Mr. Speaker, it has been my custom for several years now in reply to the Budget debate to use only one language, that being the language other than the one in which I had introduced the Budget. I shall therefore today be speaking only in Afrikaans. I say this lest any member, more particularly any new member, might think me guilty of discourtesy if I do not reply now in the language in which he has addressed the House.

Especially the unilingual members.

In the second place, I should like to make it clear that as in the past I propose in this debate not to deal with departmental matters, except in so far as they affect my own department. In the main, therefore, I shall, with that exception, be dealing with the general questions raised in the Budget, or standing in some connection with the Budget. Even so, I shall have a vast field to cover, and I crave the pardon of the House in advance for the fact that I shall have to keep the House for some considerable time today.

†*This debate has been noted among other things for the many congratulations showered on the Minister of Finance. I therefore propose starting off with a word of congratulation to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). I want to congratulate the hon. member for two reasons. First of all I want to congratulate him on the fact that in his speech he refrained from personalities. True, he did accuse me of preaching but he did not go beyond that, and he himself will, admit that he finished off his speech on the lines of a sermon. By doing that he cancelled out his own charge.

Et tu Brute!

I am glad that in this respect he followed my example; perhaps he will follow my example in days to come in other respects as well. The day may come ….

Then he will be Minister.

The day may perhaps dawn when he too on grounds of principle will relinquish a prominent post; perhaps also, through being afraid of being charged with what he calls indecent exposure, he may refrain from disclosing what he has on his conscience. Secondly, I want to congratulate him on having refrained in his speech to a large extent from his usual pessimism which characterises most of his Budget speeches. We know, of course, that in a Budget debate the lamentations of Jeremiah and the pathetic prophesies of Cassandra constitute the chief stock in trade of the Opposition. That has always been so as far as the hon. member for George is concerned. We have become accustomed each year to have to listen to a mournful speech by him—South Africa is on the edge of a financial precipice. Under this Government’s financial management South Africa is going to rack and ruin. In 1941 the hon. member for George said that our revenue had reached its zenith and that it would speedily drop. That was when our revenue stood at the figure of £63,500,000.

And after that we had inflation.

The facts, of course, have proved that my hon. friend was wrong. In 1943, after we had reached the figure of £96,500,000, he again became bold enough to assume the rôle of Cassandra. He said: “We have reached the top, and we are now going down; our sources of revenue are deteriorating one after the other; the position is alarming. All Government revenue is beginning to go down. The Minister still talks big today, but I should like to hear him in Parliament in a year’s time.” Well, the hon. member heard me after a year, and what did he hear? He was told that the revenue, which he said was on the downward grade, had gone up from £96,500,000 to £107,500,000.

Thanks to inflation.

He heard that we even exceeded our own estimates of last year by £7,500,000; yet for a while it appeared as though my hon. friend was going to start off in his old style. He started his speech just after the Minister of Railways sat down, and with typical pessimism he said : “Behind the bright side which the Minister placed before us, the position is dark and obscure”. He spoke of the exhaustion of the strength of commerce and industry but before resuming his speech he apparently reconsidered matters, and I want to congratulate him on doing so. When he spoke again he spoke in a reasonable and businesslike manner, but, of course, other members took over the lamentations of Jeremiah from him. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) started the song. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) followed suit, and eventually the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) proclaimed the mournful news that we had reached the very edge of financial exhaustion. The hon. member for Ceres is just as bad a prophet as the hon. member for George has been in the past. He will have to learn the same lesson as the hon. member for George has learned. The hon. member for Fauresmith was particularly concerned about our financial future, especially in the light of our national income. In this regard, and in other regards, too, the hon. member told us the same story as he told us last year on the Budget debate. He will pardon me, therefore, if I don’t reply to his speech in detail. Apparently I was unable to convince him last year, and I am afraid I cannot do so this year either. I want to say this, however: I have never hesitated to draw attention to the troublous times that await us. I have done so in this year’s Budget speech, too, but I don’t take the matter as tragically as the hon. member for Fauresmith does, and apparently I have more confidence in South Africa than my hon. friend has. The fact, for instance, that the contributions now made to the national revenue by soldiers’ pay — something over £40,000,000 — will fall away does not worry me because these people when they return to civilian life will probably make their contributions to our national income in other ways.

What does the Planning Council say?

The predictions that the contributions by the Gold Mining Industry will drop by half by the year 1955 do not worry me very much either.

In spite of what the Planning Council may say?

That kind of prediction has in the past often been made by prominent technical men, but so far those predictions have not come true. I know of other factors, as a matter of fact, in the opposite direction; no, we have more reason to have faith in the future of South Africa than my hon. friend apparently thinks, and I just want to tell him that the reply to his speech was to a large extent given by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams). The hon. member for Boksburg, who spoke shortly after him, referred to the big “storage dam” of work waiting to be done after the war. The restrictive factors in connection with the use of that storage dam of employment are still there, and will still be there for a time—they are not a shortage of work but a shortage of manpower and a shortage of materials. We shall naturally have to be very circumspect in the task of taking anything out of that storage dam, but I am quite convinced that we shall be able to use that storage dam of employment in such a way that we shall be able not only to build up our national revenue but also to resist the deflationary tendencies which necessarily will come into being after the war. Now, let me come back to the hon. member for George. As I have already said, the hon. member delivered his speech here in a reasonable and businesslike manner and I therefore want to reply to him in the same spirit. I can best do so by dealing with his amendment. but before going into that I just want to refer to one point which the hon. member touched upon in that part of his speech which was perhaps less businesslike. There he spoke about demobilisation, and he mentioned this as proof of the incompetent manner in which the Government was handliing difficult problems. He said that I had made no financial provision for demobolisation. I did say that the money could perhaps be found on the Defence Vote —that is how the hon. member put the position—but what was going to happen if the war finished this year? Where was I going to find the money then? If that happened there would. of course, be a large demand for demobilisation expenditure. There will. of course, be a great demand for demobilisation expenditure, but at the same time we may expect a big saving on the Defence Vote and the money will then be available for demobilisation. We need not therefore allow ourselves to be scared by the ghost which the hon. member has raised. Now, let me come to his amendment. It is a threefold amendment. He first of all asked for a commission consisting of members of the House to be appointed to investigate all war expenditure. We, of course. have such a commission today in the Public Accounts Committee, but that committee only deals with war expenditure after that expenditure has actually been incurred, so apparently my hon. friend wants something different. He wants a committee which would be able to act sooner. Such a committee we also have today in the Authorities Committee, but that committee does not consist of members of this House. Apparently my hon. friend wants a committee composed of members of this House which will have to deal with the initiation of war expenditure. He says that other countries have such a committee and he asks why South Africa should not have one. Let me give the hon. member the reason—it is because in those other countries there is 99½ per cent. unanimity on the war issue. That is the reason, but here in South Africa we have an Opposition—I almost said we used to have an Opposition—which fights our war policy tooth and nail, an Opposition which made is perfectly clear that they wanted the enemy to win this war, an Opposition which declared itself prepared to give Germany what Germany wanted, namely a friendly Government. How can we co-operate with such an Opposition on a Committee which would have to deal with the initiation of war expenditure? We have not got a common jumping off ground.

So that this waste of money must just go on?

The hon. member for George said that he did not propose discussing the principle of war expenditure. He was very careful this time, but other hon. members on his side were less careful, and in one speech after another covert attacks were made on the Government’s war policy—and in some instances those attacks were not so very “Covert”. The hon. member for Waterberg said, “We are opposed to the whole of the Government’s war expenditure”, and when the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) interrupted him and said, “The Opposition says that all the money spent on the war is unecessary expenditure”, the hon. member for Waterberg replied: “Yes, from our point of view it is unnecessary; all the money spent on the war effort is unnecessary.”

Of course.

But surely that is no secret.

In regard to the hon. member for Ceres the main theme of his speech was the expense of the war—directly and indirectly. Now let me say this to the hon. member : It is costing us a lot of money ….

You are wasting a lot of money.

It is costing us a lot of money to wage this war to a victorious end, but it would have cost us very much more if Nazi Germany and Japan had been victorious. Even the hon. member for George gave us clearly to understand that he wants to break down our war effort. The hon. member wants to save from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 on Defence. He wants to take men out of the army.

Men who are doing nothing in the army.

He says that there are a lot of unnecessary people in the army. Let me tell the hon. member that even with the numbers we have today we find it extremely difficult to maintain our forces up North at full strength. My hon. friend makes the mistake of thinking that we only have the Sixth Division up North. May I be allowed to tell him, without giving away any secrets, that there are more South Africans up North, outside the Sixth Division, than there are in the Sixth Division. The fact that not all of them are always busy in the Army does not prove that my hon. friend’s contention is correct. Even in the busiest department one sometimes finds people who are not busy. My hon. friend may even sometimes come to my office and find me doing nothing, but that is no evidence that my position can be abolished, and in view of the hon. member’s expectations for the future I am sure he does not want that either. What the hon. member wants is very clear, namely the breaking up of our war effort. What did he say last year? Last year, in his speech on the Budget debate, he said that at the outbreak of war they had stated it was not their war, that we should have remained neutral, but that things had now changed since Russia had come into the war, and they now wanted the Allies to lose the war. Now they do not want to accept financial responsibility for a single penny spent by South Africa on the war. That is what the hon. member said last year. That was the attitude the hon. member adopted last year on behalf of his party, and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in this debate again said that from their point of view all expenditure on the war is unnecessary. How then can they expect us to set up a committee, on which they will have representation, to go into the question of initiating war expenditure?

But surely it is not your money?

And now I want to come to the taxation system which really constituted the main point of the hon. member’s speech. He mentioned four points in regard to the taxation system. The first was simplification. I don’t want to say much on that; I dealt with that in my Budget speech. Simplification of the taxation system will come about, but it will not come about by the abolition of taxes which are still needed for the continuation of the war. Secondly, the hon. member asked for a relaxation of the taxation burden, and he suggested two possible ways. His first remedy is the reduction of the expenditure on Defence. I have already dealt with that. His second suggestion is that we should collect outstanding taxes—arrear taxes—and he thinks in that way we should be able to collect between £6,000,000 and £10,000,000. Now, what are the facts? On all our revenue taxation sources, normal tax, including super tax, excess profits tax, special levy on trades profits, tax on foreign shareholders, gold and diamonds, an amount of £2,750,000 was outstanding on the 31st March last year. But it should not be forgotten that people who have to pay taxes are given a month’s grace in which to pay. So one has to take account of the fact that a large number of assessments which are issued in March are not paid in March. March is the month when a large number of assessments are usually sent out, but many of them are not paid in March because the month of grace has not yet lapsed. So the actual amount of arrears on the 31st March last year was only about half of that total, it was not more than £1,250,000. That was the arrear amount on a total yield of taxation of nearly £59,000,000. The hon. member will notice that we cannot expect to get much out of that source. It will not help us very much. Then he dealt with the removal of anomalies. We must do away with anomalies, and we again heard a lot about those three people whom he compared —the salaried man with a salary of £2,500, such as a Minister, for instance, who pays £292 in income tax; the doctor who started practising since September, 1939, and who now has an income of £2,500, on which he pays £803 in tax; and the young industrialist who has turned himself into a private company and who also started in business since the outbreak of war, and who now has to pay £1,075 through his private company. We heard all these things last year already, but the hon. member is a little late because he has not brought his figures up to date. He used the same figures which he used last year, and he has apparently forgotten that in the meantime certain changes have been introduced in the taxation system. My main point in reply to his representations, however, is that the hon. member is trying to compare things which are incomparable.

All three are war incomes.

The doctor who started practising after the outbreak of war built up his practice during the war to an income of £2,500. That doctor undoubtedly has been favoured by the war. There is no question as to the fairness of his paying excess profits tax. If the hon. member does not agree with that then I would like him to ask the opinion of other doctors who have joined the army. They have deprived themselves of the chance of increasing their income in the same way. So far as the Minister is concerned—the hon. member laid great stress on that—the Minister has not gone from nothing to £2,500. I should like to know of one Minister now drawing £2,500 who at the beginning of the war had no income.

£700.

Will the hon. member tell me of one single Minister whose earnings at the beginning of the war did not exceed £700 per year? The hon. member is forgetting perhaps that when one becomes a Minister one has to give up certain sources of revenue, and the hon. member is also forgetting that very often when a man becomes a Minister his income does not increase but decreases. The hon. member therefore compares things which are not comparable. But now we come to the young industrialist, the young industrialist who has formed a private company and who has to pay £1,075 through that private company. His whole income, however, is not £2,500. Has the hon. member thought of that? As managing director, or in whatever capacity in that private company he draws a salary. Has the hon. member thought of that? The income of that individual is not just £2,500. If he draws £1,000 out of the concern as managing director or in some other capacity, then his real profit is £3,500. I want hon. members to realise that we do differentiate between the doctor and a company in fixing the pre-war standard for excess profits tax. But why do we dó so? Because in a company it is possible for the interested individual first of all to draw a salary, but a doctor cannot do that. That is the explanation. In other words, the case of a private company and of a doctor are not comparable, because in the case of a private company the interested party can first of all draw a salary. The principal point, however, in that part of the hon. member’s speech which dealt with taxes, was his contention that our taxation system handicaps the sound economic expansion of our industries, and apparently the hon. member, in saying that, mainly had excess profits tax in mind. Here is an attempt to form an alliance between the pro-war industrialists and the anti-war opposition. I do not know whether the pro-war industrialists are very taken up with their new allies. Several other hon. members spoke in the same spirit. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that the excess profits duty did not encourage productivity, and that people stopped working. One would have thought that that would have been reflected in the reduction of the yield of the excess profits tax, but what are the figures? In the calendar year ended 31st March, 1941, the yield from that tax was £2,600,000. The next year it was £7,500,000, the year after that £11,900,000, and the year after £13,600,000 net. That is to say, after the deduction of repayments in consequence of losses — the gross amount was oyer £14,000,000. The figures therefore do not prove a falling off in productivity.

The tax has been increased.

It is true that the rate of the tax has been increased but that does not explain the tremendous difference; it does not explain the great increase in the yield of that tax. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) also joined the hon. members who took up that plea. Apparently the hon. member for Vasco would prefer the system in force in Great Britain. He said, and other members said too, that in Great Britain excess profits tax is levied on a scale of 20s. in the £ but 4s. of that 20s. is repayable. In South Africa the tax is 15s. in the £ but the ordinary tax also has to be paid on the other 5s. Quite correct, so far as South Africa is concerned. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) said that the position had even developed to the extent that a man had to pay 18s. in the £. That is quite possible; 15s. excess profits tax and 3s. on the remaining 5s. That would mean, of course, that by way of normal tax the taxpayer would be paying 12s. in the £; the man does not pay 18s. in the £ on his whole income. Don’t let us make that mistake. He only pays 18s. in the £ on the excess profit, and 12s. in the £ on the rest of his income. But do not let us lose sight of the fact that even if there were no excess profits tax those people would still have had to pay the ordinary tax on the amount which they now pay as excess profits tax. The man’s income would therefore have been subject, as a whole, to the normal taxation rates, and as his taxable income would have been more, because the amount of the excess profit would have been part of that, his rate of taxation would also have gone up and he would no longer pay 12s. in the £ but possibly 14s. 7d. or let us assume 13s. 6d. in the £. What does that mean? Instead of the man now paying 18s. in the £ in excess profits tax and normal tax on that part of his income which is excess profit, he would, if there were no excess profit tax, have paid 13s. 6d. on the whole of his income, whereas he does not now pay 13s. 6d. on the rest of his income. Consequently, the excess profits tax does not make a difference of 18s., and not even of 15s., it only makes a difference of 4s. 6d. But let hon. members also remember this. If there were no excess profits tax we would have had to get the £13,500,000 which we now get out of excess profits tax from other sources. We have often been told that the burden should be spread over the whole of the taxpaying public. In other words, it is suggested that the general income tax should be raised. Then that man, whom I have spoken of, would not pay 13s. 6d. in the £ by way of normal tax, but in the circumstances he would perhaps have to pay just as much as he pays today. If we look at the matter in the right perspective, the excess profits tax isn’t really as oppressive as it is usually represented to be. But let me come back to the hon. member for Vasco. He drew a comparison between South Africa and Great Britain. In Great Britain the rate of taxation is 20s. in the £ but the hon. member says, 4s. of that is repayable. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) quite correctly pointed out that that amount is not automatically repayable, and not for all purposes, and that the conditions under which the amount will become repayable have still to be determined. Apparently the hon. member for Vasco did not listen to the wireless broadcast from London on the Saturday after the Budget. The man who broadcast the message from overseas is a man who is familiar with South African conditions. For some time he edited one of our newspapers, and this is what he said about the South African Budget, and particularly about the excess profits tax—

May I say to the hon. member for Vasco: “Better to bear the ills one has than fly to others, that one wots not of”. The hon. member for Vasco paid me a compliment on standing firm, but he said that if I, as Minister of Finance, were to accept his suggestion, I would increase my prestige. I should like to increase my prestige. My prestige is very low with hon. members opposite, but what does the hon. member for Vasco suggest? It was not clear from his speech. I have studied the report of his speech but all I can find is this—

The new Bill has not yet been passed, and it may perhaps take another few months before it is passed. That, however, is the hon. member’s suggestion, and he added that the Committee should take evidence and act on that evidence. That is pretty vague. What is the Committee to do? What action does the hon. member want it to take? We have an Advisory Committee on income tax, a Statutory Committee, and I have issued an invitation to interested bodies to co-operate and to appoint a Standing Committee to advise me particularly in regard to our taxation system for the future. What the other Committee under the Board of Trade and Industries would still have to do is not quite clear. The hon. member has not made it clear. As I have said, the hon. member paid me a compliment and said that I stuck to my guns. Unless the hon. member comes along with something more practicable and puts it more clearly than he has done in his speech I shall have to continue sticking to my guns. But what are the facts? Our excess profits duty compares favourably with that of other countries. We allow four alternative bases for the fixing of the pre-war standard. The Statutory percentage is only one of those. In this country it is 8 per cent. for companies and 12 per cent. for individuals. I have already explained why there is this differentiation. Apparently most people do not know anything about this; they do not know that it is 12 per cent. in the case of individuals. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) was the only member who pointed that out. He said that the 12 per cent. basis for individuals was somewhat on the liberal side. I agree, but cannot that also be said of the 8 per cent. basis for companies? In this country it is 8 per cent. and 12 per cent., in England it is 8 per cent. and 10 per cent., in New Zealand 6 per cent., in Canada 5 per cent., and that can be increased to 10 per cent. Young industrialists who have converted themselves into private companies can first of all draw a salary out of their business, and after that they can keep 8 per cent. plus 1 per cent. on everything above 8 per cent. of their capital. If they do not form a company they can keep 12 per cent. plus 1 per cent. on everything above 12 per cent. I wonder whether the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) realise the strong position in which those people are. That is a high percentage, especially in view of the general reduction of rates of interest which has taken place. The rate of interest on Government bonds has been reduced, the rate of interest on bonds has been considerably reduced, the rate of interest on deposits with building societies has been reduced — practically everyone has to be satisfied with a reduced rate of interest, but in industries people apparently do not agree that the rate of expected interest should be reduced. There 8 per cent. and even 12 per cent. is still not enough. Our law provides — I want to add this — for the repayment of excess profits tax at a later stage to the extent the excess profit has been wiped out by losses suffered during the war, or over a period after the war. That as a rule is not appreciated or even realised. Such repayments are already made today. That is the nest egg which the hon. member for Vasco talks about. That is the reply to the plea of the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). He asks for a concession for post-war conditions. That already is in the existing law.

What guarantee is there?

I should like to go a little further. Let me quote the opinion of an expert on excess profits duty. Last year quotations were made here from an article which appeared in the South African Journal of Economics, a paper of very high standing. I again want to quote the summing up of the author on our excess profits duty—

That is the position. Now, what is the opinion overseas? An article appeared in the well known journal “The Statist”. We have now heard what was said in South Africa about our excess profits duty. Now let me quote what is said overseas—

And what is the opinion of the general public? There is no better indication of the opinion of the general public than the price that public is prepared to pay for industrial shares. I want to make a comparison between the rate of industrial shares on the 3rd March this year and the price of those shares on the 3rd March, last year. I have a list here of thirty-eight industries. Only in five instances was there a drop, and that drop was very small. In one instance there was no change. In thirty-two out of the thirty-six cases there was an increase in the price over the year. Sometimes that increase is fairly considerable. This is clear proof of the fact that the present taxation system is not putting the general public off investing money; certainly not in industrial concerns. Finally, in this connection I want to quote a few figures in regard to companies. In my Budget speech I referred to this but I did not give any figures. Now I want first of all to give some figures in regard, to the number of new companies which have been registered, and the figures are as follows: In 1941, 967; in 1942, the number was 969, and last year it was 1,405. In 1941 the capital amount involved in the registration of these companies was £9,100,000, in 1942 it was £13,000,000 and last year it was £18,200,000.

That shows the inflation there has been.

Against all those facts I put the statement of the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). His attitude was typical of that of the Opposition. I don’t want to say any more about that. He said: “The excess profits tax destroys any industrial development.” Is that really true? In the light of the figures and of the facts which I have mentioned, I do not believe that can be said. It is clear that the agitation against the excess profits tax has very little foundation, and it is clear that the assertion that the excess profits tax has a restraining effect on our industries is to a large extent exaggerated.

What do the industries themselves say?

They are interested parties.

And Dr. Van der Bijl?

Before I leave this amendment, I want to say a few words about two other taxes, to which the hon. member did not refer but which were also criticised by other hon. members on the ground that they had a restraining effect on the development of the country. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the special levy on trades profits. I held out the prospect of that tax disappearing after the war. He asked why it should not go now. My answer is that there are 4,850,000 golden reasons—good reasons at any rate—why it should not go. That tax will yield £4,850,000 this year, and we cannot do without that money. The hon. member did suggest that if the tax were abolished we would be able to find the money by spreading the burden over the taxpayers from the top to the bottom. The special levy is paid today, the amount of nearly £5,000,000 is paid today by some 1,200 companies or individuals, principally by people with large incomes. The hon. member now wants to relieve the 1,200 persons and companies of this burden, and he wants all of us, from the very poorest, to take over the burden which now rests on those people. I do not think that suggestion will have any support in this House, apart form the support of the representatives of big finance. Then the hon. member for Pretoria (City) recommended a change in the tax on private companies. His plea also amounted to this, that under the present system of taxation of private companies they could not create reserves with a view to post-war conditions. Why cannot they create such reserves? What is the reason for it? They can create reserves, but all we say is that they must first pay their taxes and then create reserves. Naturally they want to be exempt from taxation, but if the hon. member for Pretoria (City) and myself were to enter into a partnership, a trading concern, or whatever it might be, is it not a fact that we would not be able to create a reserve until such time as both of us had paid the whole of our tax? If I, as Minister, as an individual in a pretty uncertain position—the hon. member may at any time take over my seat—if I as an individual, because of my uncertain position, want to set aside part of my salary as a reserve for the future —whether it is to be used for agricultural purposes or for industrial purposes—I first of all have to pay my taxes before I can do so. I want to put this question: Why should the shareholders in private companies be exempt from this tax? Why should the partnership between my friend and myself then have to pay the tax? I, as an individual, and all of us, can create reserves, but we can only do so after we have paid our taxes. It sounds very fine to say that private companies must have the right to create reserves out of their profits, to “plough back profits,” but what does that mean? It means that we would be exempting those private companies from taxation which would then have to be paid by the general taxpayer, even by the poorest taxpayer. It would mean that those companies could increase their assets but not by giving the public the opportunity of taking up shares on which dividends would have to be paid, not by entering into loans on which interest would have to be paid, but they would increase their assets out of profits on which they would not be paying taxation, taxation which would then have to be paid by the general taxpayer—even by the poorest taxpayers—as I have already said. In that way the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. Now I come to the third part of the amendment of the hon. member for George. In that section he has raised the question of the establishment of industries. I am not going to say very much about that. That is an aspect of the matter on which my hon. colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, will have something to say at the right time. I only want to say this, that the hon. member for George wants to set aside an industrial fund. Well, it sounds very fine to say that. we should take money out of taxes and set aside that money and when the time arrives take those funds to develop industries. It sounds very fine indeed, but I can only repeat what I said last year, that that would mean that a fund would have to be created—as the hon. member put it — to be used afterwards and we would have to do so now, at a time when we are borrowing large sums of money. It would simply mean that we would have to borrow more money, and that we would now be taking money from the public in the form of taxes which we do not need, which is an unsound principle. My hon. friends want the citizens of this country to become partners in the industries of the country. That is the very thing we have brought about. For that reason we established the Industrial Develop-Corporation in 1Θ40. In that way we are doing what they want, but we are doing it in a sound way, because we are finding the money—but only when the money is required. It is rather striking—and we are so often told that in this respect we are behind other countries like ourselves—that at this very moment Canada, four years after us, is passing legislation in the same spirit as the legislation passed by us in 1940. I want to put this question : Is there anything in the history of South Africa that has done more towards developing our industries than South Africa’s participation in this war and the character of our contribution to the war effort? We have extended our factories, and while it is true we have done so on a war basis, those factories can be converted to a peace basis. As a result of that the technical ability of our engineers has been developed and we have brought out and encouraged the natural ability of our workers; as a result we have tremendously extended our resources both material and human in the industrial area, and we have strengthened our position very considerably with a view to the future. As a result of the anti-war policy of our friends opposite they cannot share in the credit for the industrial development which has been made possible by our participation in the war. I have said a few words about the criticism that has been levelled against our taxation system having a restraining effect on productivity. That argument was also used by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and I want to draw attention to a few contradictions in that hon. member’s speech. He started off by saying that we in South Africa had a position of total employment, yet he criticised the Budget on the ground that it did not encourage greater employment. The hon. member is in favour of the war policy which involves heavier taxation, and he has no objection to the well-to-do people being more heavily taxed. Yet he says it is the wrong policy to put on any kind of brake in regard to industrial development. The imposition of taxation is the brake which we apply, and I should like to know how we are to carry on the war without that taxation? The hon. member mentions the paying of cost-of-living allow ances and he criticises it as a wrong step. The hon. member did not take into account the fact that early in the war there was an increase in the price of our requirements which were imported from overseas. A large proportion of the inflation is imported inflation, and the hon. member did not tell us what we should have done, apart from giving an increased cost-of-living allowance; he did not tell us what we should have done to relieve the position of the lower paid section of the community. He also said that we should do much more to build up stocks of consumers’ goods. He did say, however, as I have already told the House; that we have total employment here, so where are we to get the workers for this building-up of the stocks of consumers’ goods? Where are we to get the materials and the equipment? He added that the Government had no social security plan, and yet when we discussed social security here he withdrew his amendment and voted for the Government motion. No, the hon. member for Durban (Berea) treated the House to a series of generally unassailable economic platitudes, but he will pardon me if I say that he has not shown much knowledge of the practical difficulties of war financing. He also had something to say about our national debt, and he described the public debt of nearly £500,000,000 as inflationary. He said we would have to pay £14,000,000 by way of interest on that debt, and then he added, “That money is not going to the masses of the people. It is going to the bondholders. It is going to be a surplus fund to bolster up bankcredits.” Other hon. members spoke in the same spirit. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) said: “War borrowing means that the majority of posterity will have to pay interest to the minority.” I prefer to say nothing about the hon. member’s other idea that we should rather borrow money in other countries, or about the impression which he created that we could repudiate our foreign debt. I am sure he himself regrets having said that. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) also spoke as though all the money which we are borrowing at the moment for the war is obtained from financial institutions which are therefore using it to extend credit facilities. From the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Bumside), too, one would deduce that practically all our loans in connection with war finance come from the banks. Now, what is the true position? We expect to borrow £64,500,000 this year, apart from the £12,000,000 which has been repaid to the Public Debt Commissioners and which has been reinvested. Of that £64,500,000— £37,250,000 comes from the Public Debt Commissioners. Of that about £22,500,000 comes from Union Loan Certificates and deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, and the balance is made up mainly of pension and trust funds, and that money does not belong to a small minority of people who have a lot of capital available. From the insurance companies—and that mainly is the money of the insured people, we shall get £7,250,000. From building societies, mainly the money of depositors, we get 2.8 million pounds. From municipalities — also the money of the general public—we get £1,300,000; from pension funds 1.8 million pounds. So of this £64,500,000 — £50,500,000 comes from the general ranks of the public as a whole. What then of the other £14,000,000? The public as investors, small investors as well as large investors, but principally the well-to-do, contribute 7.6 millions. The mining companies contribute half a million pounds. Financial institutions contribute £3,500,000, and the banks contribute 2.4 million pounds. That is all the banks contribute. Hon. members will realise that this war has brought about two big changes in regard to our public debt. The first big change is that we have largely repatriated our overseas public debt. We have very little overseas debt today. The second change is that so far as our local debt is concerned, we have never before had the position where our civil population have had such a large share in our public debt as today. It is not from the banks, not from the financial institutions, not from the very wealthy, that we have got most of this money, and it is not to the banks and to those institutions that the interest has to be paid. It is the small man in particular, spread all over South Africa, who today is a shareholder in the State, and who in days to come will get the interest on the public debt. And in regard to the allied question of a State Bank I want to say this: We have a State Bank in South Africa, viz., the Reserve Bank. That is the only bank which can issue notes. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) was not correct when he said that if these buildings had belonged to Barclays Bank, Barclays Bank could have issued notes on the credit of these buildings. Only the Reserve Bank can issue notes. The real difference between the Reserve Bank and the kind of State bank which my hon. friend proposes is that our Reserve Bank only issues notes in accordance with the productivity and commercial requirements of this country, and not on the instructions of the Government. I hope that that distinction will continue for many years. I further want to associate myself with the Socialistic Minister of Finance of New Zealand. I am sure his words will carry weight with my hon. friend. Let me quote from the Round Table of March, 1940—

I also want to ask my hon. friend whether Australia’s Socialistic Government is not still issuing loans on the usual interest bearing basis? I want to know whether that is not the position in Soviet Russia too? Just two more points about our public debt. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Dönges) spoke as though we had run up a war debt of £184,000,000. The hon. member for Fauresmith called that amount an “unproductive debt” (’n dooieskuld). The hon. member for Waterberg also said that £184,000,000 had been fired away through the barrels of our guns. I cannot allow that impression to go about the country, because it is a wrong impression. It is perfectly true that our public debt over a period of four years has increased by £184,000,000, but apart from the permanent assets which we have obtained out of war expenditure on loan account, there is £54,000,000 of loan money which in the ordinary course of events was used for normal purposes, and for which we have assets. The increase in unproductive debt therefore is not £184,000,000 but £130,000,000. I think it is necessary for me to make that correction. The second remaining point in regard to our public debt is this: Our general financial policy in regard to war finance has been criticised from two different points of view. Some members, like the hon. member for Cape Western, think that we are borrowing too much. He said: “Stop borrowing.” He said that this money which we want to borrow can be obtained by means of taxation. Apparently the hon. member did not realise that only a small portion of the money which we are now borrowing is really inflationary. I think it must be clear to him also now where the major portion of the £64,500,000 comes from. It does not come from a small section of the people, but it comes from all over South Africa, even from the poorer sections. We would not be able to get so much money by means of taxation. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) on the other hand said that our taxation was too high and that we should borrow more. He said: “We are fighting a war for posterity, so why not let posterity pay.” I think the hon. member has lost sight of the fact that in a time like this the imposition of taxes is one of the most effective anti-inflationary measures. In other words, if we had not imposed such heavy taxes the inflationary tendency would have been stronger. The hon. member has also forgotten this, that the heritage—the hon. member spoke about posterity having to pay the interest on our public debt—is already making itself felt, and in this respect I want to point out that we are already paying the burden, we are already paying the interest on the public debt. My hon. friend knows that the fact that we have to find an extra £5,000,000 for interest on public debt is very definitely already having a restraining effect when we come to the expansion of social services and other works. Well, the hon. member for Cape Western and the hon. member for Hospital sit near each other and they should settle their little differences themselves. So far as we are concerned I think we are on the right course, and now I come to the question of inflation to which several hon. members have referred. I first of all must correct the hon. member for George. He made the mistake and the hon. member for Fauresmith made the same mistake—and I believe their newspapers also did so—of deducing from the fact that the provision made in the Estimates for cost of living is twice as large as it was a year ago, that that is an indication that we anticipate the cost of living becoming twice as high as it is.

That is what you said.

No, I did not say that, and it is a wrong deduction. The hon. member has lost sight of the fact that the amount which we are now providing on the Estimates certainly is double the amount which was provided in last year’s Appropriation Act, but it is not double the full amount for which provision has been made this year. In other words, the hon. member has not taken account of the fact that that amount has already been increased in the two additional estimates. Last year we orginally framed the estimates with a cost of living allowance based on 18 per cent., but in the meanwhile this has gone up to 26 per cent. But something else has happened. In the meanwhile we have made the system of cost of living allowances more liberal. We have added particularly to the expenditure under this heading so far as the lowly paid classes of our officials are concerned. My hon. friend will therefore realise that he has made a wrong deduction from these figures. I can give him the assurance that the provision made is not on the basis of 52 per cent. but on the basis of 26 per cent. The members of the Opposition by their Jeremiads naturally want to create the impression that the inflation position has become entirely ungovernable. The hon. member for Waterberg spoke about the Government’s reckless inflation policy. The hon. member for Fauresmith said that inflation had got completely out of hand. Now, is that really the case? Let us look at the figures. I said that in Desember the cost-of-living figures began to give us an indication that we had succeeded in putting the brake on the increase in the cost-of-living. I gave the figures for a period of six months, from May to November, for the years 1941, 1942 and 1943. Later figures are now available and I propose giving the figures for the period May to January for these same years; in order to save the time of the House I shall confine myself to giving general figures. In 1941 the increase in prices over the period of eight months was 67 points; in 1942 the increase over the same period was 42 points, and in 1943 the increase for the same period was 16 points. The increase was from 24.8 to 26.4 per cent. These certainly are encouraging figures. It is true that other countries have been more successful than South Africa in combating the increase in the cost-of-living. That is largely due to reasons which we have not been able to control. Let me mention one of those reasons—the drought of 1941-’42 which had a very serious effect. I mention the fact that we are dependent on our export from abroad to a much greater extent than other countries. It means that we have more imported inflation than other countries. I also mention the fact that it is much more difficult for us than it is for those other countries which have been mentioned here, to institute a system of rationing in view of the fact that we have got a homogeneous population, and I further want to mention the fact that those countries have done very much more than we have done in the way of subsidising prices. We would have been able to control the position if we had done the same thing. Canada has already spent £30,000,000 on this kind of subsidisation, but don’t let hon. members forget this : The subsidisation of foodstuffs stops the increase of prices to the consumer, but they do not prevent the real danger of inflation. The same amount of money is always brought into circulation under the system of subsidisation. The fact of the matter is that the taxpayer has to pay instead of the consumer. It may perhaps be a fair arrangement, but it does not stop the danger of inflation. The danger of post-war inflation is added to rather than reduced by a system of subsidisation, and it is particularly the post-war inflation danger which we are afraid of—that is what history has always taught us. The rise in prices during a war is perhaps of a passing nature, but the greatest danger lies in the fact that the monetary unit may collapse after the war. The hon. member for Fauresmith mentioned the increase of bank deposits with the Reserve Bank as though that was evidence of already existing inflation. No, it does not prove that. It rather proves that that money is not in circulation today. That money is locked up today, and is out of danger. Everything will depend, however, on the way that money is put into circulation later.

It is a potential danger.

Yes, my hon. friend is quite correct, it is a potential danger, but so far as that is concerned I feel we can face the future with confidence. The lesson we were taught after the last war is not going to be forgotten by the Government very easily, it is not going to be forgotten by the financial institutions, by the banks and by others. The present system of control means that we are very much better prepared than we were in the past to go through the transitory period, and in addition to that the sound and strong position of South Africa’s Reserve Bank gives us the best cause for looking forward to South Africa’s future, also so far as this is concerned, with confidence. Just one word on the question of inflation— the increase in the prices of land. Two years ago we instituted a profit tax on fixed property. It is said sometimes, especially by interested parties, that this tax was a failure. It is not a failure. It has not been quite successful, but had it not been for that tax the position in this regard would have got completely out of hand. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) admitted that I have at least to a small extent stopped speculation in fixed property. In these estimates we go further and we do so on a small scale by increasing transfer duties, and perhaps on a larger scale by our proposals in regard to income tax on the man who is not a bona fide farmer. That will contribute considerably towards achieving what we desire. The question has been asked whether we should not go further. The hon. member for Fauresmith recommended the New Zealand system, a system under which apparently nobody is allowed to buy land without a permit from the authorities.

I simply mentioned it.

If that system had been introduced in South Africa I wonder whether the hon. member would have supported it? No, hon. members opposite would have criticised it very strongly.· Now I should like to know whether the Party opposite would as a whole agree in this regard with the hon. member for Fauresmith? And now I come to the question of what the reaction was to my Budget proposals. We have had certain suggestions for ordinary expenditure, and also suggestions for increased taxation, and as usual requests have come forward from several sides for more money to be provided for social security, for the expansion of social services and all the rest of it. Requests have also been made from various sides asking us to abolish existing taxes, or not to insist on certain proposals in the Budget for the purpose of finding money, and when those representations are made to me the question arises in my mind:

One would think they were working there for nothing.

Let me put it this way. Which country in the world would tolerate a position under which the money for social services for the poorest section of the population had to come from that section of the population only? In which country in the world are not the more privileged section of the population expected to contribute to the social services for the less privileged section of the population? Other members have also tried to belittle what we are doing in the direction of social security. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) wants to create the impression that we are doing nothing. He said: “Some concrete proof must be given.” And he made quite unnecessary and unbecoming demands from the Government. As if we are really doing nothing in this Budget! The hon. member for Durban (North) (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) represented our proposal to increase the old age pensions for whites to £5 per month as a ridiculous proposal. He forgets that that is the amount which the Planning Council has recommended; we have appointed a Select Committee to go into the proposal of the Planning Council and in the meantime we have to keep within the scope of the recommendations of the Planning Council. The hon. member also forgot that one of the members of the Planning Council, which thought that £5 was insufficient, sits behind him on these same benches. I make bold to say that hon. members of this House, including the hon. member for South Rand and for Durban (North) were pleasantly surprised to find that we have done as much for social security as we have in fact done in the Budget. Other hon. members have also advocated increased expenditure. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) are anxious to further extend the old age pension for coloured people. That plea is to their credit. I am afraid, however, that pending the report of the Select Committee we cannot go any further. We have tried in our proposals to maintain a sound balance between the various elements of our community. One should not forget that one of the most important proposals in that connection is the institution, for the first time, of an invalidity allowance for coloured people, and if one takes the matter as a whole one has to come to the conclusion that generally speaking the coloured people cannot complain about their share of the benefits which will flow from this Budget. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) asked for more money for research work and university training. So far as research work is concerned he was unfortunately under the impression that the £5,000 for national research work constitute the total amount for research work. He is entirely mistaken there. This is only part of the expenditure. If he studies the estimates he will find that on other votes, too, provision is made for research work, and the fact that the Research Council has succeeded in the short space of a few years in building up a reserve fund out of their grants, goes to prove that we have not treated them too badly. So far as universities are concerned I intend this year appointing a special committee of enquiry which will go into the general question of university finances. So far as this point is concerned the hon. member for Gardens also created a wrong impression when he said that the minimum salary of a professor overseas is £2,000, and that we pay much less here. May I point out to the hon. member that one always runs the risk of spoiling a good case by exaggeration. In regard to the number of students who can be trained at our medical schools I may say that I appointed a Committee last year of which the hon. for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) is a member, and I want to thank him and his colleagues for the work they have done. They found that by allowing three hundred medical students to graduate every year from the three medical schools, we shall be able to provide for the country’s requirements. That finding of theirs will be reviewed by us later on in the light of the report of the National Health Services Commission, of which the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) is the Chairman. But that Committee also found that in view of the restricted clinical facilities at the three universities it is not possible to allow more than 300 students to graduate each year. It appears from the discussions I have had with the universities that there may possibly be a difference of opinion on this and that the figure of 300 may perhaps be increased to 340, but that would be the maximum. There are no facilities to train more. The difficulty is particularly in regard to clinical material. The difficulties do not arise at the beginning of the course, but in the sixth year, and one cannot get past those difficulties as easily as the hon. member for Gardens seems to think. It is not just a question of money. The hon. member for Gardens has also lost sight of the further difficulty in regard to obstetric material. At the present moment there are not sufficient confinement cases available for the training of medical students. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said that the number of babies that were born was not sufficient. The hon. member for Gardens apparently holds the Minister of Finance responsible for everything that is lacking in regard to medical training. I hope he is not going to blame me for this shortage as well. Now I come to the question of Oudstryders. Here a further amendment has been proposed by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), an amendment which I cannot accept either. I do not think it can be contended that this Government has not proved that it is sympathetically disposed towards the Oudstryders. Anyhow, this is the only Government which has given practical evidence of its sympathy for the Oudstryders. This is the only Government which has really come to the assistance of the Oudstryders. Now the hon. member for Boshof wants the assistance which we granted a few years ago to be made retrospective, and he wants us to pay the arrear pensions of the past. That would create an impossible precedent in regard to pensions. I am sorry those pensions were not granted sooner by this House, but the hon. member cannot blame this Government for that—he should blame the previous Government for it. He cannot accuse us of that injustice. He cannot accuse us of having cast a blot on the nation. I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. As a matter of fact this amendment is proposed by way of an addition to the amendment of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) which in any case cannot be accepted, but I further want to say that in two respects this amendment is not in conformity with the principles which we have so far followed. In the first place we have always tried to treat war pensioners—from whatever war—alike. It is now proposed in this amendment that a special compensation should be granted to one class of war veteran. In the second place we have always stood by the principle laid down by the Inter-departmental Committee, that Oudstryders pensions must be worked in with old age pensions—in other words, that the Oudstryder pension must be an antedated old age pension. That is the principle which so far as this question is concerned, is also followed in other countries. The fact that we made a temporary concession last year pending the further investigation into old age pensions, that we gave these people an increase of 30 per cent., does not go to prove that we have departed from the principle. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about the Budget proposals so far as expenditure is concerned. I can now come to the taxation proposals, and they will not keep me long. Very little criticism has been levelled against our taxation proposals, very little criticism of any importance. That part of the Budget, as somebody said, apparently was as round as a slippery stone, and those who wanted to criticise the taxation proposals really could not get hold of anything. That being so, I need only deal with two points in regard to these taxation proposals. In the first place I have been asked why we do not go any further. Well, in future I shall take account of the expressed wish of hon. members for increased taxation. That question has been put particularly in regard to brokers’ notes, and I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) that he has received instructions from brokers asking for a further increase of taxation on brokers’ notes. The brokers in this respect have displayed an excellent spirit by making such a request through their mouthpiece. I shall not forget it. A more important aspect was, however, touched upon by hon. members opposite. The question was asked why not impose a tax on speculation profits so far as the exchange is concerned.” I can assure hon. members that if there is one thing which I would have liked to propose it is that.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was discussing the difficulty of taxing speculation profits made on the share market. I have been giving my attention to the possibility of doing so for a long time, but there are certain difficulties which I am not yet able to overcome. They are not just difficulties in theory, as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) wants to pretend. In the first place there is the difficulty that many transactions are not registered. I do not want to say that it is quite impossible to require all transactions to be registered, but it is not easy to do so, and it would have far-reaching results. But one is then faced with the fact that if one wanted to tax speculation profits in all fairness one would have to take into account also speculation losses. The postion in regard to shares is not the same as it is in regard to fixed property. Shares fluctuate in value very much more than fixed property does. The value fluctuates very fast and the shares pass quickly from hand to hand, more so than in the case of fixed property. Hardly anyone who has bought property lately has lost money, but people who invest a little in the share market today and make a bit of money may lose it again tomorrow. Take the case of a man who in January buys 100 shares in a company at 10s. In February he buys another share at 15s., and in March he buys a further 100 shares in the same company at 20s. In April he sells 100 shares at 15s. Now, we have to tax that man. On what amount will we have to tax him? The hon. member will realise that considerable difficulty will be created.

What about horse racing? The Provincial Council succeded in taxing that.

The difficulties are very considerable, and I have not yet succeeded in overcoming them. If hon. members can come along with a plan which could be put into practical effect I will be only too pleased to have it; I am quite prepared to go thoroughly into any proposal that is made. Then there is the tax on wine and tobacco. I really don’t want to give much attention to the canteen stories and other unsavoury remarks of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). By their moderate attitude the hon. members for Hottentots - Holland, Worcester, Paarl, Caledon and Malmesbury have shown that they are much better friends of the wine industry than the hon. member for Swellendam. The hon. member for Swellendam said that there was no country in the world where a tax was imposed on table wine. He is mistaken. Even here in South Africa, as far back as 1715, more than 200 years ago, a tax of one ryksdaalder was imposed on all wine. And when the hon. member says that the wine farmers will not forgive me he is also mistaken. He said the same thing last year, and I subsequently addressed a series of meetings in the wine industry districts, but I did not meet with any trouble from the wine farmers at any of those meetings. The hon. members who discussed this question in a more reasonable manner have promoted the real interests of the wine farmer much more effectively.

What have they achieved by it?

I have been asked to give an assurance that after the war there will be no tax on wine. I do not see how I can bind either myself or my successors by giving such an assurance, but let me say this: The heavier a tax on an industry, the greater the share of the Minister of Finance in that industry, and the greater his interest in the continuation of that industry. Any Minister of Finance will very definitely have to take account of the possible falling off in the consumption of an industry in which he is such a big shareholder, and we shall therefore be obliged in this connection to keep a careful watch over the position, and if necessary review our taxation policy. It will not be in the financial interest of the Minister of Finance to allow an industry in which he has such a big interest to bleed to death. That also applies to tobacco. There, too, signs of a drop in the consumption of tobacco will have to be watched. It has been said that there has already been such a drop in consumption in regard to certain types of tobacco. I am not so sure that that is not attributable to causes other than the tax. For instance, there is a shortage of pipes and matches. Many people smoke more matches than tobacco. In addition to that we have had. a falling off in the number of convoys calling at our ports, and I therefore feel those circumstances are the explanation of the drop which has taken place. There is one other point I want to refer to in that connection, and I want to do so arising out of what the hon. member for Paarl said. He raised the question of the export of fortified wine. I have gone into that point and I am going to propose that this tax be not levied on the type of wine which is exported. I want to conclude with a brief reference to a few general points. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill), too, referred to the sale of so-called unit certificates. They expressed the desire that a certain degree of control should be introduced over the activities of bodies who sell these certificates in the same way as control is exercised over building societies. I want to assure hon. members that this matter has already had my attention. The system may possibly lead to undesirable practices; I do not believe, however, that such a position has yet arisen in South Africa.

No.

I am glad the hon. member agrees. So far no difficulties have experienced rendering the introduction of legislation necessary, but we shall watch the position further. The hon. member for Pretoria East also spoke about control over the share market. The legislation in existence in that connection is the Transvaal Act No. 34 of 1909, which deals with the question of Exchange licences. Under that Act the power is in the hands of the Provincial Administration. I intend, arising of what has been said here, and arising out of the representations made to me by the Transvaal Province, to propose during this session that that power be transferred from the Provincial Administrations to the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) has referred to income tax payable by soldiers, and he wants us, as a sign of recognition and gratitude to our soldiers and exsoldiers to grant them now and in the future a certain degree of exemption from income tax. I want to assure the hon. member that there is no lack of willingness to show our gratitude to the soldiers, but it will be done in a different way. The taxation system is not a suitable means of expressing our gratitude. The taxation system is a means of finding the money which can be used to express our gratitude in a different way. I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that so far as soldiers outside the Union are concerned, my Department does not initiate any correspondence with them on taxation matters. Sometimes my Department may not be aware of the fact that a particular person has gone up North. and it may be that the assessment, or whatever it may be, reaches him when he is up North. It is quite impossible to entirely remove the possibility of that happening, but if we know that they are up North we do not send any correspondence to them direct. Finally, the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) raised a few points, first of all in connection with the exemption of taxation at present enjoyed by co-operative societies. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Commerce and Industries, and myself, last year appointed an Inter-departmental Committee to go into that question and I hope we shall soon be able to consider the report of that Committee. The hon. member also spoke about the bank notes which were being hoarded at the moment as a result of black market and similar operations. He suggested that we should recall our present note issue and substitute it by another issue and in that way get to know the people who are in possession of large quantities of bank notes, and thus catch them. I am afraid that that method would not be of much avail. We have a very extensive country and we would not be able to take a step of that kind without giving proper notice, and during the period of notice these particular people, these black knights, would find an opportunity of getting rid of their notes in some way or another without causing any suspicion. I want to assure my hon. friend and the House, however, that the question of evading taxation by accumulating money made mainly as a result of illegitimate transactions has very definitely had the attention of the Department. We have secured further information of cases where people have sold either shares or property, or whatever it may be, and have been paid in bank notes. Generally, where a thing like that happens, and where large payments are made in bank notes, we may suspect that the money has not been obtained in a legitimate manner. I also want to tell the House that we have had a considerable amount of success, both directly and indirectly—directly because as a result we have been able to issue quite a number of large assessments for taxation or for fines, and indirectly because an ever increasing number of persons are now-a-days coming forward with confessions of guilt. In a departmental report which reached me today this sentence appears: “Attorneys report waiting list of taxpayers wishing to confess.” I hope that that waiting list will grow considerably. I want to conclude with a reference to another point mentioned by the hon. member for Wynberg. He spoke appreciatively of the zeal and thoroughness with which officials of the Department of Inland Revenue have acquitted themselves of their difficult task during war time. I am glad he did so, particularly as the Chief of that Department, Mr. Wiggett, will be retiring within a few months. It is right that I should express to him and his staff my appreciation of the good work they have done, and I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wynberg has said. I also want to extend my appreciation to the staff of the other Treasury Departments and also of the Post Offices, insofar as they act as receivers of revenue for the Treasury. I have had on occasions to drive those Departments hard during the last few years, but they have never left me in the lurch. Where our war finances have been crowned with such a great degree of success in these times I want to say that a great share of the credit must in the first instance be given to those officials.

As is customary in the Railway debate very few members have had anything to say about the Railway Budget, or about the Railway finance. Nevertheless I shall do my best to answer the questions that were put, although I may say that very few of them raised any matter that is new, or any matter that had not been dealt with before in this House at considerable length. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) was rather afraid that as the days of surpluses had gone we would probably not be able to look after our workers as we had been doing in the past, and she feared that in consequence the non-European workers might suffer. She said we would be looking after every sixpence. I want to assure the hon. member for Cape Eastern that we always have looked after every sixpence and we would continue to do so, but I do not think that fact need make her unduly pessimistic. I should like to assure the hon. member for Cape Eastern and this House that when the Government says that it is out to better the conditions of the Railway workers, or of any body of workers, it means what it says. It is customary, I know, to sneer at the Government, to say that we talk about things, but don’t do them, but I can assure the hon. member that as far as it lies in my power and in the power of the Government we shall try to carry out what we have said. I want the South African Railways to be a model employer, and not merely hold out the prospect that some day it will be. Now, it is quite true that although expenditure is rising, we are not in any way at the end of our capacity to meet that expenditure. We have, as the South African Railways, during this war a very good record. During this war with constantly increasing expenditure of every kind, we have lowered our tariff rates, and not increased them. During this war we have made considerable discounts to the Defence Department, and we have also made discounts in other directions. These things in a world of rising expenditure mean in effect that we have considerable reserves still in hand to meet any expenditure that may be necessary, that must be faced in order to bring up our lower paid workers, Europeans and non-Europeans, to better standards and to better conditions. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member when she complimented the Railways on the speed and the success of their experiment in the matter of rehabilitating what used to be known as the poor whites. That great social experiment has been very successful. But I would remind the hon. member that that experiment was started not less than twenty years ago, whereas with the non-Europeans we have only started something like four years ago. I would therefore ask her to be patient and not to overdrive the carrier. Our experience is that no good purpose can ever be achieved by a Minister if he goes too far ahead of public opinion, or tries to force public opinion in a particular direction. Fortunately for me, and thanks very largely to the work of the hon. member for Cape Eastern and her colleagues, I am satisfied that these people are moving forward to better standards, that our non-European workers are moving in the right direction, and I can only express the hope and give the hon. member the assurance that I hope always to be in the vanguard of that movement rather than in the rear. I was quite embarrassed by the kind remarks which fell from the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf). While Cabinet Ministers all nurture the secret belief that they are worthy of far higher commendation than they usually get, it is rarely they get it, and when they do get it they do not know how to treat it. Being somewhat Scotch I always look for a snag somewhere, but I must thank the hon. member for his remarks and also for the fact that there was no snag in them. Now, in regard to his remarks I am fully aware of the difficulties of our grade III workers but unfortunately in a great service like the South African Railways we have so many coming in at the bottom and so few coming out at the top that there must somewhere in between be a place where people find a bottleneck, and are held up, and that, so far as the salaried staff are concerned, is undoubtedly at the grade III level to which the hon. member referred. But that matter is receiving my most earnest attention at the present time, and I hope we shall be able, in consultation with the group concerned, to find some relief, at any rate for many of our servants who have been in our service for many years, and who have never risen higher than the level indicated by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). Now, about the hours of duty I can tell the hon. member that only two or three days ago I received the Hours of Duty Committee’s Report, and that will be examined immediately, and I hope before very long to be able to act on it. It will naturally take from a month to six weeks, but I hope that no more time will be lost in getting a move on with it. I know that the staff themselves are paying the greatest attention to this Report, and it will be my duty to see that these matters are not left hanging too long without the Railway Administration’s taking some steps, and stating its policy. Now, the view was also expressed by the hon. member that suburban coaches might be used on the main lines to ease the position of accommodation on those lines. The difficulty there is that suburban coaches are not fit forlong distance travelling. Not only are there no arrangements on these coaches for washing and so on, but there are other reasons why they are not suitable. But apart from that, the suburban traffic, as a result of the war, has increased tremendously, and it would be impossible to take any stock, any suburban stock, off the suburban lines and put it on the main lines. Hon. members will appreciate that our suburban traffic has increased by leaps and bounds, largely owing to the shortage of motor cars, and all our suburban stock is needed at the moment for the suburban traffic. The question of a special staff section which the hon. member raised is already being attended to. We already have a special section of our staff organisation whose sole duty is to attend to the returning soldiers in the employment of the Railways. That section will not only do all it can for these men, but it will also deal with returned soldiers who have had no previous Railway experience, so that any soldier coming back, who needs assistance or special training, will have his needs met through that special section. I was also glad to hear his suggestion for inspectors to go among the staff to find promising men. That is a matter which I have at heart and anything we can do to bring on men who deserve promotion in the Railway Service, I shall gladly do. It is a very difficult thing having regard to the size of our staff, but the suggestion which the hon. member makes is one which I shall bear in mind. Now, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) again this year, as last year, seemed somewhat concerned about the future prospects of the Railways, and particularly about their capacity to find employment for all people they had committed themselves to, namely their own employees, plus the 2,500 others whom we have undertaken to help, during the general demobilisation period. The hon. member pointed out that financially we have heavy commitments not only in respect of soldiers’ pay but also in respect of our future capital demands. I think the hon. member is unduly pessimistic. The item of expenditure involved in making up the civil pay of the soldier can be regarded as revenue reserved against the time when we shall require that revenue to meet the needs of the soldiers when they come back, because the moment the soldier leaves the army and comes back, that expenditure stops but it will be available for other purposes. As to the general employment position on the Railways, there are two things which the hon. member must bear in mind. We have a large number of pensioners working now, and they naturally will go back to whatever they were doing before we took them on. There is no obligation on the part of the Railways to continue to employ such pensioners. There is also the factor of general wastage which takes place continually on the Railways, running into some thousands every year which will enable us to take on quite a number of men. There is, of course the further consideration that we are so far in arrears in regard to our maintenance, in our manufacturing shops—we are so heavily in arrears that we shall be in a position to employ large numbers of hands. At the moment all our shops are short handed, and all our work is done with short staffs, and we shall be able to employ large numbers when the soldiers return. As to the question of our increased capital commitments I rather think the hon. member has not made due allowance for the fact that a great deal of our capital expenditure comes out of our renewals and betterment fund. A large number of the items indicated will come out of the Renewals Fund—at least £12,000,000 of the total items indicated will come out of this fund. There must be further capital commitments because for five years we have been keeping our requirements down to the minimum, but our capital commitments will not reach an unmanageable size. I was interested in the hon. member’s remarks about the Rates Equalisation Fund, and I am glad I have in him a supporter in keeping that fund at a high level. Unfortunately the question of putting further contributions to the Rates Equalisation Fund is now a question of theory rather than of practice because in practice the Rates Equalisation Fund can only be fed from surpluses and I see no prospect of Railway surpluses during the next few years, although I am not unduly pessimistic. Let us remember that the surpluses of the last few years have been largely fortuitous as a result of the extraordinary expansion of our industries, and the large load factor which the Railways have been able to carry. So that we have a long lag before the expenditure will overtake the activities which have caused these surpluses, and as the House knows we have laid aside a considerable reserve against the time when we have to go down the other side. The question of allowing Railway men to interest themselves in war work was raised by a few members, and I agree that that of course, is a subject on which hon. members opposite and I will never agree. I would, however, ask the hon. member if he does not agree with me in this, that it is a good thing for the Minister of Railways to do what he can to promote among his staff a feeling of public service, satisfaction and contentment. If that is so I think he will also agree with me—well he may not agree with me, but I regard war services as one of the best ways in which to encourage such development where service on the part of those on the home front is a matter of first rate importance. If the members of our staff wish to offer that service at no cost to the Railways, either in material or in time. I see no reason at all why I should discourage it. On the contrary, I see a great many reasons for encouraging it. With regard to the question of the appointment of non-Europeans to graded posts, I do not know whether the hon. member knows the facts. The only appointments made have been the two or three native welfare workers—women—who work among the non-European workers. I intend developing that idea.

Will you give them graded posts?

I say that they will be graded. Now, I come to the hon. member for AlbertColesberg (Mr. Boltman) who I see on this occasion is in his place when I reply to him. Now, this hon. member is also somewhat concerned about our future. I have explained to this House many times that the present turnover of the Railways is not primarily due to Defence expenditure. Let me take passenger revenue as a good case in point, because passenger revenue is the biggest revenue we get from the Defence Department, and it can easily be isolated from the rest. Passenger revenue at present is between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000 per annum. The Defence contribution to this is approximately £2,000,000. If you deduct that £2,000,000 from say, £10,500,000, you are left with a balance of £8,500,000 for passenger traffic which has nothing to do with the Defence Department. Our normal revenue from passengers is £5,500,000. Owing to the war, and apart from Defence expenditure, our passenger revenue has gone up by well over 50 per cent. We are having a period of abnormal prosperity in regard to passenger traffic, but only a small proportion is due to Defence traffic. I only make that point to show that we are not on such an unsound foundation as the hon. member would indicate when he said that the moment the war finishes this revenue will disappear.

I said that a lot of this revenue was due to people having no petrol.

Now, the increase generally in our Railway turnover, as I have indicated over and over again, is due to the remarkable industrialisation of our country, and what is important—and it rather surprised me that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg did not appreciate it—is that it is the duty of any competent Railway Minister so to develop his Railway turnover that after the war that turnover should continue in spite of the fact that the war is at. an end. The Government is doing everything it can in that direction, and the Railways are playing their part. Why does the hon. member criticise me for trying to develop trade with the Belgian Congo and with French Central Africa? Rather than to discourage me the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg should, as a supporter of good Railway finance, congratulate me on this farsighted effort in trying to cultivate a market for our increasing industries which will take the place of the war market which they are now getting the benefit of. Incidently I may say that any little sacrifices made in regard to these reduced rates fall more heavily on the Rhodesian Railways than on the South African Railways. I am interested that hon. members opposite are concerned about the rising tide of expenditure. The hon. member asked me how I was going to control it, but I would remind the hon. member that this rising tide in expenditure is entirely due to the better conditions which our Railway workers are getting.

Is that the only reason?

Does the hon. member wish me to discourage the improvement of conditions of our Railway workers?

Is that the only reason?

It is by a long way the principal reason. The great bulk of our increased expenditure goes to the staff. Does the hon. member wish to discourage that? I am afraid I would be very severely criticised by the Opposition if I took up a different attitude. I am sure hon. members would be the last to ask me to take up such an attitude. No, the Railways will have to follow suit with other people—if wages rise elsewhere, Railway wages must rise too. And here again let me emphasise that we have a good record. We still have reserves if we have no surpluses, and there is no reason to be afraid that the Railways will have to retrench or that they will be unable to follow the example of other sections in providing better emoluments or improvements for its staff. It is necessary, of course, that the Minister of Railways shall always hold a fair balance between the needs of Railway servants in the matter of wages and those of Railway users in the matter of reasonable transport costs. That balance must always be kept. I am satisfied the Railway user will be ready to ensure decent wages and conditions for those who serve him and the Railways should not be anything but model employers. The hon. member also referred to the closed shop principle and warned me that the Nationalist Party—at least he indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the Nationalist Party— would oppose this very vigorously if we introduced it on the Railways. I may say that that is the best reason I have heard for applying the closed shop principle to the South African Railways. I am sure that if members thought that by applying such a principle we would do anything towards keeping out party politics and if we could stop the party politician from interfering with railway workers, we would ….

So, you are going to apply it?

I do not say that. I said the hon. member had given me one of the best reasons for applying it. Members are continually issuing warnings to me as to what will happen in regard to the staff. These warnings may impress them and their constituents, but they do not impress me. I shall continue to do what is best for the staff in spite of any threats or warnings which hon. members may make. It is arguments I want, and not threats. The hon. member once more sneers at me on the ground, as he says, that I do not fully understand Afrikaans, and therefore I do not reply to his questions. Judging by the fact that usually I have to reply to the hon. member’s questions at least two or three times before he understands them I can only conclude that his knowledge of English is much poorer than my knowledge of Afrikaans. As he was referring to previous debates I would also suggest that if he does want to hear a reply to his question he should be in his seat. If he is not in his seat when I am replying to the points for the benefit of hon. members, and he does not read his own Hansard, he has no cause for complaint. The hon. member says that I used to speak on a high plane but that I have now deteriorated. All I can say to that is that my critics on the opposite side are apparently influencing me to a much greater extent even than I fear. I am afraid that it is the manner of their criticism that is impelling me to come down from that high plane, and I only ask them in my interests to try to remember to come up to my level rather than to try to drag the debate down.

I can give them the assurance that as regards keeping the debate on Railway matters on a high plane, I shall do my best to be on a higher plane than they are. The hon. member’s remarks in regard to the Rates Equalisation Fund provided a very good case in point, because I have on several occasions explained the scope of the Rates Equalisation Fund and its relationship to wages. Let me explain it again in half-a-dozen words for the benefit of the hon. member. Rates are our main source of railway revenue. It is from the rates we get practically all the revenue that the Railways have. If the revenue goes down owing to a slump in trade, or to a reduced turnover, I can only pay my wages bill by increasing the rates or by bringing up the turnover. If I am unable to do that and if I have no Rates Equalisation Fund, then I must depress wages, but if I have a Rates Equalisation Fund which enables me to keep up my contribution to revenue through rates to the same level, I have no reason then to reduce the wages at all. Therefore the Rates Equalisation Fund is in fact also a wages equalisation fund, because the two things, rates and wages are linked together; the one is revenue, the other is expenditure. That being the case, I do not think the hon. member need be afraid of the usefulness of the Rates Equalisation Fund as far as the maintenance of the wage level is concerned. I know that hon. members may be confused as a result of some remarks that were made by the legal adviser in the Railway Report, but I can assure hon. members that these remarks are as incomprehensible to me as they are to them; but I do not expect lawyers to be financial experts. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne) dealt with the question of the special contribution which we are making to the Superannuation Fund, the special annual contribution of £487,000. He made the statement that the Superannuation Fund balance stands at £54,000,000. That is entirely incorrect. Actually the total of all our funds, not only the Superannuation Fund, is £34,000,000, but the balance to the credit of the Superannuation Fund is £30,900,000; those were the figures in March, 1943. It is quite true that the balance to the credit of this fund has been increased for the year by a sum of approximately no less than £2,400,000, between March, 1942, and March. 1943; but during the same period the membership of the fund increased from 67,000 to 70,000 subscribers, so that the increased liabilitity on the fund is no more than is represented by the increased balance. In order to ensure financial stability the Superannuation Fund and the Pension Fund have an actuarial valuation obtained every five years, and we are now acting on the recommendation of the last valuation that was made in 1939, when it was found that the combined assets of the Pension and Super annuation Funds at that date required that there should be further contributions to meet the existing and future liabilities of an amount of £7,250,000, and as stated they recommended that this special additional contribution of at least £487,000 should be made each year until the next valuation, and this is what we are doing now. So far as the Cape Widows Pension Fund is concerned, the income of this fund is dwindling, as hon. members know, owing to the continual decrease in contributors. It is therefore necessary to maintain a very considerable balance in the fund itself, because it will not be replenished adequately by contributions coming in to meet future liabilities; and as these future liabilities consist of pensions in respect of the wives of the present contributors, numbering 2,400, all of whom are potential widows, it is quite clear we must keep a substantial balance, because these beneficiaries will make a call on this fund for many years after the contributions have ceased. An actuarial valuation of this fund was made in 1939 and another will be made towards the end of this year. On the statement of assets as shown by each of these valuations, we are now paying a bonus which at the present moment is 50 per cent., and that bonus will be revised at the end of each five-yearly period in relation to the state of the liabilities of the fund, as they may then stand. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares) raised various matters which I have discussed from time to time with members from Port Elizabeth. It is true that the progress of the new works there has been very slow, but that has been due to causes outside the control of the Minister. I am hopeful that now we shall be able to speed up that work. As the hon. member knows, we have established a new reconstruction department on the Railways to take over this class of work, and I hope that this department will be able to get ahead with that work. As far as Port Elizabeth is concerned it will benefit by this new arrangement. I hope to visit Port Elizabeth after the Session, when I shall take the opportunity of looking into some of the problems that have been referred to by the hon. member. Let me say now, however, that it has been decided to proceed with the re-grading of the section 1Ö5 miles to 268 miles, Port Elizabeth, to a standard 1 in 80 grade. Other works, involving improvements to stations and the curvature of the line are also to be undertaken, the cost of all this work will be approximately £1,000,000. Plans for the new station at Port Elizabeth are well advanced; an architect has been appointed, and these plans will have been fully prepared when we are ready to go ahead. The removal of the goods yard at Port Elizabeth to North End is now to be proceeded with, and the new marshalling yard and loco shed alterations are also being dealt with. I have already dealt with the question of applying Factory Act conditions to railway workers. This is being done. The only question remaining is the hours to be worked. That was a matter of special investigation, the report of which, as I have told the hon. member for Pretoria (West), I have just received. No time will be lost in dealing with it. It is not clear what berths at the harbour the hon. member was referring to, but I will look into that point when I go to Port Elizabeth. I do not propose to purchase at the present time a new heavy lift crane for Port Elizabeth, but there is just a possibility that after the war one or two cranes of this type may become available, in which case we will bear Port Elizabeth in mind. In regard to the Port Elizabeth-New Brighton service, this, as the hon. member knows, is a very efficient service. Between the trains and the buses I do not think a better service can be provided. We are examining the question of extending the railway into the location. We lose money on both services, and in the case of the buses, a great deal of money. The last member whose criticisms I wish to deal with is the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux). I have already dealt with most of the points he raised, but I would like to make it quite clear that I am not prepared at the present time to examine the possibility of constructing new lines. The hon. member must know that even if they are economically justified, the building of new line is neither a financial nor a practical possibility. I wish to move.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—87:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

NOES—37:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

I moveas an unoppesd motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Railway and Harbour Funds, during the year ending 31st March, 1945.

I think that at this stage it would be advisable for me to summarise the principal rules which govern debate in Committee of Supply.

I must emphasise that discussion must be relevant to the items contained in the vote proposed from the Chair and must not traverse services for which provision is made elsewhere. The same rule applies on a vote containing a Minister’s salary and general questions affecting Ministerial policy or administration may only be discussed on that vote if there is no provision on the subject in another vote. On the Prime Minister’s vote, however, it has been the practice to allow greater latitude because his office is constitutionally related to every other office.

Members are restricted to speeches of ten minutes, but on each of the Ministerial portfolios two speeches, not exceeding thirty minutes each, are allowed. Thus two thirtyminute speeches will be allowed on the votes falling under the portfolio of “the Interior,” two under the portfolio of “Posts and Telegraphs,” and two under the portfolio of “Public Works,” although all three portfolios are held by one Minister. In availing themselves of this extended period members should state their intention of doing so when they rise to address the Chair.

Members should also bear in mind that the functions of the Committee of Supply are confined to granting, refusing or reducing the items in the Estimates and that it is irregular in Committee of Supply to discuss matters involving legislation or to continue the Budget debate.

I should just like to make an observation arising from your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I wish to draw your attention to a point in reference to your ruling that may make things very difficult for us. If you interpret it, Sir, in the sense that I hope you will interpret it, there should be no difficulty. You have laid it down that except in the case of the Prime Minister, matters of general policy may only be discussed on the Minister’s salary, there being no provision for such salary in a later vote. Let us take the Lands Vote, for example. Under the Minister of Lands there falls various other votes, such as survey, registration offices, etc. It would be possible under your ruling, Sir, not to permit a discussion in connection with registration offices; but if you interpret it as I hope you shall, you will really allow such discussion on policy on the later vote. I hope you get my meaning. We can discuss policy under the Minister’s vote, but under your ruling we cannot discuss the policy of the registration offices or the Survey Department, which votes come later. The same applies, for instance, in connection with Justice and Police. We shall not be able to discuss the policy of Justice under Police. We shall not be able to discuss the policy of Police at all if you adhere strictly to the ruling, Sir, I hope that if there is such a vote as Justice, you will afford us the opportunity to discuss policy in connection with Police.

I am not prepared at present to give a ruling on a hypothetical question. When we come to a vote I shall give a ruling if that is necessary.

On Vote No. 1.—“His Excellency the Governor-General,” £21,500,

This is not a vote that usually evokes much discussion, but I think that the Prime Minister is under an obligation to furnish the House with certain information in this connection; and I should like to have that information from him now, not that we have any particular interest in the Governor-General’s Vote. Our attitude on this side is known. We consider that so long as South Africa has a Governor-General, under that designation, so long do we stand, at any rate as far as appearance goes, in the same position as a region of the Roman Empire stood when Rome always sent out its consuls; we regard this as symbol of subordination. I do not want to go into that any further. Our standpoint is familiar to all, but it is an institution, and while that is so we are entitled to put certain questions in connection with it in order to obtain information. The first question that I want to put to the Prime Minister is this: When does he intend to fill the vacancy that, exists in respect of the Governor-General? The vacancy has already existed for eight months, and there is still no sign, so far as we can see, that the Prime Minister is going to fill that position within a relatively short time. He will concede, and everyone will admit, that a position such as this is absolutely out of the common, so I think that the Prime Minister owes the House an explanation why this is the case. The second question that I should like to put in that connection is whether the Prime Minister intends when he fills the post, to do so by the appointment of someone who is a citizen of the Union. When Sir Patrick Duncan was appointed Governor-General it was the first instance where a South African and a citizen of the Union was appointed to this post. We on this side of the House regarded that as establishing a precedent. Once established, we regarded that as a principle that would not and should not be departed from in the future. On account of there having been opposition in his own Party, the Prime Minister at that time, said that he did not regard that as a precedent. Now we have the uncertainty, and we should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he considers that a precedent was established, and whether we are again going to have a Governor-General who is a South African and a citizen of the Union, or whether he is going to depart from that and revert to the previous position. Then we want to know whether the Governor-General will be someone who is bilingual, yes or no. We on this side of the House demand that every official who is appointed in the country, whether of high or low rank, shall be bilingual. That being the case, there is all the more reason that the man who is appointed as Governor-General shall be bilingual. He has to come in contact with and represent all sections of the community, and in order to be able to do this he must know the two official languages of the country. What are the Prime Minister’s plans in connection with this matter? And then the last question that I want to put to the Prime Minister is this: In 1924 this House took a resolution of extreme importance—we at any rate on this side of the House regard this as a matter of the utmost importance—that no citizen of the Union shall in the future receive any title from the King—a peerage or knighthood or a similar honour. That was the resolution of this House, and it was transmitted to His Majesty and has never been rescinded. Consequently that resolution still holds good today. A departure was made in the last case, and it was a departure against which the strongest protest was registered. Now I should like to know what the Prime Minister intends to do in this connection. I would merely like to say this, that seeing that Parliament has taken a resolution that no Union citizen should receive any title from the King, should it happen that a head of the State is appointed and he receives a knighthood or a peerage from the King, if such is pressed on him, then it is a symbol of alienship and he will be regarded by this side of the House in the light of a foreigner who happens to be in the country, and if he is a foreigner in the country then I shall not be surprised—so high do feelings run in this matter—if he will be hampered in the discharge of his functions, and, to employ a strong word, if he is boycotted in connection with State functions.

And that is a threat.

It is an infraction of a formal resolution of this House, and if action is taken in conflict with a resolution of this House then the people are entitled to boycott the functions that are given by him. I should like to have information from the Prime Minister on these points.

In regard to the filling of the post of Governor-General, I agree that it is an abnormal position that the post should have been held temporarily for such a considerable period, but under the abnormal circumstances that prevail today this is to a certain extent unavoidable, and the arrangement will have to continue for a little time yet—for how long I cannot say.

Why is it impossible?

Under the abnormal circumstances that prevail today it is impossible.

What is abnormal in the circumstances?

The Opposition is abnormal.

In regard to the second question put by the hon. member concerning the appointment of a South African citizen, I must say that the King acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, and my advice will be that a citizen of the Union should be appointed. In regard to the third point, whether he will be bilingual, the same observation applies; so far as my opinion is concerned he will be a bilingual person. With reference to the resolution of 1924, the Government has adhered strictly to that all these years with one exception, the exception to which the hon. member referred. It is a question in how far the exception was in itself a precedent. I am not at the moment prepared to say that it was not a precedent. That is a question that I should like to leave open, as regards myself personally, whether in the case of the appointment of a Governor-General I should advise His Majesty that the Governor-General is also bound by the resolution that was taken in reference to the appointment of a Governor-General. It may be that the exceptional case to which the hon. member refers may be viewed as a precedent, and in the circumstances I am not prepared now to give a binding undertaking as to what action will be taken in this respect.

Sir Denys!

The undefined position of the Officer Administering the Government of the Union, as he has been termed, is a matter that has given rise to a good deal of public discussion, and it has now been intimated, I think, unofficially perhaps, that the present holder of the office is willing to continue in that capacity for the duration of the war. Will it not be possible for him to receive an appointment of a more permanent character? From time to time when an officer has administered the Government for the time being, it has usually been regarded as a very temporary arrangement. But if the present Governor-General is prepared to continue in his present position for the duration of the war, I am sure it would afford gratification to the public of South Africa, and they would appreciate his being appointed as the Governor-General of the Union of South Africa. His great talents, the high esteem in which he is held by the public, would in every way fit him for the office which he is administering at the present moment, and I am sure it would be regarded as a much more satisfactory arrangement if he were appointed in that capacity, provided, of course he consented.

I may say in answer to my hon. friend that the present incumbent, Mr. De Wet, has not undertaken to remain in the post for the duration of the war. The position remains open. As soon as other satisfactory arrangements could be made he would like to go but naturally I agree with my hon. friend that if Mr. De Wet would remain on in the present position for the duration of the war, that would probably give general satisfaction to the country as a whole.

We feel somewhat perturbed over the answer given by the Prime Minister to the last point that the Leader of the Opposition touched upon, namely, that of titles. I cannot understand the Prime Minister when he says that apparently a precedent was created in the case of the late Sir Patrick Duncan, and that the King may perhaps think that he should repeat the step. The fact is that the King does not act without the advice of his Prime Minister in South Africa. The previous Prime Minister admitted that the King had asked him for his advice, and had asked him whether he had any obpection to a title; he had replied that he had no objection to that. The King does not act of his own accord. He seeks the advice of the Prime Minister, and we want to know if the Prime Minister is asked whether a new Governor-General should be granted a title what his advice will be, whether he will stand by the resolution taken by Parliament, or what he will recommend. It is obvious that if the King asks the advice of the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister says: “I have no objection,” or “I recommend this,” then he must act accordingly; but if the Prime Minister says: “I cannot advise you to do this, because it is in direct conflict with an unrevoked resolution of this Parliament,” then the King will not do it. Here it is not the King we have to deal with; we have now to deal with our Government and our Prime Minister, whose advice will be asked. And we, as a Parliament, have the right to ask our Prime Minister, irrespective of what the feeling of the King may be, whether he is going to abide by the desire that was expressed by this Parliament.

The position is this. At the time the appointment of the late Sir Patrick Duncan was made, or when the recommendation was made for his appointment, the Cabinet of the day discussed the question whether such a case fell under the resolution passed by Parliament in 1924; and it was the opinion of the Cabinet at that time that the case did not fall under it.

How is that possible? He is a citizen of the Union.

The feeling was that this case did not fall within the scope of the resolution of 1924.

What is the reason for that resolution?

I am stating what the resolution of the Cabinet was, and unless it is amended it remains a resolution. I am not prepared to take it upon myself personally to give an undertaking today that the instance that arose in the case of the late Sir Patrick Duncan will not be considered as a precedent.

The Prime Minister says that the Cabinet felt that that was not in conflict with the resolution, but my recollection is that the then Prime Minister said that he had no objection to it. Allow me to read out to you the resolution that was introduced in this House in 1925 by a certain Mr. Arthur Barlow—I do not know whether it is the same person as the present member, and whether his feelings remain the same—but this is the proposition that was accepted—

Nohing could be more clearly put. How then can the Cabinet decide that a man who is domiciled here, who lives here, and who is a subject of the Union, just because he by chance holds the highest post in the land, does not fall under this resolution? It appears to me to be a strange exposition that he does not fall within its scope. So long as he is Governor-General, prior to that time and thereafter, he remains a resident of, and is domiciled in the Union, and he is also a citizen of the land. When his period of office as Governor-General expires he resumes his normal life as a citizen of the country and he resides in the country. How is it possible for the Prime Minister then to say that this is not covered by that resolution. This resolution was clearly intended to apply to all, and I hope that the Prime Minister is not going to take up the attitude that this is an exception, because this motion made no provision for exceptions, and we as a Parliament demand only this, that this unrepealed resolution be given effect to.

I should like to ask whether in this case it is merely a question of the exception that was made being ultra vires. A law of the land has really been broken.

It is not a law, it is a resolution.

Hon. members on the other side of the House must appreciate my position. The step was taken at that time by the Cabinet. The opinion of the Cabinet at that time was that the appointment of a Governor-General was not envisaged when the resolution was taken by Parliament.

How can the Cabinet decide such a thing?

The hon. member can criticise the Cabinet of that day if he wants to; I am stating the fact.

It is manifestly wrong.

Neither am I in a position, nor am I willing on my own initiative to say that the Cabinet acted wrongly, and that it was not a justifiable exception that was made. I am not prepared to express an opinion on the one side or the other, and I leave the matter there.

It would appear to me that should a Cabinet take a resolution that is in conflict with a previous resolution of this House such resolution cannot be regarded by the Prime Minister as a precedent. It is clear that the Prime Minister is basing his standpoint on a precedent. We know that in England and also in this country a precedent carries a deal of weight, but I want to say with all deference that in this case where the Cabinet took a resolution that was in conflict with a resolution of this House such resolution cannot be regarded as a precedent.

It was not at that time regarded as a violation of the resolution.

The Prime Minister’s standpoint is that the then existing Cabinet interpreted that resolution in that way—is that the standpoint of the Prime Minister?

Yes.

Or actually did not the Cabinet decide to disregard that resolution? Is the Prime Minister certain that the question of interpretation was discussed? There were lawyers in that Cabinet. The Prime Minister is a lawyer, Mr. Pirow who was also a member of that Cabinet is a lawyer. Thus it seems strange to me that the opinion of that Cabinet was that this appointment did not fall under the 1924 resolution. But possibly the Prime Minister’s recollection on this point is not so clear. Possibly the actual position is that the Cabinet decided to deviate from the 1924 resolution which is altogether a different matter. I only want to make this point, that we are placing a great strain on the idea of a precedent if the resolution of a previous Cabinet,—it is no longer the same Cabinet—can be disregarded. Under the circumstances I do not consider that the Prime Minister can adopt the standpoint that he is now taking up. Whether he calls it now a question of interpretation or a resolution it boils down to repudiation of a resolution of this House, and it seems to me that a resolution that has been taken by this House, and that has never been rescinded, must carry more weight with the Prime Minister than a resolution of the Cabinet especially as he is not sure whether it was a resolution or a question of interpretation.

I should like to have greater clarity on this matter. The Prime Minister asserts that at that time such a resolution was taken by the Cabinet. He says that we can criticise that if we want to—that resolution may he right or it may be wrong. But the Prime Minister will appreciate now from the facts as they stand that that resolution that was taken by the Cabinet of which he was a member is in conflict with the resolution taken by this House. I want to ask now why the Prime Minister wishes to shift his responsibility for what was done by that Cabinet. Why does he not say to the House: “Look, a similar position is going to arise now, and then the Cabinet of which I am the leader must decide on this matter.” Let him take the House into his confidence, and tell the House what his plans are. Is he again going to depart from the resolution of Parliament or is he going to abide by it?

I think that is a pertinent question. The Prime Minister remains the responsible person. He must do one of two things. He must either approve that departure from the resolution of Parliament, or he must maintain it. Now the question that we are putting to him is: What are you going to do? On the previous occasion he disregarded that resolution, and the question is: What is he going to do. Is he again going to dishonour that resolution, or is he going to take it into review. That is an important question. I think that the Prime Minister owes an explanation to the House, and if he will do nothing more then I should like to put the question to him in this way; if he as the Prime Minister were faced with the choice what would he do; is he going to proceed along the same lines as he has done hitherto, or is he going to do otherwise.

I think that the pertinent question that this House is entitled to put to the Prime Minister is this: Is he going to adhere to the resolution of this House taken in 1924? The question of the explanation of that resolution of 1924 is another matter, but we want to have this assurance from him that he is going to abide by that resolution of the House which up to the present has not been rescinded. Nor do I think that the Prime Minister is justified in advancing any departure from that resolution in the past as a precedent. On the contrary if that resolution was disregarded in the past it is all the more reason that it shall not be disregarded again. The fact that he has offended once is no justification for him offending a second time. But there is another aspect of this matter, and that is, when the departure from that resolution was made was the question never submitted to the Law Advisers of the Government whether it would not be a violation of that resolution of 1924. If it was submitted to them I should be very glad to learn what their opinion was on that; and if it was not submitted to them I should like to know on whose opinion that departure was regarded as not being a violation of the 1924 resolution. The point I especially wish to emphasise is this. If my interpretation of that 1924 resolution is correct, namely, that it makes no provision for any exceptions then it would mean that if the Prime Minister now goes and gives a title to the next Governor-General it would be nothing more nor less than contempt for the resolution of this House. And that is the question—the contempt of Parliament—regarding which I now protest. I know that when I talk about the growing disparagement of Parliament my voice is often like the voice of one crying in the wilderness, but I feel that so long as we have Parliamentary government in the country we must see to it that one of the fundamental principles of Parliamentary government is given effect to, and I should like to know whether it is a feature of our Parliamentary government that a Cabinet is placed in a position to simply ignore a resolution of this House. I want to end as I began by putting this pertinent question to the Prime Minister: Is he prepared to give the assurance that his Cabinet will not treat the 1924 Parliamentary resolution with contempt.

I have already expressed my opinion and I am not prepared to express any opinion now over the matter that the hon. member has mentioned. I am not going to say that the Cabinet acted towards Parliament with contempt when that step was taken at that time, and seeing that that matter has not been taken into review by the present Cabinet I am not in a position to voice my personal opinion on this occasion.

Will you abide by the 1925 resolution of Parliament?

It is not a question of whether I am going to adhere to it, but whether the Cabinet is going to adhere to it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 2.—“Senate,” £46,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly,” £149,300,

There is a matter that I have already mentioned here several times in the Assembly, and that is in connection with the Parliamentary library. The present building that we have is very unsuitable in every respect. It was not really intended for a library. It is almost impossible to get at the books on the various shelves, and a systematic arrangement has been largely spoilt by the manner in which the building has been constructed, and also by the way in which books have to be classified today. But apart from that there is a very great danger of fire. A few years ago we had a very serious fire in the University of the Witwatersrand when a valuable library was totally destroyed. That brought to the fore the question of libraries and fire. Some time ago we built a new library at Stellenbosch, and there every precaution was taken to render the building practically fireproof. We have in the Parliamentary library many valuable books. The Africana section is of great value, and it would entail a severe loss on South Africa if that building caught fire. The position is that we should very much like to have another building, and so long as the war continues we shall not be able to proceed with a new building—that I admit. But why I am bringing up the matter now is that this is perhaps the opportune time to make arrangements for such a step. A few years ago when we tackled the subject we could not secure a suitable site for it. The position was that the then library committee asked whether it was not possible to erect a building on a part of the grounds of Government House. The present library building could then be used for committee rooms and for other rooms, there being a great need in this respect. That scheme fell through because the then Governor-General would not part with that piece of land for a library. Now we have the position that there is no Governor-General, and I want to broach the question of whether no alteration can be made in regard to the purpose for which the Government House is used. I think that I can justly say that we do not require two GovernorGeneral’s houses in one town. The Governor-General has always resided outside the town, and has only utilised the GovernorGeneral’s house in Cape Town for the purpose of receptions and similar functions. Those grounds and that building are very necessary for the purposes of Parliament. If we can acquire that building with the grounds then we shall have enough room for a Parliamentary library and for any other extension that may be required from time to time and which apparently are bound to occur in connection with the Houses of Parliament. It would also provide us with a bit of ground next to the Houses of Parliament where members could obtain the necessary relaxation during meal times and when the House adjourns in the afternoon. At the moment it is very difficult for members to obtain this, and if we could acquire that morgen of ground we could utilise it for those purposes. Then there is another very important question. It is very difficult for members of Parliament to find lodgings when they come to Cape Town. They walk round here for days from one hotel to the next and are unable to obtain suitable accommodation, and seeing that we have that building at present which is practically standing idle it may well be a subject of enquiry whether Government House cannot be altered to a place where members of Parliament can be housed. I do not propose that they should live there free of charge, but that they should be able to obtain rooms there at a reasonable charge, and in that way the difficulties that members at present encounter in this connection can in a large measure be solved. It also frequently happens that members come to Cape Town during the recess on Parliamentary business and they are unable to procure any accommodation where they can put up. They go round from one hotel to another. If that building were made available for that purpose then it would not be such a dead loss to the country. We will be able then to cut the loss in that connection by devoting it to a useful purpose. As Government House the building at present is of very little consequence. Nevertheless a considerable amount of public money must, be expended on its upkeep. The building is really closed because the Goevrnor-General lives in the suburbs, this being more suitable and more agreeable for him. At the moment Government House is only utilised for festivities and receptions, and we have to incur considerable expense in respect of a building that is only used for a few evenings. We can make better use of it and in doing so furnish greater comfort to members of Parliament and at the same time cut down the loss on the building.

I think I can associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I think the time has arrived when we should be treated a little better so far as lodging is concerned. The time members of Parliament have to spend in this part of South Africa justifies their being supplied with a proper place to live at a proper rate of pay. I support the views expressed by the hon. member. I also believe that many other members will agree with that. People who live in Cape Town and who know this part of the country well are perhaps able to get on better, but those of us who come from a long distance have to put up with many difficulties. There is another point I want to deal with here but I really do not know whom I have to approach about it. I want to say a few words about Hansard. I think the House will know at once what I am going to ask.

Did they not report you?

I want Hansard to be made available to the public at a more reasonable price than they have to pay for it now. I understand that in Australia Hansard is available at 2d. per copy for the weekly edition. That means that for the whole Session it would cost 4s. or 5s. The reason I put this forward is that every member, whether he is one of the best members or one of the poorest, of this House, tries to do his best when he speaks here about matters of interest to the country. A tremendous amount of information is supplied by members of the Cabinet and by members of Parliament. Quotations are made from Blue Books, and all this information remains a closed bock so far as the public is concerned. There is not a paper in the country which can afford to report one hundredth part of what actually takes place in this Parliament. There is only one way if Parliament wants to keep the public properly informed in regard to the statements made here from time to time, in regard to declarations of policy and information of the greatest importance to the country, and that is to make Hansard available at. 2d. per weekly issue. Make it available to the whole public; if that is done no one in this country will have an excuse for saying that he does not know what is going on in Parliament. There are many things which the public should know, but in spite of that the public are not given the opportunity of getting to know these things. Take the large number of question which are put to Ministers. A thousand and one questions are asked in the course of a Session, and the information given takes up a lot of the time of the Departments, and practically the only man who gets that information is the member who asks the question and can study it afterwards. Then the question and answer are recorded in Hansard and that’s the end of it. Let me tell the Government that not one hundredth part of all this information appears in the Press. What is the use of our getting all that information if only one man has the use of it. If that is to be the position then there is no need for a member to put questions in Parliament. As a matter of fact there would be no need either then to put the question on the Order Paper. A member could simply write a letter to the Department and he could get all his information at very much less expense and without so much work to the Department. Most of the information supplied is in the interest of the public, and every hon. member who asks a question asks it not because he is inquisitive, but because the information is in the interest of the public. I can make no better suggestion than to put it to the Government that Hansard should be made available at the price I have mentioned; if that is done we shall remove a lot of the ignorance which prevails today because nobody will have an excuse for not knowing what goes on in Parliament.

I want to bring to the notice of the Government something which has been discussed in this House during past sessions, and in regard to which we have troubled the Government a good deal. We on this side of the House have always complained that we cannot understand the necessity of Members of Parliament, and especially members of this House who occupy military posts, having a military salary in addition to their Parliamentary salary. The Prime Minister told us why it was necessary to pay these double salaries to these people, and why their services were needed in the Army. He said they were needed in military service but not at the front, because they must be here on the home front to vote for the Government. They got their military salary but they did not go and fight. We put a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with this matter and he replied to it. But before coming to that I should like the House to guess how much money has been paid out to members of Parliament, and especially to members in this House who have been drawing double salaries. In the last few years of the war, in addition to their Parliamentary allowances, they have been paid a total amount of about £42,000. I should perhaps put it this way. that is the amount which has been paid out to Members of Parliament, to Members of Provincial Councils, and to former Members of Parliament, by way of military pay. These people have never been any closer to the front than any member on this side of the House who is opposed to the war. Let me give a few instances from the figures supplied by the Minister of Finance. First of all let us take Senator F. B. Adler, who was a colonel in connection with artillery training. He got £3,573 14s. 9d.

That person is not a member of this House and the hon. member cannot discuss his case on this vote.

Very well, then I shall mention a member of this House. Take Brig.-Gen. Manie Botha. He received an amount of £2,123 8s. 6d.

He is no longer a member of this House.

Very well, then I shall take the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit). He is a captain in the recruiting office in Cape Town. He has received £1,983 6s. 10d., apart from his Parliamentary allowance. What we want to get down to is that it apparently was considered necessary to keep those people in those positions and to pay them double salaries until just before the elections. But on a particular date it was suddenly not necessary to keep them there. I asked the Prime Minister the other day whether people were still being recruited, and his reply was in the affirmative. If there is one thing which the public outside, even supporters of the Government, object to very strongly, it is these double salaries which are paid to Members of Parliament. There are still some members in this House drawing double salaries although there are not so many as there used to be. What we want to bring to the Minister’s notice is this: If it has been found unnecessary to pay the double salaries in the case of those other members, then it should also be unnecessary to do so in the case of these people who are still getting these double salaries. The position today is that people at the front who are sacrificing their lives for their convictions get less than these Members of Parliament get who are sitting here at the home front. We are opposed to the war, but we respect the man and we take off our hat to a man who is prepared to go to the front and fight for his convictions. But here we are dealing with people who stop at the home front to encourage others to go and fight. Why should they get those salaries? Whether we think this war is in South Africa’s interest or not, the fact remains that any man who is willing to sacrifice his life for South Africa is entitled to his reward. But what we feel is that these people who stay at home and who do as little for the war as we, who are opposed to the war, should not be paid. It is unfair and unjust, and the impression is created that they are being paid to be supporters of the Government. I don’t say that that is so, but that impression is created. In England and in Canada great agitation was created and strong views were expressed in regard to Members of Parliament drawing military salaries. The result was that members there refused to take their salaries if they did not take an active part in the war. This payment of double salaries is one of the Government’s actions in this war which has left a feeling of resentment behind, not only among the public in general but even among the supporters of the Government. They feel it is unfair and unjust to the people who have gone to the front.

In regard to this matter which the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has just raised, I am very glad that the really scandalous condition which has prevailed in this country has been improved to a large extent. I don’t know whether it has been improved because England has taken a different view in regard to this matter. We know what happened there, and we know what opinions were expressed there—and the opinions expressed in England often carry more weight with the Prime Minister than the opinions expressed by the citizens of his own country. Anyhow, the arguments employed there are similar to the arguments employed here, and I say I am glad that this scandalous condition has to a certain extent been changed in South Africa. I understand that there are only four members of this House who are still in military service, and when I mention those four members I particularly want to mention the name of the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare). He has been in military service for a long time but he has consistently refused to accept any pay for his military service. Why has he refused to do so? I can imagine he has done so because he wants to retain his freedom as an individual. The argument used in the British House of Parliament, and which was also employed here, is that if the Government pays members of Parliament for their services, irrespective of their pay as members of Parliament, those members unquestionably are influenced thereby. Those members will perhaps not act in accordance with the demands of their own consciences when they have to vote because they know that if they vote against the Government they may perhaps harm themselves. A member who feels he has to vote against the Government will hesitate to do so if he knows that he is largely dependent on the Government for his income. That is the reason why a clause was inserted in our Constitution, that people occupying offices of profit under the Crown could not be members of Parliament. If that sort of things is allowed we can quite imagine what a corrupt Prime Minister might do if there should be a crisis in the country, and if the Government’s majority should happen to depend on one or two votes. If a corrupt Prime Minister were placed in that position he could go among members of the House and tell members of Parliament, tell his supporters, that he will give them this or that post, if they vote for him; in that way he could bring influence to bear on them to obtain their vote—to get them to vote, not according to the dictates of their conscience but according to their own interests. We might get a most corrupt position if we had a corrupt Prime Minister who availed himself of methods of that kind. We have 150 members of Parliament here, and we know that we get all kinds of people among members of Parliament. Under the conditions which I have described a member may quite easily not vote according to his conviction but he may be influenced by the promise of an office of profit under the Crown. He would then be getting a salary from the Government but he would know that he would only be getting that salary as long as that corrupt Prime Minister was in power, and if it came to a vote in the House he would vote on the side of his salary. Such a system leaves openings for corruption which in turn might mean that people would vote against their own consciences, and it is for that reason that it is laid down in the Constitution that a man occupying an office of profit under the Crown cannot be a member of Parliament. We want to guarantee the freedom of a member’s vote. Those arguments were employed in England because they had the same situation there as we have in South Africa. In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister defended his point of view here last year he realised himself that the position in South Africa was a scandalous one, and that is why he told all the candidates who stood for election that they must understand that they would have to give up their positions in the army. I am glad to notice that the position has improved and that only four members still occupy army posts, and one of them is the hon. member for Mowbray who refuses to accept any pay. But even though the position has improved, the principle is still there, that people can be paid, and it is against that principle that we want to protest, because it creates an opening for corruption which may be of the utmost value to anyone who wants to commit acts of corruption. It is our duty to see to it that the people who are elected to Parliament can do their work in this House in such a way that there is no chance of corruption; under this system there are such possibilities. A corrupt Parliament means the downfall of democracy. In many countries where democracy has broken down it has broken down because Parliament in those countries has been corrupt, and because people have abused democracy for corrupt methods in order to promote their own interests. That is why these restrictions were inserted in our Constitution to protect our Parliament against corrupt practices, and we can do no more than protest against practices of this kind being allowed which can easily be abused without there being any suggestion of corruption.

On this Vote, as well as on the Vote of the Minister of the Interior, provision is made in regard to translation work and I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Chairman, as to whether I should make some remarks about the translation of Bills on this Vote, or on the Vote of the Minister of the Interior?

The hon. member can make his remarks on the Vote of the Minister of the Interior.

I want to say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) who was supported by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I refer to the question of the payment of members of Parliament for Defence services. This matter was settled years ago in this House when the system was started. Parliament then decided that these people, although they were members of Parliament, were to be paid, and in certain cases they were paid. This was done because, as we knew at the time, we had a number of men in Parliament at the beginning of the war who had had experience of war and Defence matters. Take the former member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) whose name was mentioned here today, and others. These people happened to be in Parliament but because of their ability, training and experience, they were able to help us in Defence work, and for that reason a number of them entered the war service. They were paid for that because they did the work. They not only did Parliamentary work, but during the recess, and at other times, they did Defence work. The position has now changed, however. We have been at war for four years and we have trained a number of officers who are able in all respects to do that class of work, and there is no longer any reason to continue appointing members of Parliament in the Army. There is no reason for it, and I have therefore given instructions to the Defence Department in all cases where the services of these people are no longer required for Defence work to discharge them, so that they can stop doing that type of work.

There were some among them who had no military training.

We needed doctors and also parsons. In those circum stances we made a change. These people have been discharged from the army and they are no longer paid. I do not think there is anything more to be said about the matter. Conditions have changed entirely; we have large numbers of officers today, and these people are no longer required. The’hon. member for Krugersdorp raised the question of making Hansard reports available at cheap rates. The question is one which should be brought before this House by the proper committee. We have a Committee of Internal Arrangements with deals with Hansard, and that is the Committee which has to advise Parliament on matters of this kind. At the moment we have nothing before us on the Order Paper on which we can take action. The hon. member for Humansdorp also raised the question of a new library building in connection with Parliament. Unfortunately he linked with that the question of the appropriation of the Governor-General’s House or grounds for purposes connected with Parliament. Well, that is a totally different question. The hon. member will see that when we touch the Governor-General’s building we get on to grounds totally different to those of the Library of Parliament. The abolition of Government House is a matter of great importance and before any steps are taken in that it will have to be very seriously considered. The particular Government House is the accepted Government House in Cape Town—Westbrooke is not the official Government House. It is only a summer residence when it gets too hot in Town. But the actual Government House is the House at the back of Parliament. Not only is it the official residence, but all the offices that are needed and connected with the post of the Governor-General are there too. To abolish Government House, therefore, would open up an altogether different question and I think the House should carefully consider the matter before doing anything. I quite appreciate the hon. member saying that the present Library is no longer safe and that the accommodation is inadequate, but so far as appropriating the Governor-General’s residence is concerned, that is another question altogether which we shall have to think about very carefully before we take any steps. I do not agree with the hon. member there. Careful enquiry is necessary before we make such a change.

I don’t want to suggest for one moment that we should just jump in. The whole tendency of my speech was that we should first of all enquire into the matter, but I don’t want us to keep on thinking over the matter, and thinking again, and in the end do nothing but think. If the Prime Minister feels we should consider the question, I am quite prepared to assist. I think the matter should now be raised. We may never get another opportunity like the present. Let us go into the whole subject. There is one other point. The Prime Minister, in defending the payment of double salaries to certain people, said that when war broke out he needed the services of the highly experienced and he said: “Well, there were Members of Parliament who had had long experience of war, and we had to avail ourselves of their services,” and so he looked round the House and said, “There is Gen. Manie Botha for instance.” His experience had to be made use of. And then the Prime Minister looked round again to see whether he could think of somebody else, but he did not get beyond Gen. Manie Botha. Very well, if it had stopped at Gen. Mannie Botha we could have understood it, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister must not use the argument that he needed these Members of Parliament because of their ability as soldiers, he must not come and tell us that he wanted them because they were the heroes of the past. I have studied the names of these people and without casting any reflection on anyone, the first one I came across was that of Mr. H. A. Tothill. He is supposed to be the experienced soldier whom the Prime Minister needed so very badly. He was given the rank of an ordinary lieutenant and he maintained that rank until the end of his military career. Then there was Mr. M. J. van den Berg. He was made a captain. I don’t know what exeperience he has had. But he has this quality, that if the enemy were to meet him suddenly the enemy would run away. I am not so sure of his other qualifications. Mr. D. P. Burnside was also made a captain. Taking his vocation into consideration one can hardly believe that he has had much experience of war service. Then there was Mr. A. S. de Kock, also one of those war heroes who was so indispensable that he had to be put into uniform and get a double salary. I don’t want to mention all the other names, but at the bottom of this list I see another one who has also had a long and extensive war career—I understand that that career extended over at least 1,600 or 1,800 yards. I am referring to the former member for Calvinia (Dr. W. P. Steenkamp). That hon. member was wounded, it really makes very little difference whether he was wounded in front or behind; anyhow he was a man who could run very fast, and the Prime Minister also needed him—he was also indispensable for the continuation of the war. No, the Prime Minister should not use those arguments. Similar arguments are being used in the British Parliament today, and the Prime Minister surely cannot use them here in respect of those people.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), who has never fired a shot for anybody, to get up in this House and sneer at a man like the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). There was a time in this country when things were very dangerous, when the hon. member and his friends were licking the boots of Hitler, and there was an enormous amount of danger. Hon. members opposite were going down on their knees lest the Japanese should come into the country, but they would not do any fighting. It was then that my hon. friend (Mr. Van den Berg) went round the country. I saw him going round, and he brought young men in to fight. He himself was prepared to fight. He is no coward; he was a miner and the whole of his life shows that he has courage. What has the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) to show that he has any courage of any kind?

Come outside now and I will show you.

When I hit the hon. member the other day he could not take it. He sneers in this House at everybody. But he could not take it, and he squealed like a baby. But he gets up in this House and he attacks men like the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) who brought a large number of men into the forces. But there are three young men sitting in this House today who have been in the firing line, and the Opposition are attacking them.

No, I am not.

You are.

Order, order ! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Sir. Our friends opposite have said nothing about these three young men. They simply said that these hon. members had taken double pay, but there are these three young men who went to the front when the hon. member for Humansdorp was skulking at the back, and his friends over there were skulking at the back too. If South Africa had been left to them, and if we had not the services of men like those who have been attacked in this way, hon. members opposite would be working on the roads in place of the Italians today. They cannot get away with it as cheaply as they think. When it comes to the war we look upon them with absolute contempt.

We have contempt for you in everything.

That is all right, I am old and hard-boiled. I am not worried about that but the country looks on them with absolute contempt. They knew the position the Prime Minister was in at the outbreak of war. They knew he took over without any army at all, and that the army was built up with the help of those men who got “doublepay”—one of the finest armies in the British Empire. I take off my hat to those members of Parliament who, during the recess, went out and did their work. I happen to know that some of them wanted to go to the front, and it is no fault of theirs they were not sent. They were at any rate not like the hon. member for Humansdorp and his friends, who were always stopping at the rear and never wanted to go to the front.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs,” £197,000,

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 14th March.

I move—

During the discussion on the second reading of the Bill, I think, I welcomed the Bill on behalf of the majority of hon. members on this side of the House, because I believed it was the intention of the Minister to entrust the Board of Trade with extensive duties and to increase the membership of the Board in order to enable it to accomplish its important task. I welcomed the Bill without any qualification, but nevertheless I made use of the opportunity in the course of the few observations I had to make on the Bill, to mention this proviso that I accepted that the members who would be appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries would unquestionably be bilingual. because the Board could not do its work properly, unless all its members were fully bilingual. The statement made by the Minister, when the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) moved his amendment was such a shock as far as I was concerned, that for the moment I did not know whether the Minister fully realised the implications of his refusal. This Board must do very important work for both sections of the people and it is absolutely necessary for its members to be fully bilingual. Consequently it is my duty to take exception at this stage to the acceptance of the Bill, unless provision is made for that. I wish to state quite clearly to the Minister and to the country that we are not opposed to the Bill as such, but we have fundamental and irrevocable objections to the fact that an important Board can be appointed and extended without taking due cognisance of the bilingual nature of our population, and without doing justice, according to the interpretation of the Minister, to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. For this reason I feel justified to get up here today and to object against the acceptance of the motion for third reading May I express the hope, that even at this late stage of the Bill the Minister will realise that he can still retrieve the position, that he can still meet the justified request which I put to him so that justice may be done to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. The Minister has the means to do it, and I wish to appeal to him, and to the whole Cabinet, to do what is right. I would ask them not to be indifferent as far as this matter is concerned. It is very difficult for anybody who has had experience of the actual working of the Board to accept the statement made by the Minister. As I understand the statement of the Minister it comes to this that at the moment he has not the bilingual material at his disposal, that there are no bilingual people available, to appoint to this Board. Hon. members on the other side of the House have stated that the Board has to do exceptionally technical work which is entrusted to it. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lieut.-Col. Rood) mentioned the technical nature of the Board. As someone who has had the privilege to serve on the Board of Trade and Industries for six years, I state without hesitation that the Board is not in the first place a technical body. The Board has its technical staff; the Board can make use of outside technical people, but it has never been the intention that the Board must consist of technicians. I wish to remind the Minister of the appointment of the first Board of Trade and Industries in 1922 or 1923. Not a single member of the Board was a technician in the usual acceptance of the word. His argument may be that this Board was a preliminary or a part-time Board, and that at present we have a permanent Board. The first permanent Board which was appointed did not consist of technical members; it consisted of four members only, and two of them could make no claim to technical qualifications. Two of them were economists, but in the narrow sense of the term they were not technical people. What is expected of members of the Board is that they shall be intelligent people, people who will be able to pass judgment and discriminate between the data supplied to the Board. The work of the Board of Trade and Industries is to investigate and to make recommendations. My submission is, that all that is necessary is that these people should have a general education and that they should have some business qualification; they should be people who are able to pass judgment and to decide that one thing is better than the other. In the usual acceptance of the word, this Board never was a technical board and it has never been intended to be such. To my mind the argument of the Minister that he is unable to find bilingual members for the Board, members who would be suitable for appointment, falls to the ground. It is not my duty to make any statement on behalf of Englishspeaking South Africans. I wish to say that the argument of the Minister can never apply to Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. He can find dozens who are suitable and qualified to serve as members of the Board of Trade and Industries, and the experience that I gained during the six years makes me feel justified to say that there are sufficient English-speaking South Africans who are qualified to fill this post and who are bilingual as well. I cannot accept the Minister’s statement that there are no bilingual English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking people in the country to appoint as members of this Board. He will pardon me if I cannot attach any weight to his statement. I wish to mention a serious suspicion in connection with the statement made by the Minister. I notice that in the course of the discussion as to whether the members who were appointed were bilingual the Minister made enquiries as to whether they were bilingual, and I think that he informed us that the three members who were appointed a short while ago were not bilingual. These three members in regard to whom he is not certain that they are bilingual, is the reason why he refuses to accept our amendment. The most recent appointment to the Board—a very recent appointment—is that of a unilingual person. I do not wish to say that the Minister himself made that appointment. I am not sure of that. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the appointment of the other two members. They were appointed during his absence but I am not sure whether he had to give his consent to the most recent appointment. When the Minister tells us that he has a strong conviction that justice should be done to both sections of the population, we are entitled to ask him why he consented to the appointment of a unilingual person. I do not wish to make the accusation, but I am very suspicious that the most recent appointment was not made for reasons of exceptional qualifications on the part of the person concerned, but on the grounds of services rendered. I have a suspicion that the most recent appointment was one for services rendered or for some special reason, but not on grounds of special qualifications on the part of the appointee. I feel compelled to come to this conclusion: that this appointment was contrary to the statement made by the Minister that he would do everything possible to make the Board of Trade and Industries a bilingual body. I am sorry that I had to come to that decision. Where the Minister made the statement, also on behalf of the Government, that they were concerned about the interests of both sections of the population, and if we then find the first appointment made by the Minister is contrary to that statement, then it gives rise to serious suspicion, because the Minister is not acting in conformity with his own statement. I wish to ask the Minister whether he was not placed before an accomplished fact as far this appointment was concerned. As a citizen of the Union whose endeavour it is to see good relations between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections in the country, I expect the Minister, if he also wishes to strengthen that good feeling, to tell us that as far as this appointment is concerned, he was placed before an accomplished fact. Then we would at least have been able to expect that the harm which was done by this appointment—I cannot put it in any other way—will be remedied when future appointments are made. The Minister is denying us a right which we may claim as a section of the population. The Minister is doing an injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking section, and he is also doing an injustice to the increasing Afrikaans section in industry. There is no member in this House who is not aware of the fact that during the past 5, 6 or 8 years the Afrikaansspeaking section of the population has become alive to its role in trade and industry. A whole group of new undertakings has been established. The Minister of Finance mentioned the development of industries with a certain amount of pride, during the course of the day. We welcome this development in trade and industry, and we also welcome it that the Afrikaans-speaking section is playing an increasingly important role in the development of trade and industry. We must expect that the English-speaking section of the population will have to cooperate in a measure with the Afrikaansspeaking section who are entering trade. Both sections will have to co-operate in their own interest in future. The Afrikaansspeaking section in business and the English-speaking section in business can protect each other. That is why it is such a pity that when a Board of this nature is appointed, only the interests of the English-speaking section are protected. The Afrikaans-speak ing citizen who appears before this Board will have to bring along an interpreter or he will have to degrade himself by making use of the other language. I suggest that this is an injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking section, apart from the fact that it nullifies the principle enshrined in the South Africa Act. For these reasons I feel that an injustice is being done. Not only is an injustice done in the sense which I have indicated, but co-operation is made more difficult because the one section of the population is being discriminated against in favour of the other. It is quite clear that on this occasion we are discussing a step for which the whole Cabinet must assume responsibility. Care will be taken that the English-speaking section will have sufficient representation on the Board of Trade and Industries, but we have no assurance that the Board will be bilingual. That is unfortunate. We do claim this right which we have; it is our birthright. I appeal to the Prime Minister who is present to remove this injustice even at this late stage. We are not prepared to be considered the second group in the country. Neither at this stage, nor at any other time, do we want less than full equality, and where our rights, where our self-respect or honour is affected, it can only result in bitterness. I repeat, the time will come when the Afrikaans-speaking section in business and the English-speaking section will very likely need each other. They will become natural allies. And to put a spoke in the wheel of co-operation at this stage and do an injustice to one section by which we will cause estrangement between the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section in business is an unfortunate step which will impede that unity and unity of purpose which we all desire to see. I wish to draw the attention of the English-speaking section in trade in this House to this fact that they are doing an injustice today for which they may feel sorry afterwards. I hope that the Prime Minister will rise in his seat and prevent this injustice. There are sufficient qualified people in this country, English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people, who are bilingual. I wish to express as my considered opinion, that if we continue in this atmosphere of discrimination in this House, then the only result will be that unity will never be attained in South Africa, but there will be bitterness even as regards the motives which the Government had for adopting this attitude. Then we can only feel that the Government is discriminating in favour of the English-speaking section, and ultimately we will have this position that our prayer will be that the domination of the English-speaking section will cease. This is my considered opinion. I am using no threats. In the past I tried to create a sound relationship, and I have many English-speaking friends, both in my private life and in business, but if this discriminaton takes place, then you must expect that bitterness will be the result. Where the hon. the Minister has proposed the third reading of this Bill, I wish to move the following amendment—

I second. I am sorry that the present Minister of Commerce and Industries is involved in this matter, because the impression has got abroad that he takes the interests of his Department to heart. Here he had a good opportunity of doing something which would have been very acceptable to the whole House. He allowed that opportunity to pass—or almost let it pass. The opportunity still remains, and I hope he will pay attention to what the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has said to him. One does not want to use hard words in regard to this matter. But I shall be putting it mildly when I say that this is the best piece of political deception which one has ever witnessed. It was said by the Government side during the general election, but more particularly during the Provincial elections in all four provinces, that an end had come to the struggle as far as bilingualism in our country was concerned, because bilingualism was the policy of the Government. But here we have clear proof before us that as far as the execution of that policy is concerned, this struggle has not yet come to an end and that the fight which one section of the people in South Africa has waged for years and years, will still have to continue. Since we have an Afrikaansspeaking Prime Minister on the other side of the House, it is a pity that he does not want to extent the hand of friendship to the Afrikaans-speaking people, and that 34 years after Union came about, the Afrikaans-speaking people should still have to fight for their rights. Are the English-speaking people in this country not ashamed of themselves? It is not they who have to fight and plead for the rights of their language. That goes without saying. If anyone gets up in this House and introduces a Bill in which he refuses to provide that bilingual persons should be appointed to such a Board, and he then proceeds to appoint only unilingual Afrikaansspeaking members to such a Board, or three out of five—as the Minister appointed three English-speaking unilingual persons out of five members—what would the English-speaking members on the other side have said? What would the English-speaking members of this House have said if the Government had appointed only Afrikaans-speaking unilingual members on such Boards? The Minister refuses to pass a Bill in which provision is made for the appointment of bilingual persons to the Board of Trade and Industries, and it is not a question of appointing unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons. The Afrikaans-speaking persons are expected to be satisfied with the appointment of unilingual English-speaking members. I say that the English-speaking people would not tolerate that, but it goes without saying that they will never be placed in that position, and they therefore have no reason for complaint. But the Afrikaans-speaking people, in their own fatherland, have to plead time and again as though they were foreigners, for alms from the Government, and plead that this Parliament should recognise their rights. If I had been an English-speaking member I would have risen and urged the acceptance of this amendment which we were obliged to move. If I had been an Afrikaans-speaking member on the other side of the House, I would have been ashamed of myself if I did not put up a plea for the rights of my own people. It is a peculiar position in which we find ourselves. We had a Provincial election and all the leaders on the other side, one after the other, went about the country and assured the public that a policy of full bilingualism would be followed. But when the first test is put to them in this House they refuse to give effect to that policy. What inference are the people to draw from this? They have the right to say that it was nothing but political deception. The people were asked for their votes on the basis that the Government, was in favour of bilingualism, and that we had reached the stage where this country was bilingual, that we would hear no more about the matter. But. at the very first test, the Government is found wanting. If I were the Minister on the other side, I would go back to the people and tell them that I was deceived by the Government, that they did not intend that bilingualism should be applied in practice, that they meant that in this Parliament, when a motion is introduced which provides for the appointment of bilingual members on an important Board such as the Board of Trade and Industries, they would refuse to accept such a motion, that a thing like that should be left to the arbitary decision of a Minister. The Minister of Commerce and Industries said that he would see to it that bilingual persons were appointed. He said in so many words that he had made a mistake in appointing these three unilingual persons to the Board. He also said that in the future he would do better. But he must realise that he cannot always remain Minister of Commerce and Industries, and we should therefore provide for this in the Act. When we get this in the form of a definite provision in the Act, we shall have no difficulty in connection with this matter. The argument that there are no bilingual persons available for those appointments, is such a poor reflection that I am sorry that the Minister advanced it. I had hoped that he would delete that from his speech, because that reflection which he cast on the people, so many years after Union came about, is an undeserved reflection. The appointments which the hon. Minister made, do not afford any proof that the members of the Board of Trade and Industries must be technical persons. I want to refer to a few appointments which he made on the Board of Trade and Industries during the past few years. Now the Board has its technical advisers. I say that we hoped that we could make a fresh start and that the Afrikaans-speaking people could rest assured that we were in reality going to get a policy of bilingualism, but it seems that the Afrikaner will still have to continue to wage an uphill fight, step by step, to protect his interests. The powers of the Board of Trade and Industries are being extended by this Bill. Formerly its powers were limited. Those powers are now being extended considerably. It is more and more becoming a body which will be the missing link between the Government and the economic existence of the people. The Board will have to get into closer touch with the public, because they will be the only link between the financial, economic, and especially the industrial life and commerce, and the Government, because this Board from time to time will have to advise the Government in regard to the systematic development of the country’s resources. The functions and the membership of the Board have been extended, and what is more, this Board has to go round the country and take evidence in order to be able to advise the Government. The Minister knows what difficulties are experienced on Boards where there are unilingual members on that Board. If a Board consists of five members, and one of them is unilingual, the other three or four members simply speak English, otherwise the services of an interpreter have to be obtained for the sake of the one unilingual English-speaking member. I say that when an Afrikaans-speaking person comes before this Board to give evidence—and he does not desire to give evidence, but under this Bill he can be summoned to give evidence— it simply means that if he speaks his own language, three out of the five members will not be able to understand him, unless an interpreter is hired. What will be the result of that? The Afrikaner will have to forego his Afrikaans and speak English for the sake of those people. Does the Minister realise what an unnecessary and impossible situation is being created? I want to make an appeal to our Afrikaans-speaking Prime Minister, and ask him whether it is not possible for him to ask the Minister of Commerce and Industries to meet the Afrikaans-speaking people in connection with this matter. If this precedent is created, if we decide in this Bill that the Board of Trade and Industries shall consist of bilingual members, these difficulties will not arise in the future. But if the Minister persists in his present attitude, we shall experience great difficulties. If we create the precedent that members of this Board must be bilingual, such a provision would automatically be inserted in similar Bills in the future. Up to the present the reports of the Board of Trade and Industry have been almost exclusively in English. It has practically become an established practice on the part of officials to draft their reports in English, so that one is almost astounded when one finds a report drawn up in Afrikaans. When we speak of reports which have to be translated, we no longer ask into what language they have to be translated. We know that they have to be translated from English into Afrikaans. These reports cannot be drawn up in Afrikaans, because three out of the five members cannot understand Afrikaans. The reports will be framed in English and then translated into Afrikaans. The English-speaking people get the very best and the Afrikaans-speaking people have to be satisfied with second best. If the report is framed in English, the official puts down his ideas in the language in which he writes, and if it is then translated into Afrikaans, at its very best, it remains but a translation. The Minister has learned a great deal of Afrikaans, and he can get along quite well, well enough to grasp what I have said here. It is a very unpleasant task for the Afrikaans-speaking people to have to urge this matter continually and then to sit face to face with Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side who do not want to lift a finger to help us. I second the amendment.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment.

We don’t want your sympathy.

And I think I can say without contradiction that without exception the English-speaking people, of whatever section of the community, are anxious to bring about the day when everyone in this country will be fully bilingual.

You don’t prove it.

But the whole position has to be considered and I am sure my hon. friends will be reasonable about it, and they will realise that there are still, by reason of conditions, which have existed in South Africa ….

How much time do you want—another hundred years?

No; the policy which the Government is following will bring it about.

It will bring about the very opposite.

The people who have come here as adults and who have lived here in our cities have not had the same opportunities as others. Now, the position is this.

In the ordinary course proficiency and efficiency are of the utmost importance in any appointment, and that particularly applies to appointments to the Board of Trade. Of course, if you have bilingual men ….

You know perfectly well that there are bilingual men who can do that work.

Well, bilingualism is not such an essential in a case of this kind ….

The usual excuse.

In the present instance I do want to put it to the House that the member who has recently been appointed to the Board of Trade, and in respect of whose appointment a good deal of this discussion is taking place—I refer to Mr. Archie Moore—is one of the most useful people who could have been appointed.

How long has he been here?

He came here as an adult.

How long has he been here?

I think he came here after the Anglo-Boer War.

And he does not yet know Afrikaans.

Mr. Moore has done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the workers, he has done a tremendous amount to improve the lot of the workers of both sections. He has had vast experience from the point of view of how industry affects the workers, and he has been a leader of the Trade Union Movement for a number of years. He has been on committees and commissions, and he has been appointed to the Board of Trade because of his knowledge of the requirements of the working classes, and, under those circumstances, I submit that his is an exceptional case where one should accept the position without all this criticism. But I don’t want to pursue this matter any further. I thought it right to mention Mr. Moore’s case in particular. But now that the third reading of this Bill is being discussed I want to put to the Minister some other matters which affect both post-war reconstruction and the general working of the Board of Trade. We have in the past been clamouring for planning and in recent years we are having almost too much planning. We have had commissions and enquiries and committees. I feel that it is now essential that the work of all these bodies should be co-ordinated. The Board of Trade from its inception and since its functions have been extended, is the body which should do it and which has the opportunity of considering the whole question of the industrial development of South Africa, and the manner in which it should be developed. The provisions of Clause 9 show the particular problems which can be referred to the Board of Trade, and the recommendations it is able to make—the recommendations which will come within the scope of the Board to make. One of the most essential things at the moment is a matter which was referred to by the Minister of Finance only the other day, and that is the effect on our industrial development of the cost structure. That cost structure—or rather let me say the heavy cost of secondary industry, is brought about by a number of factors which I hope the Minister will ask the Board of Trade to examine very carefully. One of the first factors affecting the cost structure of industry is cur policy of protection. I have always been in favour of protecting and fostering industry to the fullest possible extent, but the question as to how that protection should be applied is one of fundamental importance at present. Under our ordinary policy of applying duties on imported articles that can be manufactured, or are manufactured in South Africa, we are treating secondary industries in exactly the same way as we are treating agriculture. We have not heard much criticism of that policy, but we have often heard criticism about the Government being called upon to advance too much money in subsidising agriculture. But the same thing applies to industry. Under our tariff policy as it has existed for years we are spending millions of money by way of protective duties—for which the public pays through increased costs—in order to foster particular industries. Hon. members will recollect that the Van Eck Commission quoted a figure for 1939-’40 of £10,000,000, which was the cost of protection to the country. Now, that obviously must have a very substantial effect on the cost structure of the country. We also have the fact that labour is not fully used, and particularly as far as semi-skilled and unskilled labour is concerned we are not making the fullest possible use of that—but it is desirable and may become necessary to make the fullest use of our labour if we are to develop industry to the fullest extent. That being so it is necessary to enquire into the possibility of altering our labour policy by relaxing and possibly ultimately doing away with the colour bar.

That is another theory.

And then you have a third factor which affects the cost structure of industry, and that is that we have built up a large number of establishments, so-called factories or industries, which are really not worthy of the name of industries. Out of 10,000 establishments in this country which come under the Factories Act some 7,000 have less than four employees each. How can you expect efficiency in industry, when a little factory is run with less than four employees, when it may have inadequate plant or adequate plant which is inadequately used and when industry is burdened with undue overhead expenses. I submit that it will become necessary to investigate all these problems. I do not suggest that we should do away with the small man, but I do suggest that the time has arrived when we should consider the rationalisation of industries, so that all these small establishments can be grouped together under some measure of State control in order to ensure that they make the fullest possible use of their employees and their plant. Now, in my opinion, one of the methods to be considered is whether, instead of protecting and fostering industries as we have been doing up to now, by means of tariffs, which frequently protect and foster inefficient organisations and inefficient employers, the time has not arrived to consider the advisability of fostering industry by means of a bounty system, so that where an industry has to be established, or where it is established, and it requires support and protection—instead of imposing a tariff which may enable mushroom factories to spring up quite unnecessarily—and the cost of which is passed on to the public without the public having any means of checking it. The question to my mind is whether it would not be better for us to lay down a policy of giving bounties to industries, useful industries, and necessary industries, and in that way we may be able to control and check inefficiency and waste. If a system of that kind were accepted the country would be able to check the position and prevent the establishment of unnecessary industries—and the country would always know what these industries were costing it. We would be able to check on industries which are of no benefit to the country. There are a few other points which I also want to touch on, but I do not want to hold up the House. I hope, however, that the Minister will give us some indication as to what his attitude is in regard to having further investigations made into the questions which I have raised.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke of sympathy. We on this side of the House, and the Afrikaansspeaking people in general, are sick and tired of sympathy in connection with this matter. We have heard for years and years of the sympathetic attitude towards our language and aspirations, and if it should happen that the party on the other side remains in power —may the Lord prevent that, and He will prevent it—then I say that in 50 years’ time we shall still hear of sympathy. We do not want sympathy; we want full application of the principle in practice. We are sick and tired of sympathy. We are convinced that when a certain section speaks of sympathy, they are not sincere. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) said at the beginning of his speech that he did not not want to use hard words. I feel that in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with political hypocrisy and political dishonesty, it is very difficult to refrain from using hard words. The other day I put a question on the Order Paper, in which I asked the Prime Minister—

The Prime Minister’s reply was—

That was the Prime Minister’s reply. It has already been said by this side of the House, but it is necessary to repeat it, that we contested an election in regard to this question, not only in regard to bilingualism in the educational sphere, but also in regard to bilingualism in general. I want to remind hon. members on the other side of the speech which was made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign in connection with the Provincial elections. I want to refer them to a statement which was issued by the head office of the party on the other side. Let them read that statement. Let them also read the speech which was made at that time by the Prime Minister and then tell me whether there has not been exposed here today the biggest piece of political hypocrisy, the biggest political dishonesty which has ever been enacted in the political history of South Africa. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) comes along with this story which we have heard so often, that “the position is being improved.” He stated that the position would be even better if the policy of the Prime Minister were applied in practice. We have heard that story for years, but in reality bilingualism is not applied in practice. Take the case, for example, which the hon. member mentioned. He mentioned the case of Mr. Archie Moore. The hon. member said that Mr. Archie Moore had probably been in the country since the Second War of Independence. He has been in this country for 45 years, and he cannot yet speak the second language of the country, and that is brought forward as an excuse! According to him, that type of person, simply because he has the necessary knowledge of labour conditions, can be appointed. It makes no difference to him that Mr. Archie Moore has been in the country for forty years, and that he does not yet know the second language. He can be appointed. Let me remind the hon. member of the speech of the Prime Minister in this House where he said that after 43 years it should not even be necessary to debate this question in this House. The Prime Minister said that only two weeks ago in this House. This speech has not even appeared in Hansard yet, and here we are debating this very matter! We fought the Provincial Council election on this question; we had these wonderful statements from the Prime Minister. Not only did he say this, but he also said that bilingualism was enshrined in the Act of Union, and that naturally it must be applied in practice. Yes, those are beautiful words, but in the first test which that policy had to pass, it failed. It collapsed at the first test. Two weeks after the Prime Minister made that statement we are moving an amendment which seeks to apply in practice those wonderful ideals of his, that fine policy of his, and the whole thing collapses. Let us take the question of the Board of Trade and Industries. It has been said here that there are members on that board who are bilingual. Is there any member on the other side who wants to tell me that the three unilingual members were the only three suitable men who were available? Do they want to tell us that no bilingual persons were available in South Africa who could do that work? That may have been the position 50 years ago, but not today, when the universities are sending out men each year who have the necessary capabilities and the necessary academic qualifications, people who are fully bilingual; and do they want to tell us that no other bilingual persons could be found for the Board of Trade and Industries? That hon. member must not come here and speak of “sympathy.” We want practical application of the principle of bilingualism. I want to repeat what was said when this matter was discussed in the Committee stage. If there had been an Afrikaans-speaking person with exceptional qualifications, better qualifications than any man who is on the board today, and he could only speak Afrikaans, if he had had no knowledge of English, I want to ask the hon. member for Troyeville or the Minister or the Prime Minister, whether they would ever have appointed such a man? Never! No one will be appointed to any Government board in South Africa who does not know, the English language, and the Minister knows that. It has never been done—and it will never be done. I say, therefore, that in this respect hon. members on the other side must not hold it against us if we use hard words. The whole policy of the other side of the House, of which we heard so much during the election, is tantamount to nothing but political hypocrisy and political dishonesty, and today they are exposed in their nakedness before the people of South Africa. That is the position today. They must not talk of “sympathy.” The time has arrived when we want practical application of these principles. There is a new provision in this Bill that the members shall be appointed for five years. Unfortunately, owing to a misunderstanding, an amendment was not moved by this side of the House to retain the present position, namely, that the appointment shall be for three years. But if ever there was reason for such an amendment, it is the attitude of the Minister in refusing to apply in practice the policy which he and his party have announced. I am speaking for myself and I think I can make free to say, in view of the declared policy of the Minister that he does not want to give any guarantee that he will appoint bilingual persons, that if such unilingual persons are appointed, they must not expect to remain on that board when a future Nationalist Government comes into power. We shall see to it that the principle of bilingualism is applied, that it will not be a question of “sympathy” but that it will be a matter of practical application and practical policy.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). It is very tragic to see how the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner in South Africa has to fight continually, from generation to generation, for his language rights in this country. I do not think there was ever an instance in this House where an English-speaking member on the other side had to make a plea for his language rights, but the Afrikaner has had to struggle from generation to generation to prevent his language rights from being trampled underfoot. We fought an important election …

I just want to remind the hon. member that he cannot repeat the arguments which were advanced by previous speakers.

In that case I shall leave that argument. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he does not think that he is engaged in trampling underfoot the language rights of the Afrikaner to an ever-increasing extent; whether he expects the Afrikaners in this country to have any faith in the promises made by that side of the House in connection with the protection of their language rights. We are still fighting today for the recognition of our language rights. How long has the Minister of Commerce and Industries been in this country—and I am sure that if he were to get up today and speak Afrikaans, we would know whether he is speaking French or German. We on this side of the House have always seen to it, where such appointments are made, that we appoint bilingual people to fill those positions. Does the Minister want to tell me that there are no bilingual persons in this country who could have been appointed instead of the unilingual persons who were appointed on the Board? It hurts us, as Afrikaners, very deeply to have to beg continually for the recognition of our rights. The interpretation of Section 137 has always been the cause of all our difficulties. My hon. friends on the other side saw to it that they interpreted this section to mean that they could use whatever language they pleased; we on this side say that we must know both languages. I want to say that if the Afrikaner has to make that sacrifice which the Minister wants us to make in the interests of our own language, then the time has arrived for the Minister to vacate that bench and to make room for a bilingual Afrikaner. For my part I say that it seems that there are Ministers who are engaged at the moment in fomenting a greater racial struggle in South Africa than we have already had in the past. We get up here and plead for bilingualism; hon. members on the other side agree with us, but when the first test is applied, they are found wanting. What did the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) tell us? He said that the position was constantly improving. Must we discuss these things in the House year after year? I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side in connection with this matter. I want to put this question to the English-speaking members on the other side: If the wheel turns and the Afrikaners get on top, would you be satisfied if we trampled upon and treated your language rights with the same contempt? And then I want to address myself to the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners on the other side, who feel as I do. There is an old saying which says that the soul of a nation is its language, and I want to ask those hon. members today whether they are not ashamed of having their language rights trampled upon in this manner? I do not want to enlarge on this. If the Minister wants to satisfy the people of the country, he must endeavour to pass this test. I think the Minister should rise and tell the House what he is going to do in this respect. I want to ask the hon. member for Troyeville how long he has been in this country —and I doubt whether he can speak Afrikaans. I want to make an appeal to the Minister and ask him to cease fomenting racial strife in this country. Give the Afrikaner his due. We do not begrudge you your language rights. If any English-speaking member were to rise and to plead for his language rights, I would support his plea. A man who does not defend his own language is no man and if I do not want to protect my own language, I would be lacking in self-respect. I want to tell the Minister that we are tired; they must not try to convince us with this story of “sympathy.” We want to face the facts, and after all these years we still say that we want to co-operate, but they must put a stop to those unilingual appointments, and maintain our language rights.

I do not want to say much in regard to the language question. I think that if the Minister is not yet convinced that it is essential that these people ought to be bilingual, I will not be able to convince him. It seems to me that it is only stubbornness on the part of hon. members on the other side. Everyone who gets up on the other side says that these members must be bilingual. I just want to say this to the Minister. I think he is also a lawyer; if he is not he ought to be, because in that case he would have adopted a different attitude. Time and again in the magistrate’s court or in the Supreme Court it happens that the magistrate or the judge cannot understand what the witness says where his evidence is interpreted. This Board has the right to call evidence. If any member of the Board is unilingual and the witness gives his evidence in the other language, it has to be interpreted. I just want to tell the Minister that it is quite impossible to understand anyone fully unless one knows his language. I have seen that often in the case of natives who appear before the court. I do not know the native language, but I do know that, if his statement is interpreted, one hardly knows what the witness meant to convey. But there are a few other matters in regard to which I should like to say a few words. My experience in the past has been that this Board of Trade and Industries takes too long to decide matters which are submitted to them. Five years ago I submitted a certain matter to the Board, and a few years elapsed before they came to a decision. It was a simple matter in connection with import tariffs. It took years before they came to a decision. I notice that under Clause 9, matters in connection with the payment of premiums, etc., can be referred to the Board. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the preference which is given to our wine farmers, in terms of the conference which was held in Ottawa, is not sufficient. I should like to know the Government’s policy in connection with this matter. The preference was 4s. and 2s. per gallon respectively. Today the tax is 40s. and 20s., and a preference of 4s. and 2s. respectively does not help at all. If the Government is not prepared to increase this preference the wine farmers will take steps to take away the preference which the Government enjoys. What is the Government going to do? Are they going to throw open all the markets of the world in terms of the Atlantic Charter? What is the Government’s policy?

Approximately seven or eight years ago a motion to the same effect was introduced in this House. At that time it was in connection with the Broadcasting Board. We then had the same speeches here which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) made today, namely, an expression of sympathy and a promise of improvement. Today, seven or eight years later, we still hear the same argument. I am not a prophet, but I want to assure you that if this Government remains in power we shall hear the same arguments year after year. The same arguments will be advanced in this House year after year. When the hon. member said that all documents were drafted in English and thereafter translated ….

The hon. member must not repeat the arguments of previous speakers.

When the hon. member said that, an hon. member on the other side interjected: “Hear, hear.” He was seated next to the Minister of Justice, an Afrikaansspeaking person, and the Minister did not say that that was disgraceful. This only goes to show how much respect English-speaking members on the other side have for Afrikaans-speaking members in their own party. This motion also embraces the interests of Afrikaans-speaking people on the other side. This goes to show the contempt in which the English-speaking members on the other side hold their Afrikaans-speaking party colleagues. If three unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons had been appointed on the Board of Trade and Industries, what would our English-speaking friends in this House have said? I am convinced that notwithstanding the fact that Afrikaansspeaking members on that side of the House also feel that these members should be bilingual, they are still going to vote against this amendment. They are going to vote against the right—I would almost say the birthright—which they were given, namely, that South Africa should be bilingual. And we believe that one cannot say that one is in favour of bilingualism if one is not prepared to vote for this amendment. I hope that this will be the last occasion on which we in this House have to plead that members of a Government Board should be bilingual, and I hope that the Minister will rise and say that he accepts this motion.

I should like to give my heartiest support to this amendment. Let me say that I am greatly disappointed at the attitude which the Minister has adopted. To me it was a painful revelation. Solemn assurances were given not only by the Prime Minister but by all his supporters that in future their policy would be one of bilingualism, and while they were still giving that assurance, they came here and violated one of the most elementary principles of bilingualism, which is the right of the Afrikaner. They violated one of the most elementary rights of the Afrikaner in South Africa. It really came to me as a great shock. What value can we attach in the future to the assurances which the Government gives us in these matters? An assurance was given by the Minister that as far as possible he would appoint bilingual persons on this board. But again I ask: What value can we attach to the assurances of this Government? It is not sufficient to give us this assurance. It must be laid down in our laws that the principle of bilingualism will be given effect to. The laws of this country must be a reflection of this principle. If that is done, we can rely on their sincerity as far as this matter is concerned. We can no longer rely on mere assurances. This is a matter which affects the most fundamental principles of the Afrikaner. Here again we have a matter which is going to cause racial clashes. We must not look for racial clashes in the schoolrooms; we must look for them in the principles of this Bill, in such matters where the Government refuses to recognise the elementary rights of the Afrikaner. We must not forget that this is one of the most important boards ever to be appointed, a board which affects our whole economic existence, a board which will particularly affect the Afrikaner industries and the interests of the Afrikaner workers in the future. This is one of the most important boards which has been appointed, from a point of view of our national life. When this attitude of refusing to recognise the principles of bilingualism is adopted, I want to ask what the Afrikaans-speaking section can expect of that board? We can expect nothing, and we must not forget that the actions of that Board will in the future be regarded with suspicion by the Afrikaner; and after the attitude which the Minister of Commerce and Industries has adopted, he must not hold it against us if the Afrikaner nation views the action of the Government in this matter with a great measure of suspicion. If the Minister is really sincere in wanting to do the best for our commerce and industries in this country, if he is sincere in wishing to create the best relationship between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people, he will not deem it too late even at this stage to rise and inform the House that he accepts this principle. Our laws reflect our true motives, and since the Minister refuses to incorporate that principle in the Act, hè cannot hold it against us if we feel that there are ulterior motives in this matter. If he is really sincere, he should recognise the principle of bilingualism in this Act.

I should like to point out to the Minister that it is not only a question of three members out of five being English-speaking unilingual. There is also the Minister and the secretary. In other words, out of the seven members concerned in this matter only two are bilingual. I think the Minister is going to place his own supporters on the other side in a difficult position. We notice that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) is again in his seat. He did not vote on the last occasion, although he was opposed to the Minister’s policy. I think the Minister should bear in mind that not only is he going to hurt us on this side, but that he is also going to place members on the other side in a difficult position. He must also bear in mind the fact that actually it is a question of two bilingual members out of seven, and not two out of five.

Before I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) may I just refer to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and point out to him that the points he raised are all covered by the Board of Trade investigation which is at present going on, and that we must wait until that Board reports before we can decide. I am sorry that the hon. member for Ceres found it necessary to move this amendment which I cannot accept. For the most part the arguments in favour of his amendment are repetitions of arguments which had been used in previous stages of this debate, and nothing very fresh was adduced in support of the amendment. The attempt is made by hon. members opposite to suggest that the question of the compulsory appointment of fully bilingual members of the Board which they wish to see enshrined in the Bill is linked up with the Government’s bilingual policy which is at present before the House on another debate.

Of course it is.

But surely that is a misunderstanding. I am trying to put this Bill through to provide for the most efficient Board of Trade that I can get. I have to do with a fact and the fact is that the country is not fully bilingual. If it were bilingual there would be no need for the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres. If it were bilingual, there would be no need for the other proposals which are being discussed by the House this Session, and the sooner the Government’s policy for promoting bilingualism and ensuring it in the schools is enforced, the sooner a motion of this kind which causes disturbance and difficulties will be unnecessary. And I am encouraged to hope that we can in due course obtain the support of hon. members opposite in putting the Government’s policy of dual medium schools in force.

We have never opposed a bilingual policy.

The dual medium policy is accepted generally to bring about bilingualism. However, I do not want to take part in a discussion on bilingualism, because at this stage I am not directly concerned with it. I am concerned with the passing of this Bill to provide for the most efficient Board of Trade that I can get. I fully agree that the most efficient and best man I can get is obviously the fully qualified bilingual man. Obviously; there is no question about it. But it is also a fact, as I say, that the country is not fully bilingual. A great deal has been said about recent unilingual appointments to the Board; although I am not sure that the members are unilingual, I do not think they are fully bilingual. I am informed that when the last appointment to the Board was made, before I returned to this country, at least six fully bilingual qualified people were approached with a view to their joining the Board of Trade. In each case they were unwilling to do so, at least six; and it was after endeavouring to get those fully bilingual people to join the Board that the other member was appointed. In regard to the other recent case, the appointment of Mr. Moore, I required’a member with particular knowledge of trade union conditions, one capable of ensuring that in all investigations the worker’s point of view was fully considered by the Board. I tried for some time to obtain a bilingual member who had the confidence of the trade unions, and I was actually in communication with a fully bilingual man, but at the last moment he turned down the appointment; and, Sir, I appointed Mr. Moore, who is not fully bilingual—he has a good understanding of Afrikaans but he is not good at speaking it. He has been very closely associated for many years as a leading representative of trade unions, which are in the main, I suppose, Afrikaans-speaking. I had good reason for thinking, therefore, that Mr. Moore had the confidence of the workers he was going to represent on the Board, both English- and Afrikaans-speaking.

[Inaudible.]

I resent very much the allegation repeated now by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that the appointment of Mr. Moore was an appointment of anything but the best man for the job, and I think it was not worthy of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) who usually—however wrong he may be—argues a case on its merits, to suggest that Mr. Moore was appointed not because he was the right man, but for some obscure services he was supposed to have rendered someone or other.

What a coincidence!

If it is a coincidence that a leading trade unionist should be appointed to the Board to take the place of a member who had died and who had represented the Labour attitude—well, I shall leave it at that.

Was it left to the trade unions, or had you something to say about it?

I had some say. I do not think I need labour the point further. The House is at one on the main points of the Bill. The only point at issue is the provision that all members should be fully bilingual. That is a policy which has never yet been enshrined in the establishment of Boards of this kind. If it is to be adopted as a matter of general policy, I do not think this is the place to do it. Personally, so long as I have to appoint the best man I can get for the Board, the House knows that where possible a fully bilingual man will be appointed, but I cannot undertake to tie my hands, especially in view of the past experience we have had, that when a fully bilingual man is not available, I cannot appoint one who is not fully bilingual. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—86:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

NOES—36:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dônges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Fortunately it is possible for me to reply to this debate much more briefly than was the case in connection with the previous debate, to which I have already replied today. We are not dealing here with the estimates on the whole, as was the case this morning, but with a series of items where increases were brought about on the estimates of last year. These items can best be dealt with in Committee, when the necessary information can be furnished by the Ministers concerned. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) did, however, deal in his speech with two relatively important items; the one was Defence and the other internment camps. As far as Defence is concerned, that too is a matter which we can best discuss in Committee, when the Minister of Defence will be able to reply to the criticism. I just want to say this: The hon. member for George asked why the expenditure on Defence increased while the activities of our forces decreased. He said that we have only one division up North at present, but that our expenditure is greater than it was when we had two divisions up North. I can only tell the hon. member that we have a good many more troops up North than is represented by one division. There is the Air Force, which has expanded considerably, and is still expanding, and of course that does not form part of the Sixth Division. There is a large variety of non-divisional troops up North, and I think I am right in saying that we have more troops up North today than we had even when two of our divisions were in the field.

How many coloured people?

I have not got the figures. The hon. member can put that question to the Minister of Defence. With regard to internments, I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the last portion of the Auditor-General’s report as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. member referred to difficulties. These are difficulties of the past with which we are now dealing. The Auditor-General states—

As far as that is concerned, therefore, there is no difficulty. We are dealing with difficulties of the past. I think the hon. member for George will understand that as far as the Treasury is concerned, we have proved that we do not want to leave this matter in the air. We are now awaiting the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

With regard to the past?

Yes; at the moment the position is satisfactory. But as far as the past is concerned, we shall certainly take up the matter seriously and deal with it further in the light of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Furthermore, two matters of a general nature were raised in this debate, and it is fitting that I should deal with them today. The hon. member for George regards the fact that additional money was asked for on no less than three occasions after the main estimates, as proof of the development of an Officials’ Corps, as proof of the extension of bureaucracy, and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) regards that a slackening off on the part of the Treasury. I can give hon. members the assurance that we shall always be very pleased to receive assistance from the House and from the Select Committee on Public Accounts with regard to the strengthening of the position of the Treasury. Their conclusions in this case, however, are not altogether sound. This is not the first occasion on which supplementary additional estimates have been placed before the House as many as three times. I did not deal with the pre-war years, when I was not Minister of Finance. In 1938-’39 we also had the main estimates, the supplementary estimates and thereafter two additional estimates. That was in normal peace time. We must not forget that the main estimates for 1943-’44, as far as expenditure is concerned, were framed as far back as October, 1942. It stands to reason that even in normal times the department cannot determine definitely what the position will be in 18 months time. In October, 1942, estimates were drawn up for a period which ended only in March, 1943. After the estimates have been drawn up, the Minister comes before Parliament with his Budget speech which contains certain proposals for expenditure. Provision must be made for that. That is done principally in the Supplementary Estimates. Parliament passes legislation. That must be carried out. It requires an increase in the officials’ corps. That means that new services have to be rendered. Provision must be made for that too. Even in normal times, therefore, one cannot accurately estimate expenditure 18 months beforehand. But these are not normal times. Take for example, the increase in the cost of living allowances. How could the Department have known in October, 1942, what the position would be in March, 1944? Take the increase in the cost of materials which have to be bought. In these abnormal times one cannot foresee these things eighteen months beforehand. Take the introduction of subsidies. Take the passing last year of the Farm Mortgages Interest Act. The department could not have foreseen that in October last. The hon. member stated that an increase was being asked for on 43 out of 47 votes. That is very easily said. One need only mention the fact that there has been a general increase in the cost of living allowances. That explains why provision has to be made for additional cost of living allowances on nearly every vote where salaries are involved. The departments could not have foreseen that eighteen months ago. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, therefore, there is no cause for alarm. The second point which the hon. member mentioned was the increased expenditure, apart from Defence, in comparison with the pre-war expenditure. This year, after deducting savings, we put the figure of expenditure, for which provision must be made under the ordinary votes, at £57,000,000—not as the hon. member said at £58,000,000. The · difference, of course represents savings. According to the report of the Auditor-General, the expenditure in respect of similar services for 1939-’40 was £42,000,000. There is therefore an increase of £15,000,000. I admit that is a large increase, but not difficult to explain. Let me give a few figures. When one takes the increases, what does one find? There is an increase in the Vote “Public Debt” of £3.7 million, an increase with regard to pensions of £2.7 million; agriculture—that includes more particularly the farm mortgage subsidy and the subsidy in connection with wheat and butter—£2.8 million; an increase in the cost-of-living allowances of £2.2 million. There we already have £11.4 million out of the £15,000,000. To that must be added internment camps which are additional and which will disappear, £.7 million. One must add the extensions in the departments dealing with social services : Labour, Social Welfare, Public Health and others, £1.9 million; the Post Office which has expanded enormously and which gives us considerably more revenue, £.9 million. Adding all these figures, we have £14.9 million out of £15,000,000. The hon. member may say that it is not quite scientific to add these figures in the way I have done. He is correct. But I merely did so in order to indicate that it is very easy to explain the increased expenditure over these four years. It is very easy to explain this without taking it for granted that as the result of that increased expenditure, the position has got completely out of control. I think I have now replied fully on the important points which have been raised, and that the remaining points can stand over until the Committee stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

We have no objection to taking the Committee stage now, and we are prepared to let the first vote go through, but I trust that the Minister will then accept the adjournment.

We shall adjourn after disposing of the first vote.

Motion put and agreed to.

Will the hon. Minister explain to us for what purpose the £4,400 is required under the sub-head Additional Expenditure?

It is as the result of the increasing use of telegraphic communication between Pretoria and Washington.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Defence,” £2,500,000,

I move—

Agreed to.