I want to bring to the hon. Minister’s notice a point in connection with the 1925 Fund, to which I hope he will give consideration. The members of the 1912 Fund were given the option to transfer to the 1925 Fund when it was established, but, owing to lack of appreciation of the advantages of transferring to the 1925 Fund and for other reasons, a considerable number of the members of the 1912 Fund did not take advantage of the option. As the Minister is aware, Pensions under the 1912 Fund are calculated upon the average annual earnings over the whole period of service whereas under the 1925 Fund members are given the option of either having their pensions calculated over the whole period of service or over the last seven years of service, whichever is to their advantage. I understand that there are about 1,000 members still remaining in the 1912 Fund, as compared with approximately 70,000 members in the 1925 Fund; so that relatively a small proportion of the staff would be affected if a further option were extended to those who are at present in the 1912 Fund. To be brief, and I hope clear, on the point, I ask the Minister whether, in view of all the circumstances and seeing that (a) the principle of transfer is established by law, (b) that the number of men affected is relatively small and (c) the considerations which influenced the men not to take advantage of the option, he will give sympathetic consideration to a further option with a view to affording relief to men who have given long and faithful service to the Administration and to the country. It will be clear, that men still in the 1912 Fund are obviously those who have been in the service of the Railway Administration for many years, and I hope the Minister will as a gesture of appreciation of the services which they have rendered agree to give this matter his sympathetic consideration.

I rise to support the plea by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), and I am sure that if the Minister can see his way clear to re-open the Fund of 1925, it would be very greatly appreciated by the members of the service who did not avail themselves of the opportunity of transferring to that fund. I would like to point out to the hon. Minister that the majority of those members would have transferred but for the fact that in those days the staff organisations were not well organised, and the publicity given to the option of transferring was not on a very wide scale. I would like also to point out that if this opportunity is given to the railway men who did not transfer, they would no doubt have to pay back the increased pension contributions, as from 1925, and I feel it would be a very fine gesture on the part of the Minister if he afforded the opportunity of joining the new fund to these 1,000 men to whom the hon. member for Roodepoort referred.

I would like to say that I appreciate what has been said by the hon. members who have just spoken with regard to the question of the 1912 Pension Fund. I am sure, however, that they appreciate that they have opened up a very big question, which has been under consideration from time to time since the new Superannuation Fund was created in 1925 and the option to transfer was closed. I would not like therefore to do anything in connection with the possible re-opening of this question under this Bill, but I will undertake to look into the present position in respect of those pension contributors who chose to remain in the 1912 Pension Fund, with a view to seeing how many men are affected and what it will involve the Administration in if it agreed to a suggestion of this kind. If as a result of that enquiry it appears that something can be done, there will be plenty of opportunity for us to make the necessary statutory provision, but I would not like to commit myself at this stage, without a much more comprehensive knowledge of the present situation, to do anything in the direction indicated by the hon. member.

One appreciates the attitude with which the hon. Minister is approaching this question, and I would like to thank him for his assurance to the House that he will undertake some sort of enquiry to determine what it will cost the Administration and how it will affect policy. One appreciates the fact, as was stated by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) that it was not brought home to the rank and file in 1925 and to the members who did not avail themselves of the additional benefits of the new fund, what the advantages were in transferring to the new fund. To most artisans and to most people in the servive a pension fund is merely a pension fund and an assurance of a pension at the end of their career, and once they are contributors to any fund, be it the 1925, be it the 1912 fund or any fund, they do not voluntarily and willingly make an additional contribution. To them it is merely an additional contribution. They are called upon to pay more and that is really the deterrent, and then there is the fact that they were obviously not properly advised as to the advantages of the new fund, and obviously the approach to this question should not be what it is going to cost the Administration. The correct approach to this question is: How better can I ensure the old age of those of my servants who have served me faithfully? I know that the Minister, Scotch though he be, Will approach this question from that angle, because of there is one thing for which the Scotch are recognised it is for ensuring their old age. They live to a ripe old age. Whatever the Scotch be, they do show a determination to safeguard their old age. This House has out of the large surplusses that have come the way of previous Ministers of Railways set aside millions of pounds out of railway revenue out of profits which come from our pockets, to ensure the stability of this pension fund. And that is the way a Minister of Railways will go down to posterity as one who ensured the old age of his servants, and I want to add my little meed of support to this measure and express the hope that the Minister will agree to it even if it is going to cost the Administration some effort to ensure the future of these pensioners who have rendered faithful service to the Administration. Let it be done in the same generous way in which the Minister of Railways and his predecessor have allocated millions of pounds to secure the stability of this fund, and I am sure that not only this House, not only the country, but also the members of the fund will appreciate the generous action of the Railway Department in securing the old age of its pensioners.

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

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Seeing that we are taking the third reading of this Bill I should like to make another appeal to the Minister to take all the laws which are now contained in such a number of Statutes and introduce them next year by way of consolidating legislation. The present position is not only difficult to us but it is particularly so to members of the staff who have to deal with these laws. Particularly those members of the staff who have to handle matters under these laws find it very difficult to look up Acts which have been amended two or three times. In this Bill we are amending clauses which have already been amended before and it is now becoming very difficult to keep a proper track of the numerous Railway measures and Acts and to refer to them, and to find out what the actual law is, what has been amended and what has not been amended. If the Minister would give us that undertaking we would be very grateful.

I think the hon. member has raised that point in connection with other Bills. I am in favour of the consolidation of these measures, particularly in the case of measures which have reached a certain degree of stability. The difficulty at the moment owing to the shortage of man-power, is that it is very difficult to take on what I might call extraneous work, but we will bear the matter in mind and whenever an opportunity arises, I am quite prepared to introduce a consolidating measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I want to avail myself of the half-hour privilege. During the Budget debate this side of the House emphasised the danger we are running of inflation becoming worse and worse in this country, with its necessary disastrous consequences. These consequences will particularly make themselves felt when the war is over and this wholesale spending of money has come to an end. In that connection we have pointed to certain dangers; we have pointed to certain causes tending towards this ever-increasing inflation. The Minister in reply to the Budget debate did, in general terms, refer to this question, but so far as the pertinent points raised by us are concerned, the causes mentioned by us, those to a large extent he did not deal with at all. I am therefore compelled this morning again to raise this matter apart from other matters which I want to discuss on this Vote. I say that we behold developing before us an ever increasing wave of inflation, the evil effects of which we shall unquestionably experience later on. The evidence of this condition of inflation is not only to be found in the amount of money circulating in the country— thus creating great purchasing power—but it is also proved by the fact that under the circumstances prevailing today the Minister is able to spend money on a huge scale under conditions of fictitious or false prosperity; he is able to levy new taxes, to undertake new expenditure, expenditure which in certain respects is almost dazzling. May I, in order to strengthen my argument be allowed to mention a few of the points which we have referred to on previous occasions? The expenditure this year on both estimates, that is to say on loan and ordinary estimates, amounts to the huge sum of £180,000,000 for one year, in other words for twelve months. Just before the war this expenditure was £67,000,000; the increase in the expediture per year has therefore been £113,000,000. So far as taxes are concerned the total sum in 1940 in globular figures amounted to £33,000,000 and today in round figures it is £90,000,000, an increase of £57,000,000. Now, I again want to put it to the Minister that neither he, nor any other economist, would have dared say in 1940 that he would in one year be able to increase the expenditure by £113,000,000 without simply paralysing the country.

Not in one year.

It was a gradual increase, but the point is that the expenditure over twelve months is now £113,000,000 more than it was in twelve months a few years ago. The same thing applies to the taxation Imposed on the public. If these things had been made possible by the fact that we had achieved new wealth in South Africa, that we had created new sources of wealth, and had created fresh development on a large scale, or because we had an enormously big population earning money and producing this wealth, it would not have been so unhealthy, but these things are happening today simply and solely because the Minister and the Government have deliberately created a fictitious prosperity in connection with their war effort. I want to put a question to the Minister, and I would like him to answer it. He did not answer me in the Budget debate. Tell us where new sources of wealth have been created in this country which may be responsible for the enormous extra revenue which has suddenly come into being? In the agricultural line the Minister cannot show us anything. No new sources of revenue have been created there. No actual expansion of national production is found in that sphere. So far as the gold mines are concerned there is no fresh expansion or development. The country’s income from the gold mines is no larger than it used to be, rather it is smaller than it was five years ago. Industries, apart from war industries which are a temporary thing, have also made very little progress indeed. The Minister can mention a large number of small new industries, practically all of which are directly connected with the war, but they will probably disappear like the mist before the morning sun as soon as the war is over. We can therefore rightly say that in actual fact very few new sources of wealth have been created. In actual fact no stable, continuous prosperity has been created in this country which may have the result of our being in a position to justify and meet this enormous expenditure. Consequently, this has only been made possible by the fact that the Government, whether it is prepared to admit it or not, for the sake of its war effort, has deliberately allowed the creation of a fictitious prosperity, in other words inflation. And it has especially succeeded in bringing this about by borrowing money and in the beginning also by taxation, and as it is actually doing now by allowing its war expenditure to go on and on an enormous, scale a very much larger scale than is really necessary for the Governmen’t war effort. May I just be allowed to mention a few things? We have large numbers of natives and coloured people in the army and they are paid wages which are much higher than they would have ever earned in normal times. These wages put money into circulation, the snowball keeps on rolling. But apart from those people, look at the unnecessarily large number of people, men and women, who are in the army and who in actual fact contribute nothing to the real war effort. If I remember correctly the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said the other day that apart from the fighting units and the Reserves there were about 45,000 people in the army here and I assume they are here for administrative purposes. They are girls and women and men who are too old or physically unfit to do any real fighting, but they are here in camps, offices and elsewhere as members of the army. There is no doubt that we have very many more of them than we actually need for the work. If the Minister would agree to the appointment of a Committee of this House, or even an outside Committee, to go into that question, I have not the slightest doubt such a Committee would be forced to come to one conclusion and that is that there are thousands, and I would even say tens of thousands of people, who are not needed in the army and who are actually redundant. Money is spent unnecessarily, with the result that the country’s expenditure keeps on swelling and swelling and increasing all the time. You can walk through the streets of Cape Town, Pretoria or Johannesburg any day of the week and in every street you meet hundreds of girls, women and others in khaki—people who are not doing any real fighting. They are just kept on, partly to do administrative work, but in many cases they have so little to do that they are continually out in the streets or on the trains. The other day the Chairman of the Publicity Association considered it necessary to point out that as a result of the travelling and driving about of soldiers, the ordinary civilians, who had to travel, were prevented from doing so. That is further evidence of the idleness which prevails in the ranks of those people who are allegedly employed for the war effort, and it is not just a question of numbers, but the wages and salaries paid to these people tend towards inflation. Many of them for doing nothing are earning infinitely more in the Army than they have ever earned in civilian life. I can call to mind numbers of people who in their private capacity have never earned as much as they are earning today. I know of a man who occupied a very subordinate position in an attorney’s office because the work he could do did not justify a big salary. He earned £20 odd but now he is employed in the administration of the army, and he is earning £50 or £60 per month. And you will find the same thing in connection with large numbers of these girls and women, not to talk of the coloured men and natives. They get wages and salaries far in excess of anything they have ever earned in the past, and—and this is worse still—far in excess, of what they will ever be able to earn when they return to civil life. Now, these are the general causes of the ever increasing expenditure and of the extravagance we have in this country. These are the causes of the condition of inflation which, as the war goes on, is becoming more and more pronounced and more and more dangerous. Another cause is that the Goverment has introduced a system to control the prices of products and commodities, but that system of control is as ineffective as it can be. I am talking of a thing which we all experience every day. You have to pay through the nose simply because there is no effective price control so far as the commercial world is concerned. In many instances people are allowed to make profits, so called legitimate profits, far in excess of the amount which they would have been allowed to make if there had been proper and effective control. I recently asked a shopkeeper how he was doing, and his reply was, “I am tired of making money”. Go to the shopkeepers and the traders right through this country and you will find that in spite of the fact that they have fewer goods to sell—because in many instances things are rationed—in spite of the fact that consumers goods are not available to the same extent as before the war, the traders generally have much bigger incomes and make bigger profits than before the war. They can only do so, given two sets of conditions. The one is that price control in itself is not effective, or otherwise that there is far too much of what we call “black market”. In regard to price control there is no doubt that we have to pay through our noses today, and that prices should be very much more effectively controlled than is the case today. In regard to the black market, many sections of the trade, and many shopkeepers, would very quickly be found out if the Minister would only appoint sufficient inspectors. Take the building industry for instance. In spite of control, one can buy building material on the black market right throughout the country—practically anywhere—at unheard of prices. Where is the control? I am talking about things which I have seen myself and in connection with which proof has been supplied to me. There is not sufficient control, and the commercial world, no matter what the methods, is flourishing as never before and is doing so notwithstanding the fact that it is contended that there are fewer consumer goods than before. If that is so, then I want to know where this tremendous prosperity comes from? Where does the revenue come from, out of which the Minister draws his huge amounts of income tax? In nearly every section, notwithstanding control, we are told by the Minister that the revenue is so big that he is able to levy and collect millions and millions in extra income tax. If that is so, and it is so, then clearly there is something wrong with the way profits are controlled in this country. I ask myself this question: The Minister says in defence of some of the taxes which he is levying that they are levied in order to prevent inflation. For instance he mentions the tax on the sale of fixed property. There are other taxes as well. I say that this is a very poor effort to prevent inflation. I ask myself whether the Government really wants to prevent inflation, and if I had to answer that question I would say the Government is not serious in its attempts to prevent inflation because this enormous war effort and this enormous income which it is getting out of the taxes can only be obtained under a policy of inflation. Under ordinary normal circumstances it is quite impossible in one year to get £50,000,000 more in taxation than in a previous year, in this case a year just before the war. One can only do that if there is inflation. Therefore, in order to make the war effort as extensive as possible the Government is deliberately pursuing a policy of inflation as I hope I have shown. It would otherwise be impossible to obtain this huge amount of revenue. We can only get it under a condition of fictitious prosperity. If you confine yourself to actualities as before the war, then this enormous revenue is impossible, and then the war effort, as carried on today, is also impossible. For the sake of the war effort the Government is deliberately allowing inflation to take place. After the war we shall have to gather the bitter fruit of this policy. We don’t even have to wait until after the war. We are already beginning to gather the bitter fruit. You find as a result of these things, inter alia, and they are not the only things, but they are the main things —a tremendous increase in the cost of living, and I make bold to say that if an impartial investigation were made, and if the increase in cost of living were calculated on a sound basis, it would be found that the increase in cost of living, especially so far as the necessities of life of the poor man are concerned, is infinitely more than what it is officially said to be. It is officially stated by the Government that the increase is from 22 to 23 per cent., but if this question were thoroughly gone into it would be found that these official returns are too low altogether and that the increase in cost of living, especially for the poor man the wage earner, is very much more than 22 per cent. or 23 per cent. If an investigation were made by a body of experts it would be found that the increase was very much more. I have already gone into the causes of this situation.

I have pointed out how inflation is created, leading to an increase in the cost of living. The main cause is the inadequate control over our local prices. During the Budget debate I also mentioned another cause, and that is the lack of control on the part of the Government over the prices of goods coming into this country from elsewhere, and I mentioned a very striking case, namely the importations from South America, Brazil and the Argentine. The hon. the Minister did not go into that aspect of the question. I hope he will avail himself of this opportunity to explain what the actual position is, and I hope he will tell us whether it is impossible for the Government to take some steps. We feel that many articles are imported into South Africa from South America, Brazil and the Argentine at prices which are far too high. We all know that the Argentine is very much nearer to South Africa than to Great Britain, and the same thing applies to Brazil, but I am told that in spite of that fact the average freight rates from South America to South Africa are £50 to £56 per cubic ton as against only £5 per cubic ton to England. In spite of the fact that the distance to South Africa is shorter, and in spite of the fact that the danger of submarines, etc., on the voyage to England is infinitely greater than it is on the voyage to South Àfrica, there is such an enormous difference in freight charges. That also applies to the insurance which we pay in comparison with England, in spite of the fact that the journey to South Africa is much safer than the journey to England. I mentioned the case of towels for instance. For a consignment of towels brought from Brazil and purchased there f.o.b. for £191 the consumers in South Africa paid between £600 and £700, due to this terrifically high freight charge and higher insurance costs. Until such time as we have adequate industries in South Africa to manufacture the things we require, we have to import from other countries, but if the Government simply sits still and does nothing about it, the people of this country are going to be exploited. The Government can use its power. If it does not want to interfere with the actions of private industries, it can in any case make special arrangements about shipping and insurance. If the Government were to do so, consumers in South Africa would not have to pay from 400 per cent. to 600 per cent. more than what these goods cost in other countries. If the English Government can take steps to buy goods on a large scale in South Africa, goods and commodities such as dried fruit, then surely our Government can also take action. If the Government does not want to buy goods on a large scale, it can at any rate take action in connection with the regulation of freight and insurance and in that way bring down the cost of living in South Africa to a much lower level than it is today. We are already picking the bitter fruit of the inflation policy through the cost of living of the consumers having gone up tremendously and the Government also realises this. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister made a statement here the other day which amazed us all. And it was this: That realising from his point of view that the native mine workers and others were entitled to higher wages than they had so far received the Government had now intervened to give the natives on the mines higher pay. The Government pays this subsidy to the most prosperous industry in South Africa, the gold mining industry, a subsidy which for the first year will amount to £1,850,000. I don’t know whether that amount will increase later on but that is the first year’s contribution out of the coffers of the State, to give the natives extra pay. If the natives are entitled to extra pay, I ask: “What about the white miners; are they not also entitled to extra pay? What about the officials?” Let hon. members please remember, when we talk about the increase in the cost of living, when we talk about inflation, that while the ordinary business man and others can perhaps take advantage of this fictitious prosperity to increase their incomes, the wage earner or the man drawing a salary is in the unenviable position that his income does not go up in accordance with this fictitious prosperity. Not only does his income not go up but in actual fact his income has been reduced by nearly half in comparison with what it was a few years ago because the purchasing power of his £ is about half of what it used to be. Take a man with a salary of £500. The purchasing power of that £500 is not what it was before we went off gold. He does not draw. £500 of 20s. in the £ but in comparision with the position as it used to be, he only draws £250 solely and simply as a result of the drop in the value of our currency. The prices of goods have gone up. The increase in the price of necessaries of life also has to be considered. And the result is that the wage earners, the railway workers and so on, are in an extremely difficult position, in a much more difficult position than the ordinary business man who can take advantage of this false prosperity to supplement his income as well. Now, I ask the Government, what of the white mine workers? The Minister knows that there already is a lot of commotion among them and now the Government comes here and takes money out of the coffers of the State to give to the native mine workers, and I believe also to the natives in the service of the Victoria Falls Power Company, as extra pay, all of which is going to cost the State £1,850,000 for the first year. Can the Minister blame the wage earners, the small officials, the Railway workers, the factory workers, and the white miners if they, as a result of the step taken by the Government, demand a similar concession? You cannot refuse it. Their demands are well founded. In view of what has happened, and in view of the step taken by the Government, you cannot resist their demand. Is the Government going to give a subsidy to increase the wages of the white miners as well? If not, how can it justify taking £1,850,000 out of the coffers of the State to increase the wages of the native mine workers? The Government has set the spiral into operation. A subsidy will be demanded in connection with other wages and the Government will not be able to resist the demand for an increase of wages throughout the country. The hon. the Minister of Finance has seen the decision of the officials in regard to their position, and he must admit it was a reasonable decision to arrive at. Now, seeing that the Minister in the Budget debate drew attention to the increasing danger of inflation, I should like to know what he is going to do now? He cannot stop people getting higher wages and salaries under present conditions, and as a result the costs of production in industries will go still higher, and in order to cope with that position the Government will have to impose further taxes to counteract inflation until eventually you will get a state of affairs in this country which will paralyse us for many years when this fictitious prosperity has come to an end. Now, about this subsidy to the mines, let me say this: The Government saw fit to give a subsidy out of the Exchequer. I want to ask the Minister whether, when he made his Budget speech, he had this extra expenditure in mind? I suspect that this money comes out of the Loan Estimates. It is part of the profit on the sale of gold and that money was put into the Loan Funds, if I am not mistaken. Has the Minister, in the Estimates before us, taken that into account, or does this subsidy mean that his estimates will be out by £1,850,000? Will he have to come along with supplementary estimates to make provision for this money? I just want to draw his attention to the whole position in general, now that we are dealing with this subsidy which he is taking out of the profits which the State gets out of the sale of gold. The House will remember perhaps what happened in this connection. A few years ago the position was that we sold our gold to the Bank of England for 168s. per fine ounce. We paid insurance, freight etc. The Bank of England took that gold and sold it to America for 175s., so that the Bank of England, on every ounce of gold, made a profit of 7s. After the matter was raised here arrangements were made with the Bank of England that part of the profit was to be paid to the Government here and it was put to Loan Account and was called: “Profit on sale of gold,” or “Gold Realisation Fund.” A few days ago we read in the newspapers that England was now selling part of that gold for 280s. per ounce—part of that gold which they were now buying from us on the basis of 160s. and which they used to sell to America for 175s.—at a profit of 7s. The difference between 168s. and 280s. therefore is the profit which is made on part of that gold—I don’t know how much of it. That was stated in the paper. Will the Minister be able to tell us what the position is? But that is not all. [Time limit.]

Before we proceed I want to draw attention to the fact that I have allowed the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) to cover a fairly wide field and that he has discussed certain items which were discussed during the Budget debate. I cannot allow a continuation of the Budget debate here.

As we are dealing here with the Minister’s salary, I assume we are entitled fully to discuss the Government’s financial policy, irrespective of whether it was part of the Budget debate or not.

I pointed out that I had allowed the hon. member to proceed.

Yes; but for the guidance of hon. members who want to pursue this subject I make bold to say that the points I raised are all directly connected with the policy of the Treasury. Each of these points was on a financial matter directly concerned with the Minister’s policy.

Yes; and I have allowed the hon. member to proceed.

On a further point of order, may we know what the actual effect of your Ruling is? We want to know whether the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) kept within the bounds of permissible debate or whether he was out of order?

No, the hon. member was within the bounds. I want to refer the hon. member to the ruling given on page 353 of the Votes and Proceedings. I shall only quote the last paragraph—

May I also know from, you whether the Prime Minister’s statement, which was made after the Budget debate, in regard to the granting of a subsidy of £1,850,000 to the Mines, can now be discussed?

Yes, the hon. member can ask a question.

And matters affecting the general policy of the Minister of Finance?

The hon. member can discuss that subject.

I understand that I cannot avail myself of the thirty minute period and that being so I merely propose asking the Minister a few questions about the adjustment agreements proposed by an English expert and an American expert. During a previous debate this question was raised by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and the Prime Minister told the House that certain negotiations were proceeding, but that the scheme had not yet developed far enough for him to be able to make an announcement. I quite appreciate that while negotiations are going on, it may not be possible to give publicity to the exact position arrived at in those negotiations, but we are dealing here with a question of policy, and I therefore want to ask the Minister of Finance a few questions about the policy the Government is following in regard to the proposed scheme. It is no secret to the House that we on this side have adopted a very definite attitude in regard to our internal economic development, a very definite policy in regard to our national standpoint, and by implication therefore we also take up a definite attitude so far as foreign countries are concerned. By implication, therefore, we also have a definite policy insofar as this payment adjustment agreement, which is proposed by these two gentlement will affect us as a state. The first question I want to ask the Minister of Finance is whether it is part of the Union Government’s policy to join an eventual international re-adjustment organisation. The scheme proposed on behalf of the United States on the one hand, and on behalf of the British Nation on the other hand, principally envisaged the possibility of international payment difficulties arising in future, and these men have in anticipation of these difficulties been devising a scheme by which these difficulties might be minimised. Now, nobody doubts, and I myself do not doubt, the honest intentions of both gentlemen who have been working out this scheme, but speaking from past experience, as this scheme is put forward by two prominent economists of countries which in the past had a considerable say in the world’s trade and which in the past occupied positions amounting to an international monopoly in world trade, some of us doubt the desirability of becoming party to an agreement in which the small States of the world will have very little or no say. In considering the desirability of becoming party to such an agreement, the question of immediate future international trade relationships arises. There are two aspects, both of which affect South Africa. The first aspect starts from the point of view of overseas countries which will trade with South Africa, and the other aspect is what prospects South Africa will have of trading with them. I am putting the probable international commercial position of the Union after the war, as overseas States may regard it. We may be faced with an extraordinary, exhausted economic position throughout the belligerent world when the exhausted countries will, naturally, require some assistance to pay for their requirements. They will need assistance and credits at a time when international trade and when stocks have to be adjusted. It is highly probable that a great need will arise for means of payment and reciprocal trade may be considerably affected thereby. The second point is that a re-construction period will necessarily have to set in and consequently the requirements of these countries will for a time be greater than in normal circumstances, but their importations will have to be selective. They will not be able to make their purchases merely with a view to meeting the average requirements of their populations. The governments of these various nations will have to lead the trade into channels in accordance with the needs of the re-construction contemplated by those States. Consequently, there will have to be a stage of selective trade after the war. It has also been predicted that there will be greater need for foodstuffs and as in all probability we shall not be able to make great contributions to the re-construction except by way of minerals, the Union will probably be able to contribute to the food requirements of a ruined Europe, if I may put it that way. There is a reciprocal interest in trade with overseas countries which will perhaps be important to us. But there is also a danger signal, and that has been sounded by one of the British statesmen, and that is that England, if it wants to exist, will have to export. I mention this because it is part of the scheme drafted by the two representatives of England and America, that there is to be a certain degree of freedom of trade, and that there are to be fewer restriction; and as soon as we become party to such an agreement, there is a danger of our being detrimentally tied down by an overwhelming vote. So far as the Union is concerned I take it for granted that industrial development will have to take place here; it has become a matter of vital necessity for us to have industrial development, not only from the point of view of our obligations to those who have joined the army, but also because of our increasing needs and because of the fact that large quantities of raw materials are available in this country. One aspect emerging from this position will be the fact that we shall not require so many European industrial products. That will have to be one of South Africa’s starting points, to consider to what extent we should become parties to such an agreement, because if we carry out our promises and our need for industrial development, South Africa will have to be less dependent on a large number of foreign products. That, as a matter of fact, is what we expect after the war, judging by our experience at the end of the last war—that the various countries will take the necessary steps to provide for their own industrial requirements. We are therefore faced with two problems. The first one is that we have this undertaking—an undertaking even on the part of the Government— to give great attention to the question of industrial development, and on the other hand we shall be in danger of being flooded with industrial products by certain other countries because those countries are obliged to buy and to sell.

This would appear to be a suitable opportunity for discussing a matter of great public importance, and I should be glad to be allowed the privilege of speaking for thirty minutes. The chief point I wish to deal with today is that the Treasury or the Minister of Finance should not have given their consent to the merger between the United Building Society and the St. Andrew’s Building Society as this merger was not in the public interest: the only people benefiting being four classes of shareholders of the St. Andrew’s Society who are to receive unequal premiums of 75, 50, 25 and 5 per cent. on their shares involving the distribution of published and other reserves amounting approximately to £329,000. Among the people to benefit are five of the directors and three of the principal officials of the Society and these directors and officials had a personal and pecuniary interest in promoting and upholding the view that the shares in question were, in the Minister’s words “truly permanent, i.e. irredeemable.” The St. Andrew’s Building Society was not a small society as its assets were over £6,000,000; it was the the sixth largest society in the Union and its reserves, proportionate to its size, the largest of any of the larger societies. There was no reason for its going out of business which was sold because it was not prepared to face a reduction in its share dividends and wanted them capitalised on the basis of the existing rates. The only interest considered in this transaction was that of the A, B, C and D groups of shareholders. It will be generally agreed that the dispersal of the whole of the St. Andrew’s published reserves at one distribution could only have been effected through the action of the United or some other society coming forward and acquiring the business. I believe, too, it will be generally agreed that the dispersal of building society reserves, especially as they are all considerably below the minimum 10 per cent. required by the Act, is not in the public interest—and that the United Building Society was not acting in the public interest in lending its resources to make this transaction possible. This was no ordinary building society amalgamation where audited book values were accepted and merged in the accounts of the absorbing society without alteration. One of the clauses of the Building Societies Act precludes societies from showing in their accounts any sum for the acquisition of business or for goodwill. It prevents the inclusion of items not represented by assets. I read it as forbidding any payment under these heads. It seems to me that you cannot take over share liabilities at premiums without paying for the acquisition of business or for goodwill, even if you use the merged society’s assets or reserves to pay them with. Let us examine these reserves. There was a so-called “Statutory Reserve Fund” of £100,000 which for some reason was not to be used but had to be taken over and shown as a reserve in the accounts of the United Building Society. That reserve has not been dissipated; if there was a good reason for retaining one reserve it surely extended to the others. There remained £185,000 at credit of other reserve funds and a balance of unappropriated profits amounting to £49,000, together £234,000, to be set against payments of £329,000 for share premiums, leaving a shortage of £95,000, and this, I submit, is a sum paid for the acquisition of business even if it is not shown as such in the accounts of the absorbing society and therefore it is against the principles of the existing Act. From the Minister’s reply it appears that the difficulty was surmounted by revaluing four asset items in order to balance the account and comply with the letter, if not with the spirit of the Act. The transaction was not an unprofitable one for the absorbing Society as it comes out on the right side by the amount of £100,000 represented by the St. Andrew’s Society’s so-called statutory reserve. Our Union building societies have a great variety of reserve funds among them, one which most of the societies call the “Statutory Reserve Fund.” This designation is an invention of their own or of the Treasury’s as it had no sanction in the original Building Societies Act nor in the amending Acts up to last year. What the original Building Societies Act did was to take the reserves existing when the Act came into force and provide for the addition to them every year of a sum equal to not less than 10 per cent. of profits. What is important in connection with this merger is that the Act precluded the payment of dividends or bonuses out of reserves so long as these reserves—mark the Act says nothing about a Statutory Reserve—were below a figure equal to at least 10 per cent. of the liabilities to shareholders and depositors. There is not one of the larger building societies whose total reserve funds reach this 10 per cent. figure. I submit that the Minister has deliberately flouted this provision in our building society legislation by consenting to the distribution of these premiums, dividends or bonuses, call them what you like, to classes of favoured shareholders of the St. Andrew’s Building Society. Let us examine also the Minister’s statement that the St. Andrew’s Building Society’s permanent shares are irredeemable. He said that on September 18, 1935, the majority of shareholders had already paid a premium on their shares. That may be; commercial share values fluctuate with the dividends paid from year to year. But one would like to know how those premiums compare with those now to be distributed as high as 75 per cent., 50 per cent. and more. The society itself received no premiums, only these particular shareholders I have mentioned. Although I think it continued to issue these shares or some of them after registration. The Minister has stated that the holders of permanent shares were induced to surrender their existing rights to comply with the requirements of the Act in exchange for an undertaking that no redemption would take place without the payment of a premium on any shares being repaid and he further stated that this undertaking is embodied in Rule 99 of the Society as registered in 1935. That is rather extraordinary as the law requiring permanent shares to be repayable at notice has always been in force and it should not have been possible for the Society to make contracts otherwise. Moreover the return submitted by the Minister in answer to Question IV 3 (b) shows that no 6 per cent. shares had been issued on 31st March, 1936. I have read Rule 99 which deals with reserves but it merely says the directors “may” do so and so. In any event that Rule contravenes the Act which prohibits the payment of dividends and bonuses out of reserves as do some of the Society’s own rules. Moreover the Society’s Rule 5 (1) specifically provides for the payment of dividends of less than 6 per cent. on the 8, 7 and 6 per cent. permanent shares, the A, B, C and D shares which the Minister tells us cannot be touched. I do not know whether he meant the capital or the dividends but it is the same thing. Then there is the amending Act of last year which empowered Societies to repay permanent shares on six months’ notice. The contention that the shares are irredeemable is accordingly vulnerable from two points, namely the Act and the amending Acts, particularly that of last year and the Society’s power under its Rules to reduce the dividends. It does not seem to me that either the Societies or the Minister can vary the effect of the Act which Parliament in its wisdom passed. Yet this has been done by the redemption out of reserves of these shares at premiums, notwithstanding a rule of the Society that these shares had no preferential right as to repayment of capital. The premiums paid represent a very high preference, as I said 75 and 50 per cent.; it shows the extent to which the persons have profited by being permitted to lay unholy hands on this reserve. The reserve was constituted to establish the stability of the company and now it is going to contribute largely to the stability of these particular directors and the officials who seem to have favoured nation treatment in connection with this merger. On the question of a debt being irredeemable I understand there is no such thing. It is contrary to all the principles of building society finance. The Cape Government’s Perpetual Annuities and, in the commercial market, the 6 per cent. Cumulative Preference shares of C.T.C. Bazaars, might be regarded as examples of irredeemable debt. The Minister knows all about the former as he once wrote a monograph on the National Debt. The shares of C.T.C. Bazaars were, under the authority of one of our judges, converted from 6 to 5½ per cent. without compensation for the reduced rate, or allowance for arrears of dividend while the ordinary shares were exchanged for shares in another company at a considerable premium on the par value of C.T.C. Bazaar ordinary shares. The holders of the A, B, C and D permanent shares of the St. Andrew’s Building Society, where they did not acquire them from the Society at par, got them by transfer from other holders subject to the law governing building societies and to the Rules of the Society. The latter did not commit the Society to pay rates of dividend of 8, 7, 6 and 5 per cent. for all time or for any time except from year to year. Last year the Society was empowered by Act of Parliament to repay those shares at six months’ notice. The rules of the Society define “value of share” as the amount standing at credit of a share in the books of the Society and these shares stand in the books at par. It is to be deplored at this time of world crisis and heavy taxation that it is possible for institutions enjoying special privileges from Parliament and supposed to be affected by great public interest to be exploited for the private gain of individuals. We hope that the Revenue authority will see that these premiums are treated as bonuses and are taxed accordingly. The pity is that the Minister by his action should have departed from his role of trustee for the public by making possible the dispersal of £329,000 of reserves accumulated in the course of many years from generations of poor borrowers. The Ministers’ consent appears to have closed all legal remedy and on his shoulders alone must rest the responsibility for this, what I would call anti-social act of administration. Reverting to the questions asked on March 1st, I hope the Minister will see his way to give answers to I (3) and II by asking the societies concerned, some fourteen I think, to compile the information for tabulation in his office. If the financial years of all societies are not uniform the nearest period for a fair comparison could be taken. All that is necessary is to have the returns compiled on uniform lines with notes on any departures from uniformity. Many of the societies issued their 1943 Report and Accounts nine months ago. I do not ask the Treasury to accept responsibility for the figures which can, if thought necessary, be checked by societies’ own auditors in accordance with any instructions which the Treasury may issue when calling for the information. It is important that the public and the societies concerned themselves should have the information which otherwise will not be available for about two years and may never be available at all in the form asked for.

Earlier on I referred to the prospect of there being a falling off in imports into South Africa under the payment re-adjustment agreement. As against that South Africa will continue to export its gold to other countries. The third point is that we shall probably have to contribute to the requirements of a ruined Europe through our agricultural products and our minerals. My conclusion therefore is that the Union’s balance should in the circumstances, so far as we can judge, be a favourable one, but not only should our balance of trade be in our favour but our balance of payment should also be in our favour, because our overseas commitments have been considerably reduced in the past few years, and although exchange contracts still have to be adjusted they should not be such as to upset our favourable balances. I therefore asked whether the Union was actually becoming a party to such an international agreement. My question really was unnecessary because the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in reply to a previous question had already stated that negotiations were proceedings. Although those negotiations probably are still largely provisional, I assume none the less, that they are part of the whole, and as these two concepts are mentioned in the Prime Minister’s reply, it would appear to me that, so far, it is the Government’s intention to become a party to such an agreement. But the question then arises in South Africa what does the Government contemplate by doing so, what does the Government aim at in regard to South Africa? I have tried to prove first of all that South Africa will probably have no need to avail itself of the purposes, of the objects, which the people who drafted the agreement orginally had in view. Therefore, as we are taking part in the discussions—as we must conclude from the Prime Minister’s reply—the question arises, what really is the Government’s policy, what does it aim at, what does it hope to secure for South Africa by these negotiations? There are two possibilities, two aspects which are most important to us in that respect. And I want to bring these at once to the Minister’s notice. The first is that the prime object of the mover is to facilitate international trade, which constitutes a serious menace to South Africa, and the second point, is that it is admitted that England’s position in this case is very much weaker than that of the United States, and the question consequently arises how we, as part of the Empire, are going to be affected by it. I have the “Economist” of the 1st May, 1943, here, which contains a few remarks in which I am particularly interested. Just let me quote these—

This means America’s and Great Britain’s two plans. I could not possibly help thinking of the Atlantic Declaration on international trade, on which emphasis is also laid in these two plans. So far as South Africa’s industries are concerned I think this is a serious warning. Now, the next remark is of equal significance. In these remarks the unequal position of the United States in relation to the United Kingdom is clearly indicated—

This is not part of the plan which has been devised, but these are the conclusions at which a responsible and prominent economic paper has arrived in connection with two aspects before us, namely, in the first place the facilitating of international trade, and secondly the unequal competition between the United States and the United Kingdom after the war. From that certain implications arise for us, and my third question to the Minister is, if we have to become parties to that agreement, if it is the Government’s policy for us to become parties to it, are we then going to become a party as an independent member of such an organisation, or are we to contribute to England’s credit as against America? This is a particularly important aspect and I should like to have a clear reply to it. Provision has been made in the English concept, for the so-called sterling bloc to continue in future, and at the same time it will also be possible for the States who want to fall in with that concept to be separate members of such an international payment agreement. Here, again, we have a dual position in regard to certain states. Let us cast our minds back to the previous League of Nations in which South Africa occupied a dual position. Such a possibility is again being created here, but it is a possibility as a result of which difficulties may again arise similar to those which we had in the past in the political sphere, viz. the possibility of immediate friction between the United States and the United Kingdom. The “Economist” goes on and says this—

I want to emphasise that the prospect is held out here that a Dominion like South Africa can occupy a dual position, and such an agreement will unquestionably lead to friction—

And then the “Economist” goes on—

That is the American point of view—

I just want to emphasise these two points of view. It would mean the start of new friction if South Africa for instance were allowed to occupy a dual position as a member of the proposed agreement and it would mean the restriction or the shifting of funds. That is to say, if funds have to be paid into the central organisation. And it will be a fresh cause of friction in that event between South Africa and London.

I want to discuss the position of those people who have gone in for farming in the past in order to evade taxation.

That is out of order. The hon. member will have a special opportunity of discussing that question when the taxation proposals are before the House.

Very well, then I should like to deal with the subsidy for native mine labourers. I want to ask the Minister whether he realises that industries and agriculture and all those concerns will now come to him and ask for a subsidy for their labourers. In days gone by, when the farming community were suffering great hardships, the State never paid any compensation for the lowly paid farm labourers or whatever they might be. The mines have flourished in the past yet now the State comes along and suddenly discovers that the native labourers in the mines are getting too little pay. I want to ask the Minister whether he realises where he is going to end if he does that sort of thing.

I should like to say a few words about pensions for natives. That is a new vote.

That does not come under it. It can be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.

On a point of order, it is surely a question of policy, a new policy which has been announced, and I take it we can discuss it on the Minister’s vote. Surely the Treasury is responsible for the pensions.

I don’t think it will come under that.

Pensions generally come under the Treasury surely. I therefore assume that any question of policy in regard to pensions can also be raised on the Minister’s vote. If the Minister says that the Treasury will not be responsible for the pensions to natives, will he tell us whom they will come under?

May I just point out that pensions come under Vote No. 8.

Yes, I know that, but the introduction of new pensions is a question of policy, and policy can be discussed on the vote of the Minister under whom it falls. Pensions come under the Minister of Finance. Unless the Minister states that native pensions do not come under him I think we can discuss the matter here.

In all probability the position in regard to pensions will be similar to that in regard to blind pensions for natives, namely, that provision is made on the vote “Native Affairs” in the Supplementary Estimates.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

It might perhaps be as well if I were to reply now to the points raised here this morning. I shall start with the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He touched on a very important question, viz: the position in regard to the so-called Keynes and White Schemes. He asked whether it was part of the Government’s policy to join an eventual international re-adjustment organisation. Later on in his speech he apparently took it for granted that it was our intention to join the organisation, but afterwards he asked whether if we should join such an organisation we would do so as an independent member. Let me answer his last question at once. I do not think there is any reason to assume that South Africa would join a scheme of that kind in any other way except as an independent member, and that would apply, whether it is the Keynes Scheme or not.

Also as a member of the sterling bloc?

I don’t know what that has to do with it, that’s a totally different question. Anyhow, the hon. member can take it from me that there is no doubt about South Africa joining as an independent member. In regard to the actual subject itself I think the question is somewhat premature. There are two schemes, which were subsequently followed by a third scheme submitted on behalf of Canada, but at the moment it is not at all clear yet what the eventual scheme will be in respect of which we shall have to decide whether we are going to join or not. In any case no decision has been taken by the Government in regard to the matter. The Government takes considerable interest in this question. That is quite natural, but we cannot take a decision on a subject the nature of which is not yet known to us. Lord Keynes’ scheme was in the direction of a re-adjustment association being established, whereas Mr. White’s scheme contemplates the establishment of a stabilisation fund. These two schemes are entirely different and it’s quite possible that eventually a compromise scheme may be submitted. But that has not happened yet and many of the newspapers which speak of a scheme having already been worked out are, so far as I am able to find out, very premature. South Africa will, of course, have to consider this question from the point of view of its own interests, and it will have to do so particularly from two aspects. The first important aspect of the question—our point of view—is this: We are anxious to see the position of gold, of which we are the biggest producers in the world, assured as far as possible. To go back to the pre-war position in regard to international re-adjustment machinery, will mean, I believe, that the position of gold will be very uncertain and unstable. The object of both schemes is to restore international machinery on such a basis that it will be more flexible than the original international gold standard. Those responsible for both schemes started off from the point of view that we should not revert to the old basis of the international gold standard. Under both schemes the position of gold will, so far as stability is concerned, be better than it would be if we simply have to revert to the pre-war position which might perhaps lead to chaos. But I cannot go further than that in regard to that aspect of the matter. We shall have to await further developments. The second aspect of the matter, so far as we are concerned, is this: That we very definitely are interested in the recovery of international trade. The hon. member for Ceres said that South Africa would probably not require anything from such a re-adjustment alliance or such a stabilisation fund. It is quite possible that South Africa will not directly use anything like that, but the hon. member went further. He said that the facilitation of international trade constituted a menace to South Africa. I cannot subscribe to that. I do not think it can be in the interest of any country in the world to have the international trade in a state of chaos. We are definitely interested in the reconstruction of the world, and the restoration of international trade, and the establishment of an organisation, especially for the adjustment of balances. I think that will hold good whatever may happen in regard to industrial development in South Africa. We are still very far from a position in South Africa, if we ever achieve that position, where we shall be able to act independently of international trade. That naturally applies particularly to a country like ours which is the biggest producer of gold. I therefore think that it is very definitely in the interests of South Africa to ensure that some scheme or other is accepted which will restore international trade on a sound basis. Now I come to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who talks about inflation. May I say in the first place, not exactly to the hon. member for Waterberg but more generally, that the word “inflation” should be used cautiously. The use of the word “inflation” sometimes has the effect of creating a fear that things may happen in this country, such as happened in other countries after the last war—in other words, that the financial position may get completely out of hand, and that our currency may entirely lose its value. That has so far not happened in South Africa and I am convinced it will not happen either. I am not afraid of that happening. The reasons for my confidence I mentioned in my Budget speech. But, of course, we have had a rise of prices here and that is called “inflation” now. The rise of prices which we have experienced here is of an inflationary character, and brings with it the danger of inflation which, as I have said, I am not afraid of. The hon. member said something about the extent of the rise in prices; he wants experts to determine the index figures, but that is what is being done. The Government had nothing to do with the fixing of the index figures. The index figures are fixed by experts of the Department of Census and Statistics and those figures are calculated on the basis of the income of a family of a certain size up to an amount of about £330. These, of course, are not the exact figures for every family, irrespective of its income, but these are average figures and we can only use average figures in that connection. Of course, a fairly considerable rise in prices has occurred, and I have dealt with that on several other occasions, and also in my reply to the Budget debate when I pointed out that we had achieved a certain degree of success in combating this position. Undoubtedly, as the hon. member has said, the increase in the quantity of money in circulation has also had a lot to do with the increase in prices. The increase in prices, however, and even the increase in the amount of money in circulation, have not been brought about simply as a result of war expenditure. In the first instance we had the increase in the price of gold. That made it possible to increase the quantity of money in circulation. But to that, of course, were added large contributions through the country’s war expenditure. I want to assure my hon. friend that we are not spending money on the war with the object of creating a false prosperity—a fictitious prosperity. I also want to assure my hon. friend that we are not deliberately trying to create inflation. If one does a thing like that one plays with fire, and the hon. member can take it from me that the Government is not so stupid as to do a thing like that, but the fact remains that war expenditure on a large scale does take place, because that expenditure is essential. I don’t want to start a war debate again on the question whether we should spend money on the war or not. Nor am I going into the question of the necessity of spending the amount of money which we are actually spending on the war now, because that matter has already been dealt with on the Defence Vote. If my hon. friend wants me to say that war expenditure has contributed to the rise in prices, then I must answer in the affirmative, but that is not the only factor. There are countries which have no war expenditure, countries which are neutral but where prices have also gone up. Part of the so-called inflation is, as I said on other occasions, imported inflation, due to the fact that we have to import goods from overseas at increased prices, and whether we had taken part in the war or not that factor would none the less have had its effect in this country. I don’t want to contest his argument in so far as it means that the war expenditure which we incur does contribute to increased prices. That is part of the price we have to pay for being in the war. The hon. member put a further question about importations from South America. It would be preferable if the hon. member were to discuss that matter with the Minister of Commerce and Industries when his vote is under discussion, but in the meantime I want to point out that we are not in the same position as England. England has her own ships to send to South America. We are not in that position, and that considerably weakens our position when it comes to the question of fixing freight rates. The hon. member also talked about the question of the sale of our gold, and he quite correctly said that we entered into an agreement in 1940 under which, for the duration of the war, we were to sell our gold to the Bank of England and we would not have to pay anything in respect of realisation fees, in respect of freight, insurance, etc. The hon. member is not quite correct when he says that England sells that gold to America for 175s. per ounce, because England also has expenses in that connection.

That is what England gets.

No, there are expenses.

That is not the net amount but the cost price.

That’s a different matter. We made that agreement. Then the hon. member put this further question: What is the position in a country like India where gold is being sold at 280s. per ounce. That is correct. Gold is sold in India which may perhaps originally have come from the Rand Mines and it is sold at a price considerably higher than the standard price. That is done in respect of England’s payment for goods which she bought in India. In any case we would only be able to sell gold in India to the extent we bought goods there, because how otherwise would we get the money here? But we are making purchases in India and the question of the benefit we would have received by the use of our gold at the higher price in India to make those purchases in India has already been raised, and I hope we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement on that matter. My hon. friend also asked what would be the effect of the decision to make the gold realisation fees available for the increased native wages, so far as my estimates are concerned? Well, as the hon. member knows, that amount was placed on the Loan Estimates. It was incidental that we got that amount, it was purely something temporary and unexpected which could not be depended upon for the future, and that was why we put it to Loan Account. Consequently, it will not directly affect the revenue account in any way, although it will do so indirectly, to this extent, that if we had not done this it would have affected our Revenue Account, because as my hon. friend knows, and as I explained in my Budget speech, if the working costs of the mines go up our taxation drops to the extent of more than 70 per cent. of the increase of costs of production. That’s how the formula works out. If we had not made that money available for this purpose it would have meant a reduction in the taxation receipts from the gold mine, a reduction of between £1,300,000 and £1,400,000. If we had not done that the estimates on the Revenue Account would have been affected. Now having done this the position remains unchanged. But it has this effect, that the Loan Estimates are affected, and more money will have to be borrowed to make those estimates balance.

†Now I would like to come to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) who raised here a question in regard to the amalgamation of two building societies, the United Building Society and the St. Andrew’s Building Society. The hon. member made a statement here that I had acted wrongly in regard to this matter and that I had flouted the provisions of the law. I think the hon. member has overstated his case. Might I remind the hon. member how the Minister comes into the picture. The Minister comes into the picture under Section 37 (2) bis: which says: “In the event of an amalgamation being proposed, and under the provisions of Section 37 (2) (1), the number of votes cast for the amalgamation not having been complied with, the Minister may in writing give consent to the matter being dealt with apart from such compliance with the provisions of the section”. It is only to that extent that the Minister comes into the picture. In this case there were two societies which wanted to amalgamate. The provisions of the law were fully complied with by the St. Andrew’s Building Society and it is their cause my hon. friend seems to be pleading. The provisions were, however, not fully complied with by the United Building Society which is a very large and very scattered building society. Some years ago we found that the provisions of the law were such that it was difficult for the large and scattered societies to comply with them and for this purpose this Sub-section 2 (bis) of Section 37 was put into the Act. Under that the Minister has to be satisfied only about two things. The Minister must declare in writing that he is satisfied that it will be to the benefit of both societies that the amalgamation is effected; secondly, he must be satisfied that there are substantial difficulties in the way of strict compliance with the letter of the law. As far as the second point is concerned I merely had to apply my mind in regard to the United Building Society. As far as the St. Andrew’s Building Society was concerned there was no difficulty—the provisions of the law had been complied with, and as far as I remember no single member of that society objected. But there not complete unanimity in the United Building Society, and in reply to a question by the hon. member I explained why I considered it was reasonable to waive the application of the provisions of Section 35 (1). I pointed out that but for technical reasons the position was that 6,580 members holding £3,656,124 or 53 per cent. of the total share capital had voted or expressed themselves in writing in favour of the amalgamation, while only five members holding £1,190 or 0.017 per cent. had voted against or had objected in writing. In view of the all but unanimous approval of members holding over 50 per cent. of the total share capital, it was not deemed necessary to involve the Society in further trouble and expense on technical grounds only. That was one matter I had to deal with, whether that concession should be made. The other point which I had to be satisfied about was that it was to the benefit of both societies that the amalgamation should be effected. Well, I was satisfied on that point. I have already given the House my reasons. I said that as a result of the elimination of the competition between the two societies and as a result of the size of the combined organisation with the resultant greater diversification of investment risks, the interests of depositors and members of both societies had decidedly been furthered, while the enlarged organisation was able to give better service and facilities to depositors and borrowers. On these two points I came to the decision which has been recorded, and as a result it was possible for the amalgamation to go through. Now, the hon. member has gone further in regard to the merits of the amalgamation, especially as far as the St. Andrew’s Society is concerned. Well, I have given some information on that point in reply to a question which I addressed to the hon. member. The point to which he takes exception, but to which apparently members of the St. Andrew’s Building Society do not take exception is that the holders of class A, B, C and D shares have been given a premium on their shares in the form of an increased shareholding in the United Building Society. Now, how does that come about? The holders of these shares were the shareholders when the Society was originally registered under the Act. It was then necessary to comply with the provisions of the Act to increase the shareholding, and because of the position of these members a concession was made to them—let me put it this way, under that Act their rights were affected both by the fact that their shares now became redeemable and that new shareholders came in, and they were therefore compensated for that fact by an undertaking that no redemption of their shares would take place without provision being made for the payment of a premium. And that was embodied in Rule 99 of the Society. In other words, an undertaking was given to these members and when the time came for this amalgamation to be carried out the undertaking was fulfilled. My hon. friend now says that Rule 99 is in conflict with last year’s law. That point was gone into and it is on that account that the Statutory Reserve Fund was not touched upon but I believe it was considered, in fact it was definitely held that there was nothing in conflict with the law as it stood. Now, what was done? These people were in receipt—they were holding shares which were drawing a high rate of dividends. The class A shareholders had been receiving 8 per cent. per annum, and under the new arrangement they would only get 4 per cent. So the agreement adopted by both societies provided for a certain basis of exchange of shares. In respect of class A shares—those are the shares on which dividends at 8 per cent. per annum had been paid—for every £100 worth of St. Andrew’s A shares £175 worth of United shares were given, which would yield 7 per cent. And so on. They were to be given shares in the new company to a value of £175 for every £100 worth of shares they held in the St. Andrew’s Building Society. In respect of the B shares their shares dropped from 7 per cent. to 6 per cent, and for every £100 worth of St. Andrew’s B shares they were given £150 worth of United shares. In respect of C shares they were given for every £100 worth of St. Andrew’s shares £125 worth of United shares. The B shares dropped from 7 per cent. to 6 per cent. and the C shares from 6 per cent, to 5 per cent. Now, it seems that these arrangements were substantially just and fair arrangements. In any case it appeared so to the people primarily concerned—the members of that Society. They agreed to this arrangement, either unanimously or very nearly unanimously— I think unanimously. And I therefore think, on the merits of the case, there is no substantial ground for complaint, but as far as I am personally concerned the position is that I had to apply myself to two points. I did so and in the circumstances I think I did so correctly.

I want to thank the Minister for his observations and for the answers to my questions. I want specially to express my appreciation for the assurance that he has given that if South Africa subscribes to the settlements agreement, South Africa will figure as an independent member. I personally and everyone on this side of the House noted that announcement with great pleasure. I also put this question: Is it possible for the Union of South Africa to remain a member of the sterling bloc while at the same time being a member of this? There the Minister differed from me. That opens up the whole question of whether a country that subscribes to the international settlements agreement and which is also a member of another organisation which also subscribes to the settlements agreement, is in a position to subscribe to that agreement as an independent member. This signifies that the organisation, as such, has not to deal with a single machinery but must at the same time take cognisance of the possible developments which there will be in the group. It is not altogether logical to refer to South Africa’s position in the League of Nations, but I want to mention this in this connection, because the question has already been broached whether South Africa can really appear as a member of the League of Nations while it is at the same time a member of another association of nations in the form of a British Commonwealth of Nations. That case is not entirely on all fours, but it is a similar case, and that is why I voiced a doubt whether South Africa in such circumstances could be an independent member in respect of the international agreement while at the same time remaining a member of the sterling bloc. I also stated that this is a contentious issue between experts whether a member of the sterling bloc could in fact be an independent member of the organisation for international settlements. I quoted a passage from the words of Lord Keynes to the effect that he personally saw no objection towards this happening. But “The Economist” has already intimated a different deduction and has stated : “The United States of America would frown upon that.” Accordingly, I would suggest this for very serious consideration that if we go into this organisation, for which there may be very good reasons, then it must be as an independent member and then there must not be any feature that might be the cause of future international friction. In reference to the other problem in connection with gold, I am grateful that the Minister of Finance has stated that this is a matter that will enjoy attention from the standopint of South Africa in any future organisation. It may become a matter of urgency for South Africa to use its influence in the plans that are formulated, so that it will be taken into account. The Minister is aware that one of the big differences between the two plans that have been proposed is just this role that gold will play in the agreement. Both plans postulate that gold will be the international currency, but the White Plan provides that international currency will be based upon gold and that in consequence there will be an international gold standard. If gold becomes the basis of Unitas then it can again function in international trade. In the light of the experience of the world in the past and with my limited knowledge of the subject, I want to approach this aspect of the question. In opposition to it there is the Bangor Plan of an international unit of currency. Here again we encounter the great weakness that certain states according to circumstances, and with the approval of the organisation, may obtain advantages for their trade by allowing their unit of currency to vary in value. Where these two plans are proposed the Union Government must take a definite standpoint in favour of the system whereunder gold will play a permanent role. As far as the Minister’s assurance goes, I am grateful that the Minister will protect the interests of gold. But I feel that this protection must not only extend to gold as providing an international background. When we once have an international organisation, we must decide that gold must be the basis of that currency in order to assure permanency for that currency. I should like to emphasise another aspect, and that is in connection with the danger that is involved in the proposed control of this settlements agreement. It is laid down there that certain requirements must be complied with for representation in the settlements agreement. This must be on the ground of the contribution of gold, or certain changes in trade relationships between the years 1936 and 1938, according to the British plan. Both of them boil down to this, according to the summing up of “The Economist,” and I am so sorry that I cannot form an independent considered opinion because I have not personally studied either of the two plans. I have the information of “The Economist.” On the basis of its conclusions it may signify that the United States or the United Kingdom may have the right of veto in case of differences or disputes. The words are as follows—

If this is in any way a reasonable deduction, and I assume that “The Economist” is in the position to make a deduction, because the writer must certainly be in a position to know, then it means that we shall once more have a dominating influence on the part of one of the two great members of the organisation, a thing which in itself will contain from the beginning the germ of destruction. It is of significance, and I should like to bring it to the attention of the Minister, that if we enter into this agreement—and there may be good reasons for that—then it must be as an independent member, and we must also see to it that this agreement does not from its inception contain the germ that will lead to its own destruction. Another thought in connection with this matter is this. One of the ideas inherent in the plan is that there must be an international regulation of exchange. [Time limit.]

I want to return to the question of the activities of the Unit Certificate Companies, and I shall endeavour to make three main points in connection therewith. My first point is: that these Unit Trusts, or Fixed Trusts, or Selected Unit Trusts, or whatever else we may call them, are carrying on business as stockbrokers unlawfully and in a place not licensed under the Stock Exchange Act. My second point is: that if they are stockbrokers, and I submit they are, then the extensive and very costly advertising being done by them is also unlawful and is in conflict with the terms and provisions of the present Stock Exchange Act. My third point is: that the shareholders and directors of the Management Companies, what one may call the Parent Companies, the companies that issue these certificates, have made, and are continuing to make enormous profits by charging brokerage—it is nothing more nor less than brokerage—it is styled a “service charge” in their Articles of Association—and it is styled “commission” in other parts of their literature, but there is no question that it is brokerage pure and simple which they are charging. I say therefore that they are charging brokerage and that all that money, whether you call it “service charge” or “commission” or brokerage, comes out of the pockets of the small investors, for it is they who are induced by the very attractive advertisements put out by these companies to invest their small savings in these concerns. Now, to deal with my first point, i.e. whether these Unit Certificate Companies are actually stockbrokers, let me read to the Committee Section 1 of the Stock Exchange Act, No. 34 of 1909, the marginal note says—

The section reads—

So we see there in that section that the premises, in which stocks and shares are being dealt in, must be licensed premises—in other words, that you cannot buy or sell any stocks or shares other than in licensed premises, such as for instance the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. I said I would endeavour to show that these companies are actually dealers in stocks and shares—that they are stockbrokers. I have here in my hand a copy of the Memorandum of Association of the Unit Securities and Trust Company of South Africa, Limited, and it says this—

The exact words used in the Act—“dealers in stocks and shares” are used in the Memorandum—so it is quite clear from their Memorandum, that they are authorised inter alia to carry on the business of, and their first object is to deal as, stock and sharebrokers. May I just say here that the wording of the Memorandums and Articles of Association of the other companies doing the same class of business, are very similar, and they therefore all come under the provisions of the Stock Exchange Act—the one I have just referred to, the main provisions whereof are: First, that the business must be carried on only in licensed premises; and secondly, that brokers themselves must be licensed. Section 2 of the Act makes it quite clear that a person or Association wishing to carry on stockbroking must himself be licensed. The third provision is that advertising is strictly controlled. See Section 3 of the Stock Exchange Act.

I think I have allowed the hon. member to go far enough on that matter. The hon. member can ask the Minister to investigate the possibility of legislation, but I do not think he can go any further.

I am not quite clear on the point.

I think I have allowed the hon. member to go far enough. Would he tell me how he connects what he is discussing with the vote before the Committee.

I understood this was the appropriate occasion to discuss this question. It is a Treasury matter, the control of stock and sharebrokers falls under the Treasury.

The hon. member is entitled to put a question to the Minister in regard to the points he raised, but he should do so as shortly as possible. I do not think he is entitled to go into these details.

I should like to know the reason why. I am trying to make the point that there are organisations carrying on a certain class of business, and they are not entitled to do so; and further, that it is contrary to the provisions of the Stock Exchange Act. If you are questioning whether I am bringing it up under the right and appropriate vote, I must bow to your ruling on that point, but I cannot, for the life of me, see why I cannot develop my argument to show that these organisations are carrying on business in conflict with the present Stock Exchange Act, and that they are making considerable sums of money today, by way of brokerage, that they are not entitled to, and that such money is coming from the small investor.

May I point out that the particular Act to which the hon. member refers does not fall under the administration of Finance.

But it is a Union Act.

But the particular Minister whose vote we are discussing has nothing to do with the Act; he does not administer it.

Would you be good enough to inform me then under what vote I may raise the matter.

Order. If the hon. member is raising the question that the law is not being carried out, he must raise it under Justice.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is this, that these associations fall under this particular law. I say these associations are trading in an unlawful manner.

I have already pointed out that the Minister has nothing to do with the enforcement of that particular law. May I point out to the hon. member that my ruling is very clear. The hon. member can put a question shortly to the Minister in connection with a matter such as he has raised, and the Minister can reply to it, but there cannot be a debate on it on this vote.

Mr. Chairman, am I entitled to ask the Minister then whether he is prepared—but he has already answered this in the Budget debate—he said he contemplated bringing in legislation to meet the case.

The hon. member cannot continue the Budget debate in this Committee, and if he wants to raise the subject further he can refer to it when the Appropriation Bill is before the House.

With due submission, I submit I am entitled to develop this particular matter now.

I am sorry, that is the ruling of the Chair.

I must bow to your ruling, but am I not entitled to raise the question that this unauthorised advertising is wrong and is in conflict with the legal position?

The hon. member can raise that under Justice.

Very well, Sir, if that is your ruling in the matter, I bow to it.

In connection with the reply that the Minister has given to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) on the grant of £1,850,000 as a subsidy to native mine workers, I want to put this question: He has made it clear here that if we had not given the money for higher wages the result would have been that the working costs of the mines would have increased, because the mines themselves would have had to pay the higher wages, and this in turn would have meant a reduction of the taxation that we would have received from the mines. My question is why did he not give a complete answer to the representations of the hon. member for Waterberg? Why did he omit the important part—namely why should the special grant be made to the native mine workers and not to the Europeans?

I am afraid that this matter cannot be discussed. I have allowed the hon. member for Waterberg to address questions to the Minister, and the Minister has answered the questions, but we cannot have a debate over the whole subject, because it is one that requires legislation. It will come before the House later, when the Minister introduces his legislation, so he cannot discuss it at this stage.

May I just point out that on a point of order I asked whether we could discuss this point. I only want to go so far as the hon. member for Waterberg by putting questions to the Minister concerned.

But the hon. member may not wander too far in that connection. The hon. member may discuss this when the legislation is before the House.

Then I shall just ask a question in connection with what the hon. member for Waterberg has asked. Why must the money be voted specifically towards the subsidisation of native labour, and why cannot it also be devoted to raising the wages of European mine workers? We can understand the Minister’s argument, but this is a very important question. If the subsidisation of mine labourers is to be effected on the scale that is now occurring, we are justified in asking why there should have been this discrimination in its application, and why money should be taken from the Treasury to be used specifically for the raising of native wages, while other workers similarly situated are not receiving an increase. I should like to put another question in this connection.

I think the hon. member has now gone far enough.

I should like to ask a question in connection with something else. It is not clear from the answer of the Minister why this specific amount could not have been brought into the estimates. Then we would have had the opportunity to discuss this matter broadly during the Budget debate. Now the availability of the amount has been effected by means of an announcement by the Prime Minister, and we are unable to discuss the details of the matter in Committee.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss the matter later.

I should like to point out to the hon. Minister that there are many cases in the country where the living conditions of Europeans are very difficult, and I should like to know what has been done in that connection, so that these Europeans can have their conditions of living improved. Then I want, as a matter of policy, to suggest something in connection with the recent alteration in policy that has been made by the Minister in connection with Oudstryders’ pensions. It was laid down in legislation that the Oudstryders’ pensions should be placed on a higher scale than the ordinary old age pension. The two pensions may be granted under the same provision, but last year a special measure was adopted, Act No. 32 of 1943, under which the Oudstryders were granted a one-third increase over the basic pension that they would receive in the form of ordinary old age pension. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that as a result of the grant of this increase of £6 a year to old age pensioners, that he has now allowed the policy that was adopted last year to lapse entirely. The outside public understands the policy in this way, that if a man asks for an Oudstryder’s pension he must have specific reasons for that. He would rather in the eyes of the world draw a pension on the ground of his services in the war than simply draw an old age pension. He wants to be able to say that he is entitled to it because he has given service in the war, and then he also gets one-third more. That was the basis. But now on account of the alteration in the old age pension the position is this, that some of the Oudstryders are worse off than if they had remained on a basis of the old age pension. I want to make this clearer. On the basis of the £6 the Oudstryders get one-third more, namely £2, and then there is also the cost of living allowance of £12, a total of £20. But a man who is in the same position but who has not converted his old age pension into an Oudstryder’s pension is on the basis of £6 plus cost of living allowance of £12, plus additional allowance notified by the Minister of £6, that is £24 a year; he is £4 better off than the person who has converted his pension into an Oudstryder’s pension. That is the position of those who are on the £6 basis, and those who are on the £12 basis, while those who are on the £18 basis sustain no difference, and only between £24 and £42 does the Oudstryder receive more than he would have received if he had not converted his pension. I think that the Minister must satisfy the House and the country. It is not a matter that we can just leave in the air. The people are feeling unhappy about it. Why should the Oudstryders be placed in that position after the principle that was adopted last year? I maintain that where the cost of living allowances are proportionate, there should in every case, in the whole category, be an increase of at least one-third compared with old age pensioners. If they do not get this it is a breach of the the spirit of the provision that was adopted last year. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the position. These people have in many cases been to great trouble to convert the pensions, because in order to effect this they had to bring along two comrades as witnesses, two comrades who had served with them in the war. Some of them have travelled far to trace old war comrades, few of whom are still alive, and as a result of them doing this they are now worse off than if they had not taken all this trouble. I want to ask the Minister to give attention to this. If he does not alter this he will have dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Oudstryders, and they will be entitled to say that they were misled when they were told that in acknowledgement of their war services they would receive one-third more than they would have obtained as ordinary old age pensioners.

At the conclusion of my previous remarks I referred to the significant implications of every adjustment that is proposed in regard to international exchange. Two proposals have been presented, and the Minister will realise that the results produced by each of these two schemes will differ in their bearing on stability, because in the one case though not in the other, the unit of currency is based on gold and is consequently more subject to fluctuations. At this stage it is impossible to envisage future world events, but I think that the past has proved to the world that international trade can only be promoted if there is a certain measure of stability in the international exchange. The more that fluctuations can be eliminated from the international exchange the easier will become the exchange of goods. I should like to ask the Minister to urge on his representatives at the negotiations that the possibility of evasion of responsibility must be shunned. Finally I come to my last question. The Minister has stated that the settlements agreement may possibly contribute towards facilitating the promotion of international trade in time of peace. Everyone looks forward to that, but where the two schemes have been drafted by two representatives of the foremost belligerents, the question immediately arises whether the scheme will be confined to certain nations in time of peace, or whether once they have matured they will be made of universal application. In my opinion the smooth functioning of trade is a means to preserve the peace of the world. The elimination of unnecessary evasions can contribute a lot to that. But then the scheme that is evolved must be of general application. According to the answer given by the Prime Minister negotiations are in progress, and I should like to ask whether at this juncture consultations have been confined to the Allies, or whether neutral countries are also being consulted; and when a plan is enforced it will cover world trade in respect of all the nations.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more on the matter that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). I only want to reply to his last point. I think we must accept it that what is contemplated is something that will be for the whole world. I am in entire agreement that it should not be made of only limited application. Consequently I feel that I can give a reply in the affirmative. So far as regards my observations in reference to the sterling bloc, neither the Keynes plan, nor the White plan makes provision for the representation of blocs. They make provision only for individual States. Moreover there does not exist today any organised sterling bloc, nor are there any rules in this connection. As far as South Africa is concerned the only arrangements we have made have been in our own interests and to the benefit of South Africa. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) put a question to me in connection with the recent pronouncement by the Prime Minister. He asked me why I made no reference to it in my Budget speech. The answer of course is that at that time no decision had been taken by the Government.

Did you know about the money that would be required?

I knew that the Commision had reported, but up to that time no consideration had been given to what had to be done in consequence of that. Now the question is asked why this has been done in the case of the native labourers. The position of course is this, that a report was submitted recommending an increase in the basic wage of the natives, and the Government considered that a portion of the report had to be followed up.

Were they also asked to submit a report in reference to the Europeans?

In regard to European mineworkers negotiations are at present in progress between the employers and the employees. In connection with Oudstryders the principle that we have followed is that the Oudstryders pension will be on the same basis as the old age pension. Last year, however, we made a special grant and added a third to the old age pension in the case of Oudstryders. This year we have decided on a temporary addition of £6 to all old age pensions, though in the mean while the Oudstryders are drawing only the extra 33⅓ per cent. In the majority of cases it is in the interests of the Oudstryders to draw the one-third increase and not the £6. There are, however, instances where this would not be to their advantage. That is in a minority of cases. I think, however, that it will be better for us to go into the matter when there is legislation before the House.

†The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) is not in the House at the moment, but I just wanted to give him the assurance that in any case the whole question he raised is receiving attention.

I do not want to go further into the question of inflation. I just want to say that notwithstanding the Minister’s remarks, I am still of opinion that the Government, in order to get hold of all this money, is conniving at inflation, and as the position becomes more difficult and the Government continues to spend large sums of money, it will have to continue encouraging inflation. I want to come back to the sale of gold. I now understand from the Minister that gold is being sold in India at 280s. per ounce, but the gold is not actually being sold; it is converted by means of paying for goods which England buys in India, and if we were to trade with India, we would similarly be able to send our gold to India and pay there for what we buy, and in that case we would be able to get 280s. as England does. But that could only happen if the Indian currency unit were so much lower than sterling, or our currency unit; in other words, if 168 English shillings were equal to 280 Indian shillings. The only way of getting 280s. in normal business transactions is by sending the gold to pay for your purchases. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is the case.

They sell the gold there.

That is precisely my point. This gold is not sent for monetary purposes to pay for what they buy because in that case you would only get the proportionate value of sterling in India. As far as I know, however, the difference between the English and the Indian currency unit is not so much that you can get 280 shillings in India for 168 English shillings. The position is therefore different. The position is that Indian is accumulating gold and does not mind what she pays. In other words, they are paying much more for gold than its actual monetary value. If that is so, England is simply engaged in trading with our gold and making an enormous profit out of it. They buy the gold from us at 168 shillings and they sell it to India for 280 shillings; in other words, at a profit of 112 shillings per ounce. If that is so, we can do it ourselves. The Minister says we cannot do it, because if we did how would we get our money here? But surely there is such a thing as a rate of exchange; there is such a thing as sterling. That is no excuse for the state of affairs which exists today. But I should like to have this further information from the Minister. I understand that apart from the 280 shillings which England is getting for our gold in India, gold is being sold today in other parts of the world at £20 per ounce in some cases.

Where?

That is what I should like to know from the hon. Minister I understand that it is being sold at as much as £20 per ounce. The Minister ought to know whether that is so, and he can tell us whether or not it is true. The fact that gold is being sold in India at 280s. is a revelation as to what is going on. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us full information on this point, and that he will be a little clearer in regard to the circumstances under which England is selling her gold in India. If England can get it back from India there is no reason why we cannot also get it back. Here is another point on which I should like to have information from the Minister. I take it that he will not be in a position to reply to it at the moment, but I want to raise the matter at this stage so that the Minister can give his attention to it and tell us at a later date what the Government’s policy is, what the Government is prepared to do, or what it is not prepared to do. Some years ago legislation was passed in this House to grant a pension or gratuity, whatever it is called, to ex-officials of the republics, such as Dr. Mansvelt and others. But now I am given to understand—I do not know whether my information is correct— that the teachers of the Transvaal Republic did not receive this concession, although they were also officials of the republic.

Are you referring to the so-called old school?

Yes. I have in front of me a copy of the proclamation which was promulgated in 1899, for example. The following notice regarding the closing of schools appeared in the Government Gazette of the 4th October, 1899—

And then the tariff is laid down—

Dr. Mansvelt, Superintendent of Education, Department of Education, Pretoria, 3 Oct. 1899.

My information is that the teachers we were affected by this proclamation, i.e. the proclamation of the 4th October, 1899, only received their salaries up to April, 1900, and that thereafter they received no further payments, and that they were not considered for the concession which was granted in terms of the Act of 1927, I think. There are not many of these people alive today; they are old and many of them are poor. If they are not considered, I should like to know whether the Government will not consider the question of giving the same concession to these people as was given to the State officials whose names I have mentioned.

Is this not a matter for the Transvaal Provincial Administration ?

I do not think so, because they were ordinary State officials. This compensation was not referred to the Transvaal Province. The Union Parliament dealt with the matter and granted the concession.

Were they all teachers.

Yes, they were all teachers. I shall be very glad if the hon. Minister will go into this matter and tell us at a later stage what the Government is prepared to do.

In connection with the reply which the Minister has just given to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) in regard to old age pensions and Oudstryder’s pensions, he admits that there is an anomaly and he advises us to raise this matter when the Bill is introduced. I want to abide by that, but I want to ask the Minister, since there has been a mistake …

Not a mistake.

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will remove this anomaly. These people were under the wrong impression. The position of the Oudstryders is a position of honour. These people are applying for an Oudstryder’s pension, because they feel that they fought for their country and it is therefore a matter of honour to convert their pensions from old age pensions into Oudstryder’s pensions. We want to request the hon. Minister to meet these people, and if possible to grant them an increase. Then there are a few other questions I want to put to the Minister, and the first is in connection with the officials who have been loaned to other departments. Throughout the estimates one sees that certain officials have been loaned to other departments. One finds that under every vote. How is it possible to lend officials to every department? How many officials have been loaned to other departments; is there a large number, and does the work of the department suffer in consequence, or what is the position? Then there is another question. We have noticed that the Minister is very concerned about certain things, and we should like him to be concerned also about his own department. I notice that there are seven messengers, six of whom are on a salary scale of £60 to £120 per annum. I want to ask the hon. Minister how under present circumstances one can expect these people to make ends meet on that salary? Is this a fair wage for a white man? Those young men have completed certain studies, and today they have to work for £5 a month. Many of them also have to take care of their brothers, and they cannot even pay their boarding on £5 per month. I do not want to go against your ruling, but I just want to put a question briefly in connection with the increased wages which have been granted to natives. I should like to know whether this is going to be a permanent increase, or will it only operate until such time as these loan monies which are being derived from the sale of gold at an increased price, fall away?

We have undertaken it for one year only.

In that case I shall leave it at that, because we will have an opportunity of discussing this at a later date.

I want to come back to this question of selling the gold which I raised in the House some time ago, and which has now been discovered by my great economist friends on the other side. I do not think they know much about it, but that does not matter. I would like to know from the Minister whether we are going to sell our gold in India. It is now being purchased from the American Government at £14 per ounce. The Minister may have seen in the latest “Times” that the Legislative Council of India took exception to the high price of gold which India is called upon to pay. It is stated—

with considerable criticism on the score of the alleged abnormal profits that the British and American Government were making on their sales of gold to India. These profits are admittedly larger than any private arbitrageur would have dreamt of before the war since in the case of Britain gold is purchased in South Africa at 168s. an ounce and sold in Bombay at present at about £14 an ounce. The official answer was that these two Governments are selling gold to buy goods in India, the prices of which have gone up more since the outbreak of war than the price of gold.

Cannot we sell our gold to India and translate it into rupees and in return for that obtain those commodities which are consumed to a large extent by our native people and thus save the native at least 60 per cent. and bring down the cost of living? I am not criticising the hon. Minister like my hon. friends of the Opposition. I know all the difficulties. I am not criticising the Department of the Minister. But our constituents do bring these matters before us, particularly on the Rând and we want to assist the natives as far as possible, and I think we can say that it will save 60 per cent. if the Government will translate our gold into rupees.

And rice.

Yes, and rice.

I should like to know from the Minister whether he is not of opinion that this policy of granting an increase to the natives on the mines will place the farmers in a dangerous position.

I have already ruled that the hon. member must not discuss that matter. He will have an opportunity to discuss it at a later stage.

May I reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who returned to the point which he himself mentioned in the Budget Debate and which was again raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). The position is this that in 1940 we entered into an agreement under which we undertook for the duration of the war to sell all our gold to the Bank of England for 168s. per ounce. We have derived considerable benefits from that agreement, and we cannot simply cast that agreement aside today. Great Britain is today selling gold, as my hon. friend rightly says, at a price above its monetary value and buying rupees, which rupees are then used for the purchase of goods or for other payments which have to be made by the British Authorities in India. We have raised, and the matter is under discussion, the question of whether despite that agreement, the same arrangement should not apply in all fairness as far as we are concerned. It would mean in effect, that for the benefit not only of the native consumer but also for the benefit of the farmer who has a considerable interest in Indian goods, it would be possible to buy more cheaply goods imported from India. That is still under discussion and I hope it will reach a satisfactory conclusion. But in any case it would be difficult for us to sell gold in India at high prices and to buy rupees substantially in excess of the number of rupees that we require to meet our needs in that country.

Only about £2,000,000.

It may be more than that, but it would not be possible to sell gold without limit in India and have left on our hands a large volume of rupees.

Buy sterling.

The Bank of England might have something to say about that.

†*I shall further go into the question which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has raised in connection with the old timers. I think it is a matter for the Provincial Administration, but I shall go into it. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) raised a point in connection with the officials who are being loaned to other Departments. Under present circumstances since various new organisations were built up not only in Defence but also outside Defence, it became necessary to transfer these officials, but they shall remain on the pay sheets of the Departments from which they were loaned. With regard to the wages of messengers, I just want to point out that my hon. friend must not infer from this scale that the messengers are all earning £60 per annum. That is the commencing salary, and to that must be added the cost of living allowance and the Pretoria allowance which they get.

In regard to the question of exchange I would like to know what the position is regarding the Argentine. Quite recently the Argentine Government altered the rate of exchange from 15 pesos to 13 pesos, which had the effect of increasing the cost of our goods enormously, yet we have not increased the price of gold, That is the rate of exchange which is in force now. 13 pesos are now being paid for our sovereign, whereas formerly we got 15 pesos.

The difficulty is that if we want to buy their goods we have no option.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 7.—“Public Debt,” £11,100,000.

I would like to raise briefly one or two questions in connection with this vote. In view of the need to maintain a policy of cheap money after the war, and to promote industrial and commercial development, as well as to head off any tendency to deflation; and keeping in mind also the statement of the Minister that the heavy incidence of the service on the national debt may mean restrictions in the expenditure on the social services, will the Minister, in view of these points, advise the House as to whether he has in mind any policy of conversion of those stocks forming part of the national debt on which we are paying interest at the rate of 5 per cent. and 4½ per cent. In view of the great deal of money seeking investment in South Africa today, perhaps the present might be a suitable time to effect a conversion of that kind. It would bring about a considerable reduction, probably up to £2,000,000 per annum, in the service of the public debt. Further, in connection with the need for cheap money, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the amount to be raised under Treasury Bills, £27,000,000. The hon. Minister has advised the House that on the floating debt, of which this is the major part, the average rate of interest is 1.07 per cent. He has also advised the House that something like £6,500,000 has been received by the Treasury in respect of interest earned on loans made by the Treasury; when we deduct from that the interest payable by the Railways, there still remains a considerable sum drawn from loans for housing for farmers’ assistance, and so on. This the hon. Minister has told us. I am not condemning the policy of State gains on differential rates of interest; I think it is a good system to be able to draw liberally in the form of a floating debt. What I would like to know is this: In view of the need to get the cheapest possible money to finance the work of capital construction proposed for example by the National Housing Commission, and keeping in mind the necessity to get the cheapest housing finance for ex-soldiers, does the Minister contemplate, as part of our post-war financial policy, an increase in this method of borrowing on Treasury Bills, either through the Commercial Banks or the Reserve Bank, provided, of course, that the Bills are subject to repayment under a sinking fund. I would also like to know what methods does the Minister propose in regard to financing from loan funds after the war? Is he going to continue the policy of borrowing as we are borrowing today? Does he intend to create special credits, subject to a sinking fund to liquidate these special credits over a short period? Or is it the intention of the Government to finance reconstruction by a special finance corporation? In that connection is it proposed that the National Housing Commission will be able to raise money in its own name in order to carry through the big housing programme of construction as recommended in the second report of the Social and Economic Planning Council, amounting to about £15,000,000 a year? Before I sit down I wish to refer to another matter that was not dealt with in the Budget speech of the Minister, and that is the question of the provision for repayment of the colossal public debt which rests on the shoulders of the people today. In 1926 when we set up a sinking fund we provided for a payment from Revenue of £650,000 a year for a period of 40 years at 4½ per cent. into a sinking fund, hoping in that time to liquidate the public debt of £55,000,000. Today the public debt is approximately £500,000,000. If we are going to liquidate that amount, obviously the payments into the sinking fund will have to be very heavy indeed. Does the Minister propose to have some method of debt redemption payment on the lines of a capital levy; that is, to tax all wealth above a certain exemption limit progressively? Some scheme like that, I am afraid, will have to be resorted to if we are going to get rid of the burden of the national debt. In that connection the words of Prof. Dalton, who was Minister of Economic Warfare in the British Government, are rather appropriate. He said—

If, however, we are not prepared to liquidate the national debt by a national capital levy, perhaps the Minister will consider making a very considerable levy on the wealth accumulated during the war.

Perhaps I should reply immediately to the questions raised. I can assure my hon. friend that we constantly have before us the question of conversion, and we have been converting loans as they have become matured. But unless we are to repudiate the condition under which loans have been issued, we cannot convert a loan before the date of maturity, and my hon. friend will see that there is very little likely to reach maturity in the near future in the nature of stock debt which bears a high rate of interest. I am afraid there is not much relief to be sought from that source.

Has the Government not converted loans before the date of maturity?

Only on a voluntary basis.

Why not do that?

You have to offer the holders of the stock some inducement.

Are there not a number of patriots in South Africa?

Yes, there are a number of people in South Africa who have lent us money free of interest. In regard to Treasury Bills the hon. member will appreciate that if you want to borrow money at a low rate of interest, you must be prepared to meet the demand for early re-payment. The essence of the Treasury Bill is that it can be presented for repayment in six months’ or in twelve months’ time. It is certainly a risky matter for any Government to hold too much in the way of a floating debt, and our policy of late has been rather to reduce the amount of temporary borrowing instead of increasing it. We have outstanding in Treasury Bills a great deal more than we had before the war and we have to consider the question of safety.

Could they not be repaid by a further borrowing?

They can be repaid by a further borrowing of Treasury Bills and that can be done as long as the people are prepared to buy Treasury Bills, but there is a greater demand for Treasury Bills today than there will be after the war when business comes back to normal. During the war we have reduced out rate of interest on Treasury Bills because there has been this large amount of money on hand, but a time may come when the demand for repayment of Treasury Bills will be greater than the supply of new money. With regard to public debt policy after the war, I think perhaps that is a question of which my hon. friend should give me notice. At the moment I cannot agree to make any change in the policy we are pursuing. I am not quite sure what he means by special credits, but in any case I feel that that question is not ripe for an answer.

Are not Treasury Bills special credits?

Is that what my hon. friend means?

Subject to a sinking fund.

But a Treasury Bill is essentially a short term investment.

That is as they are today.

But if you want to make a long term investment you have to pay a higher rate of interest, as an inducement to the people to invest their money. During recent years we have been getting money on Treasury Bills at ¾ per cent. and 1¼ per cent. We can get short term loans at 2¼ per cent., but for long term loans we have to pay 3 per cent. We cannot expect to raise money on Treasury Bills which will have a long term period unless we are prepared to pay higher rates of interest. In other words, we get back to the ordinary form of loan. In regard to the sinking fund the position is that our debt was not £55,000,000 in 1926, but £55,000,000 was then the estimated amount of the so-called unproductive debt. It is therefore not correct to compare the £55,000,000 at that time with £500,000,000 today, but apart from that I have considerable hesitation about the virtue of a sinking fund at a time when you are borrowing heavily. What does a sinking fund mean? During the last few years we have been borrowing heavily. In order to pay £1,000,000 odd into the sinking fund we had to borrow £1,000,000 more than we would have done otherwise. In other words, you are borrowing with the one hand and paying back with the other. At a time when loan money is as plentiful as it has been in recent years, that is still defensible, but at a time when it may be difficult to get money, when the fact that you are asking the market for more money than the market is readily able to supply would tend to put up interest rates, then the question of having a large sinking fund is certainly a matter that needs careful consideration. I think my hon. friend will agree that we should not commit ourselves to a larger sinking fund than we have today until the financial shape of things to come after the war is clearer than it is today.

To a certain extent I am disappointed with the reply which the Hon. the Minister has given to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), viz: that he is not going to increase the issue of Government Bonds.

We have done so.

Yes, but there has been a curtailment again. The real shortcoming, the real gap in our money market in South Africa, is to be found in this question of the short term loan market. The great advantage which large centres in Europe have, is due to the fact that short term loans are available to which funds can be applied from time to time. What we lack in South Africa—this is a matter which has been discussed before—I do not know whether the present Minister has given his attention to it, but it has received attention before—is that we have so many millions of pounds lying in the Reserve Bank, and in view of the fact that the Government has to borrow money for its requirements the question should be considered whether we should not make short term loans available for the investment of those funds. The Minister has already said that he has borrowed money at 1 per cent. and even at ½ per cent. on short term. The question therefore arises whether we should not again consider this matter. There is this gap in our system, that large quantities of money are lying idle without bearing interest. The Government could use that money for its purposes. The objection raised by the Minister is that when the money falls due after three or six months it may perhaps be difficult to redeem those funds. Well, that is the very argument which we do not want. If once there is a fixed market for short term loans arrangements have to be made for it. I don’t want to take the responsibility on my own shoulders of advising the Government to lend money recklessly on short terms, but we are definitely dealing here with a gap, a shortcoming in our system, and I want to ask the Minister to instruct his technical officials again to go into this question.

In regard to G, TreasuryController of Finance, of the Defence Force ….

We have passed that vote, we are dealing with No. 7 now.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 8.—“Pensions”, £8,660,000,

There are two items on this vote which I want to mention. The first point I want to make is imtregard to exemptions under the Income Tax. I have before me a statement by a number of pensioners in which they point out that in the majority of cases Government pensioners do not receive sufficient to enable them to live properly after they have retired from the service, and so they have to seek for work to augment their incomes, and if they do get work their income is calculated for the purpose of income tax—the pension they get is included in that calculation. Now, it does seem wrong to me that these little pensions which these pepole get should in that way be taken away from them again. I was wondering whether the Minister and his Department would consider that point and exempt a man’s income from his pension for income tax purposes. It may be said that if a man receives a pension he should not work because by working he keeps another man out of employment.

Which item is the hon. member discussing?

Pension allowances.

Which particular items.

There are a number of items here. Superannuation allowances, police pensions and so on.

The hon. member may proceed.

I don’t want any man to keep another man out of employment but the fact of the matter is that these pensions are not sufficient to keep these people alive. I therefore hope that the Minister will exempt money received for pensions from calculation for income tax purposes. Then I want to deal with the question of war pensions. I referred to that the other day on the Prime Minister’s Vote. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will give favourable consideration to a number of representations which have been made to him by the South African Legion of the B.E.S.L.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot pursue that matter. It would require legislation and the hon. member cannot discuss legislation now.

May I ask a question.

The hon. member may put a question very briefly.

That’s what I am doing.

The hon. member must put it very shortly.

I should like to have a definition as to the brevity of a question.

Order, order.

My question is what the Minister is prepared to do by way of giving consideration to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven points which have been submitted by this organisation on the various matters affecting the administration of pensions, and under (2) in particular, namely, the pensions of men serving in the Union and the other, the pensions of men who have enlisted in Imperial Forces, both as regards the present war and the 1918 war. Is that brief enough, Mr. Chairman? I shall he indebted to the Minister if he will give some indication of whether he will consider these points.

There is only one matter I want to ask the Minister. I could put a question on the Order Paper, but if I had done so we would not have been able to discuss the matter. My question relates to J.4, the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund. What is going to happen to that fund in the long run? I understand that there is a large amount to the credit of that fund and that the number of widows drawing pensions from that fund is getting smaller and smaller every year. Now I want to ask the Minister if he cannot see his way to increase the pensions of these widows so that eventually, when the last widow dies, no large amount will be left over in the fund, especially as those widows drawing pensions from the fund today only draw very small amounts? I believe that in many instances it is only £5 or £6 per month. I should like to know whether it is not possible so to increase the pension that when there are no more widows left entitled to pensions from the fund, no large amount be left standing to the credit of the fund?

I just want to ask the Minister of Finance if it would not be possible for him to give some relief in respect of a section of people who during their term of office drew very small salaries, ranging from £10 to £14, and who have since gone on pension? These men have found it impossible to set anything aside for their old age and at the same time pay for the education of their children. That section is prejudiced and suffering hardships as a result of the high cost of living. Could not the Minister afford some relief to that particular section of the people in the way others are receiving it?

You mean pensioners?

Yes, that particular section—gaolers and that type of man who, when in the Government service, used to get from £10 to £15 per month in the days of the Cape Government. Then there are certain anomalies which still exist in our Pensions Act. Cannot the Minister introduce some amending legislation this Session?

War pensions?

In respect of women who marry within five years after the last war. They don’t come on the same basis as wives under the present Act.

I want to put a direct question to the Minister of Finance. In view Of what appears here under “M,” “Bond van Oudstryders,” I come to the conclusion that that is intended for the Secretariat of the Oudstrydersbond. The Minister gives a grant of £166 here and I want to know whether by making this provision he contemplates an increase in the pension of the Oudstryders? I put this question because I understand that the Bond is engaged on drafting a private Bill on the subject of Oudstryder pensions; that is why I should like to have a reply as to what is the object of this grant of £166. Then there is another point which comes under E.2: “South African Wars prior to 1914.” I asked the Minister of Finance some time ago whether the Oudstryders were allowed to do extra work, because it appeared that the Oudstryder pensions were withheld if they did any other work. And the Minister then referred me to a section of the law and said that if they were allowed to do outside work it would mean an amendment of the Act. Afterward I put a question to the Minister, whether he would amend the legislation this Session so that the Oudstryders would be allowed to do extra work, and I got this reply—

Now, who is to fix that amount, or is it laid down in the law? I want to be clear on this point because there is a lot of trouble in regard to this question. There are Oudstryders who do a bit of work and after two or three months their pensions are withheld and they are even called upon to repay the pensions which they have been drawing for those two or three months; we feel this comes very hard on these people. We know that these Oudstryders are broken men— they cannot do a full day’s work, no matter what work it is. They can only do about half a day’s work, and we earnestly want to ask the Minister to do away with this particular provision in the law because it is in the interest of the man and his family that he should be allowed to do a bit of work in order to provide for his home and his minor children. I appeal to the Minister and I want him to tell us whether he contemplates providing for an increase of the pension in future and whether he is prepared to delete this provision in regard to these men being allowed to do a bit of work.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the treatment of our soldiers and their dependants, particularly in regard to pensions. I have here the case of a man who joined up, went to Nairobi and then to Egypt, where he developed some disease. They hurried him back to the Union where he died, and his widow gets nothing.

And the onus is on him.

Had that man named Van der Lith died in Egypt she would have received a pension. This man has sacrificed his life but his widow gets nothing. Now I’ve got a worse case than that still. A man working on the mines, A. R. Douglas, No. 19039, was passed as medically fit. He joined his unit in November, 1940. He had seven months hard training in the Engineers and he was sent up North and became a despatch rider, and in the course of his work he was at El Alamein laying mines and discovering enemy mines—most dangerous work. Whilst riding on a 3 ton troop carrier he was thrown off and injured. He tried to continue with his work, so much so that he was present at the battle of Bardia and for Sollum. His condition, however, became worse and he was sent to hospital but they could not treat him there so they sent him back to the Union. When he arrived here it was found that an operation was necessary but it was of such a character that he decided not to have it. It had something to do with the pelvic bones. After a while he was turned out of the army. He was told to go back to his work. Before he could go to work—he was on the Springs Mine—he had to be medically examined. He was examined by the mine doctor and declared to be unfit for mine work. They tried to find him a job on the surface in which they succeeded, which he was able to carry on for five weeks, after which he could not continue. Then he went to the Military Pensions Board. They went into his case and they found that he was unfit for work and they gave him the magnificent pension of £20.

Per month?

No, not per month, nor per year. They paid him two years in advance: £20 which works out at 16s. 8d. per month. That man is a married man. He has tried to get some sort of recognition but he has been turned down. The Military Pensions Board told that man that their word is final. They have said, “You can go to your member of Parliament, or Parliament itself, but they can do nothing”. I hope something will be done because it is a scandalous state of affairs. That is one of the reasons why we cannot get recruits. This man has a clear record—I have been to the Chamber of Mines, and I have inspected his record, and it is an unblemished one. He has done his duty to his country, he has done excellent service, and he has been given the magnificent pension of 16s. 8d. per month, which is not sufficient to keep a dog on. Yet he is supposed to provide for himself and his wife. I hope something can be done for this man.

The whole procedure of the Military Pensions Board ought to be overhauled with a view to our soldiers receiving justice and sympathetic treatment as well as those dependants unfortunate enough to lose their relations-in the service of their country.

Before I come to specific items on the vote may I point out what I consider to be a wrong approach in regard to all pensions? For example, if in time of war we have need of the services of a man, and mosts unfortunately he is killed in action, or dies on active service, we provide for the widow a pension of £132 per year—£11 per month. A life has been lost. Now, supposing we had taken over a factory which was valued at say £100,000, which was paying its owner an income of £400 per month. If a ’plane-load of bombs should be dropped on that factory and destroy it, I wonder at what we would assess the loss? I assume the Minister would consider it quite reasonable to pay out damages at the rate of £400 per month. That would not be the end of it, because the loser of such property, as a result of enemy action, would not merely expect a life pension for himself of £400 per month, he would expect it to extend to his son and grandson as well, to his descendants in perpetuity. I hope the Minister will look at this whole matter along this broad line, as to whether it is right or wrong to pay £11 or even £20 to a widow for the loss of her husband and to pay £400 per month to a man for the loss of his property?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE? Under what circumstances have we paid £400 per month for loss of property?

My statement was not that £400 a month had been paid with respect to any specified property loss; but I submit that that is the attitude of mind in which the Government would in fact approach a claim for compensation for property destroyed by enemy action.

We would not pay that unless the property were insured. If it were insured the owner would be paid out in accordance with the insurance.

The position is the same, whether it is paid by an insurance company, or whether the State carries the insurance. I am drawing a comparison between the two instances, and I put it to the Minister that a new approach is necessary.

The State does not pay out in the other case.

That may be, but in the absence of private insurance I have no doubt that it would pay out.

Not unless they are insured under the War Damage Scheme, but I see what you have in mind—but your facts are not quite correct.

Well, there is too great a disparity between the compensation for loss of life and the loss of property. It seems to me wrong that there should be a pension of £11 a month for a few years for a lost life, and a pension of £400 a month, for ever, for a lost property. And now I come to two specific points, the first under (a), War allowances. I have in view a special case where from the last war a man received a pension by reason of being totally disabled. He was absolutely paralysed and unable to move. Now that is a long time ago, one quarter of a century, and in the interval his wife devoted her whole time to nursing and looking after that veteran of the old war. Under the alternative scheme he was quite generously pensioned, but very recently that pensioner of the 1914-18 war has died. The circumstances of his widow are these: She has no money whatever, and since the death of her husband one of her two daughters has been extremely ill and expenses to the extent of £200 to £300 for medical treatment have had to be incurred. Now the soldier to whom I refer was paralysed as the result of his service in the last war, and my submission is that he was open (by reason of his physical weakness) to any sickness to which flesh is heir, in a double proportion. Now it happened, according to the Army Medical Board, that he died not as an immediate result of his war wounds, but of endemic sickness. I earnestly recommend to the Minister that he should take the case of that widow into consideration. She devoted the best part of a quarter of a century to giving loyal and loving service to one of the veterans of the last war. He life has been ruined, and she has no house or land property, nor has she an income from any source. Such constant and unresting devotion as she has displayed should be rewarded—not penalised. I suggest that in this particular case, and in all such cases, the Minister should override the technical ruling of any Military Pensions Board, and under Section A (5) make a special grant for the maintenance of such women until such time as they may possibly remarry. There is not any provision directly under the Act, but I may protest against the way that the. Military Appeals Board can stand on the very letter of the law, and in effect say to widows that their misfortune is no business of ours. It is “business of ours.” We wish to meet all our national obligations of that kind, and it is with great hope that I mention the matter to the Minister of Finance. Now, Sir, I come to Section (h), Old Age Pensions. I know that we cannot increase the amount of the vote, but I have in memory the speech of the hon. the Minister on the occasion of the introduction of the budget; and at that time my hopes were greatly raised by the mention of the sum of £1,500,000 extra grant for the purpose of old age pensions. I do not see any reflection of it in the actual vote.

They will appear in the supplementary estimates.

That does reassure me to a certain extent, and I shall not press that point beyond this, in commenting to the Minister that owing to the vast increase in the price of the ordinary necessaries of life even the amount of £5 now proposed under this vote is entirely insufficient to maintain any decent average of livelihood for any old age pensioner. I want to remind the Minister that even in Britain, under the Beveridge Report, the amount proposed as an old age pension is not £5 per month but £8 13s. 4d., and in England, Sir, the value of £1 is considerably higher than in South Africa. [Time limit.]

May I say at the outset that I sit on this side of the House because I support the policy of the Government, and may I add that any criticisms I have to offer are to serve my constituents. I consider that my time is better employed in directing criticism, as it were, to the misdeeds and faults of the present Government rather than in handing them laudatory bouquets. I may say that I am 100 per cent. behind the policy of the present Government, and that is why I sit here. I feel that the Minister ought to know that criticism has been directed to the administration of the war pensions enactments and various other enactments the administration of which fall within the province of his department. In reference to the various criticisms on the subject of war pensions, may I refer briefly to the administration of alternative pensions in respect of the last war. I should like to repeat what I have stated in previous debates that there is no more sympathetic administration than the present Pensions Department, but they are bound by the letter of the law, and there ought to be some provision whereby the leading officials can exercise a certain discretion. To cite one particular case, which is a general case and there are hundreds like it. An ex-serviceman of the last war was in receipt of a pension of 50 per cent. He found that as the result of this 50 per cent. war disability, his earning capacity was affected and he was forced to apply for an alternative pension. He was granted an alternative pension, but the 50 per cent. disability left him, in the estimation of the board, the ability to earn shall we say £2 per week, or £8 per month; and the difference between the £8 per month and the amount of his earnings prior to the last war plus the loading of 20 per cent. represented the amount of the alternative pension he received. The administration knows and the Minister knows that a person can be assessed with a disability of 50 per cent. and be capable of earning £2 a week, in the opinion of the board. They say your heart is bad and your legs are not too good and this thing is wrong, and the other, but still in the economic field you will be able to earn £2 a week. That is all very well, only you cannot get a job. But one does not mind, one accepts that. Today, Sir, it is possible owing to the diminished manpower that is available for these derelicts of the last war to find jobs. I know of instances, the Commissioner of Pensions who is directly in charge of the administration of this Act knows of instances, and the Minister probably knows of instances, where a man who is estimated to be able to earn £2 a week or £8 per month will find himself out of work for three or four months of the year. He may be three months in work at a wage of £3 a week or £12 a month. Every six or twelve months he has to submit a form showing what his earning capacity is. He is honest and he states that during these interim periods he has been earning £3 a week. The Commissioner or Pensions is forced by the terms of the Act to reassess that man’s earning capacity to the rate of £3 a week and to deduct the proportionate amount from any pension he may be receiving as well as to recover any overpayment. Mr. Chairman, these are instances where the Administration is not at fault, where the policy is not at fault, but Where the Legislature itself is at fault and the regulations tie down the Commissioner of Pensions to an acceptance of what the man has been earning during those periods as the man’s actual earning capacity for a period of twelve months. That is the cause of a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction, and I want the Minister to give a greater share of discretion to the Commissioner of Pensions, or to the people who have the task of continuously reassessing the man’s earning capacity. Here may I pay a compliment to the Minister because I think that this matter is at the present moment subject to the consideration of his department. The Minister is obviously concerned with any overpayment, whether it is in respect of wages, allowances, pensions or any other payment, and he requires the Treasury officials to see that these overpayments are recovered. Representations are being made at the present time by organisations of ex-servicemen who are working for the cancellation of the amounts which have been overpaid by way of pay or allowances to soldiers who are now discharged. I appeal to the Minister to follow the same course in connection with these pensioners. It has come to my notice and it has occasioned me great distress, that policemen in uniform have been directed to call on homes following up letters that have emanated from the Treasury requiring the repayment of £6 or £7, or they may ask: “How much can you pay?” The police officials are catechising the wives and dependants of these discharged soldiers and asking them to refund the amounts overpaid. Sir, that cannot be tolerated for a single moment, and I believe that the Minister is at the present moment investigating the matter. I do hope that some measure of sympathetic consideration will be given to discharged soldiers in respect of these overpayments, and also that the Commissioner of Pensions may be granted the opportunity of exercising a discretion in respect of overpayments connected with pensions to men who were disabled in the last war, or have been disabled in the present war. I do hope that a larger discretion is going to be accorded to the administrative officials who, we know, are sympathetic in their approach to these questions, but who are bound hand and foot in the application of their discretion by regulations which have been prescribed under these various enactments. I do hope that the point made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in respect of the onus being thrown upon those soldiers who are disabled in the Union will be given sympathetic consideration. It is extremely difficult for a soldier discharged from the army as a result of a disability that may range from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. to be called upon to show that that disability was in consequence of his war service. The onus has always been too heavy for the soldier to carry. That has been accepted by the Minister of Finance himself who has, I believe, relented in the case of those people who are serving the Union of South Africa outside its boundaries. But what does the theatre of service matter? How can the question of onus be determined by whether the man’s physical condition derives from service in the Middle East or within South Africa? I know, the Minister knows, and the Commissioner of Pensions knows, that this question of onus imposes a tremendous hardship in some cases and that if it is definitely placed upon the shoulders of those serving in South Africa there will be a definite sense of grievance. In view of the promise the Minister has given to exservice organisations I would ask him to accord consideration to the question of any hardships that may have arisen as a result of the provisions of the Pensions Act, and to the point whether he should not accept the onus of disproving that a man’s disability is due to his having given military service within the borders of South Africa.

Perhaps I might deal now with a few of the points that have been raised. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) first of all raised a point which, I think falls a little outside the scope of the vote, when he talked about the taxation of pensioners. That is rather a matter of taxation of pensions. The pension is part of the man’s income. In same cases pensions reach quite a considerable figure, and I am sure my friend would not contend that people who receive high incomes by way of pensions should not be taxed. The only standard then to apply is the standard of the amount of income, and that is the standard applied under the Income Tax Act. A point which the hon. member raised that is I think more germane to this vote, is in connection with the representations made to me by the South African Legion of the British Empire Service League. He is quite correct in referring to the fact that such representatives have been made. Those representations have dealt both with the administration of the law and with the amendment of the law. I had the opportunity of discussing these matters with the representatives of the League very fully, and ultimately I am glad to say, we found ourselves at one in regard to the position. As a result amending legislation is now in course of being drafted, and will shortly be submitted to the House.

During this session?

Yes. I contemplate also taking action in regard to the investigation of complaints in connection with the administration of the law. That is broadly the basis of the provisional decisions come to in those discussions to which I have referred. I do not propose at this stage to go into these questions, therefore in greater detail, or to refer to the amendments it is proposed to introduce into the law since I hope that the Bill will be ready quite shortly and it will then be available for hon. members to study. Sir, hon. members have raised individual cases. I think they will appreciate that it is extremely difficult for me to give information about individual cases when I have not been advised in advance of the facts in regard to those cases. They will not therefore take it amiss if I do not reply in detail. But the first of the cases raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) does raise a general principle, and it is being considered in connection with the general legislation referred to.

Will it apply to all those cases, cases that cropped up before the amendments will have been made; will it be retrospective?

In the main the provisions we make will be retrospective at least as far as this war is concerned. The hon. member for Kingwilliams town raised the point about the position of civil pensioners. I want to remind him that under the arrangements made last year, under the terms of the clause in the law passed last year, an allowance is paid to the lower civil pensioners.

What is the limit?

At the present moment it is £180, but we are considering revising those regulations.

Is that married men only?

One hundred and eighty pounds for married men, and £90 in the casé of single men; but there again it is subject to revision. Then the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. MilesCadman) raised an individual case in regard to the application of Section 5. I would only like to explain to him that a Minister cannot make a grant in terms of the provisions of the law in regard to the Special Grants Board, but the Special Grants Board can consider any case where a volunteer or person who is dependent on a volunteer is affected by the rejection of an application, so presumably this case could go before the board; but if he would give me further particulars I would do my best to advise him further. In regard to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) I shall be glad to go into the point raised in regard to the re-assessment of alternative awards Where there is a change in the pensioner’s earning capacity. I shall give attention to that matter and also to the other points he has raised.

†*The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) raised the question of the Cape Widows Pensions Fund of 1895. The position there, of course, is that we can only act on the facts as placed before us by the Actuaries. We increased those pensions before, I believe by 45 per cent., as a result of the recommendations of the Actuaries. The next actuarial investigation will be made next year and we shall again go into the question then. In reply to the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) I just want to explain that this grant of £166 to the Bond of Oudstryders has been appearing on the Estimates for a long time. That grant is made in connection with that body’s administrative expenses. In regard to the outside work done by people drawing old age pensions, and Oudstryders’ pensions, the position, of course, is that they are not prevented from doing that work, but their earnings have to be taken into account, in terms of the law, when their pensions are assessed. The law provides what is the maximum amount of the pension, and other sources of revenue, and all other earnings, have to be taken into account when the pension is fixed.

There are two points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. First of all I again want to appeal to him to reconsider the position of the Oudstryders and grant them an increase in their pensions. Then I want to express the hope that it may be found possible to send old age pensioners cheques instead of their having to go to post offices and such places with their books to draw their pensions. It seems so humiliating for these old men and women to have to stand in queues and wait to draw their allowances. Often it is very cold, or it rains, and the conditions on the platteland in many of those cases are far from comfortable. Sometimes thirty or forty of them have to stand in a queue and then one finds that there are non-Europeans, too, standing in the queue, also waiting to get some pension or grant. Unfortunately one does not find Europeans and non-Europeans separated everywhere on the platteland—they are often not attended to separately. I want to ask the Minister to consider the possibility of sending them cheques. To my mind it is quite possible to do so.

Then they will have to stand in queues in the banks.

In the post office forty or fifty of them sometimes have to stand and wait and there may perhaps be one or two officials to attend to them. These old people undoubtedly have a grievance and I again want to appeal to the Minister to improve their pensions.’

I am, often called upon to certify documents and to identify applicants for old age pensions, and a matter has been brought to my notice that I should like to mention. It is the case of a couple in Johannesburg, in the suburb of Turffontein, who during their lifetime saved up sufficient to enable them to buy their own house. Some years after that the husband died and the widow found herself penniless and applied for a pension. It was refused on the ground that she was the owner of a property. On this property all the income she could derive was 12s. 6d. a week, an amount representing the rent of one room. With the help of a friend she was able to struggle along. I understand that the property was slightly in excess of the value that would have entitled its exclusion from consideration in connection with the old age pension. But I would like to appeal on behalf of this widow and on behalf of aged people who may be similarly circumstanced. They have tried hard to save something during their lives and to build up for the future, but the nett result is that they are worse off than those who have not worried at all about the future.

We are going to make arrangements in regard to that type of case.

I know the difficulties in trie way of abolishing the means test, but I would suggest that it might be practicable to raise the minimum sum that would preclude a person from receiving an old age pension. If the Minister is taking steps in that direction there is no need for me to press the point further.

On a previous occasion when we were discussing old age pensions the hon. the Minister, according to the Hansard report, told me by way of an interruption that everyone who received an old age pension was given an extra £1 on account of increased cost of living. It was recorded in Hansard and I have been receiving letters from people all over the country who tell me that they do not get the extra £1. I have not placed these letters before the Minister but I just want to bring this to his notice. The man who draws a pension of £3 10s. perhaps does get an extra £1 but these people tell me that the man who gets £2 10s. or thereabouts does not get it. I fail to understand why pensioners who used to be in the service of the State do not get an allowance if their pensions exceed £180, while people who are in the Government service get that allowance on salaries up to £700. That does not seem to be fair. I assume a man who earns more than £700 can live decently on that in spite of the increased cost of living, but where the Minister gives an allowance to people earning £700 in the Public Service, because he considers they need it to enable them to live, he should also give it to people drawing pensions. If he does not pay it to them he does them an injustice. Now, I again want to say something about the injustice that is done to pensioners in the rural districts. I again want to say that the cost of living, whether one lives in Bellville or Worcester, is one and the same thing, then why should there be a distinction between the platteland and the town? The prices for most commodities have been fixed and where the prices have not been fixed those on the platteland in some cases are higher than they are in Town. I think the whole principle is wrong. Do you want to drive the poor people drawing old age pensions to the towns, just like the natives? I want to ask the Minister to have this matter investigated—he should not have it investigated just by officials living in the towns, but he should go thoroughly into the question whether there is a difference in the cost of living. In a country like England, according to the latest information, the cost of living has only gone up 18 per cent., but I am convinced that in South Africa it has gone up by more than 36 per cent. In England the authorities have kept control over everything and if anything is imported they see to it that goods come in as cheaply as possible. For instance, if they buy raisins and sultanas they do not pay more than the pre-war prices; they see to it that these things are imported cheaply. And the position there is that not just one merchant or trader is given a permit—one man is not given preference over the next one—they are all treated alike. I think if the Minister investigates the whole position he will find that the difference in the cost of living between the town and the rural districts is not so very great. Take house rents. That is one of the big items and I have been told that house rents in the towns have gone up more than they have in the rural districts. Well, let me say that house rents on the platteland, on a percentage basis, have gone up more than they have gone up in the towns. Before the war houses in the rural districts stood empty, but that was not the position in the towns. That has now changed. In view of the fact that people have been unable to find accommodation in the towns they have gone to the platteland. Those houses in the rural districts are today occupied by people drawing pension, the result is that there are no houses for the poor, and the house rents have gone up. Here in the town the pensioner has all kinds of privileges which he has not got in the rural districts. He is close to free medical treatment. In the rural districts people have to pay for this. If a pensioner lives outside town—and pensions on the platteland ate lower than in the towns—and he needs a doctor, he either has to go to town and pay the doctor, or he has to get the doctor to come out to the farm. The man in the town is near the doctor and can get medical assistance without paying for it. That is one item but it is a big item because in both instances the people who draw old age pensions are people suffering from some disease or other. One of the reasons why they are drawing pensions is because they are unfit to work. And it seems so unfair to me that we should have this differentiation, that the people in the dorps should get so much less than the people in the towns, and the people in the rural districts again get so much less than the people in the dorps. I should like to know from the Minister whether he thinks that a man who lives just outside Bellville on a small farm can live more cheaply than the man in Bellville itself, provided always that man at Bellville does not go to the most expensive shop to buy want he wants? These people know where to buy—they know where to buy their vegetables and things like that. These vegetables may be of a poorer quality but they are still quite good, and these people know where to get things cheaper than people on the platteland do. I feel very strongly on this matter and I think we are entitled to urge the Minister to have a thorough investigation made. And this investigation should not only be made for the townspeople but we must give the rural districts an opportunity, too, to put forward their views. I am getting tired of raising this question in this House. A serious injustice is being done, and I raise this question because I feel it my duty to do so. Then there is another question, and that is the question of the semi-fits.

That comes under social welfare.

Very well, then I shall raise it there. The Minister knows now that I am going to raise it. I want to know the reason why these semi-fit people cannot be assisted.

I want to follow up the point raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) and the Minister’s reply to him. Now the hon. member for Kensington made the point that at the present time we penalise thrift inasmuch that a thrifty person who has acquired some savings or a property of a certain value cannot get the full benefits of the old age pension. That is an undoubted fact. I have had cases brought to my notice. Undoubtedly the position will be alleviated to some extent by the provision which the Minister indicated in his Budget speech, that an old age pensioner can hold property, I think he said to the value of £800. That will undoubtedly alleviate the position as far as some of the complaints which I have received are concerned. But now I wish the Minister would explain to the House just how this works in the case of these people who have acquired property under the instalment scheme. I have had instances brought to my notice of an elderly couple who have acquired a property, and when they are eligible for old age pension they are still paying off some hundreds of pounds which they owe on this property. I do not know just how this new provision is going to work in that respect. I took up one particular case when I was in Pretoria last year with the Pensions Board whereby an old age couple owned a property on which they still had a matter of £200 to pay, which they were paying off in monthly instalments. They let portion of the house which paid these instalments, but unfortunately as the position was then the assessment was made, and if my memory serves me rightly they were entitled to 1s. per month in old age pension, which, of course, becomes absurd and definitely it is penalising thrift. Now, if I may say so, I want to put it to the Minister of Finance that our means test is definitely too low, it is not sufficiently liberal. The outand out waster who makes no provision for his old age, who in many cases has spent liberal earnings to the fullest extent, when he becomes eligible for old age pension, gets the full benefit. You get decent couples who possibly have managed to put a few pounds aside each year with a view to making provision for their old age. Under our means test these people are definitely penalised under our pensions provisions, and I do hope that the Minister will explain to the House exactly what the position is in regard to the recipients of old age pensions who have a property which is not fully paid off and also what he can tell us with regard to the means test, and if that means test cannot possibly be extended to give people more facilities under the pensions Act than they are getting today.

There is one subject I want to bring forward under Section, R, Blind Persons. As we know, there are a large number of blind persons in the Union who are old and poor and these people are entitled to some enjoyment during the declining years of their lives. I think we could do a little more than just give them grants. When I was in England I saw what was being done for them there, and I was amazed at the enjoyment which a blind person got out of a small radio set—these sets were presented to them. I understood that these sets had been supplied by the Government of England. Now I should like the Minister to consider this question carefully and see if we cannot do something similar for the old and blind in this country. They could listen to the news of the day and the music— it would give them a good deal of pleasure in their affliction and I think the very least we can do is to give them something of this description.

Although I welcome the increase in the old age pensions I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment at the fact that this increase will only come into operation as from the 1st September. The Minister makes the excuse that he has not got the necessary staff. I don’t believe that the position can be so serious, nor do I believe that the matter is so complicated that these old people have to wait another five months. If that is so, however, then I want to ask the Minister to make the payments retrospective from the 1st April. We all know that these old people are getting very weak. Many of them are ill and when they die they usually die during the winter months. I feel that it is not fair to deprive them of this increase during the winter months. There is a shortage of food, they have no proper roofs over their heads; their houses are cold, and if this increase could be made retrospective the shopkeeper and other suppliers would probably be willing to give these old men a little credit, so long as they know that they will be paid a few pounds in August or September. I think the Minister should give this matter his serious consideration. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) in what he said about the inconveniences these people have to suffer in having to go to the post offices to collect their pensions. I am particularly thinking of the people of the rural districts who are perhaps 40 or 50 miles away from a post office and who have to go all that distance to draw their pensions. The men and women drawing these old age pensions have so much respect for the officials in the Government offices that if they are told to call for their pensions as from a certain date, they imagine that have to be there on. That very day, otherwise they will either not get their pensions at all or they will be faced with all sorts of difficulties. The result is that some of them incur expenses, sometimes as high as a pound, to get to town. I also want to support the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in his attempt to induce the Minister to change the various scales under which the people of the platteland have been, and are still today, getting less than the townspeople. It is unfair and it will tend to drive the people from the country districts to the towns. This matter should be seriously considered by the Minister. I also want to draw attention to the last item “V”, Assistance to needy civil pensioners. Last year the amount was £50,000. This year it is £15,000, a reduction of £35,000. I want to know whether it is due to the Department’s desire to save money that these people are now to be paid so much less, or what other reason is there for this reduction?

I just want to reply to the questions which have so far been put to me. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) and also the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) asked whether it was not possible to pay out old age pensions by cheque. First of all I doubt whether it would really be more convenient for those who gets the pensions. In many instances it will be less convenient for them to change their cheques at the bank or perhaps at a shop.

Give them the option.

Yet, it’s quite easy to say that, but the hon. member must take into account the difficult conditions under which we are working. We are working with a department which is suffering from a shortage of staff, and to place this matter on an alternative basis will very soon make the whole position impossible. We may consider it in future but at the present moment it would be quite impracticable. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) raised the question of the cost of living allowances of civil pensioners. I want to repeat what I said last year that the pensioner is not in the same position as the civil servant. The civil servant’s salary is fixed by law and it can be reduced. The pensioner gets the amount to which he is entitled. So far as the pensioners are concerned a cost of living allowance is not a right to which they are entitled, it is a concession granted them by the State. The hon. member, and other hon. members, also raised the question of the differentiation between the pensioner in the rural districts and the pensioner in the towns. I dealt with that question last year and I was axious to to have an investigation made by the Census Office. Unfortunately they could not assist me, but the Social Security Committee has in the meantime gone into the question and my hon. friend knows that the Commitee has recommended that there should be a differentiation between the three classes.

They simply adopted the existing position.

They considerd the matter as a whole and they were not bound by what is laid down in the law. As a result of their investigation they have recommended that that should be the position in future.

It is unfair.

The hon. member also said that the cost of living allowance of £1 was not paid in every instance. I can only say that there must be some mistake and I shall be glad if the hon. member will supply the Department with the details. It is a rule which has been laid down that the allowance of £1 is to be paid to everybody.

Yes, I shall supply the details.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp also asked why there was a reduction in the amount to be voted for civil pensioners in need of assistance. It does not mean that we treat those people less liberally. On the contrary, we are acutally engaged on reviewing the regulations so as to make it possible to assist them on a more liberal basis. The hon. member also asked why we had to wait until the 1st September with the increase. I can only repeat that the positiion in my Department is a very difficult one. We are not only dealing with the question of an increase in old age pensions, which alone means that all the files have got to be checked up, but there are also other measures which I gave notice of in my budget speech. I have already done my best to curtail the period of waiting but I am afraid we shall not be able to apply the increase before the 1st September.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) has raised the question of the means test. May I say in that connection that the whole matter is subject to reconsideration in the light of the report of the Select Committee going into the social security proposals, which is still in Session. And in reply to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) I would like to say as far as the blind are concerned that on this Vote I merely deal with their pensions, but there is further provision on the Social Welfare Vote for them, and that is the place where he should raise his suggestion, although I think he will probably agree with me that it would be very difficult today to get radio sets to provide to the blind.

I just want to ask the Minister whether it will not be possible to make the forms which the Oudstryders have to fill in shorter and simpler. We hear complaints about shortage of paper but if we look at the Oudstryders forms it would appear that we could supply all the other countries with paper. When we go to an Oudstryder’s house with one of these forms the man at once becomes dispirited at having to give all these details. The Afrikaner does not like so many forms and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister only to ask very essential questions. One gets the impression that the official who designed this form used all his efforts to get the longest possible form imaginable. Then there are a few other questions which I want to mention. I again want to emphasise that the Minister, particularly in these difficult times, should abolish the means test, even if it is only for the present. These people cannot come out on their pensions. In many instances their children cannot look after them, and I want to urge upon the Minister at this stage when the cost of living is so high to abolish the means test. These people are proud and sensitive and it will be of considerable assistance to them if they are allowed to earn a little extra. The Minister complained of a shortage of staff, but if one of the Oudstryders dare to earn anything extra today he is informed tomorrow that he is going to lose his pension. That sort of thing has a paralysing effect on the moral life of the Oudstryders. We should admire these old people for doing their utmost to improve their position generally. We should encourage that sort of thing in these difficult times. I there fore want to make an appeal to the Minister to consider the possibility of deleting that provision even if it is only for these very hard times. Now there is another point. The. Minister said that there were some difficulties about paying out these people by cheque, but surely some means can be devised to pay them by cheque? If we go to the post office at the end of the month it is really harrowing to see conditions there. I should like the Minister to take the trouble to see things for himself at the end of the month, so that he may realise how difficult it is for these old people to get their pensions. Their health is often affected to such an extent that they have to pay more in doctors’ fees than what their pensions amount to. That sort of thing is not worthy of us here in South Africa, and I don’t think one would come across conditions like that in any other country in the world. These people’s health is undermined in a most scandalous way. I think a small staff would be sufficient to cope with the position, and it cannot mean very much additional expense. With these few words I want to express the hope that the Minister will give his attention to these matters I have raised.

I should like to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister. We find that when an old age pensioner owes money to another Department, that amount is simply deducted from the old age pension. I think it is a most unfair way of treating our old people, to allow another Department to have the right, when this pension was granted by the Government to keep these people alive, to deduct a portion of that money in order to compensate the Department for something which these people earned in their poverty or at a time when they were able to earn a little. The Minister must make an effort to see that nothing is deducted from the old age pension in order to make good the debt of the pensioner to another State Department.

That is news to me and I shall be glad if the hon. member will bring the details to my notice.

I shall do so with pleasure. Then there is another matter, and that is the manner in which the test is applied when anyone makes application for an old age pension. In the platteland a police official is sent out perhaps to an elderly woman who lives in a remote part. One of the last things which should be done is to send out a police official to interview these people. They get the fright of their lives when they see a policeman, and the result is that when the policeman puts questions to them they keep on replying in the affirmative, and when the form eventually reaches the magistrate, the application is rejected. I want to suggest that we have sufficient justices of the peace in these areas who can assist these old people to complete the form properly. It should not be done through the medium of the police officials. We are all a little scared of a policeman. When he comes to us we at once think that we shot a buck or did something else which was not right.

Do there consciences prick them?

We are being honest. I say that they should rather send police officials to the younger people, but in the case of the elderly people some other method must be resorted to. Then there is another point. I should like to give my wholehearted support to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). I think the Minister must realise that it is difficult in these remote parts for the people to buy food or anything else which they may require. He will realise that there should be no discrimination against them. We are living in times when there is a shortage of petrol and tyres, and in the first instance it is difficult for those people to get hold of their money and then to go and buy their food. I think if everything is taken into consideration, the city dweller will support us 100 per cent. in our plea that those people should be placed on an equal footing with the old people in the cities. I think it is unfair to treat them on a different basis. The old people on the platteland do not enjoy the same privileges as the people in the cities. In the cities there is still an opportunity to go from shop to shop with a view to buying goods more cheaply. But out on the platteland there may be only one small shop, and the people simply have to pay what the shopkeeper asks. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and to See whether the pensions of the people on the platteland cannot be placed on the same footing as those of the people in the cities. Then I should like also to draw the Minister’s attention to this matter. I know that he will say that the law does not allow him to do this—but that is why he is Minister. If the law does not allow him to do something which he feels is right, he can have the law amended. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) that where a man dies in uniform in the Union his wife and children must not be punished. I know of a case where we struggled for two years to get an allowance from the Government for the mother of a family. She was not old enough for an old age pension. He husband died in the Union, and she could not get a pension. Eventually we succeeded in getting a pension for her as an act of mercy. It is called an ex gratia allowance. That is unreason able. The allowance must not be paid in such cases as an act of mercy. It ought to be laid down by law that where a man dies in uniform his dependants should receive a pension, and it ought not to be applicable only to those who die outside the borders of the Union. Then there is the last point in connection with the old people on the platteland, and here I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Lictenburg (Mr. Ludick) that it is very inconvenient for these people to go to the post office to draw their pensions. The old age pensioner may live 100 miles from the nearest post office. But he has to struggle along to the post office to get his pension. I think that some means or other should be devised whereby the people who live a long distance from the post office will be met. I want to give all credit to the Minister’s department for having met us in every possible way. We bring these things to the Minister’s notice, however, not with a view to finding fault, but because we want to make the last days of those old people so comfortable that it will not be a punishment for them when they have to draw their monthly allowances, but that it will be a pleasure to them.

Since we are talking about pensions, I shall be very glad to have the Minister’s attention in connection with the position of women between the ages of 50 and 60 years on the platteland or in the smaller towns. One finds this difficulty specially in the smaller platteland towns. These women are not sickly, they are not lazy to work, but the position is simply that they cannot get work. They receive no pension. In the majority of cases they are not suitable for clerical work and other work is not available, and when one goes to the magistrate for assistance, he simply says that these women must work. There are no facilities for them. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he cannot reduce the old age limit slightly in order to meet these women. Since they are in needy circumstances and they cannot obtain employment, something ought to be done for them by the State. The difficulty is that in some platteland towns these people cannot obtain employment, and I hope that the Minister will go into this matter.

I want to congratulate the hon. Minister on providing this extra amount of £289,000 in respect of old age pensions, and I also want to mention one or two cases where extreme hardship was caused. I had one particular case before the Pensions Board at one time where an old lady, because she had a little property, was debarred from receiving an old age pension and I am glad that the hon. Minister has agreed to raise the amount; but that does not suit my case. The case I want to mention is the case of the phthisis widow who is debarred from receiving an old age pension because she got a few pounds from the Phthisis Board. I have brought that to the Minister’s attention several times before, and I am going to keep on bringing it before him until he does something about it—as he usually does. I hope this will be the last time that I will have to raise this matter, and I hope that this time the hon. Minister will accede to the request of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden). I listened to the request of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman). I think he gave the House the pension scales operating in New Zealand or Canada — I’m not sure which. I have since made enquiries regarding the system in New Zealand. I understand the system is this. As soon as a boy reaches the age of 17 and he earns as much as £5 per month, he has to contribute to a system of old age relief, and he goes on contributing from the time he commences to work until he reaches the retiring age, which may be at the age of 55 or the age of 60 years. He receives quite a large amount of money when he reaches that age. That seems to be a good system because it enables one to have a little extra money during the last 10 or 15 years of one’s life. But what about the member who contributes throughout that time and who happens to die one year before he would have reached the retiring age? He will then have contributed a great deal of money to the State without getting any benefit from it. Our system is a direct benefit system without a direct contribution, and I prefer it, and I think there is a lot to be said for our old age pension system after all.

I gathered, I hope correctly, from the hon. Minister’s Budget speech that the possession of property to the value of £800 would not be any disqualification for the receipt of an old age pension. My conception was a little bit clouded by a reference to the Social Security Report which the hon. Minister made in the debate this afternoon, and I hope, very much so, that this concession is not being indefinitely deferred.

No, we are going on with that right away.

I have had correspondence from one of the very best type of South African citizens, who had previously applied for an old age pension, and whose application had been refused. After reading the report of the Budget speech, he renewed his application, and was bundled somewhat unceremoniously out of the local office and told that these was nothing in it whatsoever, and that under no circumstances would his renewed application be forwarded. My suggestion to the Minister is that as soon as possible the nation be told when this privilege can be exercised. The people are under the impression that the time has already come, and I hope that it will not be very long delayed. I shall not occupy the Committee more than a moment or two, but I want to refer to an item Under Section K, No. (7), “Military Pensions Appeal Boards,” and in doing so I have no wish whatever to be a nuisance to the hon. Minister or to his department. We on these Labour Party benches were asked to be good enough to refrain from speaking on the Defence Vote. There are many things on which we would like to have information, and I hope the hon. Minister will be more than usually broadminded, and allow us to go a little further under this Vote than might otherwise have been done. I hope it will be possible to allow the soldier concerned to have his own medical representative on the Appeal Board which deals with his case, when it comes to the point of being discharged from the service as unfit. Curious cases are already occurring. For example, a man known to me for many years in the service, a most intelligent person, having done excellent work for the Defence Force, found that he was put in a military hospital, and was soon afterwards discharged as being totally unfit for further military service. At the same time he was sent to his former employer, who was instructed to find him employment. At that stage he came under a second medical examination. This took place quite recently, as the employer wished, reasonably enough, to discover whether or whether not he was fit for arduous and responsible work. The employer, the Tramway Corporation, having medically examined the man said definitely that he was not fit to resume his civilian occupation, so he was sent back to the Army Medical Board. The Army Medical Board repeated that he was not fit for army service, but that he certainly was fit for his civilian employment. Between these two opinions, the man does not know where he stands. I see that there is a considerably enlarged vote under this head and one hopes —because it will do a great deal to keep these men satisfied—that some means will be arranged whereby the mans’ own medical officer will have a say as to whether he is fit for civilian employment or not. A position of wide dissatisfaction and alarm is already arising. In some cases the army doctor says that the man is fit for military service, but he is discharged to take up important industrial work. When he is tested by a civilian medical officer, the verdict is that the ex-soldier is not fit, and the man simply does not know what his true position is. I suggest he would be much more contented, and better placed, if it was not entirely a case for the army doctor to say whether he was well or unwell. If arrangements were made for a civilian doctor to be consulted and to have a say in the decision, it would give much more satisfaction. I am not going to say much about the obvious needs of civil pensioners, because I am satisfied with the remarks which have been made by the Minister with regard to forthcoming assistance to them. I gather from the Minister that the matter is being dealt with fairly and sympathetically, and that every consideration will be shown to these deserving people. Something adequate should be done for them because they are in a precarious position owing to the rising prices. If some of our citizens are granted allowances to meet the increased cost of living, it seems but elementary justice that the privilege should be extended to the remainder, and especially to those whose incomes are very small.

I just want to bring something to the notice of the Minister in connection with which I have received special instructions from my constituents. Although the hon. Minister has already replied this afternoon. I again want to ask him, since this request has come from hon. members on all sides of the House, whether something cannot be done in connection with the method of paying the old age pensions. It has been pointed out how difficult it is for these old people to come into town in order to sign the cheques, and I want to confirm that I should like to bring another aspect of this matter to the Minister’s notice, and that is the state of mind of the people when they are compelled to stand in a queue in order, as they look upon it, to receive alms from the State. I do not think that that is a credit to our State. When one enters a house one can immediately judge from the conduct of the children how they treat their aged parents, and I maintain that there is absolutely no difference between the conduct of a child towards his parents and the conduct of the State towards its old people. The State has an obligation towards these people who have sacrificed the best part of their lives in the service of the State. It is not only the very poor who receive the old age pension. Do you know that there are ex-members of Parliament who receive this pension? That may sound strange to you. But I know of at least one ex-member of Parliament who receives an old age pension. I should like to bring a certain case to the notice of the House. An aged mother, a widow, called on me and asked me how she could live in the future. I asked her what her age was, and her reply was: “Please do not ask me what my age is, because I do not want to apply for an old age pension.” I asked why not; she replied: “No, I should not like in my old days to have to stand in a queue and receive alms in this town where I occupy a certain position.” I maintain that we can be glad that there is still such a thing as pride amongst our people. There may be people who look forward to the day when they can draw an old age pension, but there cannot be many of them. In the case of the majority of persons the only thought that they may at some future date have to draw an old age pension, is a nightmare to them, the thought that they have to stand in a queue of 20 or 30 people to receive alms from, the State. We hear a great deal today about a new world. South Africa would stand revealed in a poor light if a foreigner were to come here and see how our old people have to stand in queues to receive alms from the State. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to make investigations with a view to altering the method of payment.

Perhaps I should just dispose of the further points that have been raised. One or two hon. members have raised the question of the means test. May I say that that is an aspect of the old age pension system which can only be dealt with by an amendment of the law, and which must necessarily fall to be considered in the light of the investigations and the report of the Social Security Committee which is now functioning. I do not think I can take that matter any further at this stage. Then there is the question of the property limit which has been raised again. I would like to make it quite clear that what I said in my Budget speech was that we intend to raise from £400 to £800 the amount in respect of which no deduction will be made for the value of the property owned from the old age pension payable. We do not intend to wait for the Select Committee’s report in that regard, but it will only be possible to bring it into operation on the 1st September, because it does mean revising a very large number of cases. The whole difficulty in regard to this change is that it involves a great deal of administrative work, as hon. members will appreciate. It means revising practically every old age pension case, and this together with the other changes which we are making will come into force on the 1st September. I think the other point that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) raised, is a matter for Defence rather than Pensions, but I have no doubt that what he has said will receive consideration.

†*Then I just want to give hon. members the assurance, since they have made representations that there should be a change in the method of payment of the pensions, that there is no lack of sympathy on my part. I realise that it is largely a question of their, state of mind which must be taken into account, and I am quite prepared to go into the matter, but must repeat that the administrative difficulties in connection with the application of something like this will be very great, and I cannot at this stage promise that a change will be brought about in the near future, but I am quite prepared to give my attention to this matter. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) raised the question of lowering the old age limit on which women can be considered for an old age pension. This is practically part and parcel of the general question of social security. In any event this would require amending legislation, and we can only consider that in the light of the report of the Social Security Committee which is now completing its work. The hon. member for Zoutspansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) has raised the question of using the services of the police. I have great sympathy with him in that respect, but I doubt very much whether in the present circumstances we can immediately abandon that system, but in this case, too, I promise to give my attention to the matter. The other question in connection with military pensions, as I have already said, requires an amendment of the Act. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has raised the question of the simplification of the forms. We must, of course, get the information which is necessary in terms of the law, in order to be able to consider the applications. I have never personally given my attention to these forms, but I shall look at them and see whether any alteration can be brought about in the light of the hon. member’s remarks.

I think the hon. Minister already knows what points I am going to raise in this debate. I think he knows exactly what I am going to ask, because I have had a good deal of correspondence with his office in regard to a few of these cases. The hon. Minister is always very polite when one writes to him; he personally goes into these cases and he does everything he can. But I want to raise a point which applies generally, and that is the question of special grants. There are numbers of dependants of soldiers who died in the Union while they were not actually on duty. I have in mind three cases, for example, in regard to which I corresponded with the Minister personally. I just want to mention the names of these persons again in order to refresh the Minister’s memory. One of these cases came before the Select Committee. The Minister will know which case I am referring to. Another was that of Mrs. du Toit, whose husband met with a fatal accident while he was in uniform. He was not on leave, but when he met with this accident he was not on duty. I must say that the Minister did his best in this case. An award of £96 was made to her, and it was taken away again very suddenly. When I last wrote to the Minister the grant had not yet been restored and the matter had been under consideraion for three months. Up to the present time we have not succeeded in getting the grant restored. Then there is the case of Naudé. I think the Minister will remember that case, because not so very long ago I corresponded with him personally in regard to this case. It is not a question of the Minister not having done his best, but the point is this; I should like the award which is made to the dependants by the Special Grants Board to be retained in the case of every man who dies within the Union. It should not lapse as soon as the mother, for example, obtains some sort of employment. As soon as the pension office discovers that the woman in question works, the pension falls away, and it usually takes three or four months after she has again become unemployed to get the grant restored. I would like it to be a permanent allowance. It must be a standing order that those dependants will get the special award until such time as special provision is made for them. I have never troubled the department by asking how many cases of special awards there are in the Union of South Africa. Perhaps the hon. Minister knows, because he very frequently has information of this nature at his finger tips. But I think the House will be surprised to learn how many dependants there are of soldiers who died in the Union, and who do not receive a pension. But I think the House will be even more surprised to know how many of those people do not get a special grant. Since the Minister has now seen fit to increase the old age pensions, I think the time has arrived to reconsider those cases. Today one has this position, that there are two persons, two brothers, in exactly the same circumstances, with the same number of children, the same domestic circumstances, who joined up the same day, who saw the same service, who may have endured great hardships up North; and under the present Pensions Act the dependants of the one brother receive a pension as laid down in the Pensions Act, and the dependants of the other receive a special grant, but only sometimes. That is the difference, and I think the feeling in this House is fairly general in regard to this matter, and I want to urge the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. If he has ever heard of forgotten men, here we have the wives and children of forgotten men. I think the House would be neglecting its duty if we did not urge upon the Minister very strongly this year that these special grants must in each case be a standing order until such time as other provision is made for those people, and that those grants should not be subject to every change in the circumstances of the recipient, that they should not be taken away from these people. I want to urge upon the Minister with all the power at my command, that this must be done, because in the three cases to which I referred a moment ago the dependants do not get the special grant as far as I am aware. They did receive it occasionally, but not always. The grant is sometimes taken away suddenly, and then it involves endless trouble to have it restored. That is my first point. The Minister may also be able to guess my second point, because I have raised it in this House on previous occasions. I have said previously, and I want to repeat today, that I cannot see any reason why there should be a differentiation in the old age pension as between the person who lives in a big city and the person who lives in the platteland or on a farm. I cannot appreciate the reasonableness of that distinction. If it is the wish of the Government that those people should derive the maximum benefit from the old age pension, the Minister can surely say: “You may live in any area where you can derive the greatest advantage from the few pounds you get by way of an old age pension.” I do not know who is responsible for this pernicious policy. I cannot see any reason for it. The reason which has been given in the past is that it is cheaper to live in the platteland, but that is not the case today. The time has arrived when the old age pensions throughout the Union of South Africa should be granted on the same basis. If the old people can derive greater benefit from the pension because they happen to live in a cheaper area, they should be allowed to do so. It ought not to affect the amount which is granted to them. Do not decrease the amount as soon as they shift to an area where they can live more cheaply.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a matter which I raised before under the Additional Estimates when you ruled me out of order. It affects the pensions and allowances received by the wives and children and widows of those volunteers who served South Africa in wars prior to 1939. The War Pensions Act of 1942 draws a distinction be tween those who served prior to this war and those who are serving in this war. It is a distinction which I find most difficult to understand. In 1942 this House passed the War Pensions Act, which conferred on the wives and children and widows of volunteers, who serve in the present war, pensions and allowances on a far more liberal scale, while the period over which a wife, a child or a widow is entitled to benefit, is calculated on a more generous basis.

The point which the hon. member is raising will require legislation, will it not?

I think not, Sir. I propose to make a suggestion. I was stating that the allowances are more liberal, but those more liberal allowances and more liberal conditions generally have been denied the volunteers who served in previous wars. Why this distinction should have been drawn is difficult to understand. Amongst those volunteers, who served their country before 1939 and who are adversely affected, there is a strong feeling over their having been discriminated against in this manner. To rectify this anomaly would no doubt necessitate legislation, but we have provided in this Act for a Special Pensions Board. That board can consider cases, which do not fall within the Act, and I want suggest to the Minister that the machinery provided by the Board might be utilised to redress the grievances felt by those volunteers, who have been adversely affected in this manner. I think that is a practical suggestion, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give it his favourable consideration.

I also want to say a few words about our civil pensioners. If the man who is drawing a salary is granted a cost of living allowance, and if certain other pensioners are drawing cost of living allowances, I do feel that the civil pensioners who very often only get trivial pensions should also be considered at a time like the present. The cost of living has gone up and these people cannot come out on what they are getting. I also want to say a few words about the invalidity grants.

That comes under the Minister of Social Welfare. The amount under this vote only deals with people who have resigned from the Public Service on account of invalidity.

Very well. Now, members on both sides of the House have discussed the question of the way in which the old age pensions are paid out. The Minister has replied, but I have been specially asked by my constituents to request the Minister to do something for them. Pensions are paid out on a specific day, and it may not suit these people to come in to get their pensions on that day. If a cheque could be posted to them they would be able to cash their cheque at any time. It would be a considerable concession to them. In most small towns and dorps the accommodation inside the post office is far from adequate. These people have to ştand outside and they have to wait their turn to come in to get their pensions. These are not young people, they are old people, and they often find they cannot come to town on a particular day. If they got a cheque they could cash it when it" suited them to do so. The Minister has told us that the special cost of living allowance for all old age pensioners is £1 per month. I don’t think that is the position in our part of the country. I believe they get 18s.

That used to be the position but it has been changed.

If that is so I am satisfied because I object to a distinction being made between the town and the rural areas. In the towns the people already have more comforts than they have in the districts and it is not fair that they should get more.

I also want to support the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) on the question of the differentiation in pensions between the rural districts and the towns. I also fail to see why there should be this differentiation. These pensions are so small already that it would be much better to pay everybody the full pension no matter where he lives. Let economic conditions drive people to those parts where they can live cheapest and where they can get most out of their pensions. I fail to see why the rural districts should get less. I have a letter here from a certain Capt. Van den Wat, of “De Deur,” in my constituency who complains about his position. He fought in the Boer War and he was wounded and he also fought in the last Great War. He was granted a pension for his wound in the Boer War. He was thrifty and saved a bit of money and bought a small place on which he had a bond. Now, under prevailing conditions he was able to sell his place at a profit, and he paid off his debt and bought another place, but now his pension has been taken away from him. I really think that before such a pension is taken away the man’s position should be investigated by the pensions’ officer. Why must that man be penalised? He fought in both wars, he was wounded, but he has lived carefully and now, because he manages to pay his debts and make a fresh start, his pension is taken away. I don’t think it is fair. These people only get a few pounds, they have made sacrifices for their country in days gone by, and I do feel that before such a pension is taken away by an official, who perhaps is not thoroughly conversant with all the circumstances, a thorough investigation should be made, and I also feel it would be better for us to be generous than to create a grievance in the man’s mind by acting in the way we are doing. We should rather encourage a man.

There is another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice—it is a matter which is rarely discussed here, and that is the position of civil servants. There are hundreds and thousands of civil servants who are suffering under present-day circumstances and have to put up with great hardships.

The hon. member can raise that matter on the vote “Interior”.

Then I want to associate myself with a few of the points raised by other hon. members. Take the case of the Oudstryders and of these people who are drawing old age pensions. What worries me is that all private initiative is being destroyed in them. If we think of the small amount they get, £5 or £6, we must surely realise that it is impossible for them to live on the little they get, but immediately a man like that does a little outside work he loses his pension. It is an inborn quality in these people to want to improve their position. Why cannot they be allowed to make an extra £2, £3 or even £5 per month. I think the Hon. the Minister should be a little liberal towards them, and allow these people who try to improve their position to do so. You get old men who try to improve their position in some way or another; then a report comes in that they are earning something here or there, and their pensions are immediately taken away. What would be our position—what would be your position, Mr. Chairman—or the position of anyone here, if we had to eke out a living on these precarious pensions? Surely you would take on another job—some of us would even go and sweep the crossings in order to get £3 or £4 on our own initiative in order to improve our position—and yet if we did so our pensions would be taken away. It seems unfair. I shall be glad if the Minister will listen to us. So far as soldiers are concerneed they are not treated in that way. A soldier may have a stroke of luck, he may become stone rich, but he keeps his pension. Once a pension is granted to an Oudstryder, or to an old age pensioner, he should be allowed to keep it. I don’t think they should be watched so carefully and not be allowed to make something extra. If this sort of thing goes on these people will very soon be in the gutter, their position will become so precarious that they will die of starvation. Give them the opportunity of earning something extra. Then I think we are also fully justified in objecting to the way in which they are paid today. In my part of the country the number of motor cars has gone down considerably and people have to travel twenty and thirty miles by donkey cart to go and fetch their few pounds every month. They have to be away from home for a few days and they can’t afford it. Means of transport in the rural districts have been curtailed to such an extent that particularly in those far-flung areas the position is becoming very difficult. Just imagine the position in Boesmansland where one has to travel miles and miles to get to the nearest dorp. Is there no other system? Cannot the Minister pay these people their pensions by cheque? Cannot some other system be devised? He might even send the total amount to the magistrate who could send on the various sums to the people concerned. Surely it is impossible for anyone to defraud the State in connection with these matters. In my constituency it would be a great concession if the system of paying out were changed. I personally know of the hardships people have to put up with on the platteland if they want to live. Why are not all paid the same amounts? It seems to me that I can live better here than on the platteland because things are really cheaper here. Meat costs the same, 1s. per lb., clothing is much more expensive on the platteland, and if one looks through the various items sold in the shops one find that in the towns the prices are more stable than they are in the country districts. In the rural districts one has to pay railage in connection with everything, and all commodities are definitely more expensive than they are in the towns. And these old people have no houses. They have to rent a house, just the same as the people in the towns. So why this differentiation? I am sure the Minister realises that there should be no distinction. As hon. members opposite have also said, we cannot understand why there should be this differentiation. It is for that reason that we ask the Minister with all due respect—we know that he has a tender heart—to make a change.

I want to associate myself with those who have put up a plea for old age pensions in the rural districts to be the same as in the towns, but I don’t want to say too much about that. For a moment I want to deal with the question of the Oudstryder pensions. On behalf of my constituency I want to lodge a protest against the name. These are not Oudstryder pensions, but poor Oudstryder pensions. I don’t think the description is quite correct. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Oudstryders have to prove very thoroughly that they are Oudstryders. It is very difficult for them to do so because most of their officers are no longer alive and other comrades of theirs who used to know them have also passed away. Only a small number are left, and they do not live near each other. I know of instances where people had to go to Natal and to the Cape to obtain the necessary identification to prove that they were Oudstryders, and after that in some instances they were refused the allowance because they were not in a state of need. I want to tell the Minister that the Oudstryders are proud of the Minister, but nevertheless it is wrong to call these pensions Oudstryder pensions. I also want to say the system of paying out these pensions is wrong. Many Ourstryders cannot get old age pensions, but they would be very proud if, irrespective of personality, they could get a pension in recognition of their services in the war. There are many anomalies, there are many things wrong in regard to these pensions. Let me mention an instance of a young fellow who fought in the Three Years’ War. That poor fellow is an invalid today. He gets an invalidity pension. He got all his papers filled in to enable him to get an Oudstryder’s pension, and after he had taken all this trouble he found that the difference between the invalidity grant and Oudstryder’s pension was 4s. We went to a tremendous amount of trouble to get this money for this poor chap, seeing that he could not walk and spent most of his time in hospital and had to rely on the mercy of others. And then we should like the Minister to see how we are treated by some of these officials in the various offices. In regard to the system of paying out I don’t know whether it will improve the position if payments are made by cheque. Many of these poor individuals have to rely on others and if they have to get their cheques cashed they may perhaps have to wait just as long when they go to the bank, and the sacrifices they will have to make will be just the same. I do feel that a simpler system should be divised. In the rural districts we have our postal agencies; those agencies today cannot pay out pensions, but I should be glad if the Minister could make arrangements to allow these agencies also to pay out. But if these people get cheques, it will simply mean that they will have to wait at the banks. Hon. members opposite appear to have some plan in their minds; they want these men to get cheques. Why are they so concerned about it?

We hear the guilty conscience talking.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring one other point to the Minister’s notice. In my constituency there are some widows whose husbands were in the army. These husbands lost their lives in some way or another and the widows are suffering great hardships today. I have already brought one case to the Minister’s notice. I was told that the widow must fill in a form for an old age pension because she is over sixty years of age. She has told me that she is getting a few pounds, not the full amount. She has a large family and has to depend on the mercy of others. I should like the Minister to consider such cases because it is the dependants of those who have given their lives on the battlefield for their country who are suffering today.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and other members, have raised the subject of the differentiation between urban and rural pensions. I have already replied to that but perhaps I should explain the position a little more. At the moment this differentiation is made in terms of the law. The law contemplates the differentiation which is being made today. Now it is contended that the differentiation should not be made and that we should amend the law. As against that we have to remember that a Social Security Commission has been sitting which last year made its report and which right throughout its report made recommendations for differentiating between the pensions in the rural districts and pensions in the towns. That Commission may have been mistaken but in any case that is their report and that report has been referred to a Select Committee of this House, and I think hon. members will have to wait and see what the Select Committee has to say on that point. I do not think hon. members can expect me now to make a promise that I am going to change the law in the way they have asked me to do. I cannot take the matter any further than that at the moment. The hon. member for Krugersdorp also brought certain specific cases to my notice—cases in regard to which he has complaints. So far as one case at least is concerned the delay which has taken place is due to the fact that an appeal is pending.

Yes, that is the one case, but in the case of Du Toit she got a pension which was taken away again and three months later it had not yet been restored.

If hon. members have cases like that they should rather come and see me and we can go into them then. I cannot possibly be conversant with every individual case. In regard to the Special Grants Board its powers are laid down by law and if a change has to be made in the powers of the Special Grants Board the law will have to be amended. Further, I have already dealt fully with most of the points raised. The question of the means test, for instance, will have to be dealt with in the light of the report of the Select Committee on Social Security.

†I only want further to say a word or two in reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). I am not quite sure in what respect he has referred to a difference between the treatment of wives and other dependants of men who served in the Great War, and the treatment of similar people in relation to the present war. I think he must be referring to the provision which we made last year in regard to the five years’ period.

Yes.

If that is so, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell mv hon. friend that we are considering making it possible for such cases to be dealt with by the Special Grants Board; but that cannot be done by a fiat of the Minister. It will require amending legislation, and that is under consideration.

†*I have tried to discuss all the points which have been raised and to reply to them, and I hope that in view of the fact that it is fairly late my hon. friends will now allow this vote to pass.

I just want to mention a few matters in connection with old age pensions. I get letters from time to time from my constituency to the effect that a man who is 65 years of age gets an old age pension of £5 on which he has to keep himself and his wife. That man lives in town because he has never had a farm and hon. members can imagine how a man has to live in town on £5 per month if that is all he has. He has to live below the bread line. A man of 65 years of age is perhaps in bad health when he applies for an old age pension, and so the magistrate grants him £5. Now, that man has been a labourer all his life and as soon as he recovers to a certain extent he probably applies to the municipality for work. He gets work; it is not regular work. The one month he will work all the time and next month he only works part of the time, and so it happens that one month he may perhaps earn a little more than he is allowed to earn under the Old Age Pensions Act; then he gets a letter telling him that he has to refund some of the money he has received. I just want to ask the Minister whether he thinks a white man and his wife can live in town on £5 per month. Why if that man feels better and wants to improve his position, should he not be allowed to work and earn a little extra? I have had two cases in my constituency where an old age pension has been granted and where this difficulty has arisen. In the one instance it was a man of over 65 years of age; his wife had had a stroke and he had to engage a girl to look after her. He got work and earned £8 8s. a month. After a while he was notified that as he had obtained work and was earning more than £72 per year he could no longer get his old age pension, and it did not stop at that; he was notified that he had to refund an amount of about £15. Well, when that man applied for an old age pension an enquiry was made into the circumstances and the old age pension was granted him. If that man gets better afterwards and feels he can do some work which will help him improve his domestic position and get along again as a decent Afrikaner—he has not entirely deteriorated—why should he be prevented from doing so? Not one of us in this House would not like to improve his position. But if those people do so their old age pension is taken away even though they cannot live on the £5 per month which they get. We feel we must ask the Minister to go into this question again and give it his further consideration. If a man who gets an old age pension wants to work again and earn something extra, so that he may improve his position in that way, let him be allowed to do so. He will never again be able to become independent unless he draws the winning ticket in a lottery. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) cast some reflections on us in regard to the paying out of pensions. All of us have means of transport but these people in the rural districts who apply for old age pensions have no means of transport; they are in a hopeless position. We often have people like that coming to us and asking us when we are going to town or to the station; when we send our mule cart or some other cart to the station or to the town they have to avail themselves of the opportunity to draw their old age pension. Why cannot the money be sent to them by cheque? If they had a cheque they could go to some responsible individual and ask him to cash the cheque for them when he goes to town. We are not talking about people in the towns now, but take a constituency like Bethlehem which extends from Basutoland on the one side to the Natal Border on the other side. There are people there who are 25 and 30 miles away from the station. They are very poor and have to draw their old age pension. How are they to get to a little place like Kestell where there is a post office? These people have lots of difficulties to contend with. They are very poor, and they often find it difficult to get hold of anyone who will take them in a car. If they are paid by cheque it would be much easier for them. Some responsible individual could change it for them in the nearest town. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if possible to reconsider this whole question. I particularly want to ask him to give his attention to those cases where men have earned small amounts for a few months, say £8 or so per month, and are then called upon to repay what they have received by way of pension. I have had numerous cases of that kind in my constituency. They have come to me and I have gone to the Commissioner of Pensions. He explained the position and told me that those people had broken the law because they did not give him notice. I feel that this law is not fair because if a man is more than 65 years of age and he feels he can still work we should give that man the right to earn a little to improve his position; or do we really take up the attitude that because that man is getting an old age pension he is not allowed to do anything until he dies? I hope the Minister will reconsider this whole question and I ask him in all seriousness, in cases where people have received their old age pensions, have done a little work, and have earned more than they should have earned, to write off the amount they have overdrawn, even if their old age pensions have to go by the board. These people cannot possibly repay their old age pensions. The local authorities granted them their pensions because they realised that those people were too poor to carry on. How can we expect those people to repay anything? I cannot tell the Minister what he should do, but I want to ask him with all due respect if possible to meet our request in regard to these people who get temporary work and earn more than he law permits them to earn. Rather stop the pension, but write off the money which they are now asked to repay. It is impossible for a man who is more than 65 years—a man who is so old that he has to apply for an old age pension—to repay that money.

Item E, War Allowances, comprises three classes: (1) the Great War, (2) the South African Wars before 1914, and (3) the War of 1939. In granting an Oudstryder’s pension, account is taken of the old age pension that has already been paid out, and we should like to know from the Minister whether that principle is also applied and whether the same procedure is followed in regard to (1) and (3) as in regard to (2).

It is not paid out under that sub-head.

In granting Oudstryder pensions the amounts of the old age pension is taken into account. Is that done in regard to people drawing war pensions as a result of the last war and also as a result of this war?

Yes, exactly the same procedure is followed.

On this side of the House we have been fighting for years for a decent Oudstryder pension. I am not keen on going into this question because it hurts and humiliates one to be continually dragging the Oudstryders across the floor of the House, but the Oudstryders are always telling us that the Minister of Finance has given them the assurance that they are going to get an Oudstryder’s pension such as they are entitled to. What we want to know of the Minister is whether he has given the Oudstryders a definite assurance, because whereever we go the Oudstryders talk about it?

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit gain.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 30th March.