amendment: I move—

I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Jansen in 1935 in which he pointed out that under Standing Order No. 161 only two forms of amendment to the motion for the second reading of a Bill were admissible, viz.: (1) By omitting the word “now” and adding at the end of the motion the words “this day three months” or “this day six months,” or some other date, and (ii) by omitting all or some of the words after “That” and substituting words which state some special reason against the second reading of the Bill. Mr. Speaker Jansen added that in addition to these two forms of amendment it would be in order to move that the Order for the second reading be discharged and that the subject, of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for enquiry and report. For these reasons I am unable to accept the amendment in the form submitted.

May I put it in some other form?

The hon. member has resumed his seat and I regret he cannot therefore put it in another form.

The hon. member for Durban Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer) in the speech in which he introduced this Bill was brief and concise, disappointingly so to certain members, and gave the impression that he was setting out to create the feeling that this Bill was virtually the same as the Bill which was before the House last year. He indicated in effect that we were dealing here with a Bill which was on all fours with the City of Durban Savings Bank Bill, except insofar that the provisions of that Bill were now to be extended to all the approved local authorities of the Union. Well, it is not quite as simple as that. If it were as simple as that there would be no need for him to say anything—my position would be the same as it was when the second reading debate on that other Bill took place two years ago. I certainly have no desire to intervene in this debate. I have no desire to hold up the discussion in order to be dilatory in any way in coming to a decision on this particular Bill, but I must point out that in fact there are further amendments in this Bill as compared with the City of Durban Savings Bank Department’s Bill, and I must also point out that the particular amendment to which he has referred does raise a very important issue from my point of view. Now let me just ask the House to consider for a few minutes the history of this particular measure. In 1941 there was introduced by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) a Municipal Savings Bank Bill which purported to give powers to all the so-called major municipalities to start savings bank departments. I found it necessary, as Minister of Finance, to criticise that Bill, and I think it is very germane to the present discussion that I should recall one point which I made on that occasion. What I said then was this—

In other words I took exception to the Bill of the hon. member for Fordsburg in this regard on two grounds. The one was that we would have been taking away from the provincial authorities the effective supervision of the financing of local authorities, and the other was that in that Bill there was no limit to the extent to which a local authority might increase its borrowing powers by accepting deposits in its Municipal Savings Bank. That was the first Bill. Then there was introduced a private measure, “The City of Durban Savings Bank Bill.” That went to a Select Committee and in due course came to this House for a second reading. That Bill I indicated my willingness to accept, and in doing so I referred to this particular point of criticism which I levelled against the first Bill. The second point I made was this: I quote from what I said on the 27th February, 1942—

Now we have a third Bill which is no longer limited to Durban but which is applicable to all approved local authorities, but the approval will not be in the hands of the provincial authorities, but in the hands of the Minister of Finance. Now, I have no objection to the Minister of Finance having something to say about it, but I can see grave objection being taken to the fact of the provincial authorities having nothing to say about it. And may I say as one who has been severely criticised in Natal on the grounds that I am supposed—quite wrongly—to be hostile to provincial institutions, that I am surprised that a member who represents a Natal constituency should come with a Bill which undermines these provincial institutions. I also made the point last year that I accepted that Bill in regard to the City of Durban because there was in that. Bill a safeguard limiting the additional borrowing powers. Now, what was laid down was a suitable limit in relation to Durban. This Bill will apply the same limit to other municipalities of which the Minister may approve. But., what is suitable to Durban may not be suitable to Boksburg. It appears therefore that this matter is not quite so simple as the hon. member for Durban Point has represented it to be. I am very sorry that the hon. member did not consult me before he introduced this Bill, in regard to the form this Bill would take. Personally I would rather have preferred to have seen the Bill in the form of an empowering Bill, to enable municipalities, subject to the Consent of the Minister and the provincial authorities, to start building societies falling within the terms of the Building Society’s Act. And if this matter had the blessing not just of the Municipality of Durban, but of other municipalities of the Union generally, then I have no doubt that the United Municipal Executive would have come to discuss the matter with me, and that arrangements might have been made along these lines. That, I think, would have been the better way. But although my hon. friend has not followed what I described as the better way, I still am broadly in the same position in relation to this Bill as I was in relation to the Bill two years ago. I then pointed out that that Bill was a private measure—it was not a Government measure, the Government taking no definite lines in regard to it—it was a matter for members to deal with as they pleased. That is also the position in regard to this Bill. I further indicated in regard to that Bill two years ago that I personally would be prepared to vote for the second reading, subject, however, to certain amendments being made. That is my position again today. I am not opposing the second reading of this Bill now. I am prepared to vote for the second reading, but again I make this condition, that certain amendments should be made. In the first place, amendments will have to be made, which will need a good deal of careful study, which will safeguard the position of the Provincial Administration, and to lay down in rather greater detail than this Bill does what is to happen before the application of a municipality to start a savings bank can be considered. This Bill lays down no procedure. I suppose, according to this Bill, the application might come from a committee of a municipality. There is no indication to what extent this application must have the full support of the municipality. There is no indication what procedure will have been followed in the town council before the application is considered. There are other points of that kind which will have to be considered carefully before this Bill becomes law. There is the further point to be considered as to the fixing of a suitable maximum deposit limit, having regard to the financial position of each municipality severally. The limit which the Select Committee fixed in the case of Durban was £2,000,000, but this would not necessarily be a suitable limit for a smaller municipality. Apart from that, my main point is that some provision will have to be made in the committee stage for making it quite clear that we are not going to override the provincial authorities in regard to this important matter. I am rather surprised that such a proposal should have come from an hon. member representing a Natal constituency. I think further that the Bill does go further than the Bill of last year suggested. May I draw his attention to Clause 11 of the Bill, which deals with the making of regulations. That clause makes no provision whatever for the repeal or the alteration of regulations once made. It makes no provision for the making of new regulations; it makes no provision for the approval of regulations. That clause certainly does not leave the Bill as it was last year, and that clause will have to have very serious consideration. Furthermore, there are other minor amendments it will be necessary to move to which I do not need to refer now. The hon. member, in drafting this Bill, embodied in the Bill the amendments which I had on the Order Paper last year, and some of which were based on the building society law as it then stood, but in embodying these amendments, the hon. member has forgotten that the building society law has since been amended, and some of the amendments he has inserted in his Bill are amendments based on the law as it used to be, and not on the law as it is today. Certain of the clauses in the Bill will therefore have to be considered from that point of view. Certain other amendments will need consideration. There is, for instance, the amendment which the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) put on the Order Paper last year, and which I would have been disposed to support last year, and on that account I did not move any amendment at that stage, and which I now mention as a desirable amendment; that deals with the application of profits to a reserve fund. That seems to me a desirable amendment. But I would again say that while this matter is left to the free vote of the House as far as the Government is concerned, and while I personally am prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill, I only do so with the reservation that quite a considerable amount of amending should take place at the Committee stage.

After the Minister’s reply, or at least after the remarks he has made, it is perfectly clear that there is no chance whatsoever of this Bill being put into force this year, and that it would be much wiser for the people interested to introduce a new Bill at a later stage, later on in the Session. Then the difficulty in regard to the whole matter can be removed and there may be a chance of it being passed. It is also perfectly clear, after the speech by the Minister of Finance, that it is practically impossible even to get the second reading of the Bill through the House this Session; in view of that fact, and also the fact that the next Order is a very important one, namely, the debate on price control, I think it would benefit the House and the country more if the debate on the other subject were now proceeded with, and if this Bill were postponed until a later date. I therefore move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—26:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bell, R. E.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Hare, W. D.

Le Roux, J. N.

Maclean, J.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

State, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waring, F. W.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—43:

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, H. J.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, A. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friend, G. A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth F. T.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann. K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: C. W. Clark and R. B. Robertson.

Motion accordingly negatived.

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

When this Bill was first read I, as a back bencher, felt very diffident indeed about supporting it. One cannot help feeling that if a Bill is worth having, and it is a national Bill, that any Government, even for the sake of its own popularity, would do all it possibly could to bring that good measure forward. It only shows when a measure of this sort is brought in as an unparty measure, that there must be a great deal of suspicion attached to it. It is obviously not so fair as it seems on the surface, so one feels hesitant about supporting anything of that sort without subjecting it to scrutiny under a very strong microscope to ascertain whether it contains any inequalities. This Bill has been up several times, and I still feel that it is not required. If we accept a measure of this kind and allow it to become law, it will not be long before more powers are required by the municipalities. They will find that they will want still greater powers in regard to such things as collateral securities, and from dealing with collateral securities, they will become ordinary banks, and that will be the beginning of the end so far as the banking system is concerned. Because once municipalities are able to establish banks of their own, the next thing will be that the Labour Party or some other party will think that it will be the best thing for the country to have a national bank, a bank run by the State, and God help us if ever we go as far as that. I thoroughly believe in the banking systems we have now, and there is no doubt that the stability of South Africa is largely dependent on the conservative policy of our banking system, because ultimately if you are going to make for prosperity and security, you must, be conservative in this connection. You cannot possibly have wildcat ideas in connection with banking. It is far too serious a business, and far too far-reaching. Mr. Speaker you as a student of South African history and many of us in South Africa, will remember that the system of local banks is by no means a new one. There were a number of local banks in the old days in the country towns of the Cape Province. In those old days, when the only means of conveyance between the different towns was the ox-wagon, and there was no such thing as a telegram—I am speaking of 1840, 1850, and 1860—it was the custom for a group of merchants and some of the leading farmers and the professional men in small towns like Graaff-Reinet, Grahamstown and Beaufort West, to have local banks. I think these towns all had banks, or nearly all of them. Coin was difficult to transport, and these little banks used to issue notes of their own pledged presumably on themselves. There came a day when there was a big depression, and they very soon felt the breath of this depression, and these little banks became very rickety indeed. You cannot tell me that even a city like Durban is not going to have its rickety times as well and its depressions. When funds are obtained on the security of buildings in the town, it must be remembered that the valuations of these buildings have their ups and downs, that there is a large margin indeed for contraction and expansion, and that high values cannot always be maintained, it is quite possible that the lenders of the money may find themselves in the cart. In connection with these little banks in the Cape Colony, I may add that they became so very rickety that at last a very outstanding man and a very fine character—I do not know why a monument has never been erected to his memory—I am referring to Mr. John Patterson, of Port Elizabeth, conceived the idea of amalgamating these concerns and putting them on a proper basis. He proceeded to England and managed to get the Bank of Westminster interested, and eventually the Standard Bank of South Africa was floated on the strength of a number of these concerns. It was a very fine piece of work indeed. Mr. John Patterson was also responsible for the formation of a couple of insurance companies in South Africa, and for the erection of the Town Hall at Port Elizabeth, as well as the sea wall, but in spite of these achievements I have not seen any monument to this gentleman in Port Elizabeth, leading figure in his day though he was. Unfortunately, that gentleman met a very tragic end. Returning to England after two shipwrecks, he was drowned whilst being rescued from one of the shipwrecks, and whilst he was being conveyed to another ship. When Mr. Patterson died his work was continued in the Standard Bank, until we have an institution now which enjoys world-wide celebrity, and offers the utmost security. That bank and the other bank, Barclays Bank, and our own Reserve Bank, have certainly given this country an enormous amount of security, and I am quite sure the Minister of Finance has derived a large measure of support from those institutions. Without those institutions he would not have gone very far in finding money to carry on the war. We also have to be dependent very largely on those banks to secure the funds that will be necessary for our security scheme. Supposing we were to allow those small banking concerns to carry on, what might have happened? I shall draw a picture as I see it. Today there is a great deal of inflation in connection with landed property. It is suggested that these banks should be allowed to advance loans up to 80 per cent. of the value of the houses. Under the scheme people are to be allowed to buy houses or to build houses. Today valuations are just anywhere. Would you launch this concern at a time of great prosperity when there is a good deal of inflation? I know from personal experience how great that inflation has been of late years. Only last week a property was sold which I personally valued for a company with which I am connected, in which I am a director, at £2,800. The property was sold just about that time, four years ago, at that price. It was subsequently resold for £2,600, and yet last week that property was sold for £4,700. In another case at Sea Point a property was sold shortly before the war for £1,800, and it has since been sold for £3,000. In yet another case that I know of a property was valued at £4,700 about five years ago, and it changed hands the other day at £10,700, and a building society came forward and lent them money on first mortgage to the tune of £10,000 on this property that is not worth half that amount. I instance these cases because one can foresee that if these banks are to be carried on by the municipalities it will not be very long before they are very much involved in these various transactions. A great deal of money which might otherwise be devoted to social security schemes will be locked up in bricks and mortar, in buildings bought at far above the price representing the real value. The only people that will benefit are those people who will have sold their houses at a rattling good profit. These are the people who will profit as a result of this Bill. At one time we thought that this Bill was only going to be applied to Durban, but I always had my suspicions, indeed I quite foresaw, it would not be long before further powers would be asked for on behalf of other municipalities; and where are you going to draw the line? How far are you going with these small municipalities. What are you going to call a big municipality, and what is going to be a small municipality? All of us who have been on Municipal Councils know that there is not that keen interest taken that would be taken by some outside body in the financial concerns of a council. That is to say the municipal councillors would not be interested to the same extent as outside bodies would, and often you find, too, that some friends will get a loan over and above what they should get. This whole business is open to abuse. In some cases a plot is valued very much over what it should be valued at, and who is to intervene. You may say, “We shall give provincials councils power,” but what happens today? The provincial councils have the power to supervise the granting of loans under the Housing Loan Scheme, but what sort of supervision do they exercise? The method used to be for the applicant to make an application to the town council for a loan to build a house. He selected his site, the town council bought that sight and built the house according to a plan, and they supervised the building themselves to save the architect’s fees. Afterwards the man entered into an agreement to pay back by instalments plus the interest due. Incidentally, I wonder what will happen in regard to the extra transfer duties. In the old days the transfer duties used to be based on 2 per cent., now it is 4 per cent. Who will pay—the municipality or the owner of the house when transfer is taken? I can see considerable difficulties there. Anyway, the whole principle is that the inflation during the war is going to cause tremendous insecurity in connection with these loans, and I do not think the House realises how great that danger is. Besides that, you have any number of institutions lending money today, it is not only the State lending money, but you have some municipalities which have power to raise money so that they can build houses or lend money for house building. You have money advanced by the State and you have the building societies which have tremendous amounts available on very easy terms. Surely 4 per cent. is not an exorbitant amount to charge for a fully paid loan. Now I can see some very bad things happening. You may have people making some money out of some diamond or gold mining concern, and a bright picture may be painted of the prospects of some small township. You will see these people put their shillings or their pennies into some scheme of this kind. They put their money into the Municipal Savings Bank. Then the crash comes and the thing they have been making their money out of disappears. They turn to the municipality for their money and the municipality only has 5 per cent. of the money available. Well, they take all they can get. Where is the other money to come from? It is either the State or the Provincial Council which has to come to their rescue to get them out of their mess. It will not be the first time there has been such a mess. We had a very difficult condition some time ago in regard to some of these trust companies. They were very much in the shade. But they were pulled right, but it was a case of touch and go. Now we are going to perpetuate that sort of thing on a much larger scale. Another case comes to my mind. We had two more or less flourishing banks here. The Cape of Good Hope Bank and the Union Bank; both of them failed. The trouble started through the defalcations of a man named Lippert who forged Mr. Cecil Rhodes’ name to the tune of £400,000. Well, Mr. Rhodes repudiated that. The case was taken to court and there was a run on the bank. There were all sorts of revelations. It was found that some of the directors had helped themselves very freely to the bank’s funds, and other directors were deeply involved in respect of unsecured overdrafts. Now, what is there to prevent the same sort of thing happening here? These savings banks may lend money far beyond what they should do, and you may find in the long run that the directors may help themselves. Then who is going to put things right, except the municipality—and the only way the municipality can do so is through the rates? I remember going to East London once when there were two towns, one on each side of the river; one could count the houses on each side. Well, we must be very grateful indeed. Then another reason why I am so much afraid is this, we may make this the thin end of the wedge. Some time or other, when this House is not in a very attentive mood it may pass legislation empowering the State to have State Banks. What then? All of us who are members of Parliament—especially if both sides are evenly balanced—will know which way our bread is buttered and many members may get a loan even on little or no security. And it will not be the first time.…

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am showing that if you are not careful you may bring about such a state of affairs, where even legislators may be able to help themselves to funds to which they are otherwise not entitled. I am very much afraid of State banks. If you are going to have banks of this kind for municipalities, it is possible that they will degenerate into State banks which are quite unreliable. I hope this House will take this matter into serious consideration and will not pass this Bill, because if it is passed it will mean opening the door to many abuses which we know nothing about at present. In regard to State loans—it may mean advancing money on property which is very much inflated. If you give power to a City Council to advance loans on property, Councillors may see very much more value in a property than there is in it. The Province, the Provincial Council, is supposed to look after the interests of the people but it does not do so because the municipality borrows money with the consent of the Province, and then lends money to the individual, and as long as the municipality is security the Province does not care. It is a matter of form for a municipality to go to the Province for a loan—I have never known the Province say no, because the Province is quite satisfied with the security of the municipality. What is going to be the position of those poor people who have worked hard to save a little money, who have invested their money, and who will then find that all their money has disappeared through inflation. The municipality will give them a note of hand—and the money may or may not be paid back. We are asked in this Bill, and we are also asked by the Minister of Finance, to do all we can do to encourage thrift, and to teach the children thrift—to save their shillings and their pennies. But what is the good of thrift? Take the case of a man who has been able to save a bit of money—he has been able to help the State by lending it £100,000, but as soon as he dies his unfortunate widow is mulcted to the extent of 33⅓ per cent. It does not encourage people to be thrifty.

On a point of order, is the hon. member permitted now to discuss the Minister’s new taxation proposals?

I was just going to ask the hon. member to come back to the question before the House.

Yes, I am afraid I wandered somewhat and I apologise. To conclude, I hope the House will think twice before passing this Bill in any form whatever. Let us veto it once and for all. Do not let us be led away by all kinds of wildcat schemes under the impression that they will make for social security; they will not make for social security—they will only help some speculators.

It is with great reluctance that I rise to speak for the sixth time on this measure. The mover will no doubt try and persuade this House that this is a different thing, but it is not. It is an effort to introduce the principle of a State Bank. That is what is behind this measure.

Well, what is the Land Bank?

That is proved by the ominous silence of the Labour Party; they are afraid they may let the cat out of the bag, that is why they keep quiet. There is one thing I want to congratulate the mover on and that is his consistency. He has consistently remained passively silent. Many questions have been put to him but he has always refrained from answering them. This morning he spoke for a few minutes, when he made various statements—all of which the Minister of Finance has dissociated himself from. It is unfortunate that we again have to waste our time and energy on this Bill. It has had many vicissitudes. It has taken up a great deal of the time of the City Council of Durban over the last ten years, and it has cost the ratepayers of Durban more than £10,000 in order to foster this “unwanted baby” of Councillor Sydney Smith. He is the father of this measure. It has been before the Provincial Council on three occasions, and it has been turned down for various reasons.

Six times.

I must protest against the interjections from the Labour Party. They don’t want to speak, and now they want to prevent me from doing so. On the last occasion this matter came before the Provincial Council it was turned down, and I have been told by a Provincial Councillor the reason why, namely that the Labour Party when it had a preponderance in the City Council had the opportunity of borrowing millions from the Housing Board at a very low rate of interest and they refrained from doing so. The Provincial Council therefore felt that the Durban City Council was not consistent in now coming to the Provincial Council and asking for this Savings Bank in order to raise money for housing. For ten years they had had the opportunity of borrowing millions for housing, but they had not availed themselves of that opportunity—not to the extent of a single penny.

That, of course, is nonsense.

One can readily see why the Provincial Council turned down this Bill. And now I ask, “Who wants this Bill?”

We do; the House does.

The hon. member who introduced this Bill has not told the House; he has not told the fifty-three new members, what the ins and outs of this scheme are. As a matter of fact nobody but he and Councillor Sydney Smith want this Bill.

What about the daily news?

It is a strange thing that in October, 1942, we had a municipal election in Durban, and this Bill was very much in the forefront. It was known that it would come up again the next session of Parliament. Four Labour members made this Bill the principal plank of their platform—only one of them was returned.

On a point of order, is it relevant for the hon. member to discuss the question of the Durban municipal elections on the subject of this Bill which will apply to nearly all the minor municipalities in the country?

I followed the hon. member’s argument. He was discusing the origin of the Bill—he was pointing out how the Bill originated, and that the appeal of certain people in Durban who supported this Bill was rejected by the Durban ratepayers. That was his argument, and I consider it quite relevant.

That was not his argument.

Order, order!

His argument was directed against my section …

Was there something shady about the elections?

No, there is something shady about the Opposition.

I was trying to point out that only two people want this Bill. I have pointed out that out of the four Labour members who made this Bill the principal plank of their platform, only one was returned. It is a very strange thing that on the 6th January of this year the City Council of Durban decided to call a joint meeting of senators, members of Parliament, members of the Provincial Council and City Councillors, to debate the postwar programme of reconstruction. They went to great length in preparing a brochure enumerating their various activities, but found they had certain difficulties in getting their programme through. They wanted to enlist the sympathy of senators, of Members of Parliament and of Provincial Councillors, and that was why this meeting was called. The hon. member who moved the second reading of this Bill was present. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) stood up and welcomed the idea of holding this meeting. He welcomed the idea of Durban having its difficulties placed before a meeting of that kind.

On a point of order, may I draw attention to the fact that this argument which the hon. member is now using has been used four times in this debate.

Not on this stage of the Bill. The hon. member is quite in order in using that argument.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that the same argument has now been used four times.

At a different stage.

Is the hon. member entitled to repeat the same thing four times? May I be allowed to move—

No, I am not prepared to accept the clause at this stage.

I won’t pursue that very much further. We met the City Council of Durban, and we sat for a whole day but there was no mention of the Savings Bank Bill. I do not see how the hon. member can claim that the City Council of Durban wants this Bill, or that any other council wants it. I say that the City Council of Durban has no interest in this Bill. Yesterday I received a telegram from the Town Clerk of Durban—I won’t read the whole wire but this is what he said—

There is not a word about this Bill. The City Council was quite aware that this Bill was coming before the House this afternoon but there is not a word from them here about the Banking Bill. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I have satisfied the House that Durban, at any rate, is not interested in this Banking Bill. Another curious thing is this. After the last Session of Parliament, I returned to Durban, my home town, and seeing that a general election was in the offing, I immediately set to work to visit as many of my constituents as possible. I had a run round my constituency every day.

Is the hon. member’s peregrinations through his constituency at the last election relevant?

I am waiting to see when the hon. member comes to the point.

. It appears to be taking him a very long time.

I hope that the hon. member is not going to trifle with the Chair.

No, but I suggest that the hon. member is deliberately trifling with the House, and it seems like a policy of obstruction.

You ought to withdraw.

Order, order.

I am not going to withdraw.

Then you ought to go out of the House.

It was a strange thing, going round my constituency, to find that on not one single occasion was this Bill mentioned. If the voters had been interested, surely someone would have spoken about it and have said: “I am sorry the Bill has been thrown out” or “I am glad that the Bill has been thrown out,” but nobody ever mentioned it. I think that was sufficient proof that the country is not interested in the Bill. There is another point in connection with this Bill. To my mind the Bill is encroaching on the prerogatives of the Provincial Council, and as my hon. friend the member for South Coast. (Mr. Neate) stated, the Act of Union lays down that municipal institutions shall be approved by the Provincial Council. We in Natal are very jealous of the rights of our Provincial Council. It was a burning question at the time of Union whether we should have federation or unification or provincial councils, and eventually Natal was given, by way of consolation, a provincial council, and we are very jealous of its rights. I think that this is a definite encroachment on the rights of the Provincial Council, and as a former speaker said, it is very unbecoming that a Natal member should introduce into this House a measure which will deprive the Provincial Council of certain rights. Another point is this, that if a municipality wishes to raise a loan, or to introduce any by-laws, they have to go to their respective provincial councils for ratification. The Provincial Council by the exercise of its functions, enables a city council like that of Durban, to raise large sums of money for constructive work, and in the past, the Ministers of Finance have refused to allow the provincial councils to borrow any money.

They can borrow money.

No Provincial Council, even today after the Union has been in existence for 34 years, has been given the power to borrow money.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

That has a lot to do with the Bill. If the Provincial Council is not allowed to borrow money, why should this House enable or permit a city council to borrow money? Obviously it is a matter which should come before the Provincial Council. I am still trying to prove to this House that the people of Durban do not want this measure. Recently, looking at an advertisement in a Durban paper in connection with the by-election now in progress, an advertisement appeared on the 28th February by one Norman Mitchell, who styles himself as an Independent Labour candidate. I notice that although his manifesto deals with ten different subjects, there is not one word about the Banking Bill, although he deals with all sorts of other subjects. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that the people of South Africa do not want this measure.

Durban is not South Africa.

What Durban thinks today South Africa thinks tomorrow. This Bill invites irregularities in our municipal institutions. I think that is a matter to be avoided, and I have some misgivings on this matter in Clause 15 of the Bill. Clause 15 refers to “gifts.” I think that anybody who calls a spade a spade would refer to them as “bribes.” Furthermore, I think this clause is rather a reflection on the city fathers of various towns and cities in the Union. To introduce a measure and to state that the city fathers are not allowed to receive bribes, is to my mind, a reflection on them. I think that the common law deals with any public people who receive bribes, and why should it be necessary to insert this provision in the Bill; it passes my comprehension. What the Bill does not do is to state how these people are to be “found out”—the people who receive these gifts. Are we to assume that we must have policemen sitting on the back steps of their houses to see that no gifts arrive. No, Sir, the more I probe into this Bill the more I dislike it. Another criticism I have to make is that to lend 90 per cent. on the value of property is unsound finance, especially in times like the present, when prices are very inflated. Then in regard to the reference to 90 per cent. of the value of the property, it is stated that the value is to be “reasonably determined.” What do they mean by “reasonably determined”? That is an expression that anybody can twist in any way he likes. It simply opens the door to abuse. Another point which I object to in this Bill is that it imposes a charge upon the rates. Everybody who knows anything about municipal work, knows that the chief asset which a town has, when it applies for a loan for capital expenditure, is the security of the rates. Now supposing the town has a shaky savings bank, which it is trying to uphold, it means that that town is going to be prejudiced, when it comes to borrowing money for development. I think this is all a very dangerous experiment. Why should the rates be burdened with this responsibility. I am a very considerable ratepayer in Durban not because I own a lot of property, but because the value of the property has been put up and the rate as well and it is a very serious matter to a great many people to have to find the additional rate. Now we have the danger here of the situation being made even worse by putting these powers into the hands of municipalities. This is a very dangerous way of handling public money. When it comes to a municipal undertaking having a monopoly, there is a chance of it being successful; there is a possibility of the undertaking paying its way. This possibility exists when the undertaking has no competition to face. We have an instance in the Johannesburg Tramways which is a monopoly, and in the Durban Tramways, which is also a monopoly. Both of them are not paying undertakings, though they have no opposition and no competition. The only tramway undertaking in South Africa that pays a dividend is the Cape Town Tramway Company—a private concern.

That is a monopoly.

It may be a monopoly, but it is a private concern. That is my point, that public concerns do not pay even if they have a monopoly, while private concerns do pay. To return to my point; this bank which the mover wants to plant on South Africa, will not have a monopoly. It will have to compete with building societies, and if a municipal undertaking cannot be made to pay when it enjoys monopoly, how is it going to pay when it has to compete with private enterprise? It is all bound to come back on the rates of the town.

Why are you objecting to it?

I object to it on principle. I object to it because it is a surreptitious manner of introducing the principle of state banking in South Africa. The proof is that here we have the loquacious members of the Labour Party keeping silent. They do not want to give the show away. They are all keeping silent except the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) who keeps on interrupting. There is another point which was raised in a former debate, a few Sessions ago, by the hon. the Minister of Mines, which was, that owing to the setting up of so many municipal trading concerns—utility concerns I will call them—and the allocation of so many matters to the local authority which strictly speaking hardly fall within their scope, too much work is being placed on the shoulders of our city councillors and they cannot properly cope with them. I have had experience as a city councillor, and I can assure you, Sir, it is practically a full time job these days with all the undertakings that municipalities have to handle. Here, again, we have another undertaking which it is proposed to plant on the municipalities of South Africa. I am afraid I have not expressed myself as well as the hon. the Minister did, when he made his speech. I beg leave to quote his words. This is what the hon. the Minister said—

Mr. Speaker, these are very telling words, and I think the House before they adopt a Bill of this sort, should seriously consider whether it is advisable to place still more responsibility on the shoulders of our city councils throughout the country. Another point is this. As everyone knows, we are faced with a very serious problem in regard to Asiatic penetration. This is a subject that is very acute in Natal especially, but it also arises in the Transvaal. The line of action of the Asiatics is to try to buy property in a European urban area, and then to get other people in the neighbourhood to sell their property, so that gradually the area becomes an Asiatic locality; that is the plan on which they work. I should like to know what safeguard we would have against that sort of thing happening under the housing scheme contemplated in this Bill. What is to prevent the Indian coming in under the housing scheme.…

I must again rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member relevant?

No, I was about to ask the hon. member to come back to the subject of the Bill. We are not discussing the Indian problem, except in so far as it may be affected by this Bill.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. Some hon. members in favour of this Bill will say that it is hedged round with restrictions, but we all know what such restrictions amount to. A Bill is passed with special powers given for making regulations, a point which the hon. Minister of Finance referred to, and eventually one finds that a number of regulations are passed. True, they come within the scope of the Bill, but they introduce different ideas to those contemplated by Parliament when passing the measure. What. I am afraid of is that if the Bill becomes law, in due course there will be amendments, and it will become a more dangerous measure even than it is today, on the face of it. If the claim is made that the Bill is going to enable people to invest their money, and to encourage thrift, surely we have at present sufficient institutions in South Africa for saving small sums of money—the post office savings bank is one. So I do not think that argument really holds good. I should like to refer to another clause in this Bill. Clause 6 (b) (i). I should like to read it for the benefit of the 53 new members, especially as we have not had the point emphasised yet. This is how the last paragraph of that sub-section reads—

I join issue with the hon. member, the mover. I agree that the amount should be limited to £2,000, and I agree that the applicant should be a man in good standing, but why should not the small man have preference? I am a democrat. I believe in assisting the man with small means rather than the rich man. But the effect of this is that the rich man is given preference, not the poor man. I am against it. I think that the clause should provide for the small man being given preference.

The Bill does provide that very clearly.

It says here “for the smallest amount.” Well, it is the rich man who will want the smallest amount.

What nonsense!

It is not the rich man who wants the big amount, it is the poor man. I think that in the Committee stage it should be made clear that the man with limited means should have the preference over the other man.

That is what the Bill says.

I thank you, Sir, for the manner in which you have guided the House, and I express the hope that the Bill will not pass the second reading.

I am not particularly anxious to join in the dispute between hon. members from Natal. It is just after lunch and perhaps that is the explanation. In any case, this side of the House has not yet expressed its opinion on the merits of the Bill and as there are some very important principles involved in this measure, I feel that I should say a few words about it, and I hope hon. members from Natal who have their own little troubles will give me the opportunity of putting forward those aspects. We may assume of course, that nobody disagrees with the ideas expressed by the mover of this Bill, or the motive he aims at—to encourage thrift and to obtain funds out of savings to secure proper housing, which undoubtedly is a very serious problem in South Africa today. Anyhow, if we assume those to be the principal motives of the Bill and I take it that they are the two principal motives, then we are apt to become a little anxious about the implications of the two chief motives, we are apt to become nervous about the provisions of the Bill itself and about the implications inherent in the provisions of the Bill. If there is one section of the population of South Africa which should be encouraged to save on its precarious earnings, it is that section which has a very small income, which has not got the chance of indulging in bigger investments, but which in the course of time has to save up a certain amount of money and so to try over a long period to build up a fund. But if I look at the provisions of this Bill it would appear to me that the motive is not to induce the small man to save, but rather to give the big man an opportunity of coming into this scheme as well. In clause 4, there is a provision that anyone may on application invest amounts up to £1,000 but anyone who wants to make a long term investment can do so up to £10,000, and he can invest his £10,000 in what is really intended to be a big savings club. If it is intended to encourage thrift on the part of the small man, I must say that we are very sympathetically disposed, but when the provisions of the Bill go to the extent of making it possible for a man to invest even £10,000 then it no longer is a matter for the small man, but the big man comes in and the real motive of the Bill is lost sight of. The big men have other opportunities of investing their money, and I therefore say that the provisions of this Bill do not even bring to the fore the “thrift motive” so far as the small man is concerned. The second motive undoubtedly is one to which the whole country is today devoting its attention, because housing is one of the most urgent problems here. I am not talking about Durban, but I know what the position is in certain rural areas and in certain towns, and I say that the position in regard to housing is so urgent and so tragic that we must do all we can to improve it. I quite appreciate that the mover of this Bill is concerned about the position, and that he wants to find another method of securing funds to provide for this urgent demand to meet the needs of the people. I quite appreciate that, but I contend that the housing shortage, the needs which he realises, are not due to lack of funds. There is ample money today for housing. There are other reasons why the housing question is not being tackled on a big scale. And that being the case this Bill does not comply with that motive. These provisions of the Bill will not improve the position because the real causes are beyond the provisions of this Bill. There are a few very dangerous principles contained in this Bill. The Bill aims at establishing banks under the aegis of certain municipalities. I do not want to deal with the views expressed from various sides of the House, namely that this is an indirect effort to incorporate banking institutions under local authorities, municipalities, town councils and so on. Whatever we may think of the desirability or otherwise of a State Bank we can at any rate rest assured that a State Bank is an ad hoc institution, that it will be an institution which will be circumscribed by legislation, and that the State will see to it that it is properly managed by men of experience, by men with a knowledge of affairs, men of judgment, and executive ability but where a law of a general nature provides for town councils indirectly to get banking organisations under their wings, there one does not only go beyond the ordinary scope of municipalities but a sphere of work is created where great difficulties may arise and where there may be serious mismanagement. This is a dangerous principle. We have the greatest respect for the work done by municipalities. Some municipalities do excellent work, but it is a dangerous step to place this responsibility on them—a responsibility beyond the experience of municipalities. That being so, it is dangerous to place this new banking enterprise in the hands of the municipal councils. If it actually has to be a savings bank there are many facilities in existence today. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that one of the institutions in this country which has done more than others for the promotion of thrift among our poor people is “Ons Eerste Volksbank” in Pretoria. Ons Eerste Volksbank is not a very big institution. If the mover of this Bill wants to do something to promote thrift among the poor workers. I would advise him to study the work done by Ons Eerste Volksbank in Pretoria, and to model his proposal on that institution. I think that by doing so he would render the country a real service. There we have an organisation for which the members are responsible and not the municipal councils. But besides that there are many building societies which are conducted under similar conditions. There is no need in the circumstances to pass a special law with special conditions to give town councils general powers. Let us use the laws we have. The Minister of Finance introduced a Banking Act about two years ago and the provisions of that Act also enable people to club together to form a savings organisation. Whatever the motive may be, it is undesirable to place this type of organisation under the aegis of municipalities. Secondly, there is ample legislation by which the very same ideals can be achieved. I referred earlier on to Ons Eerste Volksbank in Pretoria. I would advise the mover to study the work of that bank. I really got up, however, to speak about the inherent danger of this Bill. In Clause 2 of the Bill the length of time over which investments or deposits can be called up is defined. Clause 2 defines the term over which deposits can be called up. Now, that leaves two alternatives. The one is in respect of investments which can be called up within thirty days—and notice has to be given of the depositor’s intention to call up his money. Secondly, provision is made for long-term investments of at least one year. All investments therefore can be called up within twelve months. At its best therefore, as no provision is made for shares or bills, all these deposits are short-term deposits. And now we come to Clause 6 where those very same deposits must be made available to borrowers, and in this clause provision is made for only one quarter of the invested funds which are supposed to be fluid. In this connection I am not so much referring to the 25 per cent.; I refer more particularly to the 75 per cent. which can be lent out on bonds. There is a danger in this Bill—there is an inconsistency in the provisions under which the investors in municipal banks would be entitled to call up their last penny within twelve months, and on the other hand to invest that same money for indefinite periods. It is an anomaly, it is dangerous, and until such time as other provisions are inserted in this Bill, it cannot be put into operation. I don’t want to go into the details now about the investment of the 25 per cent. That investment can be entirely fluid. Whatever comes under the first 25 per cent. is safe, but the safety of the 75 per cent. will depend entirely on the security of the municipality itself. The 75 per cent. is covered by the assets of the municipality, but in times such as we must expect in the near future, in times of uncertainty, in times of inflation, in times of devaluation, and more particularly in times of depression, if people have investments and can call them up within twelve months, the immediate future is really a danger time to us, and the Minister of Finance a few years ago used this significant expression as a warning to the people of this country. He said “Memento Mori.” It is a warning to the municipal council which would be willing today to accept money from people to invest, and which at a critical period might be called upon to repay that money. Hon. members will realise what the difficulties and the consequences may be. It will, in all likelihood, be completely impossible for the smaller municipalities to repay the money, and if they have not got sufficient fluid capital to comply with the requirements of the law, these municipalities may be compelled to appeal to the Government. I myself unfortunately was once in the position of having to approach the Government for help on behalf of a municipality. That is the weakest point in this Bill—the provision under which it introduces short term deposits, and authorises municipalities to make long term investments. But there are a few other aspects of this Bill which also need our attention. I did not hear the Minister this morning when he commented on the possible implications of further credit institutions being established in this country. So far as I am personally concerned there is a question which causes me some concern; the State must have the power in future to exercise proper control over credit, to exercise control over the bodies granting credit. Some people think that a State bank is all-powerful. A State bank has at least one safety valve, that the machinery is in the hands of the State. When there are a whole lot of institutions in the country giving credit and supplying credit, the question arises what steps the Minister is going to take to achieve harmony in his control, or what measures he is going to take to apply to all the institutions giving credit; what steps is he going to take to enable the extension of credit at a particular moment, or the curtailment of credit at a particular moment? I am thinking particularly of our Reserve Bank. I feel that the more credit institutions are established the more difficult the position may become in times of crisis. I am convinced that there is no need for this type of legislation, in spite of the motives underlying its introduction. There are other means, but in addition to that the Bill contains some really dangerous principles, and I therefore hope the House will not accept this Bill at this stage. If we had more opportunity of going into all the details and of going fully into the whole position, possibly some different scheme might be devised by which funds could be used under proper safeguards for the building of houses and so on, but until such an investigation has been made and until such time as the organisation has been created, and the machinery has been developed, I feel I must oppose this Bill.

This is one of the most extraordinary Bills which has ever been before this House. I am rather inclined to think that the Bill has been carefully strangled by one of its pseudo friends, and the pseudo friend to whom I am referring is the hon. the Minister of Finance. I have come to the conclusion now that despite the grandiloquent language which is used with reference to this Bill by the hon. Minister, he definitely does not like it and I think it would be better policy on his part and on the part of the Government if he were to say so outright instead of making speeches on almost every occasion which can be used by the opponents of the Bill to prove that the Government does not want it. We of the Labour Party do consider this Bill as something that is going to help to re-organise the financial life of the country. It is a Bill which is in line with the principles and policies which we have always advocated. It is in line incidentally with the principles and policies to which the Minister of Finance has always been opposed, and we would like to know from him categorically, not in a round-about way, with all these marvellous phrases, whether he is in favour of municipal banking or whether he is not in favour of it. The answer appears to be that he is not. He is prepared to vote for the second reading when he knows that the second reading will never be voted upon. That is very easy. Then there is another thing. This Bill when it came before this House, introduced by myself as the member for Umbilo, was introduced not in the form in which it is now, because since that time the Bill has been gradually emasculated by the hon. Minister until I personally can see no resemblance to the original Bill. [Interruptions.] If the hon. member will keep quiet for a couple of years he will probably learn something about municipal banking. If he will concentrate on his own job he may succeed in doing something useful. What has not yet been cleared up is whether this matter is one for the Provincial Councils or not and we expect—nay we demand from the Government—that one Minister of the Crown shall not by merely expressing his personal opinion pull down what has been built up in four or five years. The Minister made it clear that it is only necessary for the obstructionists in this House to get up and read the speeches of the Minister to show that this Bill is talked out, but the Minister has not so far taken it upon himself to make it clear whether he accepts or rejects the opinion of the Law Advisers. If he accepts the opinion of the Law Advisers, then the question is at an end. If he rejects the opinion of the Law Advisers then we would like to know what he or the Government, is going to do about it. Hon. members may say that this is not a Bill of such tremendous importance that we should precipitate a constitutional crisis, or that we should get down to an understanding of what the position is. But a Bill of minor importance today may become a matter of major importance tomorrow, and we want to know whether we are in this country in such a position that one Minister can allow a Bill to be bandied backwards and forwards in this House because he has a stubborn opinion which is opposed to the opinion of the Law Advisers. [Interruptions.] No, my hon. friend is not stubborn; he is a silly ass.

Order order!

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Well, I apologise, I only thought he was. In a letter sent to the Select Committee of the Provincial Council, the Law Advisers said clearly that this question of municipal banking is beyond the powers of the Provincial Council. The Minister has stated on every possible occasion in this House that he disagrees with this opinion. He is the oracle which is now worshipped by the hon. members of the Dominion Party. It is most extraordinary. They have transferred their affections from the Minister of Mines to the Minister of Finance, and we now have to suffer on every occasion that this Bill comes before the House a statement on the constitutional position made by the Minister of Finance. What is this position? Do the Law Advisers decide constitutional matters in this country; does the Government decide constitutional matters in this country or are they decided by the Minister of Finance?

[Inaudible.]

As far as I understand the matter the Court of Appeal refused to decide. I am not a lawyer. My hon. friend may be, but I thought the Court of Appeal said that this was not a matter on which they were competent to give an opinion, and quite obviously the highest court is this particular House. This is the highest court in the country, and these questions are decided here; these questions are decided for us by the Government. What we want to know is whether the legal position is decided by the Law Advisers, whose advice it seems to me the Government must accept, or what is the use of having Law Advisers, or whether they are merely decided by the Minister of Finance.

I made that quite clear two years ago.

The Minister did not. He is still being quoted as saying that he was opposed to it.

I replied last year by saying what I had said two years ago, when I said that I accepted the opinion of the Law Advisers.

Then that question is cleared up, at any rate. It is proved now that this is a question not for the Provincial Councils; it is a question for Parliament itself. That should remove one of the greatest bones of contention. Now let us come to the Bill. The hon. Minister of Finance has been egg-dancing on this Bill for a long time. I do not know that anyone can ever suggest that the Labour Party is trying to use guile or that we have any naïve motive in connection with this Bill. Of course we are in favour of a State bank. We have introduced motions and amendments in this House for years pressing upon the Government of this country to introduce a State bank, and of course we do see in the introduction of municipal banks, at least the thin end of the wedge, and we are hoping quite honestly and with a great degree of optimism, to prove, through the success of the municipal banks where they have to compete with private banks, that a State bank, which has a monopoly would be the solution to the industrial and financial problems of this country. I do not know why hon. members want to say that we are doing something by guile. That is why I say that the Minister of Finance through his amendments and through his lukewarm acceptance of the Bill has placed us in the position that we are satisfied that because of his objection to State banking generally, he is not in favour of a Municipal Bank, and that he merely stated that he was prepared to vote for the Second Reading because he felt that he would never be called upon to implement his promise, and he knows that his amendments have so emasculated the Bill that no self-respecting municipality would use the provisions of this Bill. I have been talking now in the hope that the hon. member for Durban Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) might reappear in the House, but I presume after that superhuman effort to which we listened this afternoon, he is now reviving himself in the tea room. I must say that I have heard some bad speeches in the House; I am now referring to the arguments with reference to the subject concerned. I have probably made one or two myself, but I have never heard such unutterable drivel talked in this House.…

The hon. member must not make reflections on the speeches of other members.

I am talking about their arguments. I withdraw that. Let me put it this way, that the arguments did represent to me a complete lack of knowledge of the subject, a complete lack of thought of the Bill, and an understanding of the Fisheries Act. I say that because one hon. member talked about the Fisheries Bill when he spoke here and not about the Banking Bill, I want to say here and now—and I hope that I am not going to transgress your ruling again, Sir, that here we have come up against a thing that we come up against very often in this House and probably will continue to come up against, and that is an individual party which stands for the rights of vested interests, and I again want to accuse—despite the indignant denial of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate)—the Dominion Party of representing openly and flagrantly the rights of the building societies in this House.

You are quite wrong.

I say you do; and as far as the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) is concerned I say that he is representing in this House the vested interests of the estate agents in Natal of whom he is a very prominent member.

That has nothing to do with it; in any case he is not.

Well, he draw his profits from it; what is the difference? It is time we talked perfectly frankly in this House. I remember when this Bill was before the House on the last occasion, there never was an occasion that I remember when there was so much lobbying done by the vested interests. We had deputations day in and day out, and telegrams from morning till night. I say that the building societies spent thousands of pounds in an effort to beat the Bill of the hon. member for Durban Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer). They gave evidence before the Select Committee; they engaged very expensive counsel, and when they lost they sent telegram after telegram to the members of the Select Committee and we were all inundated with literature. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) and his colleagues suggest to us that a municipal banking system would not be a success, but quite obviously the building societies of this country think otherwise.

That was their case before the Select Committee.

Why should the building societies be worrying about the municipalities losing money? This is the first time I have known the building societies to worry about anybody else losing money; they are only concerned about not losing money themselves. But in the sacred interests of the Durban Municipality, we have building societies from Cape Town, Johannesburg, Oudtshoorn, and Ceres, contributing money to see that a Municipal Banking Act was not enacted by this House. Why? According to them, to save the ratepayers of this country money. Does anyone in this House really believe that? The truth of the matter was that these building societies knew and still know full well that a municipal banking scheme must be a success, that a municipal banking scheme would be able to lend money to the people of their towns for the building of houses at a rate of interest considerably below that which is charged by the building societies and they see that in the success of a municipal banking scheme throughout the country lies the death knell of the building societies themselves. We are perfectly frank. We would shed no tears over the demise of the building societies. We would send no wreaths even to the burials of their directors, because we know that the only way in which we are adequately going to deal with the housing problem in South Africa is by reducing the rate of interest charged on loans to the lowest possible amount. We feel that if we could bring down the rate of interest to something like 2 per cent.…

Or 1 per cent.

Or even 1 per cent. then there would be no more capitalists. We feel that if we could bring down the rate of interest to something like 2 per cent. we would be doing a job of inestimable value to the people of South Africa. I do not say that building societies in the past have not contributed within the capitalist system itself something towards the fact that probably South Africa is one of the most fortunate countries in the world in that it possesses probably more owned houses per head of the population than any other country.

That is owing to the building societies.

But we are not going to keep owing you all our lives, and the building societies do not lose on the deal.

Why should they?

They have had their pound of flesh and now we are going to get ours.

That is not reasonable; you cannot expect them to lose.

I am saying that the building societies have done their job. I am paying a tribute to them for having done it, but I say they have not done it out of any soul-stirring love for the people; they have not done it because they have embarked on a policy of seeing that we get houses. They have done it to get their 8 per cent. and they have made their 8 per cent., and in many instances that I know of they got more than 8 per cent., and I know of one occasion where the people of this country lost a very considerable amount of money through a building society.

That was only one case.

It was only one case, but it was a very big case, was it not?

No.

The hon. member may know better; he is probably one of the experts in it. The time has arrived to adopt other methods. Because certain things were efficacious in 1866, there is no reason why we should adopt them in the year 1944. As a matter of fact, there is a good reason why we should not. Everyone today is talking about reconstruction; everyone is talking about new ideas; everyone is thinking of ways and means of getting rid of the schemes that did not work before the war, and amongst them are the building societies and the banks. But my point is this, that we can see quite clearly that the financial system which existed before the war—and which exists in this country today—cannot continue afterwards. In the old countries the old financial system has gone. The lease-lend business has completely eliminated the worn out moth-eaten ideas of the past. We, of course, are still carrying on in the same old way and we realise that all this opposition which is being put forward in this House is nothing but obstruction—and I say so with full knowledge of what I am saying, and I say this is being done on behalf of vested interests—not because of the million odd pounds which may go into the Durban City Council’s Savings Bank—not because that will affect the Natal Building Society—it is not as if the institution of a savings bank in Durban or in Johannesburg will affect the business of the building societies there, but why they object so strongly is because they see that the introduction of a municipal bank is the thin edge of the wedge; they see that if this House accepts the principle that bank is going to be run by the people for the people. It is a kind of system that will be extended—and extended it will be inevitably until we have a State bank.

Do you want to be one of the directors?

I am certainly qualified for that job, but it is a puerile objection and characteristic of the Dominion Party and shows to what extent their reasoning powers have been developed. We are concerned with the future of this country; we realise that the salvation of South Africa lies in the first instance in the people of this country getting control of the banking system not for Jim Jones or for Tom Brown but for all the people of the country. We realise that we are not going to have that economic progress which we should have unless we have our own credit and our own banking system. We have come to the stage when the Minister of Finance is quite prepared to leave the payment of the war to posterity. The payment, for anything will always be left to posterity as long as we allow banking to remain in the hands of private individuals, and it will be left in the hands of private interests until all eternity. If we are stupid in this country, posterity will be paying for Sidi Resegh and even for those double salaries to which hon. members object so much—all this will be left until the year 2000. That is the kind of system which precipitated this war, and which is going to make us pay for the war after the war, and make us pay in the days of depression and poverty. The hon. member for Point has here introduced a very tentative and very elementary measure which will begin to lead us in the right direction. That measure after careful scrutiny by a responsible Select Committee which was assisted by probably the finest array of counsel that has ever appeared in this House, agreed with one dissentient—the dissentient being the hon. gentleman who in 1896 nearly distinguished himself by throwing all the Indians into Durban bay …

Throwing the wrong people into the bay.

That Select Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill had been proved—in other words, that this Bill was a measure which this House should consider as a measure of advancement and for the benefit of the people of Durban.

At a cost of £9,000.

Yes, it cost us £9,000 to settle what the Minister has settled here across the floor of the House. Now the House generally was prepared to accept this Bill. The House as a matter of fact voted for the second reading by a large majority—but it so happens that there is a small reactionary coterie represented by the Dominion Party, and that party by tedious repetition of the most unintelligent kind has succeeded in preventing the passage of the Bill. I am not so sure that the Dominion Party hold these principles which they speak about so very dearly. I am not so sure that if the hon. member for Durban (Point) had not changed his mind and had not seen the light of day and if he had not joined the United Party, we might, not have had this objection from the Dominion Party. In other words, I think this objection is more an objection to the hon. member for Durban (Point) than to the Bill. I believe this Bill has suffered because of a private political vendetta which unfortunately has been allowed to be fought out on the floor of this House. I introduced this particular Bill first of all in this House, I am very pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity of closing the debate on it.

You have talked it out.

Well, I am sure it will be talked out anyhow.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 6t.h March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I want to explain my two amendments to the Minister in the hope that he will see his way clear to accept them, especially the first amendment that the Board of Trade and Industries can also be given instructions to enquire into and advise the Government regarding the facilities for industrial training in the Union of South Africa. The Minister will notice that under sub-section (h) the Board of Trade and Industries can already be instructed to enquire into and advise the Government on the question of labour and technical knowledge in industry. Now I fail to understand how there can be any objection to supplementing that clause in the spirit of my proposal. If the Board of Trade and Industries can enquire into technical knowledge in industry we would naturally expect it also to have the opportunity of advising the Government on the subject of facilities for industrial training. I do not know which other Board the Government can rely upon for advice about industrial training. Industries are going to play a big part in the life of our people in future, and that being so more and more facilities for industrial training will have to be provided by the State. Industrial training is at the moment provided for by various departments of State. It is distributed to such an extent among the various departments that nothing in South Africa requires consolidation more than these very facilities for industrial training. Facilities for industrial training are distributed among various departments, and every department does the work in its own old-fashioned way, and as the Minister has a Board now which can advise him on the question of technical knowledge in industry I fail to see how there can be any reason why this Board cannot also enquire into the facilities for industrial training, and why it cannot advise the Government how those facilities can be improved. I again want to point out that already the Board can be given instructions to advise the Government on the question of technical knowledge in industry, and I feel that my amendment is the natural complement of that provision. But if the Minister refuses to accept my amendment—though I hope he will not refuse—then I want to ask him what advice he is going to depend upon; where does he, and where does his department, get advice in regard to industrial training, if they do not get it from the Board of Trade and Industries? If the Board of Trade and Industries has to advise him on the subject of technical knowledge in industry, but not on technical training, then I want to know who advises the Minister in that particular respect? I say that if the Board of Trade and Industries already give him advice about technical knowledge in industry, it is only going a step further for the Board also to advise him about facilities for technical training, and as I have already said we know that technical training in industry today is very poor and very antiquated, so far as facilities for such training are concerned. Now I come to my other proposal. I shall deal with both at the same time. This deals with the issue of trade and industrial licences. It is well known in South Africa that the issue of trade licences in this country ought to be controlled. If we look at the arbitrary way those licences are issued to just anyone, we must realise that in view of the fact that we anticipate unprecedented trade development, this matter should have the Government’s attention, and that the Government should be advised about it. If the Government cannot get advice from the Board of Trade and Industries on the question of trade and industrial licences—from whom can it get it? What other body is there on whom the Minister depends for advice if he does not get it from the Board of Trade and Industries? I should like the Minister to answer me on this point and tell me where he gets his advice if not from the Board of Trade and Industries. If this is the most suitable body to advise the Government, then it is no more than right that we should give the Board of Trade and Industries the power in this Bill to go into that question and advise the Minister. It will not add greatly to the work of the Board. We notice there is a long list of things which already have to be referred to them, and which are allied to this question of licences. Then there is also another aspect of this licensing question which has to be enquired into, and this is what we ask: South Africa must guard against the way licences have been issued in the past—the practices of the past have not benefited white civilisation in this country. Coloured people have obtained licences to trade in quasi European areas and in quasi coloured areas licences have been issued to Europeans. This whole question should be dealt with. We are not asking that the position should be changed; we ask that the Board of Trade and Industries be given the right to report to the Minister on the existing condition of affairs.

I should like to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister in regard to Clause 9. Under that clause the Board is empowered to enquire into and advise the Government generally in regard to matters relating to the development of our economic resources and our trade and industries, and paragraph (m) of sub-section (1), Clause 9, adds this—

That obviously is very wide, and it may cover the points to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. But if my assumption is correct, one wonders why the previous paragraphs (a) to (k), which specify the subjects that may be referred to the Board, were put in at all, because it seems to me that all those things mentioned in these paragraphs would all fall under the wide powers contained in sub-section (m). The fact that they have been mentioned seems to me sufficient justification for directing the attention of the Minister to a few other aspects, with a view to their being specified in the Bill, unless this is unnecessary on account of the Minister being able, under (m) to refer such matters to the Board. In paragraph (g) the dumping of imported goods is mentioned, but merely “dumping.” There are various forms of dumping, apart from direct dumping, including exchange, freight and subsidised dumping, but in this paragraph there is only one reference, namely, to “dumping.” The Minister may be satisfied that “dumping” is a term comprehensive enough to include the various forms of dumping. In that case I shall be satisfied, but I feel that I am justified in drawing the Minister’s attention to the fact that various forms of dumping must be guarded against. Another point is this. As the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has pointed out, this Board of Trade is a most important body in this country; I think that the House is more or less agreed that the progress of South Africa now depends on the development of industry; and I have no doubt that under the able guidance of the Minister we will proceed along the right lines. It will be necessary, however, for him to bear in mind that the Board of Trade will be the body that will advise him on the wider aspects, and that they will be responsible for many of the investigations that are so essential for his guidance. We talk about social security. We are all in favour of that; we are in favour of higher wages, better conditions for our work people, and an improved standard of living. But this is my difficulty. Nowhere in our legislation can I discover any machinery that will give the Minister the power to differentiate between one country and another when it comes to the matter of imposing tariff duty on imports. We in this country have social legislation, and a further measure of this legislation is projected, but it is obvious that social legislation will affect the cost of production. Our industries, employing workers benefiting by our social legislation, will have to compete with exporting countries where similar legislation does not exist. Their production is on a large scale. It is impossible to compete on level terms under such conditions. It appears to me that the Minister would be well advised to refer that aspect of the matter to the Board of Trade for investigation, so that in such cases where it is necessary our customs laws may afford our industries adequate protection against such countries. The investigations of the Board of Trade and their reports and recommendations, will be available to the Minister, and I therefore suggest that the Bill, if necessary, be suitably amended so that the Minister of Economic Welfare will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance as to what machinery it is desirable should be created by him under our customs laws, with a view to protecting our country against those countries where similar social legislation or conditions do not exist, and who are sending us their exports. As I say, however much we welcome social legislation, we cannot escape the fact that it does increase our cost of production, and that other countries which do not have such legislation will be able to produce at a much cheaper level than we can, and thus we shall not be able to compete with them. Accordingly, the Board of Trade should be instructed to investigate the position and the Minister of Economic Welfare should ask for the machinery to be provided to protect our industries against those countries. There is also another aspect that I was wondering whether the Board of Trade would go into. It is a question of our wage structure, to what extent we should not investigate that, quite apart from social legislation. There may be countries where wage costs are very much lower, placing them in a strong competitive position, and again there is no machinery in our present legislation to differentiate between one country and another when necessary. I do not think there is any such legislation. A tariff may be fairly applied against one country, but it may not be justified in regard to another country, whose social legislation and standards of living are the same as ours. If, however, the Minister finds that the necessary powers are covered by the sections I have referred to, I will be satisfied. There is only one other aspect of the development of industry to which I should like to invite the attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of co-ordination as between one State department and another. It is very vital that this co-ordination should be close and effective. At present I regret that there is much room for improvement. What happens today? The Minister of Commerce and Industries will decide to take a certain line of policy but all of a sudden you will find the Railways or another department adopting a policy that is entirely in conflict with his policy. At once the efforts of the Minister are undermined simply because there has been no coordination. I need only give one instance to illustrate my point, and that is in regard to our copper industry in this country. Do you realise, Sir, that copper from Messina can be landed in London cheaper than it can be landed at the manufacturing centres in our country? That surely is something which the Minister cannot tolerate. Is not it necessary, therefore, to ask the Board of Trade to investigate railway and other policies which are in conflict with our general policy of industrial development? Then I might mention the case of phosphates that are supplied to our farmers for agricultural purposes. Phosphates obtained in this country suffer by reason of the railway tariff, which differentiates between the rock and the milled phosphates, five times as much being charged in the one case as in the other. There is that big discrepancy between the charge for the manufactured article and for the original article. There again, if paragraph (m) covers the scope of the investigation that seems to be called for, nothing more is to be said. But I think you will find, Sir, that the Minister of Commerce and Industries would be well advised if he instructed the Board of Trade to investigate the position where other Government departments are following courses which are detrimental to and in conflict with our national policy of industrial development. If it is necessary to insert another clause, I suggest that the Minister should do so at some stage of the progress of the Bill; but if on the other hand he considers that the position is covered by (m) I am satisfied.

The point I would like to put to the Minister is this, when the board is formed, is it going to take the initiative in establishing new industries? The reason I mention this is that I put a question to the Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation. I wanted to know whether he could furnish any information as to what they had done in a concrete way towards the establishment of industries, and the information I got in reply to my question was vague. This corporation seems to be in the position of a physician who was waiting to be called in to attend a sick person. I hope that when the board is formed they will assume a different attitude, and do all that is possible to encourage present industries and also to establish new industries. We want to see something definite and concrete done in the near future if the board is formed. If they do that I think we shall be on the right road to provide employment for our soldiers.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) asks me what the Board is going to do when it is formed. May I remind him that the Board has been in existence now for 20 years.

It has not done much.

I suggest that the hon. member reads some of the Board’s reports, and finds out something about the work it has done. But the Board has no power to initiate an industry. It is purely an advisory Board, its function being to advise the Government on different aspects of industrial development. The Board has no executive power at all. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.- Col. Rood) raised the question whether the powers of the Board were widely enough stated in the Bill to enable it to deal with dumping in all its aspects, and the answer is, yes. Dumping is dumping, and whatever adjective you put before dumping it is all the same thing, only a different aspect of it. Similarly, in regard to the point raised by the hon. member in reference to imports from countries which have different standards of living or different wage structures, which very often comes to the same thing, this aspect of the subject is also covered, because in investigating the question of dumping, the Board is also instructed, in Clause 3, in the following sense—

In other words, the Board is instructed to take the widest possible view of the problem, to acquire all possible information from all angles. The advice that is given by the Board is taken into full consideration by the Government. Obviously, in taking action to stop dumping from other countries, there is an international aspect of the question which the Board will have to take into consideration; they will have to be satisfied that the recommendation is sound, having regard to every angle of the question, including the international aspect. With regard to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) I think that the same arguments apply. He asked me to whom I can look for advice, if his amendments are not accepted, and my answer is—to the Board of Trade; because under the existing powers of the Board, it can deal with this matter.

Under what subsection?

Under sub-section (1).

Why give details at all?

That is a perfectly legitimate remark. But the hon. member knows—and I know it is his own view—that the more specific a Bill can be made when Parliament is dealing with it, the better; and these provisions, I imagine, were drafted to cover as widely and clearly as possible the main aspects of different problems which the Board will be called upon to deal with, and sub-section (m) was inserted to cover any which were left out. Therefore, in actual fact, the Board is in a position to deal with all the points the hon. member for Moorreesburg has mentioned. But so far as his proposal goes that a new (1) should be inserted to include facilities for industrial training in the Union, I agree with him that that is a very important point, far more important than it was when the Bill was originally introduced, and if he feels that it would be a more specific instruction to the Board, or bring more into publicity the necessity for full attention being paid to industrial training, I am prepared to accept his amendment. In regard to his other amendment, there I am afraid I cannot accept it, because there are two difficulties. In the first place the issue of commercial licences, as the hon. member knows, is a municipal affair under the control of the Provincial Councils, and it would be a very difficult question raising very wide issues to start at this stage an enquiry into that particular aspect. It would be a very difficult thing for the board to go into the whole question of local government. If the question of local licences has to be gone into, a matter affecting the whole Union, affecting all the provinces, affecting many classes of people. I think that would be an important enough question to be dealt with by a special ad hoc enquiry, because where a matter has cropped up—and it has cropped up on various occasions and in various bodies—in every case there has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject. There has sometimes been agreement that the present system has not been very satisfactory, but there has been the widest diversity of opinion as to what should be done to improve the system. I think it would be better to leave that as a general instruction to the Board of Trade. As far as industrial licences are concerned. I am expecting advices on that subject from the Board of Trade, because if the hon. member—as I expect he has done—will read the terms of reference of the present investigation, one of the matters the board is investigating is the desirability of a new system of granting licences for the establishment of fresh industries or fresh factories; and I think it would be rather premature, since the board is investigating whether such a principle is advisable or not, specifically to lay down as one of their duties the task of advising whether licences should be instituted in respect of one particular industry or the other. I think we had better wait until the board has reviewed the whole general question before coming to a conclusion of any sort. Should it be considered advisable I still have the power to instruct the board to proceed on those lines in investigating any particular industry.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries and new paragraph (1) proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus, put and negatived.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us at this stage whether he has decided about the question of restarting the journal of the Board of Trade and Industries. The Minister will remember that we objected to the suspension of this important publication which, partly, contained the reports every month of the Board of Trade and Industries. Our industries are developing, and it is most important that this monthly journal of the Board should be continued. If the Minister has not yet come to a decision I hope that in consultation with the Controller of Paper he will seriously consider the question of reviving the journal If I see the purposes for which paper is used in South Africa I fail to understand how the Government could have decided against the protest of the Secretary of Trade and Industries to suspend such an important journal. If the Minister says he cannot restart the journal then I can only say that he owes an explanation to this House.

I think the hon. member is mistaken. There was never any journal of the Board of Trade and Industries. I think he is referring to the monthly journal of the department, in which the Board’s reports appeared. It is not really germane to the Bill, but for the information of the hon. member, I can tell him that the journal ceased publication last year, partly owing to restrictions on paper, but more important, to lack of staff and inability to maintain the high standard of the paper.

You are getting more staff.

We have not got them yet, but we shall and in due course I hope his eyes will be rejoiced by seeing the paper appear. When, I cannot say.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

On the motion of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

This amendment is at the request of the Department of Census and Statistics. It was pointed out to us after the Bill had been drafted certain difficulties might arise in regard to the secrecy which that department is bound to observe in regard to figures in their possession; and as the Board has power to call for any evidence it likes for its own purpose, it was felt that it was not necessary to retain the present form of the clause. It has therefore been amended to exclude statistics of the Department of Census. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I have a very small amendment to suggest in regard to this clause, with the object that these reports and recommendations may be in the hands of members at the earliest possible date. One conceives that these reports and recommendations will be of considerable interest, and accordingly that ample opportunity should be given to members to study them as early as possible. My suggestion therefore is that if these reports and recommendations are available to the Government some time before the Session, that they should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament at the commencement of the Session, and not as provided at the present time within one month of the commencement of the Session. That can be achieved by amending the clause on the lines I suggest. That is one small point. The other small point arises out of the same proposition, and that is that assuming those reports and recommendations are received some considerable time before the commencement of the new Session, that, if possible, those reports and recommendations should be made available to members, not through the ordinary medium of laying them on the Table of both House of Parliament, but by being sent to them during the recess. I do not think it is necessary to incorporate such a provision in the Bill, but one would welcome an assurance from the Minister that in these circumstances such reports and recommendations would be made available through the post at the earliest possible date; that is to say within a month of receipt by the Government.

I do not think there is really any necessity for this amendment. In practice it is customary to lay all reports which are available at the opening of Parliament on the Table at once. That is if they are available—if not—as soon as possible afterwards. Insofar as reports become available during the Recess I am informed that the usual practice is to post them to members. So I don’t think there is much need for the amendment.

It is a very simple amendment.

Why wait a month after the commencement of Parliament?

We do not wait; it is just a Parliamentary form. There may be all sorts of reasons—for one reason or another there may be a few days’ delay but in practice reports are laid on the Table the very first day of a Session.

In view of the Minister’s assurance there seems no necessity for pressing the amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the Schedule,

On the motion of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 9, 10 (Afrikaans), 11 and in the Schedule (Afrikaans), put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 6th March.

I have an amendment of which I have given notice, which hon. members will find in the Votes and Proceedings, the effect of which is to require that medical evidence shall be produced. That is in place of the present somewhat ambiguous provision in Section 28 of the principal Act. I move—

I may say that this has been discussed with the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, and I understood that he raised no objection.

I second.

May I ask the hon. member on a point of information whether he is dropping his amendment to insert a new Clause 9?

Yes.

Yes, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 20,

The amendment which is found in the Votes and Proceedings relating to Clause 20 has been framed in this shape to meet the objections that were pointed out by the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene, and I understood the Legal Advisers preferred that this clause should appear in the second chapter of the Bill, rather than in the first chapter as was proposed by my original amendment. The amendment as now drafted would make a new section which would be called 41 bis, and the amendment in its present form has been the subject of discussion between the Parliamentary draftsman and the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene. In its present form it meets the wishes of both. I move—

I second.

I am prepared to accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 23 and the omission of Clause 29 put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 28.

I have an amendment on Page 290 which aims at making clear the intention of the House in regard to this matter. On the second reading this point was raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), who indicated that in his opinion it was desirable that there should be free treatment of mentally disordered people and that their parents should not be called upon to meet the cost. He said that in connection with Section 29, and the Minister expressed his willingness to delete Section 29 in Committee. There is a certain amount of doubt as to the intention of the House in regard to this matter, I admit, but I think the general concensus of opinion was that the Minister intended that there should be free treatment of such cases, although it may be that he merely confined himself to the withdrawal of Section 29, which aimed at empowering the magistrate to hold an enquiry as to the capacity of the parents or guardians to pay. The amendment which I propose would make it clear that for the future there should be no burden on parents or guardians in regard to the treatment of people in mental hospitals. I do know of cases in which a whole estate has been wiped out to pay for the cost of maintaining one person over a number of years in a mental hospital. I know of a case of a husband who died leaving an estate of about £800. His wife had been in the asylum for a lifetime and she was still alive and the whole estate was absorbed in paying the cost of her maintenance there, to the disadvantage of the children of the estate. I have no doubt that hon. members know of similar cases, and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) I am sure could quote many similar instances. I merely raise this matter in this form because the amendment I now propose would remove the burden from the persons concerned. I therefore move—

1. 29. Section 29 of the principal Act is hereby amended—
   1. (a) by the deletion in sub-section (1) of the words “until further provision therefor is made, and”; and
   2. (b) by the deletion of sub-section (2).

I second.

I regret that I cannot accept this amendment for the reasons I gave the hon. member during the Committee stage. The effect of this amendment, if accepted, would be that every patient maintained in a mental hospital would be maintained at State expense. There would be free hospital attention for patients suffering from mental disorders. At the Committee stage I pointed out that the whole question of hospital services and a State medical service involving hospital services was now under consideration by the National Health Services Commission, and that Commission has regard not only to the case of persons suffering from physical ailments, but also from mental ailments, and it seems that it would be premature for this House to take a decision now. Hard cases can be dealt with under the existing Act. The right to claim maintenance from the relatives of a mental hospital patient is not obligatory on the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene. In suitable cases he can waive his common law right. I suggest to the hon. member that he should not press his amendment until we have the report of the National Health Services Commission.

Proposed new Clause put and negatived.

Bill, as amended, adopted, and read a third time.

I move—

This is a measure to validate certain Indian marriages in Natal and to provide for certain matters incidental thereto. It is a Bill of one paragraph to legalise marriages which took place between 1891 and 1914. In 1891 the Natal Parliament passed an Act authorising the protector of Indian immigrants to solemnise marriages. But there are two kinds of Indians who came to Natal—the one lot were passenger Indians, and the other were immigrant Indians. The protector has the power to marry immigrant Indians, but through usage and otherwise he assumed that he had power to marry passenger Indians, and immigrant Indians, and in 1914 when this House tried to rectify the matter they omitted to validate certain marriages which took place in the period I am mentioning now between passenger Indians and Indian immigrants, and this Bill aims at validating these marriages. There are only about 670 of them. Had both parties been alive after 1914 the protector would have had power to have re-married them, but in some cases one, and in some cases both parties, had died, and their estates became involved, and although they believed that they had complied with all rules and regulations, and also with all laws, their heirs are treated as strangers in blood, and are called upon to pay succession duty of 10 per cent. instead of 2 per cent. The object of the Bill is merely to legalise these marriages which are registered in the protector’s office, so that they can comply with the Succession Duties Act.

Might I say that I am very pleased the Minister has brought this Bill in because it will remove an injustice which has operated in Natal for a considerable time. It is one which has caused me a lot of trouble, and the legal profession, because they feel that these marriages which have taken place in the period mentioned by the Minister are in this position, that the legal heirs to these marriages are strangers in blood and are classified therefore as illegitimates. It has been a very difficult matter to deal with and I am pleased therefore that this small Bill has been brought in. Just to give some idea how this operates I shall just read out a particular case I have been dealing with—

I think the House will admit that that is a gross injustice. These people thought that they were married legally. The protector of Indians thought that he had the power to marry immigrant and passenger Indians, but apparently he did not have that power.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The main feature of this Bill is an amendment to the present laws governing the acquisition and occupation of land in the Union by the representatives of foreign governments where such persons are “Asiatic or Coloured persons.” The Acts and particular Sections concerned are, firstly, Section 8 of Act 9 of 1932, as amended by Section 16 of Act 43 of 1941, which reads as follows:—

1. (8) No law which prohibits the acquisition of land or an interest in or the occupation of land by Asiatics or Coloured persons shall be construed to prohibit—(a) the acquisition of land or an interest in by any diplomatic agent; or (b) the occupation of land by any diplomatic agent, his family, his diplomatic staff or his servants. Provided such acquisition or occupation is for the purposes of the office or residence of such diplomatic agent and his suite.

The other relevant section is Section 8 of the Asiatic Land Tenure Act, 1932 (Act No. 35 of 1932) which, inter alia, contains the following provisions:—

1. (8) (1) The Minister of the Interior may issue a certificate of exemption to any Asiatic or Coloured person who is—
   1. (a) a consular officer or public agent of any State; or
   2. (b) the servant of any State working under or in conjunction with a consular officer or public agent of that State … And thereupon the provisions of any law prohibiting the residence upon or occupation of any land by an Asiatic or Coloured person shall not apply to or in respect of the holder of such certificate.…

As the laws stand at present it will be observed that provision is made separately for diplomatic and consular or public agents; exemption is granted to the class of persons in question as individuals; that is, they can acquire and occupy in their own name, provided the acquisition and occupation is for official purposes; exemption in respect of ownership and occupation is confined to statutory prohibitions against such ownership and occupation; and the provision for exemptions in respect of consular or public agents is permissive. We are providing in this Bill that any special exemption can be overruled. The real object of this Bill is to enable the Governments, instead of the individuals, to acquire property in the names of those Governments for their representatives, particularly the Agent-General for India. The other provisions of the Bill deal with the question of taxes and duties and charges, and that is being extended to these diplomatic representatives and their staffs, and it also makes provision for certain loss of revenue in connection with broadcasting, and we make provision in Section 2 to make good the loss that local authorities and the Broadcasting Corporation may sustain as a result of this Bill. As I pointed out, the whole object of the Bill is to enable the foreign Government, and in this Bill India is treated as a foreign Government, to acquire land in the name of the foreign Government for the use of their representatives.

Is it only for diplomatic purposes?

Yes, only for diplomatic purposes.

In regard to the representatives of the foreign government, am I to understand that this is to apply to the High Commissioner for India as well as consuls from foreign countries?

It applies to career consuls.

Will the Minister tell us in his reply what difficulties have arisen to render this Act necessary? One would like to know the difficulties the Act is designed to overcome. The amendment to the Transvaal Law is also a matter upon which one would like to hear the reasons for the alterations that are proposed in Section 6. Furthermore, I hope that if there is to be any alteration to the present Pegging Act, we shall have that fully explained to us beforehand, because it involves a good many difficulties, and we should be blamed by our constituents because this is a very thorny and delicate matter in Natal. I hope the Minister will regard the matter as one in which preconsultation with the various members should take place, so that we can proceed with due care in connection with any legislation that may be proposed.

Before the hon. Minister replies, I should like to put one or two questions to him. I am also very interested to know whether this will be confined only to one or two cities of the Union of South Africa, or whether it will apply to a number of cities. I would like to know whether it will be confined to any particular city or any particular province. I ask this question, because if it were only confined to the commercial capital of South Africa, then there is something to be said in favour of it, and if this is going to be applied to various other commercial centres of the Union, then I must take exception to it, and I hope the hon. Minister will give me a clear reply on this point.

The real object of this Bill is to get away from the position that is in existence at the present moment. If the High Commissioner for India, in terms of the existing legislation, applied to me, as Minister of the Interior, for permission to buy property for his personal occupation, we could not refuse it. The object of this Bill is to stop the personal acquisition of property, but to insist, on the Government owning the property for its representative. It is not only confined to the Agent-General for India. Other Governments may be affected. This Bill contemplates that the ownership will be vested in the Government and not in the individual.

Will the Minister tell me whether it is going to be confined to one centre only?

It is confined to career consuls, that is the men who are actually in the diplomatic service.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 3,

I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether any precautions will be taken to prevent the abuse of this privilege which is given to Agents-General.

I do not know what undertaking the hon. member requires, but, I cannot visualise the Government of India buying land in the various towns. It will probably have offices in Cape Town and in Durban.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 6th March.