I move—

The House has already been informed that it is not the Government’s intention to have a holiday over Easter, and in the circumstances the House will not meet only on Good Friday, but we shall resume business on Easter Monday. The Government’s intentions are in accordance with the general interest of the House.

I second.

We naturally don’t want the Session to last too long, and consequently we shall raise no objection to this motion.

You naturally don’t want to sit on Good Friday also.

No; of course we don’t, but at this stage we should like some information from the Prime Minister about the business of the House. I assume the Government has some plan to dispose of the legislation on the Order Paper as far as No. 10 is concerned. We should like to know whether the Government has any intention of not proceeding with any of those Bills. And then we should like to know from the Prime Minister whether the Government is still prepared, and if so, when, to set aside Government time for the discussion of the motion dealing with the medium of instruction in schools. It would suit us if we could know more or less when the Government intends setting aside time for that purpose. Then there is my question about the Bill dealing with nurses. I want to know whether there is any intention of proceeding with that We should also like to know what the Government intends doing in regard to three important Bills which have not yet been dealt with, namely, the Magistrate’s Court Bill, the Bill dealing with the employment of volunteers and the Fishing Industry Bill. We are anxious to know whether it is the Government’s intention to have these Bills passed during the present Session. It would suit us if the Government could give us that information. And then we Shall be pleased if the Prime Minister could tell us whether there is still any idea of the House proroguing towards the end of April or during the first week in May?

It is the Government’s intention to proceed with Government business; that Government business goes up to Item 10, and then the intention is to give further time for the debate on the medium of instruction in schools. The time will be arranged with the other side. The Government also proposes proceeding with the Nurses Bill.

Does the Government intend putting it through?

Yes, the Select Commitee has nearly finished the Magistrate’s Court Bill and we are anxious to put that through. We also want to put through the Bill dealing with the employment of volunteers, and the Bill dealing with the fishing industry. It is now beginning to look doubtful, as a result of the long debates which are taking place, whether we shall be able to finish by the end of April, and if we do not finish by the end of April we may possibly have to sit a week in May. I am saying this in order to warn hon. members, because it seems that as a result of the lengthy debates we are having here it will perhaps not be possible to prorogue by the end of April. I do not think there will be any delay on the part of the Government.

It should naturally be borne in mind that the time of the Select Committee is very much restricted.

That is unavoidable.

The Minister of Lands is even shortening the debate.

Motion put and agreed to.

When the House adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the question of Oudstryder pensions. I just want to point out that this side of the House year after year introduces motions to get a decent Oudstryder pension laid down. A certain amount of relief has been given for which we are very grateful, but we must say that we cannot claim any great success in the way the whole subject has been handled. We have now been told that the Oudstrydersbond places full confidence in the Minister, we have been told that the Minister has given the Oudstrydersbond an assurance that the would see to it that they get all they are entitled to. When we go through our constituencies we are continually approached by the Oudstryders and asked how far things have progressed and whether any further information is forthcoming. Can the Minister tell us today whether we may anticipate any increase in Oudstryder pensions, or are we to take it that this matter has been disposed of? It is most harrowing to the Oudstryders themselves, and it is humiliating to these people to have their case dragged across the floor of the House all the time, so we are anxious to know what the position is, whether the Minister has given the Oudstrydersbond an assurance, and whether he is going to give effect to his promise. Then there is another matter I want to speak about, and that is the question of a concession being made to Oudstryders if they do a little bit of work from time to time. I have a whole number of cases before me. It is harrowing for an Oudstryder to be told that he is going to be deprived of his pension, but it is even worse if he is told that his pension has been stopped as from a certain date and that he has to pay back the amount which was paid out to him during the last few months. Surely the Minister should use his discretion here. The cost of living is going up day by day and these old people are suffering serious hardships in trying to come out on their pensions. It is practically impossible for them. Then there is the other side of the question. Many of these old people are not fully conversant with all the provisions of this Act and quite a number of them will sign these forms without knowing exactly what they contain, and in the circumstances we want to ask the the Minister not to act too drastically. He should use his discretion in certain cases. I have a case here where the individual concerned is asked to repay an amount of round about £10. The other day I discussed a similar case with the Minister. The money has already been spent and these people are now called upon to repay the money. We therefore want to ask the Minister to give this question his serious attention and to meet these people whereever he can do so. In conclusion I want to associate myself with those who yesterday pleaded for a change in the system of paying out these old age pensions. It really hurts one to see how these people have to stand in a queue in the post office to draw their pensions. Sometimes they have to stand there in pelting rain. Many of them are ill, and they often have to stand there for hours at a stretch. An argument was used here yesterday by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) but I hope that that hon. member’s argument will not weigh with the Minister. His argument was that we on this side wanted those cheques to put them into our own pockets.

That was not seriously meant.

In reply to that argument all we can say is this: may the Lord forgive him because he does not know what he is saying. We want to ask the hon. the Minister if possible to give those people further relief and to let these payments be made by cheque.

A matter of first class importance is the position of pensioners who are not getting any cost of living allowance. I understand that the only cost of living allowance authorised is dependent upon each pensioner being obliged to show his state of poverty or destitution before a Committee, and that action is surely not intended to apply to the very deserving class of people who, in their declining years have been obliged to retire on pension from offices of considerable responsibility. The plight of many of these men is most pitiable. They cannot appear before the Minister’s Committee to show that they are out at elbows, that their toes are sticking through their shoes, or whatever other test they have to go through. But they do suffer very great hardship, and I have had appeals from every quarter of the Union, from the deserving class of man who has served the country faithfully and well in a responsible position and who today, owing to the circumstances of the war, is suffering hardship because he cannot put his case before the Minister’s Committee, as I understand he has to do in order to get a cost of living allowance; and I do appeal to the hon. Minister to realise that the present basis of cost of living allowances to pensioners is altogether inadequate. The result is that men who are drawing £300 a year today are completely shut out from this cost of living allowance, and it does not matter what their position may be, how desperate they may find the struggle for existence, no sort of help, no sort of consideration is available to them. I have heard of a civil pensioner who served in the Great War and in this war with distinction and who was obliged to retire because he had reached the retiring age in the Defence Force, whilst holding an important command, but whose position is a most pitiable one, and he is unable at this stage to obtain any employment. He is unable to supplement his income by any lawful means in the country; and there he is; he gets no sort of consideration from the Government, and I do appeal to the Minister to realise that it is his duty as custodian of the funds of the State to see that a suitable cost of living allowance is granted to these people without humiliating conditions. In the case I mention the officer has four sons,—one of whom is a prisoner of war in Germany, the other three serving in the Union army.

I want to follow up what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has said, and also add my few words to his plea on behalf of this extra cost of living allowance, which should come automatically to all pensioners. The Minister has got the reputation of trying to create thrift right through the country. He has inaugurated quite a number of schemes to further his thrift campaign, and now by making these pensioners apply specially for this cost of living allowance, by making them appear before this committee, he puts them in a very invidious position. What does the committee do? The thrifty person, the person who was in the service and who got his home together, who got furniture together and tried to put aside money against the rainy day when he was going to retire from the service, that is the very person he is penalising. He is putting him in the invidious position that he has to be subjected to a means test. I do not think that is right. Everyone who is entitled to it should get a cost of living allowance. The cost of living allowance should be added to all pensions, and I would like to put it to the Minister that I feel that by bringing in this means test he is encouraging civil servants not to save, because afterwards they will have the means test applied to them.

I don’t want to delay the passing of this vote because the Minister told us yesterday that he is in a bit of a hurry, but I must say that if this House can spend four days on a discussion on Mr. De Valera’s interests then surely we can spend a few hours more on the interests of our own people, and the Minister should therefore realise that we want these people’s interests discussed a little more fully than has been the case so far. In the first place I want to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to pensions when an individual qualifies for an old age pension, but at the same time also qualifies for a special grant under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. It seems to me that no definite line or policy has ever been laid down in regard to the procedure when an individual can be considered for both the special grant and an old age pension. I should like to know whether such an individual would get the old age pension or whether he would get the special grant under the Miners’ Phthisis Act? I want to suggest that a definite procedure be laid down; and secondly, I want to suggest that that individual should come under the Miners’ Phthisis Allowance because I feel that the Miners’ Phthisis Fund gets off lightly, and here we have a way by which the Exchequer can save a few hundred pounds and take the money out of the Miners’ Phthisis Fund. I wonder whether the Minister has even given this matter his attention, and I should like him to tell the Committee what the position is, when such a person qualifies for both? Who is responsible then? Or is there an understanding that both the State and the Phthisis Fund are to pay a certain proportion? I further want to know what the position is of old soldiers who have fought in this war and who have been discharged on account of medical unfitness, people who now fall under category E, and who are unfit for the army; I want to know whether such an old soldier is entitled to the specific gratuity or to the invalidity grant, or is he entitled to an old age pension if he is old enough to come within the scope of that pension?

He can apply for all of them.

I know that, but is not there an understanding that he has to come under one of those categories? Is there any overlapping?

It depends on the circumstances.

But the circumstances are not clear. It seems to me that there is overlapping which sometimes may delay the whole of the procedure before a man can get some benefit. Sometimes it takes a long time. Then I also notice that the Minister is making provision here for an amount for artificial limbs. The reason why I am asking this question is because there are people who have to use artificial limbs to enable them to get along, but their wages are often so small that they are not in a position to buy those artificial limbs. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether there is any way by which such private individuals who don’t earn enough to pay for artificial limbs can be assisted?

That does not fall under this vote but under Social Welfare.

Can they make application?

Yes.

There is one other point which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the question of the Military Appeal Board. The Minister may perhaps say that is an old story of mine, but we find that many of the old soldiers who have their cases reviewed either once a year or once every two years, and who ask for an increase of pension, do not get the necessary sympathy from the Military Pensions Board. The result is that one comes across people who are in receipt of a small military pension and no employer is prepared to give them work. The employers say that so far as they are concerned these men are a hundred per cent. unfit. Yet one finds that the Military Appeal Board ranks their unfitness at such a low level that these people only get a very small pension, too little to live on. On the other hand, they are not able to earn anything extra because the employers say that their health is too bad and that they are not worth anything to them. Let us admit that there are some employers who are willing to employ such people, but at the same time they say, “the man is really no use to me,” yet the Appeal Board has rated their invalidity very low.

I don’t want to speak on behalf of this side of the House but in the interest of the people. I want to thank the Minister most sincerely for thinking of the aged people who have reached the last years of their lives. It is pleasing to us as representatives of the people to know that the Minister does think of these men. The Minister has already explained several points but there is just one question I want to mention, and that is the question of the Oudstryders dating back to before the 1899 War. There are Oudstryders who fought in the old kaffir wars. They have rendered service to their country but so far as I can see they don’t come under this.

Yes, they come under this.

Then I am satisfied; I thought they did not get pensions.

There are one or two points which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice because I should like to have some information on them. Under sub-head (K) provision is made for hospital and medical services, for volunteers and ex-soldiers. Then, under (3), under that same heading, there is an item “Maintenance in Civilian Hospital,” £25,000. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether Oudstryders are also entitled to treatment under that heading. That is to say, if they go to an ordinary civilian hospital are they entitled to get treatment in the same way as ordinary ex-soldiers in hospitals—I take it if they do get such treatment the hospital is compensated by the State under this vote? Then under (4) provision is made for fees for specialists and district surgeons. Here I again want to ask whether Oudstryders who go to hospital, as often happens, and the services of a specialist are found to be necessary, are entitled under this heading to ask for the services of specialists? Under head (6) an amount is voted for funeral expenses. This is of special importance. That amount is increased from £200 to £600. I want to ask the Minister whether Oudstryders who die—and many of them have reached the age when they are likely to die—will then be entitled to a funeral? I should also like to know how these arrangements can be made. Has the magistrate authority to make arrangements for such a funeral? We know that the poor in most cases contribute 2s. 6d. or 1s. per month towards the fund for funeral expenses. I think it is no more than fair that the State should see to it that the Oudstryders have a decent funeral, especially those who are pensioners. I think it should be made known that they are not expected, out of the small pensions they are paid, to pay for their funeral expenses, but that the State will make all arrangements for their funeral. And then it should not be a funeral left to charity, but a proper funeral. There are a few other points which the Minister has already dealt with at length but they are so important that I want to say something about them. In regard to the means test I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to give the Commissioner for Pensions greater discretion. We have the utmost confidence in him. I have always found him most considerate when he is given discretion to act. I just want to mention one instance to show how badly the means test acts. There is a man at Pietersburg who is getting an old age pension, but his wife is not getting it yet. There are three children in the home who have to be cared for. Now, that man cannot possibly come out on that pension. He went to work for the municipality—he worked in the streets —pick and shovel work—but immediately he got that work his old age pension was reduced to 10s. per month. How can that man come out? He dare not sit at home because if he does his wife and family will starve. He has to work, but as soon as he works they reduce his pension. Surely that was never intended. We feel that in a case of that sort the Commissioner should be allowed to use his discretion. I also find that it is wrong to differentiate between the individual who does manual labour, who himself goes out to make a living, and the man who has some means of his own, who has a property from which he draws rent or something of that kind. Perhaps it may not be reasonable in such an instance to pay him the full old age pension, but if a man is compelled to do manual labour to look after his family, the Commissioner should have the right to discriminate. Then in regard to the question of the method of paying the pensions, we realise the difficulty. There is a shortage of staff but it means a great sacrifice to these people who have to stand in queues in the post offices in towns and dorps. In the rural districts, however, the sacrifice is even greater, because people sometimes have to travel as much as sixty miles to get their pension. Would it not be possible where people live far away from town, to give them a cheque so that they will not have to travel 60 miles—often when it does not suit them to go and get their pensions? In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) I hope the Minister will tell us clearly whether the Government has not reached finality in regard to the position of the Oudstryders. We know that meetings are still being held and expenses are still being incurred by people in the hope that Oudstryder pensions will be increased. If the Minister has definitely decided not to go any further he should say so. Let the Minister tell us that the Government has now decided not to go any further, or otherwise let him tell us that the Government still proposes doing something.

I just want to reply to the new points which were raised today. Hon. members will pardon me if I do not reply again to all the points which have already been dealt with. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) too, asked me if I had made any definite promise to the Bond of Oudstryders in regard to an increase of pension. No, all I promised them was that we would further consider the matter in the light of what would be decided under the Social Security Scheme in respect of old age pensions. That is all I undertook and that still stands. We naturally cannot make any change in Oudstryder pensions without legislation. I cannot go into that question therefore but I do not think it will be right to look upon this matter as having been finally disposed of. The question of old age pensions will be further considered in connection with social security, and so will the question of Oudstryder pensions. Beyond that I cannot go at the moment. Several hon. members again referred to the means test today and to questions relating to the means test. We are acting in accordance with the law today and we cannot depart from that without amending the law. Hon. members are therefore practically pleading for an amendment of the law. There, again this question is part of the general question of social security. The social security committee which sat last year decided that the means test was still to apply but that it should be amended in certain respects. The whole question is now being dealt with by a Select Committee of this House and the Government will further consider the matter in the light of the Select Committee’s Report, but in the meantime I am afraid I am unable to give any assurance on the subject, and I cannot introduce any change in principle. We are not prepared to make any change this year by legislation, except such as I have already announced in my Budget speech. The matter will, of course, at a later stage be further considered. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) raised the position of people drawing a Miners’ Phthisis allowance and who qualified for that allowance as well as for an old age pension. In the first place I want to say that the Miners’

Phthisis allowance is part of their income and under the law as it exists today it has to be taken into account when an old age pension is granted. But the Miners’ Phthisis allowance remains.

Assuming a person gets an old age pension and only qualifies for a Miners’ Phthisis allowance after that?

If he qualifies for a Miners’ phthisis allowance at that stage the old age pension, in terms of the Act, will have to be reviewed.

But they refuse to give a Miners’ Phthisis allowance as long as the man is getting an old age pension.

I do not think the old age pension can effect any change in the Miners’ Phthisis allowance, but the reverse can happen. When granting a man an old age pension we have to take into account the income such a man gets from other sources.

You do not quite follow what I have in mind. Assuming a man gets £3 per month by way of old age pension and he then qualifies for the special Miners’ Phthisis allowance. They then say: “You are getting an old age pension so we cannot give you this allowance.” In other words, the man does not get his Miners’ Phthisis allowance.

I think the hon. member should raise that with the Minister of Mines and not with me. I feel that the Miners’ Phthisis Allowance should not be reduced, but if it does happen, then I am not responsible for it. In regard to the artificial limbs, as I have already said, provision is made by the Department of Social Welfare for those people who are not soldiers. In regard to Appeal Boards that is a matter which I am considering, that is to say the composition of Appeal Boards, and it is a matter which is being considered in connection with the discussions with the Empire Service League to which I have already referred. The hon. member for Pietersburg asked me a question under “K,” Subsistence in Civilian Hospitals. This provision is made in terms of the law. It is a provision in respect of military pensioners and it does not refer to Oudstryders. Under the law therefore we have not the power to make provision for Oudstryders. Under this vote provision is made for those who, as a result of war wounds, have to have hospital treatment, or for those who die. What the hon. member has been asking would require an amendment of the Act.

If a man suffers from wounds sustained in the 1899 to 1902 war, will he come under that then?

Yes, if he is a war pensioner.

I just want to associate myself with the pleas put forward in regard to repayments, and in that connection I want to mention one specific case, the case of a man who lives here in Cape Town. He gets a civil pension of £58 per year and a war pension of £25, totalling £83. Under the ordinary means test that man therefore, while his wife was still alive, got an old age pension, but immediately she died his old age pension was withdrawn. That man has to pay £4 rent for a room here in Cape Town. Since his wife’s death he gets a little over £7 per month. After deducting the rent he has £3 left to live on here in Cape Town, and nothing more. How does the Minister expect him to live on that? The balance of his old age pension has been withdrawn because his wife died. My information in this specific case is that immediately after the woman’s death this man informed the authorities, but in spite of that he continued to get the old age pension until some months later, when it was withdrawn. Now he is in this position, that a little more than £5 has been paid out to him, and he has now been called upon to repay it although he immediately notified the authorities of his wife’s death. People who are living under those conditions find it very hard if they are called upon to make refunds.

I shall be glad if you will give me the details of that case.

Yes, it makes no difference whether you tell him that he can repay 5s. or 10s. per month. This situation has been created, by circumstances over which the man has no control. His income is smaller than it was before, and on top of that he has to make refunds. I do feel that in such cases the Minister should consider the question of not insisting on refunds or at any rate lay it down that after a period of one or two months a refund will only be demanded if the individual concerned is himself responsible for notice not having been given of a change in his conditions. Then there is another matter which I again want to bring to the Minister’s notice. I raised this question yesterday—I am referring to the position of the Oudstryders who, now that they are on the lower basis scale, get less than old age pensioners in the same circumstances. Let me put the position this way. A man who gets his pension as an Oudstryder is now getting less than he would have got if he had not converted his old age pension into an Oudstryder pension. These people are coming along now and asking for the old conditions to be reverted to so that they may get £24 instead of £20— now they want their Oudstryder pension to be converted into an old age pension. £4 per year means a lot to those people. The Minister said yesterday that he would consider the position but I should like to have a clear statement from him. Are these people now to make application to convert their Oudstryder pension into an old age pension? I hope the Minister will make provision so that the Oudstryders will not get less under these new conditions. I hope the Minister will give this question his attention. Now there is another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. I want to draw his attention to the position of two people, one of whom dies. The position of the one who is left behind as a pensioner becomes much worse then. This applies to old age pensioners and also to Oudstryders. As soon as the one dies the other is left in an unfavourable position because the means test which used to apply to both now only applies to one. In addition to all his sorrow the remaining party now also has all these other difficulties to contend with. Then there is another anomaly which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. Take the position of a man, say a police officer, who has contributed to the pension fund for a long period of time. He suddenly dies. The moment he dies the widow who is left behind does not get a penny from the Pension Fund. That man has made his contributions, but the pension stops. The pension lapses at his death. Nothing further is done, no matter how much he may have contributed, and the dependants are left behind under great difficulties. I am speaking subject to correction, but this seems to be the anomaly: Take a constable who joined the Police Force before 1913. That man, under the conditions under which he joined, did not have to contribute to the Pension Fund, but when he leaves the Service he gets a pension of £17. A constable, however, who joined after 1913 does contribute to the Pension Fund but although he contributes he only gets £9 per month when he leaves the Service, plus a globular amount. I don’t know what the round figure is which he gets but I just want to ask whether that is the position, and whether that anomaly still exists?

I don’t know what the position is.

I think the question should be looked into because it seems to be very anomalous to me.

Will the hon. member please put his question on the Order Paper.

After the reply given by the Minister I don’t want to detain the House very long. There is one point which has already been touched upon, and that is the concession which the Minister made to the Oudstryders last year, viz.: to give them one third more than he gave old age pensioners. As the scale has been equalised again this year it does not seem to be fair. Last year the Oudstryders accepted this as a recognition of their services over the services rendered by others. It does seem unfair that they should all now again be placed on an equal basis. I want to urge the Minister to review the position. Let him recognise the extra services which these people have rendered. I also want to associate myself with something said by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). One comes across many cases of that kind. For instance, I have in mind the case of an old man drawing an Oudstryder pension. That man takes a job on the Railways as an ordinary white labourer simply because he still has the spirit to want to do something for himself. But immediately he earns this little bit of money on the Railway his pension is taken way. That, I think, is unfair. That man is still prepared to do something for himself, but as soon as he does he is penalised and his pension is reduced. Surely we should not punish a man like that simply because he wants to augment his small income by doing some hard work. Then the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) also raised a matter to which I want to refer. We have numerous cases of that kind, cases of old people who are earning a little extra, a little more than the standard laid down by the law, and as soon as the authorities get to know about this these people get a demand for a refund. Those people do not know what the position is. I have personally had experience of cases of that kind in my district. There is an old chap who is serving with the Essential Services Battalion. After a while he suddenly had a heavy bill presented to him by the Pensions Department. The position today is that he is worse off than he was before simply because he was willing to serve his country. He was worse off than he would have been if he had simply stayed at home. It is not a matter of dishonesty, but the man did not know what the law provided and today to all intents and purposes he is being punished for his willingness to serve his country.

I think the debate on this vote has proved conclusively to the Minister and the Government that the members of this House and certainly the people outside of this House are not anxious to forego any obligations which they feel they have in regard to making the lives of the old people of this country happier. For the last ten years I have been attempting to persuade the Minister of Finance that this obligation to our old people is something which everyone is prepared to share, and I am sure the Minister will have no difficulty whatever, even today in war time, if he tried to place our old people in a financial position which would at least help to keep them alive. We have seen the Government’s plans in regard to social security. All countries have been talking about social security for the last few years. What greater opportunity could there be for the Minister to give the country the first instalment of social security by giving these people pensions of £8 per month—he could do so by a stroke of the pen without imposing any undue burdens on the community as a whole. Every member of this House, every person outside this House, wants the Government to do something in this respect, and yet every session we have to plead with the Government to get a few shillings extra. The time is overdue, and we should realise that we must take care of our old people.

May I remind the hon. member that he is now asking for legislation.

Yes, that is quite true; I think we have been pleading it for a number of years.

That being so, the hon. member cannot continue along that course.

No, Sir, I have no intention of doing so either. But may I draw attention to the fact that a new Appropriation Bill dealing with this matter will be introduced.

If that is so the hon. member will then have an opportunity of discussing this matter.

Meanwhile you had better withdraw everything you have said.

I am sure that you will allow me to suggest to the Minister that an opportunity will present itself in the near future through that Bill to give effect to the demand of the House and to the wishes of the people outside. But I do not intend to continue in that strain; I think I am entitled, however, to suggest to the Minister that as we have had a cost of living allowance given to these people not under an Act of this House ….

Oh, yes, the law also provides for that. That is done under the present law.

I want to suggest that the law can also provide for something else.

I am afraid the hon. member is now deliberately evading my ruling.

I have no inclination to do that. I am only coming to my point to suggest to the Minister that when new legislation is framed he will deal with this question of old age pensions on the proper lines. Now I think the Minister will agree with me that the cost of living allowance which has been added to the old age pensions is totally inadequate. In spite of this cost of living allowance being added to these pensions— the amount these people get today does not even cover the cost of the rooms which the majority of them have to occupy. In spite of the Rents Act the actual living accommodation of these old age pensioners in ninety nine cases out of a hundred has increased to such an extent that a cost of living allowance does not help them, and then I make bold to say that the pension which these old people will be receiving in September will not be anything as valuable to them as the pensions they received pre-war. That being so, I suggest that the Minister should take into consideration the whole position in regard to these old age pensioners and these other people who have a very definite claim on the Government. I feel sure that the Minister will pay some heed to the suggestions made to him in this connection, and that it will not be necessary year after year, as we have been doing, to endeavour to extract something more for the people who should be provided for. Now, as the Pensions Department is so grossly overworked I want to suggest that it will be necessary to divide that department into two departments. The one to deal with old age pensions and the other with military pensions. We should have two separate departments, each with a complete staff, and that will make it possible to expedite all matters affecting these pensions, the military pensions in particular. We realise that there are considerable staff troubles. The Pensions Department are doing all they can do to give effect to the obligations placed upon them, but there is a considerable delay which they are not responsible for, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that these departments will be strengthened and will be able to deal with the whole question of pensions much more adequately than they have been able to do so far. May I also support the plea of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and of others in connection with pensions, particularly those old people who are in receipt of small pensions today, but who are not allowed also to obtain old age pensions. Now, we know for a fact that the cost of living in the country has risen far above the statistics of the Government. No one will deny that in many cases the cost of living has risen at least 50 per cent. There are many people, hundreds of them, who are in receipt of very small pensions owing to their having had to commute portion of their pensions as a result of illness. In many cases they are only drawing half of their pensions owing to their having had to commute the balance. [Time limit.]

I have tried to understand what the last speaker said. I really could not.

You are not the only one.

The hon. member missed every point he tried to make. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a few cases in my own constituency which are causing trouble. There is one case of an old man who drew a pension for a number of years. He was getting £3 per month; he could not keep a family on that so he accepted a job at £7 per month. Unfortunately he did not give notice to the authorities that he had done so and a few months later he received an account for £36 which he had to refund. It came very hard on that man, and it came as a great shock to him to think that he would have to repay £36. I hope the Minister will go into cases of that kind with the object of preventing them in future. Then I also have the case of an old lady. Her husband was killed in the Second War of Independence. He left her an erf but she only had the usufruct of that during her lifetime. She brought up her children and now she gets an old age pension of £2 10s. per month. The other day she asked for an increase but instead of getting an increase she was notified that the whole amount of £2 was to be withdrawn, Hon. members can imagine the shock that lady got. She was told that her sons could support her.

I am going to amend the law in that respect.

I am glad to hear it. I approached the one son and he told me he was not giving his mother anything. She has to pay rates on her erf and it is impossible for her to carry on. I am glad the Minister is going to amend the law and I hope he will show some consideration in cases of that kind.

I also want to make a plea on behalf of the Oudstryders. The Minister has told us now that he will consider the matter when Social Security comes into operation. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that these people are steadily vanishing. This question has been discussed for many years and we have been told repeatedly that promises have been made to these men, promises which have not been carried out. I don’t want to raise that aspect again. I have discussed that question in the past and I have not been able to obtain what I asked for. But those Oudstryders, when they were given one third more than what the old age pensioners were getting felt that at any rate they were being given a small recognition for the services they had rendered. Those services rendered by them were great services which we must not under-estimate. They fought in those years but they did not fight for money, although their government did make them certain promises. They did not fight for money but they fought for the freedom of their country and their people. We are enjoying that freedom today. The freedom which we enjoy today we owe to a large extent to the great fight put up by those men. We as a nation—I am not talking in a party spirit now—I think I can speak on behalf of the whole of the people of South Africa—feel that those men and those women who stood for a great cause in those days, have rendered a great service to South Africa because they made history which all the sections of the population of this country are proud of today. Promises were made to them but those promises were not carried out. The present Minister of Finance at any rate has done something to recognise their services, but that recognition is now going by the board. I am not opposed to those other pensions being increased but I do want to urge the Minister to make a difference between the Oudstryders and the other pensioners in recognition of their services.

We do not wish to delay the passing of this vote but one feels it necessary to emphasise the plea of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) with regard to the payment of pensions to dependants of men, soldiers who are killed while serving in the Union, or who die from accident or other causes while on service in South Africa. According to my information these amount to several hundreds, and although we now pay out if the soldier is actually killed on duty, yet according to the present interpretation scarcely one in a hundred will fall under this head. Now this is a matter of interpreting a regulation and I want to suggest this to the Minister, that in time of war a soldier is definitely on duty twenty four hours per day. His orders are explicit: it does not matter where he is or what he is doing, he is under command for twenty four hours in every day, and it does seem odd and illogical to me that the soldier shall continually have duties towards us, but we, at certain periods, when he is supposed to be on pass or leave, are released from responsibility towards him. Now there are two other sections of soldiers who are in a peculiar position, and one in which they might reasonably be considered entitled to all available privileges. Take the case of men who have risked their lives and have done magnificent service already in the North, and have been brought back to the Union for our own purposes. It seems to me that they should have a very special standing in this regard. Surely they do not fall under the heading of soldiers for Union service only? They have been North and we are indebted to them for what they have done, and there should be a generous interpretation of the return due to them. The other man I want to plead for is the fit man who has been eating his heart out in the Union—he has been on the batteries here for instance, and has been thwarted in his desire to go North. He is killed during his term of service. His wife, normally, will be young, and there will perhaps be children also dependent on him. The problem of the widow remains exactly the same wherever the man is killed. I am sure the Minister will make some allowance for a case of that kind. I was very thankful to hear from him that the reconstitution of the Military Appeal Board has been decided upon. In this connection I have just one request to make, and that is that this time some means shall be found to give direct representation to the soldier on this Board. There is great pressure throughout the country to that end. In this instance an enormous number of men are concerned, over 200,000 and if there is discontent among so many as there has been up to now, I submit it will be a very serious matter indeed from the State’s own point of view. Surely they can be given this representation. That will satisfy them, I think, and nothing else can. Before I sit down there is one other possibly overlooked group of people, not entirely overlooked, but to whose needs I think insufficient attention has been given. I refer to the parents of fighters who have been killed. I am not thinking of the £13 per year solatium, I am thinking of the result of the shock of this intelligence on many parents. I know of the case of a man, a very skilled and very valuable man in this country, to whom the loss of his son was so tremendously catastrophic that his health gave way, and his career is finished. On top of that his wife became very ill, and large sums had to be provided for nursing and medical fees. Well, these people’s lives are ended. Their savings are spent; all their plans ruined. I do not suggest that they could adequately be pensioned, but one has the hope that the capital loss, the expenses brought upon them through this terrible blow, might be taken into consideration by the Minister, and one would like some sort of a gesture made towards them —perhaps a travel holiday arranged for them, so that they might win back their health of body and peace of mind. There are many desolate homes; there are many elderly people, many who served in the ast war, who have now taken a blow from which they do not know how to recover. If the Minister with his great and quick intelligence, which we all respect, could study that aspect of the matter I would be grateful. Then, finally, I want to say a word on behalf of the merchant seamen of South Africa. Our soldiers, our Navy and our air fighters, have established and maintained a magnificent tradition. But there is no nobler courage, no greater devotion to duty, than that shown by the mercantile marine who have nursed their ships, their slow, heavy, unarmed ships, from port to port. There is a saying that sailors don’t care. That may be, but we do. The heart of the nation is stirred by the heroism of these seafarers. Could not the Minister find a way to bring under pension rights and gratuities every man who has risked his life under the Red Ensign?

I hope we are coming to the end of this vote. I only want to say a word about the two points which the hon. member for Durban (North) (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) has raised. The question of the position of merchant seamen is still under consideration by a Committee of the Government, and that is therefore being gone into. I cannot say more than that. As far as soldiers dying in the Union are concerned, I shall bear in mind what the hon. member has said in dealing with this matter from a legislative point of view, and in so far as his point cannot be met, it will be better to deal with that when I am introducing the legislation.

In regard to the question of a cost of living allowance being granted to pensioners I want to say. That we have recognised the principle of paying a cost of living allowance. It is costing the country several millions. We are also paying cost of living allowances on pensions. In the past we paid these allowances on pensions up to £180 per year; and I understand that from the 1st April we are paying them on pensions up to £200 per year. But now that we have acknowledged the principle of a cost of living allowance on pensions I want to urge that that principle should be recognised throughout. If we recognise the principle in certain instances we should recognise it throughout. If a man in receipt of a pension of £180 gets a cost of living allowance on his pension then surely a man getting a pension of £181 should also get a cost of living allowance. And so we can go on. The question is one of principle. If we recognise the fact that the purchasing power of pensions is not what it used to be in the past and that being so a cost of living allowance should be paid, then the same principle should apply to all pensions, even if they amount to £250 per year. The purchasing value of a pension today is not what it was when that pension was granted, and if we want to supplement it by a cost of living allowance we should be consistent. We should consider every individual’s position and give every pensioner such a cost of living allowance. I want to ask the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration. I have another instance before me of an Oudstryder who was given a pension. He was a Railway official and as a Railway official he left the service at the age of 60. His Railway pension was a very trivial amount When he heard about the Oudstryder pension he made application for it and the Pensions Department granted him a ridiculously small amount. That amount was supposed to represent the difference between what he was getting as an ex-official and the maximum to which he was entitled. This amount was paid to him for some time; then one day they discovered that he was not entitled to it, so they wrote telling him that a mistake had been made and asking him to refund the amount he had received. He put up a plea and wrote saying that he did not have the money, and he made all sorts of excuses. But the last letter he received is dated 15th March and in that letter he is told he has to refund the amount.

Will the hon. member bring this matter to my personal notice?

I shall be pleased to do so. Another question is the method of paying out. Hon. members have said a lot about that but I want to express a few ideas in connection with that question, and I also want to make a few suggestions.

I am afraid the hon. member is now going to repeat what has already been said.

I want to put forward some new ideas on the point. The present system of paying out is not only difficult for the man who has to draw the pension but it dislocates the post office business and it also dislocates business in these small towns. In these small places these people have to stand in queues and they have to spend the whole day there.

That argument has been repeated here ad nauseam.

Not this particular point. This sort of thing dislocates the business of the post office and it dislocates business in the dorps, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention. I want him to change the dates and vary them so that not all these people have to draw their pensions on the same day. I am sure you will allow me to mention this last point, Mr. Chairman. I want to say a few words about the Oud stryders and I am not going to be long on that point. I only want to ask the Minister not to use the Social Security Committee for the purpose of keeping the Oudstryders on a string. We recognised the principle of awarding these people, who have rendered unprecedented and excellent services, something more than the ordinary old age pensioners, but hardly had the Oudstryders got this money before this consideration was withdrawn. I know that that has been said before, but what has not yet been said is that this matter has been referred to the Social Security Committee. By the time that Committee presents its report many of these men may have passed from the scene. They are rapidly disappearing even now. They are old and they are dying off fast. Most of them are in the last years of their lives and this House is being sent from Pontius to Pilate—from the one side to the other— although members on all sides of the House are at one on this question. Cannot we even at this last moment save our honour and give those few men who are left a pension worthy of his country? I believe that the Minister is sympathetically disposed, but I hope he will convert his sympathy into action. He will get more support than he perhaps thinks. We hope this matter may at last be brought to finality.

I am afraid that the words used by the hon. member over there, that we are withdrawing our consideration from the Oudstryders, may create a wrong impression.

Don’t let us argue about that.

I know the hon. member does not intend to convey that impression, but it is an expression which may perhaps cause a misunderstanding. I also hope in regard to the Oudstryder pensions that all these shortcomings, such as for instance the means test, the fact that the widows do not get a pension, and all the rest of it, will be taken into consideration by the Minister and that he will do something. The Oudstryders expected us to do something for them, and the Minister was well disposed towards them and met their requests to a certain extent. None the less I feel that we would be doing justice to these men if we were to give them a little more than the ordinary old age pension. I also want to put up a plea for another class of person. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) spoke about Burghers who fought in the Boer War. He said they all fought for their country, their people and their freedom. I agree with him. I also consider that all those who fought in the last world war fought for their country and their nation, and I consider that even those people who fought in the last war, and who did not belong to this country’s army, did so, and as we are now making arrangements for any individual who is a citizen of this coun try and who has fought in other armies of the allied forces, I consider that the citizens of this country who in the last war fought for the same object in that sense also fought for this country and for the people of this country, even if they fought in the armies of one of our allies. Wherever citizens of this country have fought they get a pension today, and I think that people who have fought here should also get a pension from our Government.

Don’t they get it overseas?

They do not get an Imperial pension.

The hon. member is quite out of order now.

I am not going to detain the House very long; I only want to raise one point which has not yet been raised. I asked the Minister whether police officials who were on pension were getting a cost of living allowance. The Minister gave me a reply which I am perhaps too stupid to understand, or perhaps he gave me too clever a reply, but I have been unable to ascertain from his reply whether these people get an allowance or not.

Some of them do.

I have not come across any of those who get it yet, but what about the others? All the Public Servants are today getting a cost of living allowance.

I have dealt with that, it is not a new point.

I just want to ask a question in regard to the widows of Outstryders. People in my constituency have asked me to find out exactly what the Government’s policy is in regard to these people.

They are considered for old age pensions, but apart from that there is no provision made for them in the law; it would require special legislation.

So it means that if they are below the age they get nothing?

No; in that case the law does not make any pro vision for them.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administrations”, £7,386,100,

In regard to this vote, I first of all want to ask the Minister of Finance to inform this House today what actually is the Government’s policy with respect to the provincial councils, because in a speech at Grahamstown the Minister intimated that the disappearance of the provincial council’s was not an improbability, and that it might possibly happen. I think the House is entitled to know whether the Government has such a policy, and if not, why the Minister used such an expression? I want to give him an opportunity of replying before I discuss the matter any further. Then I want to move an amendment—

An unusual and untenable position has arisen in the Free State as a result of the attitude adopted by the Administrator of the Free State. The position is that rightly or wrongly two-thirds of the population of the Free State —at least two-thirds—refuse to have anything to do with the Administrator; they have lost all confidence in him and they are even boycotting him. They have even decided in those places in the Free State, where that feeling prevails, that they don’t want him there; they are not going to invite him to any functions, and if he does attend any functions they are not going to attend. In the Provincial Council twenty-one out of the twenty-five members have passed a motion of no confidence in the Administrator, and the four members who were not in favour of that motion of no confidence did not even have the courage to ask for a division, so they allowed the motion to pass without a division. In addition to that we have the fact that the four elected members of the Executive Committee have no confidence whatsoever in the Administrator and they have openly stated that further co-operation is impossible. This is not a question of party politics, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Administrator is a supporter of the Government. We have in the past had Administrators who were usually called Saps: People like Sir Cornelis Wessels, Mr. E. R. Grobler, Dr. Van Rensburg, all good Saps.

Are you joking now?

They were followers of the S.A.P. or the United Party. That Party’s Governments so far have always appointed their own followers as Administrators. The old Nationalist Party did not do so; it did not only appoint its own followers. The present Minister of Finance was Administrator of the Transvaal and he was re-appointed to his post by the Nationalist Party Government of those days.

No; I only served out my time—only five years.

In any case, the Nationalist Party appointed Mr. Gordon Watson as Administrator of Natal; he was Englishspeaking and he was not a follower of the old Nationlist Party. They adopted the attitude of appointing someone who would represent the majority of the population among whom he had to work. I don’t want to argue whether that was right or wrong, I am only giving the facts. I am not quarrelling at the moment with the position that the present Government appoints its own people, but I do find fault with this, that a man is appointed who goes out of his way to make impossible co-operation with the Executive Committee in the Free State and with the great majority of the population. They got on very well with previous Administrators, even with those who were not Nationalists. But we have never had an Administrator who has created so much dissatisfaction, and in whom the public have had so little confidence, and who has caused as many conflicts and disagreements, as the present Administrator. I am sorry having to raise this question here but I am compelled to do so as a result of the position prevailing in the Free State. Let me tell hon. members what the cause is. The present Administrator of the Free State, Professor Barnard, is taking up an attitude such as no Administrator has ever taken up before—he has taken up an attitude which leads to his continuously coming into conflict with his Executive Committee and with the Provincial Council. Why? Because he definitely refuses to submit to the decisions of the majority of the Executive Committee if they do not agree with his views. We have had Administrators in the past as well who have differed politically from the members of the Executive Committee; we have had men like Mr. E. R. Grobler and Sir Cornells Wessels. They used to explain their point of view, but if the Executive Committee passed a resolution they would stand by the majority resolution of the Executive Committee. The present Administrator does not do so. He gets on to the train and runs to Pretoria; he runs to his master, the Minister of Justice, and he goes to the Public Service Commission to get all sorts of things done there, and the Public Service Commission upsets the resolutions of the Executive Committee. No other Administrator has ever done that. The Executive Committee feels that if it takes a resolution it should be carried out. The questions involved are not only questions of great principle, they are also questions of an administrative character. Last year I raised the question of the appointment of inspectors in this House. It is not a question of principle, it is merely an administrative question. The majority of the Executive Committee had decided to appoint certain inspectors but the Administrator went to the Public Service Commission to upset that resolution. No previous Administrator ever did that. Professor Barnard is responsible for all these difficulties. He goes behind the back of the Executive Committee, he goes to the Government in Pretoria and he goes to Government bodies, to get resolutions of the Executive Committee upset. We have the incident of the internal arrangements in regard to the Tweespruit School which falls under the Provincial Council. In conflict with the decision of the Executive Committee the Administrator instituted a separte investigation. That sort of thing would not happen in any other Province. I ask hon. members opposite if the Nationalist Party Government has ever done a thing like that, whether if it had appointed a Nationlist Administrator in Natal and that Administrator had come in conflict with the majority of the Executive Committee, and he had ignored and undermined the Executive Committee, whether they would have been satisfied with it? I think they would have been manly enough to have come here and object.

He is a strong man.

This Administrator time and again clashes with his Executive Committee and with the Provincial Council. The Provincial Council last year felt itself compelled to do something which as far as I know has never before happened in any provincial council since Union, viz: to pass a vote of no confidence in the Administrator.

It has often happened.

I shall have something more to say about that later on.

Here they passed a vote of no confidence in the Administrator by 24 votes to 4.

That was only a scheme to get rid of him.

Two-thirds of the population of the Free State and more, according to the election results, support the Nationalist Party and they are opposed to the Administrator because the Administrator is not prepared to abide by the will of the people. If the Government wants to appoint another member of their own party we shall have no objection. It happens to be the Government’s policy not to appoint Nationalists, but in any case let the Government appoint a man who can co-operate more effectively with the people of the Free State. [Time limit.]

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I want to second the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). We are taking up that attitude in the interest of the Free State as a whole, in the interest of the people of the Free State. When an Administrator is appointed he is appointed as the chief executive officer of the Provincial Council and that is how Professor Barnard has been appointed. But from the very start he clashed with the Executive Committee and he consistently refused, if it suited him, to give effect to the resolutions passed by the executive Committee. He sat there not as the Administrator who had to take charge of the administration but as the lackey of the Government whose interests he had to serve. That he looked upon as his first duty. By way of comparison I just want to say this— as the hon. member for Winburg has also said—that in the past, in the Free State and in other provinces too, there have been administrators who have politically differed from the members of the Executive Committee, but in spite of that, right throughout the country’s history, the administrators have always been willing to co-operate with their executive committees. The present Administrator has consistently refused to do so. We had instances when the late Mr. Wilcox was Administrator of the Free State. Throughout he remained a supporter of the Nationalist Party, of the so-called Purified Nationalist Party. He never became a Coalitionist or a Fusionist. He adhered to his Nationalist attitude. He was administrator while three of his Executive Committee members were members of the United Party, yet there was never any clash between him and them. He did not take up an attitude which led to continuous difficulties. Although he had his opinion about national affairs he knew how to maintain the dignity of his post, and he knew how to maintain the principles which he was expected to maintain, namely, in the very first place to be the executive official of the Administration. Today we have this position, that Professor Barnard is not wanted in the Free State; he is not wanted by the Executive Committee, he is not wanted by the Provincial Council, and he is nothing but a lackey of the Government. I want to point out that not only in carrying out his official duties has he taken up that attitude, but also in other cases. From year to year the members of the Executive Committees of the provinces meet together in an advisory board to discuss matters affecting the common interest of the administration. This is an old institution and these meetings take place every year. Discussions take place there between the various departments. In that instance, too, the Administrator came into conflict with his Executive Committee and he was not prepared to co-operate with them in these discussions. The Inter-Provincial Advisory Board met in Cape Town recently. The first day all the Administrators and members of the Executive Committees met together to discuss the Agenda, but the Administrator of the Free State was conspicuous by his absence. All the others were there, and so were the four members of the Executive Committee of the Free State but Prof. Barnard was engaged on other matters. Heaven only knows what he was doing. He should have been there, it was part of his work. Afterwards, when the discussions took place during the subsequent days, the same thing happened. He came in for a few moments but was not present when important discussions were going on. Most important meetings were held to discuss administrative affairs for the current year, affairs affecting all the Administrations. The Administrator of the Free State was absent. He not only does not do his work in the Province, but even outside the Province he does not co-operate. He is all over the place and nobody knows where he is. The Administrator of the Free State has not the slightest sympathy with the Provincial Councils as an Institution. He is opposed to the system. As far back as 1929-’30 he stated in public that he was in favour of the abolition of the Provincial Councils. He did not say anything about the abolition of Administrators because that might not suit him in the days to come. He pleaded for the abolition of the Councils which, according to him, were nothing more or less than stepping stones to political positions. What is he doing today? He is abusing his position, perhaps as a stepping stone towards a seat in the Cabinet, while at the same time he accuses others of using the Provincial Council as a stepping stone. All he cares for is to curry favour with the Government, no matter what is wanted of him in the interests of the province which he is supposed to serve. Every citizen is entitled to his own political convictions, but why should he consistently clash with the Executive Committee which has to look after the interests of the province? Let me tell this House that a Congress held in the Free State, representing the great majority of the Free State population, some time ago decided simply to ignore him. No one can mention a public function last year where the Administrator of the Free State was invited to attend as the first citizen of the Province, or to carry out certain functions on behalf of the Province. He does not attend those functions because he has followed a course which has become untenable and which is in conflict with the objects for which he was appointed. The whole of the Free State Provincial Council is up against him.

Not all of them.

They passed a vote of no confidence in him. I do not know—perhaps it is a qualification which one has to have if one wants to becomes Minister of Finance, first of all to get a vote of no confidence. The Free State Provincial Council have a status, but the Administrator is undermining it. We are continually told in this House: “The public has elected us. We have a right to take action and to force certain things on the public.” But in the Free State the will of the majority of the public cannot be given expression to. That is the attitude of hon. members opposite—they are throwing it at us day after day—yet they are the very people who refuse to recognise the legitimate rights of the Free State Provincial Administration and of the Free State Provincial Council. [Time limit.]

I said this morinng that it was the policy of the old Nationalist Party Government not always to appoint its own followers as Administrator. I instanced the case of Mr. Gordon Watson and I also mentioned the case of Mr. Hofmeyr, the present Minister of Finance. The Minister thereupon replied that he was only in office for one term. That is so, but now I want to remind him of this. When the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924, he tendered his resignation to Gen. Hertzog, the then Prime Minister, but the then Government said: “No we are not prepared to accept your resignation.” He continued as Administrator despite the fact that he was not a supporter of the Government of the day. It was very fine on his part and one admired him for being prepared to resign but that is not the point. He intimated that he was prepared to resign and a Nationalist Prime Minister refused to accept his resignation. In other words, that confirms my contention that the Government kept him on as Administrator despite the fact that he did not support the Government Party. Now, I want to ask him this question. Did not the Government in 1929 again make him the offer to remain on as Administrator?

I understood that they were prepared to appoint me, but I was not made a specific offer.

My information is that it is so.

They even wanted to send me to London.

My information is that the offer was made but the Minister of Finance wanted to go into politics and so he did not accept the offer. That, however, goes to confirm the point I made. Anyhow, let that be. The fact remains that the Government in power in 1924 kept the Minister of Finance on as Administrator, and wanted to appoint him again in 1929, although he did not belong to the Government side. I wonder whether the present Prime Minister would ever appoint a Nationalist? I pointed out this morning that the Administrator of the Free State shows contempt for the resolutions of the Executive Committee, that he undermines that Executive Committee and tries to throw it over. Secondly, I want to point out that Prof. Barnard went out of his way to clash with the policy and the feelings of the great majority of the Free State. It is a well-known fact that he made public statements to the effect that the Provincial Council should be abolished. That may be his opinion but he has no right to make such a statement at a Conference on behalf of the Free State; he has no right to say that he is in favour of the Provincial Councils being abolished because in doing so he clashes with the opinions of the Free State. Recently he also did something which was entirely beyond his scope as Administrator. He was appointed as a member of a Council of the Free State University College, after a member who had served on that Council for thirty years had been kicked out. The Minister of Finance thereupon stepped in, and I don’t know at whose request he did so, but he appointed Prof. Barnard in that member’s place. At the first meeting of that Council he introduced a motion to apply the so-called principle of fifty-fifty in regard to the medium of instruction in this University College. There he came into conflict with the feelings of the Free State and there was such an outburst that the Minister of Finance asked him not to insist on his proposal. I have on previous occasions thanked the Minister of Finance for having assisted us in this matter; eventually Prof. Barnard’s motion was withdrawn at the request of the Minister of Finance. That is how serious the matter became. The Administrator interfered in a serious issue in the Free State and he made himself so unpopular in the Free State that we have this situation there today, that the public do not want to hear anything about him, nor do they want to see him.

Which public?

At least two-thirds of the public of the Free State. During the last session members of the Executive Committee of the Free State Provincial Council made serious charges of which we have to take notice. The Leader of the Council, Mr. Willem Pretorius said this—

schools will not be granted a provincial subsidy.

In other words, the Administrator comes into conflict here with the policy of the Executive Committee, and he threatens the Executive Committee that if they fail to accept a certain policy he will not approve of a subsidy to those schools. He therefore comes into direct conflict with the policy of the Executive Committee. I am not going into the question of whether it is right or wrong; the fact of the matter is that the great majority of the public of the Free State voted for it, and according to the Constitution the Free State is entitled to lay down its policy in regard to certain matters—it does not make any difference whether it is right or wrong. But here Prof. Barnard comes along and says that if the Free State does not do what he, Barnard, says, he will not approve of the subsidy. And then we find that Mr. Daan Schoeman used these very serious words—

Here we have a statement by a responsible member of the Executive Committee, made in the Provincial Council. Another member, Mr. F. I. Senekal, also a member of the Executive Commitee, said this—

On that occasion a motion was passed that the Provincial Council be adjourned on a matter of urgent public importance, the Council having requested the Prime Minister to remove the Administrator and to appoint someone else in his place, and the Prime Minister not even having replied to that request. The members of the Provincial Council felt so strongly about this matter that they moved the adjournment of the House, and this is what they said—

The Provincial Council feels very strongly on the matter, and things cannot continue in this way. I repeat this is not a question of the Provincial Council saying that the Government shall not appoint a man who supports its policy. But let the Government give the Province someone else who is careful, who is reasonable, and who wants to cooperate. The position which now prevails has become a farce. The Administrator invited the Provincial Council to a tea party, and 21 out of the 25 members, including the Chairman of the Council, refused to go. The Administrator is being boycotted by the Free State. He is not invited to function at the opening of schools, halls, etc. Hon. members may say that all this is wrong, but the fact remains that it is so, and I say that these people are fully entitled to do so in view of the fact that this person refuses to co-operate with the Provincial Council and with the Executive Commiteee, and in view of the fact that he deliberately does things to hurt the susceptibilities of the people in the Free State. He deliberately does things which are in conflict with the feelings of the great majority of the people of the Free State. [Time limit.]

I first of all want to reply to a question which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asked me at the beginning of his speech. He asked what was the Government’s policy towards the Provincial Councils and the continuation of the provincial system, and he referred to something I had said a few months ago. The Government’s policy is the same as it has always been. The policy is to continue that system. All I said in that speech which my hon. friend referred to was to indicate that there were certain tendencies which might perhaps result in a change in the present system.

Where do those tendencies prevail?

In the country, and the omens to which I referred were the establishment particularly of bodies representing certain parts of the country, especially here in the Cape Province. I then added this—I made my speech in English and I shall quote what I said in English—

In other words, I merely recorded what I had seen and what to my mind was a tendency which was beginning to take shape. I did not announce any policy and I did not state my own opinions about what was going on. Now I come to the question which my hon. friend addressed to me particularly.

Can you tell us what your opinion is?

The provincial system is part of the country’s Constitution and it will continue to be part of the country’s Constitution.

Do you want it changed?

I am not advocating a change of the system qua system. Then I come to the question which was raised in connection with the Administratorship of the Free State. My hon. friend has moved a reduction of the amount set down for his salary. May I in that connection refer to the provision of the Constitution in terms of which the salary of an Administrator cannot be reduced. I know that the hon. member can propose this—it has been done before today.

The proposal is to delete it entirely.

You cannot delete it without reducing it. The Constitution lays this down—

It cannot be done.

But you know what the object of this motion is.

Yes; I realise that the hon. member has moved this simply to start a debate, and I assume that similar motions were allowed in the past, although it would be difficult to know what would happen if such a motion should be accepted by the House, because it would be in conflict with the Constitution. The hon. member introduced this motion for the purpose of raising a discussion. The motion he has proposed, and the speech my hon. friend made, made me think back of my own history which the hon. member referred to, though not quite correctly. Twenty years ago I was also appointed Administrator of a province; I had also kept out of politics.

I was also appointed as an individual who until that time had occupied a purely academic position, just like Prof. Barnard. Like Prof. Barnard I found myself in a provincial council where the majority was opposed to the Government which had appointed me—I was in exactly the same position as that in which Prof. Barnard finds himself.

But you behaved better.

That may perhaps be so, but in spite of the fact that I behaved so well, that Provincial Council also passed a motion requesting that I be discharged. After having had experience of me as Administrator for a year that motion was passed. Now let us see what became of it. Eventually that very same majority which had asked for my resignation went to the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) to ask that I be re-appointed. I want to express the hope that the same thing will happen in Prof. Barnard’s case. This history also has another point.

What was the majority which passed that resolution?

It was passed by 29 votes to 16.

Yes, it was a large majority. In those days I was also in their bad books. In my case, too, a similar motion was proposed, but in my case it was not proposed to take the whole of my salary away. As far as I can remember it was only proposed to reduce the amount of my salary by £10.

They cannot have been so very much annoyed with you.

Probably not, but who defended me in those days? It was the Government of the day. Here we have history repeating itself because I have also got up to defend Prof. Barnard on behalf of the Government. In that connection the then member for Yeoville (the late Sir Patrick Duncan)—in those days he was not a member of the Government—set out the Constitutional position in regard to Administrators, and after that the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog)—my hon. friend in those days was a follower of Gen. Hertzog and I believe he was also a member of this House— associated himself with the hon. member for Yeoville in his defence of the whipping boy of the Transvaal.

That goes to prove my contention that the Nationalist Party did not just appoint people belonging to its own party.

Nothing of the kind. But the Government of those days, exactly like today’s Government, had a sound conception of what the Constitutional position of an Administrator is. It was that sound conception of the Constitutional position of the Administrator which was explained by the hon. member for Yeoville, and the Prime Minister of those days expressed his pleasure that the hon. member for Yeoville had spoken as he had done. Now, what is the Constitutional position in regard to the Administrator? In the first place the Administrator, as the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has said, is not appointed as the Chief Executive Official of the Provincial Council. He is the representative of the Union Government. That is exactly what Gen. Hertzog said at the time. The position of the Administrator is exactly as described by the then hon. member for Yeoville—he is a representative of the Union Government.

In the Free State he is the representative of the Minister of Justice.

No; don’t run away from the issue. The Administrator is a representative of the Government, and in certain respects he acts without the Executive Committee. He has special powers under the Constitution. First of all there is a clause in the Constitution, Clause 84, which is not very often applied, but the principle is laid down there under which the Administrator has to act on behalf of the Governor General-in-Council when he is requested by the Governor General to do so. That only refers to matters not directly entrusted to the Provincial Council. In those matters he acts without recognition of any other members of the Executive Committee. But apart from that, even in connection with ordinary provincial business, the Administrator has special powers outside the Executive Committee, and that particularly applies to financial matters. Clause 89 of the Act of Union makes it very clear that no Ordinance can be passed by the Provincial Council unless the Administrator in the first instance has recommended the financial provisions contemplated therein. In other words the Provincial Council cannot spend a single penny without the Administrator’s approval— not the approval of the Executive Committee but the approval of the Administrator.

That goes to prove how necessary it is to have co-operation.

Yes, that may be so, but it also goes to prove that the Administrator has not been appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Provincial Council but as the representative of the Union Government, and it is for that reason that he is given those powers to keep per sonal control over the expenditure of every penny of provincial finances. That is a great deal more than being Chairman of the Executive Committee. He has this further power.

Is it not the Administrator-in-Council ?

No; in this case it is the Administrator alone and not the Administrator-in-Council. Where taxation proposals are concerned it is the Administrator-in-Council. When it comes to expenditure, it is the Administrator who stands alone. The hon. member, of course, knows that I myself have occupied that position.

But there are many other functions except functions in connection with expenditure.

Of course, but the control over finance is very important. The Administrator has that control and I say again that the Administrator is appointed in the first instance as the representative of the Union Government.

Does that mean that he has only financial functions?

No, not only financial functions, but financial control is a very important function.

Are you not beating in the air now.

My hon. friend is cornered and now he tries to scuttle away. The second constitutional principle is that the Administrator under the Constitution is specially appointed for a fixed period of five years and the Constitution makes it very clear in Clause 86 that there is no question of his having to resign when there is a change of Government. It is perfectly true that I expressed my willingness to resign, but the then Prime Minister laid it down very clearly that there was no necessity for me, or any other Administrator, to resign when a change of government occurred. It is also perfectly clear that there can be no question of the Administrator having to resign because the Provincial Council asks for it. When that happened in my case the Government’s attitude was very clear. No, the Provincial Council has no right to say that the Administrator must resign. That is the second aspect of the Constitutional position. The third point is this, although the Administrator is a representative of the Union Government he is expected so to carry out his duties—and that was emphasised by Gen. Hertzog—that he will promote the interests of the province. And now we come to the question of cooperation. He must carry out his duties in such a manner as to promote the best interests of the province, but it is for him to decide what he regards as the best interests of the province. He is a member of the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee can pass resolutions, but so far as his own attitude is concerned it is for him to decide what is in the best interests of the province. So far as I know, the Government has never yet gone so far as to give any instruction to an Administrator. When I was Administrator of the Transvaal and there was a Government in power, which was not the Government which appointed me, that Government never gave me any instruction about provincial matters. It never said that I had acted incorrectly. The Government trusted me, and so the Government trusts Prof. Barnard today. The Government is therefore not going, to interfere in questions such as those raised by the hon. member for Winburg. We are not going to interfere with what the Administrator does and what he does not do. We are not going to interfere in those matters which the hon. member has referred to. We have nothing to do with what Prof. Barnard does as a member of the Executive Committee. He was appointed Administrator of the Free State; he was appointed in accordance with the Constitution of the country, and he has to carry out his duties in accordance with the Constitution of the country. The Government has complete confidence in Prof. Barnard as Administrator of the Free State, and the Government therefore rejects the proposal of the hon. member for Winburg.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say what he did say, that the Government has the fullest sympathy and trust in Professor Barnard. If there are any two men in South Africa who have made trouble in the Provincial Council of the Free State it is the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). They are the people who made all the trouble in the Free State.

In what way?

I am going to tell the hon. member if he will allow me. I happened to go into the Free State Provincial Council when this discussion was taking place against Prof. Barnard. I had not been in the building for twenty years, and sitting on the front bench was the hon. member for Winburg giving instructions.

Which front bench was he sitting on?

As soon as they stopped to have tea out he rushed into their Caucus to give them instructions.

On a point of personal explanation it is untrue that I gave any instructions. I had the right to listen to what was going on, the same as any other person, and to discuss matters. I gave no instructions.

It happens that at the moment the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) was with me, and the hon. member for Winburg turned to me and said: “We have made up our minds in the Free State never to speak to you United Party members again.”

Of course that is untrue.

The hon. member for Hillbrow was present, and I published it the next day in my paper. How those two members atacked Prof. Barnard ever since he was appointed. The people of the Free State are quite satisfied with Prof. Barnard and our friends on the other side should remember that they only got 10,000 more votes than the United Party ….

What about the Provincial elections?

They have attacked Prof. Barnard from the day he became Administrator and strange to say Prof. Barnard has never been a member of the United Party in his life. And I shall tell you the reason why they attacked him. It was because he was a great supporter of the late Mr. Tielman Roos, and it was through his efforts in the Free State that our friends got such a shock —our friends on the other side, and that they broke up that particular group at the time. What charges have been laid against Prof. Barnard? There has been nothing in the Provincial Council. But he happens to have been an ex-professor of the Free State University, a university where my son was educated and where many English-speaking men’s sons have been educated, where there was no racialism—not the slightest racialism; a university founded by the money of an English Governor, when nobody heard anything about racialism until these gentlemen came into the picture.

Until Prof. Barnard came with his proposal.

Not at all. There was no racialism; if there were a place where there was no racialism that was the Free State University. Then Prof. Barnard, who was an ex-professor and had become Administrator, filled a vacancy on their council, and he there proposed that they should stick to the fifty-fifty principle that they always had since the days of the old Republic. But that was too much for these gentlemen to stomach, and they searched the country for politicians and parsons and predikants, and they searched the highways and byways and the hedges, and they called the people together to make trouble; and they have made an enormous amount of trouble. These two hon. members have made more trouble than there has ever been. The Free State has never been a racially-minded province, and it will not be a racially-minded province because strange as it may seem to them, my friends on that side are now losing caste in that province. They have gone just a step too far. They went so far that a large number of Afrikaner parents withdrew their children from the university; and when they come here and talk about Prof. Barnard being unfair and unjust that is anything but the true position; he is a strong man struggling with adversity. But he is winning the day, and he has large numbers of Nationalists behind him—not Nationalist politicians; and there is a great deal of difference between a Nationalist and a Nationalist politician. These people are not behind him, but the bulk of the people in the Free State are with him. That vote of no confidence was not passed by the Free State Provincial Council but by a section of the Free State Provincial Council, and that section got their instructions from the Broerderbond and those other people; they are just marionettes dancing at the end of a wire. I am glad the Minister is not taking any notice of them. The Free State has really no one here to speak for it except the Minister. I am an old Free Stater whose family has lived in the Free State a hundred years, when—as I said before—these people’s families were living under the British flag. The English-speaking people of the Free State stand by Prof. Barnard, though he is not English-speaking. He never belonged to the United Party or the South African Party or the Labour Party, or to any of those parties; but he is a strong man in that position, and we all welcome him there: and I am speaking on behalf of the decent people in the Free State, not the petty politicians. On their behalf I thank the Minister for standing by Prof. Barnard, because it is not easy for Prof. Barnard, surrounded as he is by a Director of Education and others who like a lot of moles are working all underground, and by the other people who are around him working against him, and what the Minister should do is to remove those people now around Prof. Barnard and put new people in their place. Then you will see a great change in the Free State altogether, because Prof. Barnard is standing there all alone, except for four men and a woman in the Provincial Council, and he has to fight these people who are politicians only; they talk politics, they sleep politics and they drink politics all day, and they are not interested in the university. They are not interested in the schools of the Free State, but they are just wanting more racialism, and more racialism every day. But their time is coming. We heard from the Minister yesterday in another place about the great gold reefs in the Free State. They will be opened up, and when they are opened up my hon. friend the member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) will find that the type of man he has with him today will have disappeared. New people will come in and the type that are behind the hon. member will be wiped off the map, just as they were on the Rand.

You will be wiped off the map.

That will be absolutely impossible. All the cohorts of the Nationalist Party cannot do that. I am fighting on the Rand, and you won’t go in on the Rand. I want to say this in conclusion, the people in this province, the people in the Free State, feel that they have the sympathy of this House. They are fighting alone and they are fighting a hard fight. But they are tough people, these Englishspeaking Afrikaners in the Free State, I say through the press to them: “Hold up your heads and be courageous, because although you are fighting all alone the time is coming when you are going to win.” I trust the Government will stand by Prof. Barnard and protect the great university of Sir George Grey, because it is a great university. From it have come thirteen judges, four Cabinet Ministers and some of the leading journalists in the country, though I am not including my hon. friend of Winburg who has been a better journalist than a politician; and I do hope that the Minister, the Minister of Education, will see that this wonderful institution is not ruined by these piffling little politicians.

The Hon. the Minister has tried in a very astute manner to raise a lot of dust by giving a long professorial exposition of the functions of an Administrator, by telling us how he can do this or that in regard to financial matters. Nobody denies that. That is not the point at issue. The Minister said exactly the same thing as I have been saying all the time. He says that the Administrator has to act in the best interests of the province. And then he went so far as to say that it was for the Administrator to decide but all the same he had to try and get co-operation. I think the Minister will agree with me that if an Administrator does what this Administrator is doing, and he does not get co-operation, his position becomes untenable. The Minister referred to the necessity for co-operation, and that is what the whole question is about. There is no need for the Minister to give us a lecture about the financial provisions; I know them as well as he does, but we did not say a word about that. I spoke about the lack of co-operation and the attitude adopted by the Administrator, which I said had brought about a state of affairs which was not in the interest of the Free State. Does the Minister now want to say that one man, the Administrator, is better able to judge what is in the interest of the Free State than twothirds of the population of the Free State? If that is his attitude it means that he is in favour of Nazism. Twenty-one out of twentyfive members, more than two-thirds—people who were sent to the Provincial Council by the electors of the Free State—have clashed with the Administrator. Does the Minister now want to say that the Administrator on his own is better able to judge what is in the best interest of the Free State? There is no co-operation, and there will be no cooperation. The Minister told us that when he was Administrator certain people asked him to stay on. Well, when he was Administrator he was not responsible for such stupid acts as Prof. Barnard, and he did not continually clash with the Executive Committee.

Well, some of your people did think I was doing very stupid things.

But the fact remains that you did not go about things in the same stupid way. The Hon. the Minister never came into conflict with the Executive Committee in the same way as Prof. Barnard has done. There was never such strong feeling against him. They may have differed from him, and they may have thought he was wrong, but in the Free State a condition of affairs has now been created where the Provincial Council and the Executive Committee, and the public, as a result of his attitude, do not want to have anything to do with the Administrator. How can there be co-operation? Does the Minister want to say that it is in the interests of the Free State for such a condition to continue? Of course not. The Minister says that the Government cannot remove him. I know that the law says that he can stay there if he wants to, but the Government can take steps. I am quite convinced that if the Government were to offer Prof. Barnard another position today he would be only too pleased to get away from the Free State, because his position has become untenable there. This whole question has nothing to do with the provisions which the Minister has quoted, it has nothing to do with the powers of the Administrator. We have never denied that he had those powers, but they should be used in such a manner that there can be co-operation, and the Administrator must act in such a way that the public have respect for him. That is not so in the Free State. The public have no respect for the Administrator. There is not that co-operation which is so necessary in the interest of the province. The Minister has spoken about the best interests of the province and about co-operation. Well, that is what we also rely upon. We ask the Government to put an end to this position. It is a very important question. The Provincial Administration has to attend to the interests of education. We are not accusing the Administrator of exceeding his powers so far as financial matters are concerned. I accuse the Administrator, and the Minister did not say a word about that, of undermining the resolutions of the Executive Committee in regard to administrative affairs. I accuse him of acting in such a manner that there is no co-operation. I am not accusing him of exceeding his financial powers, but while the Administrator holds certain powers, there are other powers of an administrative nature which rests with the Executive Committee, and there he has to submit to the majority, and he cannot go about and work against them behind their backs and undermine them. That is what I protest against, and the Minister cannot expect conditions in the Free State to be rectified if things are allowed to continue in the way they are doing. I ask again whether the Minister will now take up the attitude, like the great democrat he pretends to be, that the man is right while all the elected members of the Free State are wrong? Here the Minister does not take up the attitude that it is the people who must rule, here he takes up the attitude that one man’s will must be given effect to. The Administrator put obstacles in the way of the Executive Commitee even in regard to small administrative matters, and he wants to rule. I had expected other things from the Minister of Finance. Surely the Provincial Council is there to interpret the feelings of the Province, and to carry out the will of the Province within the framework of the Constitution? What right has the Administrator to interfere with that? What right has he to come and say: “I want this or that,” “I consider this or that to be in the best interests of the Province,” while the whole Province thinks differently. We are beginning to think that the Minister’s high ideals are largely hot air, and that when it comes to the test he adopts a very different attitude. Here is the test. One man wants to go against the will of a whole province. Not against the will of a small majority of one or two, but of twenty-one against four. This one man wants to set himself against the will of twenty-one. That much for the Minister’s liberalism and belief in democracy !

The opposite side to the medal of racial division and the engendering of racial hatred which goes on in South Africa is reflected in the position in Natal. In 1932 for the first time in South Africa two members of a new type were elected to this House. They represented at that time a Home Rule party. One of these members sill sits in this House. From then onwards Natal has shown a resolute determination to resist any form of interference with the provincial councils of South Africa. Natal stands resolute in its determination that the Act of Union should be fully observed, and that the provincial councils should remain in a strong position. Subsequent to 1932 there was a movement known as the Devolution Movement, a movement set up for the purpose of and with the object of devolving certain powers enjoyed by the Central Authority.

Order, order! What item is the hon. member now discussing?

I am speaking of the item reflecting the money allocated to the Provincial Council of Natal, and on the means by which the Provincial Council can be strengthened and promoted in Natal and in other parts of South Africa. If you will permit me to proceed, Sir, perhaps the thing will be a little more clear. I shall leave it at that point and go on to refer to the remarks made by the hon. Minister in charge of the Vote. I believe that a short while ago he referred to one portion of it and voiced remarks which run entirely contrary to the feelings of the people in Natal. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister is under no misapprehension as to the reaction which those remarks of his caused in the Province of Natal, as reflected in all the newspapers; because they read into the remarks of the hon. the Minister that there would be a further drive against the continued existence of the Provincial Council system.

†The CHAIRMAN I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but what he is saying is quite irrelevant to this Vote. This is a question which he should have raised under the Minister’s Vote, under policy.

May I, on your ruling, say something? We are now coming to the real point at issue. A few days ago when you gave that ruling, there were subjects we wanted to discuss, questions of policy. Then a ruling was given that we should not discuss those things under the Vote of the Minister’s salary, but that we should wait for the subsidiary vote. Now we come to the subsidiary vote, and we are told that it is a discussion on policy, the policy of the Government towards provincial councils. There is no heading, but we have been ruled out of order when we wanted to discuss it on the Minister’s Vote.

Might I point out that these amounts appearing in these votes are fixed by statute. The Minister has no discretion whatever. They are statutory grants that are being voted.

That is just my point. That is why we objected when that ruling was given. Now we have no opportunity of discussing a matter like the policy of the Minister towards the provincial councils. Under your ruling, Sir, we have no opportunity of discussing the policy of the Minister of Justice with regard to police, or with regard to prisons, because the ruling has been given that we can only discuss a matter like prisons under the Prisons Vote, and a matter such as police under the Police Vote. We are not allowed to discuss it under the salary for Ministers, where we ought to discuss matters of policy. It boils down to this, that all subsidiary votes like Police, Prisons, the High Commissioner in London, cannot provide an opportunity for the discussion of policy on those particular subjects. We are ruled out of order; we become ipso facto out of order when we want to discuss the policy of the Minister in regard to those votes.

I regret very much; those are the rules as laid down, and I am bound to enforce those rules.

We shall have to insist on our right, then, to discuss all those subsidiary votes on the salary of the Minister.

I am sorry, but it will then be necessary for the hon. member to be ruled out of order.

Then you are giving a ruling that we are not allowed to discuss the policy of the Minister on any vote. You have said how that you are not going to allow us to discuss, say, a policy on Police on the Minister’s salary, nor can we discuss the policy on Police on the Police Vote; which means that we shall not be allowed to discuss Police policy at all.

No, that is entirely wrong. Hon. members are entitled to discuss policy on the Minister’s vote under the Minister’s salary.

Am I not correct, Sir? It was a ruling you read a few days ago.

The ruling I gave was this, that generally speaking members are entitled to discuss policy under the Minister’s salary, unless there is a specific vote appearing later on that particular subject. There would then be discussion under that vote, and not under the Minister’s salary.

This is a specific vote.

Hon. members are not entitled to raise it here, because this item simply sets out certain grants which were fixed by statute.

Then we cannot discuss it at all.

There is one point I want to raise. Would you, Mr. Chairman, for instance on the Vote Treasury where the Minister’s salary is voted, have allowed us to discuss the Minister’s policy in respect of provincial councils, under the ruling which you gave here yesterday?

Yes.

But according to your ruling, we understood it to mean that we could not under the Treasury Vote discuss provincial matters, but that we would have to wait until this vote came up.

May I draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that when he spoke about the inflation policy yesterday I allowed him to discuss certain matters on that vote.

I am not complaining of your ruling so far as I am concerned, but immediately after you gave us to understand that on the Treasury Vote for instance we would not be allowed to discuss any question of policy, for example, in respect of a matter such as pensions where there is a subsidiary vote. You said that we could not discuss that under the Treasury Vote but that we would have to wait until the Pensions Vote came up for discussion. We now assume that as far as provincial matters are concerned your ruling would also have been that we could not discuss provincial affairs under the Treasury Vote but that we would have had to wait until the provincial administration vote was before the Committee. But now when hon. members want to raise that point you say that it should have been discussed under Treasury.

The existence of the Provincial Council is dependent upon the funds provided by this House, and if I am not permitted to discuss this matter under this vote I shall bow to your ruling; it can be brought up under the next heading.

I can only repeat that all these grants under the Provincial Council Vote are fixed by statute.

The point I wanted to raise under this particular item can be raised under the vote for native education. I should like to say again that people in Natal have become alarmed at the con tinual threat which is made to the continued existence of the provincial counicls, and the main reason for the uneasiness in the Province of Natal is in connection with the suggestion that native education should be handed over to the Native Affairs Department.

This grant is also a statutory grant. The additional appropriation for native education is made on the Native Affairs Vote. This is a statutory grant under the provincial laws.

I am not suggesting whether the amount should be decreased or increased; it is merely the principle of how that amount should be administered by the Provincial Council, and the threat that was made that if the Minister had his way native education should be handed over to the Native Affairs Department and taken out of the hands of the Education Department. That threat, or should I say that suggestion, is the point that is raised by the Natal Provincial Council.

On the Native Affairs Vote there is an amount for that which is not statutory.

As the Minister has been good enough to indicate where the subject can suitably be raised, perhaps you would indicate further, Sir, what the best procedure is. Perhaps it might be even better to bring it up under the vote for Interior. There is a tendency on the part of the Government in connection with the general framework of reconstruction to expect not only from provincial authorities but from local authorities that the plans for reconstruction should be implemented, that they should be carried out and carried through by these provincial or local authorities, and the carrying through of such plans of reconstruction is entirely conditioned by the financial resources which are available either to the provincial authorities or to the local authorities. Perhaps you would be good enough to indicate, Sir, whether it would be better to raise this point under the Minister of the Interior’s vote.

I cannot indicate to the hon. member under which vote he should raise this matter. All I can tell him is that he cannot raise it under this vote.

Under this vote I should like to deal with a matter affecting the Administrator of Natal. One can judge a man’s work by what he says or by what he does. I would like to quote a few remarks that have been made by the Administrator of Natal in reference to his plans. I quote from a speech that he made on the 30th September last year. He then said—

He said that there were many other matters apart from the medium. Then he said further—

There we have a clear indication of the Administrator’s intentions. He said there were many more important things than the medium of education, and then he followed by saying that the big goal is that Natal should be unilingual. I ask you if we could have stronger proof of anyone making misuse of his office as Administrator. That is what he said. We now know what his intention is. In Pietermaritzburg eighty Grade I children were sent to an English-medium school under an English principal. That is a violation of the first right of the people. These children have the fullest right to receive education in their mother tongue in an Afrikaans environment, and here they were sent to an English school. We know what will happen. We have all been at school, and we know the sort of influence the older children exercise on the small children. Those children will be bullied by the big children, and the whole object is to anglicise them. I should like to remind the Minister that in an earlier debate on the dual medium, he observed in a dramatic manner here that the Afrikaner wanted domination (baasskap) in this country. I do not want to be pedantic, but I want to point out to the Minister that he did not use quite the correct word. There are two words that he confused, I think. There is the word “dominate” and the word “domineer” (baasspelery). “Dominate” is meant in this sense that you want to be master over your own property, but if you want to “domineer” then you want to lord it over someone else’s property, and that is just what the Administrator wants. He wants to domineer over the Afrikaner children in Natal. He wants to send them to a school where there prevails an entirely different spirit and one that is not Afrikaans. That is not the manner in which an Administrator should carry out his duties. We want to protest in the strongest possible way that that sort of thing should go on. That is happening at the moment under the trusteeship of Administrator Nicholls, and we would like to see the Minister effect a change, or at any rate that he should apprise the Administrator of the real nature of his duties.

If we seek the motive for the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) there can be only one answer, and that is that the Free State is worried over the position that there is no co-operation between the Administrator and the Provincial Council. The Minister himself even sent someone to the Free State because he felt that there was something wrong, and I say that the Free State is indebted to him for having taken that step because he prevented certain difficulties. Here we are not concerned with the individual Prof. Barnard. We are proud of him; we are proud of his mental ability; but here we have to deal with the Administrator of the Free State. This is a different man; and we feel that it is to the detriment of the Free State and certainly to the detriment of any province when there is not complete co-operation between the Administrator and his Provincial Council. Unfortunately that is the position we have today in the Free State. Personally I feel that if the Administrator had shown a little more tact at the beginning of the session of the Provincial Council, or even a little earlier, the difficulties would never have developed in the way they have. But we are bringing these matters to the attention of the Minister, because we are concerned over the position in the Free State. We feel that it is a position that cannot continue. Something must be done to restore that co-operation, and we want to ask the Minister to take the matter seriously into consideration and to suggest a way for the removal of those difficulties. It is painful to hear personal attacks of this character. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) went out of his way to attack members on this side of the House.

What did you say about the Administrator?

We all have our faults, but when people stand firm for those convictions that they really have in their heart, why should they be disparaged? Here an attack has been made on the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), because they stand for those things that are sacred to them. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Hospital. Did he stand firm for that republic under which he enjoyed freedom? We could be personal, but we do not want to do it.

He fled.

We feel that it is not worthy of any man to sink to that level. We should like to be clearly understood. What we should like to see effected is co-operation between the Administrator and the Provincial Council. This proposal of the hon. member is not Intended in a spirit of censure. The purpose is to find a way out of that unhealthy position that exists in the province, and we make an appeal to the Minister to intervene, just as he intervened in the previous case, and to do his best to restore that harmony it is so necessary to have in the Free State.

Although the state of my health is such that it is not an easy matter for me to take part in a debate in this House, I feel that I cannot neglect to stand in the breach as a Free Stater, on behalf of the Free State. I feel that I would be timorously neglecting my duty if I did not do that on account of the attitude that the Minister of Finance has adopted today in respect of the Province. The Government is responsible for the appointment of the Administrator in the various provinces; they appoint these people. Seeing that this is so, I want to ask the Minister whether they do not see to it that the official that they appoint maintains the policy of the Province and carries out the wishes of the Province. If they have that at heart, how can the Minister of Finance say: We as a Government are not going to mix ourselves up with the doings of the Administrator whom we have appointed. I will say here that I, as a Free Stater, have been offended over the conduct of Administrator Barnard in the Free State; I cannot agree with what has been said here by the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) that he respects the Administrator as an individual; I have no respect for him: the Free Staters have no respect for him, because he does not fill his position as the first citizen of the Free State in a worthy manner.

What is he doing?

The hon. member for Hospital laughs, but it is the laughing people from the mentally deficient hospital who laugh over such a serious matter. In the Free State you have this position, that the members whom the electorate returned to the Provincial Council in the Provincial elections, take up a certain standpoint—21 against 4—in connection with educational facilities. That voting strength is ignored by Administrator Barnard.

What has he done?

Not only does he oppose the policy of the Executive Committee, but he acts in direct opposition to the policy laid down by previous Administrators who were appointed in co-operation with previous governments. He wants to violate the system of education that was laid down by his predecessors, and to anglicise the Afrikaner children. But now the Minister says that he cannot intervene; he says that they are not going to do anything in regard to the conduct of that official. Then we have hon. members on the other side of the House who say that the English-speaking people in the Free State are the only decent people. The hon. member for Hospital said that.

I never said that.

There are, of course, many good Afrikaners.

On a point of explanation, I did not say that the English-speaking of the Free State were the decent people. What I said was that I was speaking on behalf of the decent people of the Free State including some Nationalists.

The hon. member did say that. In any case he said that the decent people of the Free State were in the minority. I say that the decent people of the Free State form the core of the Afrikaansspeaking section in the Boer province, and not that bunch of Uitlanders and the flatfooted Jews to whom they belong. I say that definitely.

How do you know they have flat feet?

I say that those decent people who constitute the bulk of the voting strength will not allow themselves to be dominated by members such as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who ought to be taken to a mental hospital.

Order, order. The hon. member must moderate his language.

I shall do that as far as possible, but when we Free Staters are insulted you must excuse me if I become a bit warm. He said that the Englishspeaking people of the Free State would yet gain the victory. He said that just after he stated that there was no racialism. What will they win? I will tell you. They want to ride roughshod over the Afrikaansspeaking section and win.

I though you were bilingual.

I want to tell that hon. member that we on this side of the House can on the whole make a speech in English that will show that the Free State representatives are thoroughly bilingual.

Why not try it?

On the whole, we are bilingual. But what about members on the other side? Let hon. members on the other side stand up and do likewise. Take their Ministers. They have to get interpreters to interpret for them. They ought to be ashamed of themselves talking about bilin gualism. They should first teach their Ministers to talk Afrikaans and then they can discuss bilingualism with us. And it is not only their Ministers who are not bilingual. I say that we in the Free State who comprise the majority of the population who champion bilingualism in the best sense of the word, will not rest content; we shall carry on the fight that that side of the House started until, if they want it that way, we shall carry the fight to a triumphant end in the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the Free State. I identify myself with the amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). We want to give the Minister to understand that we in the Free State are not satisfied with the Administrator that he has appointed, and over whose conduct he does not wish to bother. We are upset at the goings on of that official, and accordingly we will register the strongest protest. We want to make an appeal to the Minister, who we know for his sense of justice, and we want to ask him to influence the Government so that the official that they have appointed will not neglect the interests of the Free State in this manner. We hope that that official will be put in his place, and that the Government will make it quite plain to him what his duties are towards the people in the Free State who are having a difficult time, and who do not want to continue to have these difficulties.

There is another matter that I should like to discuss under this Vote, and that is the question of native education. I think it is high time that native education should be taken away from the Provinces and placed directly under the Union Government, but I should like to sound this warning. I want to make an appeal to the Minister not to make a grievous error in this matter by placing native education under the Union Department of Education. That would be a great injustice towards the interests of education in general and especially in respect of the educational interests of the native. We have to deal with the natives as a separate race and as an entity with a distinct social structure of its own. It is often said that educational principles are of universal application for all races, but the highest concepts of education take into account the social structure of every race, and if you do not bear that in mind it will not be in the interest of the race concerned. I should like to point out that our policy in reference to native agriculture and cattle raising falls under the Department of Native Affairs and not under the Department of Agriculture, and it must be admitted by all that this is a sound principle and that it has been responsible for the elimination of a considerable amount of racial strife. There is also our Native Trust that is held under the Department of Native Affairs and not under the Department of Lands. And in connection with native education I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to retain native education under the Department of Native Affairs for the sake of uniformity, and for the sake of distinctiveness. At the same time I should like to point out—if I am not mistaken—that we have an example provided by the United States which has a department for the Red Indians, and where the question of the education of the Red Indians falls under that Department. I should like to say a few words about native education. I would merely warn the Minister most earnestly that there are two courses open in the country for the development of native education. In the first place there is the method of assimilation which has for its object tearing the native away from the ways of his own people, which proceeds from the standpoint that there is nothing in the culture of the native that should be preserved, and that seeks to uproot him from his tribal customs and his tribal traditions. On the other side there is the method of adaptation which proceeds from the standpoint that it is worth while to preserve and develop native culture. As that culture of the native’s is so interwoven with his whole life and social fabric it would be not only to his detriment but to that of the State in general if he were torn away from it. We should consequently note that the method of adaptation is the one that will triumph in South Africa. I should just like to point out that, viewed in the light of world history, we can lay down this proposition, that the method of assimilation has only achieved success where the intermingling of the races has occurred on a large scale, and where no colour line of any description has been preserved. Where that is not the case the policy of assimilation has only left a sequel of bitterness and racial strife. In this instance also we have illustrations in our own country. Take that policy in India. England is today reaping the bitterest hatred in India, and in South Africa we also are engaged in reaping the hatred of the native. I maintain that history abounds with illustrations. There is only one policy that must be protected in connected with the subject of native education, and that is the policy of adaptation. Acknowledge and develop the mental qualities of the native; let that be the sheet anchor for the generations that follow, and pay attention particularly to this great principle—create a feeling of justice and security, and of protection of those matters that plumb the depths of men’s souls. Thus we can lay the foundation for a happy people. If we start from that standpoint we can build up a happy people in this country. The native has developed a culture which must not be ignored, which is not altogether devoid of beauty and fineness and sound idealism. He must develop from the roots of his own national genius. These things will still be regarded as sacred by succeeding generations. We can point to the native’s system of justice; we can point to his love for his environment; we can point to his love for his children; we can point to his love for his social order. These are beautiful things in the life of the native, and on them we must continue to build, and only then can sound race relationships be established in the country. We must put a stop to telling the natives about the Thames. He has his Umzimkulu. We must stop telling him about Europe’s great historical figures; he has his Chaka and his Dinizulu. We must stop telling him about Romulus and Remus; he possesses a storehouse of legends which do not compare so unfavourably with those of the Greeks and the Romans. These are really lovely things in the history of the native. If we hold these things before his eyes then we shall indeed be doing something that will form a contribution not only to the native, but also a contribution to sound relationships between Europeans and natives in this country. Native education must be built on their racial attributes.

I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has said, but I think he will pardon me if I do not reply to that now. He has touched here on a large question of native policy, but one that does not rightly come up for discussion under this vote. Even the question of native education is something on which I cannot make a pronouncement as Minister of Finance. Under the Act of 1925 certain statutory provisions are laid down in connection with the subsidisation of the Provinces, and under that Act of 1925 provision has to be made annually for the amount of £340,000 for native education. That provision is made on the Treasury Vote, but that does not imply that the Minister of Finance may express his views on the principles of native education. There will of course be another opportunity for my hon. friend to touch on this question. This £340,000 is not the only amount that will be made available for native education. Apart from that we have the payment to the Native Trust of the monies that are collected from the natives by way of general taxation. Those Trust monies are under the control of the Minister of Native Affairs, and it is he and not the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education who is today in contact with the Provinces over the expending of these monies. Then specific provision is made in the Estimates for the supplementing of that provision for native education, and so I should like to express the opinion that this is not a fitting occasion for my hon. friend to go into that question. I hope that he will understand the position.

As a Free Stater I want to break a lance today for another Free Stater. An attack has been made here on the Administrator of the Free State. I cannot see any reason why he sould be attacked. Attacks are continually made by the other side of the House on Afrikaners in order to lower them in the estimation of their fellow-Afrikaners. I cannot see why we should go on throwing mud at one another.

You are the greatest mud-thrower of all.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is filled with bitterness. I remember how he became swollen headed the first time he was successful, when he defeated a Minister, and he is still suffering from a swollen head today.

Who is throwing mud now?

It was not long after that that he became a general in the Ossewabrandwag.

You are talking nonsense.

Who is throwing mud now?

I am only defending myself. Those people who throw mud at their fellow-Afrikaners must not expect us to sit still and say nothing. We must defend ourselves. It has now been stated by the other side that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said that the best people in the Free State were the United Party people. In other words, they want to make out that the Nationalist-minded section of the Free State is being besmirched. The hon. member for Hospital never said so. He and I are both Free Staters. I know he would not have said it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Gordonia is a Free Stater. I do not think he even knows the history of the Free State. If he knew the history of the Free State he would not be on that side; he ought to be on this side of the House.

Who is talking nonsense now?

What have they against the Administrator of the Free State? If the Administrator is not satisfied with an appointment he goes to the Public Service Commission and recommends that another man be appointed. I know that that was done many years ago. I was a member of the Executive Committee, and I know that the Executive Committee of which I was a member did on one occasion recommend that a certain man be appointed as inspector, and the then Administrator of the Cape Province asked the Public Service Commission to appoint someone else.

Were you an S.A.P. in those days?

No, I was then a Nationalist.

And he is no longer a Nationalist today.

At that time I belonged to the old Nationalist Party but not to this new Nationalist Party, and I am today as national-minded as I was in those days. Let me say this to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), the leader of the so-called Nationalists in the Free State—in my opinion they are so-called Nationalists; the true Nationalists are on this side.

We know you are not feeling well now.

They must realise that this country is governed by the United Party and not by the so-called Nationalists. This country is governed by the United Party and the policy of the United Party must be carried out, and if they want to appoint inspectors to carry out their policy they must first ask the people of South Africa to give them a majority. But they cannot do that. The only thing members on the other side do is to engage in politics. This motion is nothing but a political affair. I want to go back to the old Free Staters. I know them. I lived through that period of history with them, and even though they are in that party today I have the greatest respect for them—for the great majority of them. Why are they in that party? They are there because the Keerom Street newspapers have misled them. But it will only take a short while ….

On a point of order, may I ask whether there is any item on this vote for the Keerom Street newspapers?

The hon. member may continue.

There is no item on this vote for the Keerom Street newspapers, nor is there a vote for the Ossewabrandwag. I want to ask the leader of the so-called Nationalists of the Free State where his Ossewabrandwag is today.

I think the hon. member must come back to the vote.

To return to this vote, I say that these people are making an attack on an honourable Afrikaner in the Free State who occupies a high position, and if they want to follow the traditions of the Free State, they must give honour where honour is due. They must not give free rein to their politics by making attacks of this nature on an honourable Afrikaner.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“Miscellaneous Services”, £29,500,

I should like to have a little information in connection with Item A, “Cape Town-Durban mail boat service.” We know that this item is in respect of an amount which is paid to the Union-Castle Company for the conveyance of post from Cape Town to Durban. I am speaking subject to correction, but I think that that is included in this amount, as well as the amount which we pay for the sailing of the ships of the Union-Castle Company from Cape Town to Durban.

That is part of the contract.

We are paying them to sail from Cape Town to Durban. It would be in their interests to let their mail boats turn back at Cape Town, but in order to satisfy Durban—they always feel a little aggrieved in Natal—we were prepared in the past to pay a fairly big sum of money to the UnionCastle Company, so that the mail boat would not turn back at Cape Town but go on to Durban, so that the people in Natal could feel the bonds between them and the British Empire a little more strongly. But since the outbreak of the war, these ships have very seldom gone from here to Durban. In the second place the position is that the mail from Cape Town to Durban is not conveyed by ship. Of recent years very little of our mail has been conveyed by ship. But in any event the mail between Cape Town and Durban is not conveyed by ship; it it conveyed by plane or by train. I admit that we are now paying a smaller amount than we paid previously. Formerly it was a weekly service, for the reasons I have given, but also for the further reason that it was convenient for the public of South Africa, and also for the people who came from England to Cape Town, to have these mail boats sailing around our coast. Today we have the position, however, that in the first place these boats do not arrive weekly, but there is one every five or six weeks, if we have to judge by the manner in which we receive our mail. I notice that the Minister is a little doubtful about this matter. This week we received the overseas newspapers, covering four or five weeks, in one consignment. In the second place, the mail is no longer conveyed from Cape Town to Durban by ship. In the third place the public enjoys no facilities from the sailing of these boats from Cape Town to Durban, because they no longer travel by boat. There are no ships’ passengers today who want to travel from Cape Town to Durban by sea, nor are there passengers who want to travel to the various harbours in South Africa. In other words, there is no reason today why the Union-Castle ships should sail from Cape Town to Durban. If they have a cargo, let them sail to Durban, just as the other ships do. But I think the time has arrived to take this contract into review, and to abolish this provision in respect of the sailing of ships between Cape Town and Durban. The time has arrived to review this contract. The contract has already expired, and we are extending it from year to year. We now have an opportunity to review it, and I do think that the time has arrived to bring about a change in this contract.

This payment is made in accordance with the contract and that contract is subject to 12 months’ notice. That contract dates rather far back and this part of the contract also dates rather far back. For many years the mail has not been carried to Durban by ship, but notwithstanding this fact, that provision has always remained part of the contract. It is difficult to say why, but if we did not pay this money on this part of the contract we would have had to pay it under another head. Practically speaking we have been paying a globular amount, part under one head and part under another, but for a long time the position now has been that the mail is no longer taken to Durban by ship.

Then why are we still paying this?

Under the contract.

But we no longer get the services which we used to get in the past.

To the extent that we do not get the services, the amount payable is reduced relatively. My hon. friend will see that the amount we are now paying is only one quarter of what it used to be. If there are not enough ships sailing for Durban to qualify for this payment the money is not paid out. The amount is reduced in accordance with the number of ships that sail. In that regard we are not getting the worst of the bargain. So long as the contract exists we have to pay under those two headings, and I can assure my hon. friend that this whole contract will be revised as soon as conditions make it possible. We cannot revise it at the moment, because we cannot yet say what the position is going to be after the war. At this stage it is to our interest simply to let things go on, and if we did not pay this money under this heading we would have to pay it under another heading. I think my hon. friend can leave it at that, realising that we are aware of the position and that we shall remove the anomalies from the contract when conditions enable us to do so, and that we shall review the whole position when the time comes.

I wonder if I might ask the Minister to add to the functions of the Civil Re-employment Board, and how, if in any way ….

I shall tell the hon. member at once. The position of the Civil Re-employment Board is this— that it has been functioning for several years and as there was no department for it to function under, provision was made on a Treasury Vote, as is done here. When these estimates were drawn up in October of last year that was still the position—that is why the provision is still here. In the interim the Civil Re-employment Board has been taken over by the Directorate of Demobilisation.

I shall be glad if the Minister can give us some information about this item of £6,500 for Civil Re-employment Board. What is this Board doing, what has it done in the past, and what will it do in the future? We know that the Board has been appointed and provision is made here for it, and we are also anxious to know what the extent and the object of its activities are going to be.

This Board deals with general problems in regard to the re-employment of soldiers, and as there was no department at the time under which provision could be made for this expenditure, it was put under the Treasury Vote. The Board deals with general questions and has no executive power. That power is in the hands of the departments concerned. The Board can only deal with general questions and can only make recommendations. But since the framing of the Estimates the work of this Board has been suspended, and its functions have been handed over to the Directorate of Demobilisation which comes under the Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilisation. No provision appears on the Main Estimates for that as yet, but on the Supplementary Estimates provision will be made. In the meantime this provision remains because it was placed on the Estimates when they were drafted in October, but in future this will come under the Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilisation.

Then is this money not going to be used?

The funds will be transferred to the other department.

What becomes of the Chairman?

Mr. Kuyt will become a member of the Executive Committee of the Directorate of Demobilisation but this Board will no longer exist.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 11.—“High Commissioner in London,” £145,000,

I want to discuss a few points on this vote of the High Commissioner in London, and in connection with the Vote I want to mention the present occupant of the post. Before doing so, however, I again want to object, as I have often done before and as other hon. members have also done, to the High Commissioner’s Vote coming under the Treasury Votes, and I do so because the High Commissioner in London should be looked upon in the same way as a Foreign Minister or Foreign Representative. As a matter of fact we are told that the High Commissioner in London takes precedence among our foreign representatives. He has precedence over our representatives in America and in other countries. He is looked upon as the senior, but it is most peculiar and entirely contrary to that conception, that he should not come under External Affairs where he belongs but under the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will say that that has been the position from the very start; I know that. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this fact, that, politically we have progressed a long way since the days when the High Commissioner’s post was created. Since that time we have had the Imperial Conference of 1926; we had the Statute of Westminster, and after that we had the Status Act. In the circumstances it is quite anomalous to have this official, who is our senior Foreign Representative, not falling under External Affairs, not under the Minister of External Affairs—although his work falls mainly under External Affairs—but under the Treasury. It may be argued that there is a reason for that, that it is because South Africa is part of the British Commonwealth of Nations; that as far as other countries are concerned we have foreign representatives, but that our representative in London is on a different basis, although we have accredited representatives with the governments of other countries—in other words, that England is not regarded as a foreign country. If that is the argument then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this fact, that we now have an accredited representative in Canada. Canada is also part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Canada is a Dominion, England is a Dominion. We are told that all the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations have an equal status. The status of Canada is exactly the same as that of England and of South Africa. So if we send a representative to the Canadian Dominion as a foreign representative, and if he falls under the Minister of External Affairs, then I fail to understand why our representative in London cannot also fall under the Minister of External Affairs. Before I go on with this question, I should like to hear the Minister’s reply. Now I come to our representative in London, Col. Reitz. He is our Minister in London and he must be regarded as an official because our representatives abroad are officials and not politicians. But this man, who must be regarded as an official, does not act like an official. Not only does he make political speeches day after day but he actually makes political speeches which do not place South Africa in a very good light, speeches such as one would not expect from a responsible official. Shortly after his arrival in England he made a speech which must be regarded as a most frivolous one—it was a speech in which he ridiculed the Voortrekkers. I am not talking about the small Voortrekkers now, these people we discussed here the other day, but I am talking about the Voortrekkers who trekked into the Free State, Transvaal and Natal. He made a most frivolous speech which made these people look ridiculous. He expressed himself about native affairs in a way no official in South Africa would be allowed to do. Recently he went to Belfast, and while he was there he acted as an Immigration Recruiting Agent. The Minister will remember that speech in which Col. Reitz told the people of Northern Ireland that after the war we would need artisans here in South Africa, artisans of all kinds, and he invited men to come to South Africa because, so he told them, there would be work here for all of them and they could come here in their thousands. That is not the sort of thing a responsible official should do. He made an out and out political speech there in which he dealt with a most contentious political issue, viz., that of large scale immigration into this country—the question whether we should or should not have large scale immigration into this country. What has the Labour Party to say about it? Are they satisfied to have trained artisans from England and Ireland encouraged to come to South Africa in large numbers, and to take the work out of the hands, and the bread out of the mouths, of our own artisans here, as they will undoubtedly do? I say it was an out and out political speech, and I want to lodge a strong protest against the attitude adopted by the most irresponsible official, Col. Reitz, our High Commissioner in London. It is highly essential that we should have a man in London who is responsible, a man who enjoys general esteem and respect because he is the Government’s chief representative abroad. It is essential for such a man to have a sense of responsibility and to act in such a manner that he can enjoy the respect of Foreign Governments. Let me tell hon. members the reason. We were told recently by the Prime Minister that when Mr. Eden declared in London that the English Government agreed with the attitude Stalin had adopted towards Poland, viz., that he was going to annex part of Poland, the British Government had not consulted him. I just want to say in passing that this is a most important matter. I am not going to elaborate it. I am mentioning it in passing because I want to refer directly to our High Commissioner in London in this connection. It is most peculiar that while South Africa is Great Britain’s ally in this war, the British Government can enter into an agreement with Russia about Poland and our Prime Minister can tell us that he has never been consulted. He says that Mr. Eden, the English Minister of Foreign Affairs, did not consult him. If we remember that England went to war on behalf of Poland, because Germany had annexed Poland, this matter becomes particularly important to us seeing that while we declared war at the same time as England did, England now states that she agrees to Russia annexing part of Poland; and what is most peculiar to us is that the English Minister of Foreign Affairs makes that statement before he has consulted our Prime Minister about this most important matter, or before he has even notified him of his intention to do so. If that is so, and if the British Minister of Foreign Affairs can simply ignore our Government on the question of Foreign Affairs of this kind, which also affect South Africa, then that in itself is a matter of the utmost importance, and it shows that we should have a Foreign Representative in London who is of such calibre, who has such a sense of responsibility, and who is so competent that he can act with authority on these matters, and will be able to keep our Government thoroughly informed. He must be able to keep our Government fully informed in regard to what goes on in foreign circles. I want to state emphatically that the Minister of Foreign Affairs in England has treated us with contempt over this matter, and it is high time we had a different type of representative in London than the former Minister of Native Affairs who is there now. If we had had a man there able to pass a sober judgment on matters of this kind he would have realised that it was essential to get all the necessary information to keep our Government informed. [Time limit.]

My hon. friend in the first place raised the question whether this vote should come under the Treasury. I think there is a great deal to be said for the attitude he has adopted in this regard. The reason why it comes under the Treasury is really twofold. The first reason is historical. This vote of the High Commissioner originally was merely a commercial vote. Originally the occupant of the post was called the Agent-General in London. That developed into an office representing South Africa, particularly in regard to trade, in regard to purchases in England and elsewhere. In subsequent years it became more and more important, particularly so far as the political aspect was concerned. The second reason why there is something to be said in favour of it coming under this vote is the fact that to a certain extent it is convenient, because this particular office does work for a number of departments, and the position is not merely a political one. My hon. friend will see, if he looks at the column at the bottom of page 39, that there are several departments interested in this vote. There is the Department of Commerce and Industries, the Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Mines, Public Works, and also the Railway Administration.

That also applies to other votes.

This office has a lot of dealings with other departments and part of the expenditure in connection with this vote is paid for by the Railway Administration.

But surely we have exactly the same position in connection with our office?

No, there is a good deal more of that kind of work in London. In London the historical development has been different to that in America where the office in the first instance was a diplomatic office.

That also started as a Trade Commissioner’s office.

Under war conditions it developed in a different direction. I am just mentioning those facts as an indication of what may perhaps be said in favour of the present arrangement, but I am quite prepared to go into this matter further.

But that is what we have been told every year in the past fifteen years.

Not in my time. This is the first occasion in my time on which my hon. friends have raised the question. Since the days when they raised this subject in the past, our political activities have developed very considerably, but I am quite prepared to go into this question with the Minister of External Affairs. I am sorry my hon. friend made an attack on the present occupant of the post. In his political capacity he, of course, does not come under me but under the Minister of External Affairs, and provision for his staff in regard to his political activities are made on the vote of the Minister of External Affairs. That part of the work really comes under the Minister of External Affairs, but still I want to express my regret at the attack which was made. It is true that Col. Reitz was a politician, but he has a high reputation, both inside South Africa and outside South Africa. He is a man who has achieved great things, and he is a worthy representative of South Africa in every respect. I am sorry to notice that there is a tendency to belittle him. The hon. member objects to certain remarks he has made, and he referred to an interview which Col. Reitz gave shortly after his arrival in London when he was still on the threshold of his new career and when he was still half a politician and half an official. I do not know that we should take that interview so very seriously. Perhaps the politician came out too strongly there. In regard to his subsequent speeches he, as the Representative of South Africa, has to give expression to the country’s policy, and as to his statement in Belfast that trained artisans would be welcomed in South Africa I fail to see any conflict between that statement and the policy of this country. We are prepared to welcome suitable immigrants who can make a good contribution, and I can see no reason why we should criticise his attitude in this regard. Generally, we must take it that he is there to represent South Africa. He cannot sit still there, he has to make speeches. Unfortunately we are divided on many subjects and it is therefore impossible for him to satisfy everyone, but he certainly has given the Government satisfaction in the speeches he has made.

I am glad the hon. the Minister has expressed his willingness to reconsider the whole question of the re-allocation of posts abroad. I hope it will not stop at considering the question but that those votes will be placed under the Department where they belong, namely under the Minister of External Affairs. In regard to his regret at my attack on Col. Reitz, our High Commissioner in London who, according to him, can occupy any position with dignity and enjoys everbody’s respect, I want to say that that may be so with people in London who do not know him well, but we here strongly object to the kind of speeches he makes because in our opinion those speeches are entirely beyond the scope of his office. I just want to remind the Minister of certain events shortly before Col. Reitz left for London. The Minister will remember that Col. Reitz was a Minister then and that he made a great many speeches here which greatly embarrassed the Government, for instance the speech in which he advocated that natives in the Northern Provinces should also get the Franchise. But there is another speech to which I want to draw attention. Does the Minister remember that shortly before he went to London, and shortly before the elections, he made a statement that even if the United Party should be beaten at the poll they would not hand over the reins of office to the Nationalist Party? In other words, according to his statement, the Government was perfectly willing to regard the Act of Union as a mere scrap of paper.

That is why he was sent away.

Yes; immediately after that a question was put to the Prime Minister in this House, whether he agreed with Col. Reitz’s statement. Does the Minister remember the Prime Minister’s reply? The reply was that a man making such a statement must be bereft of his senses. That was the Prime Minister’s verdict on Col. Reitz’s statement, and now we have a High Commissioner in London who, according to the Prime Minister, must be bereft of his senses. That is why I say that in view of the importance of the post we must see to it that we are properly represented there. I do not say this only in view of the fact that the British Minister of Foreign Affairs simply ignores our Government in regard to most important foreign affairs, but also in view of the fact that he must be in touch with other governments there. That is why we must have a more worthy representative there than the present occupant of the post. In view of his immediate past here in South Africa, and in view of the speeches he made here, he is certainly not a worthy person to occupy that post. Furthermore, he should keep our Government informed, and he should be able to act with authority also towards the representatives of other countries in London. For those reasons the time has arrived when the Government should consider getting somebody in London of greater stability, a man who can act with greater authority and greater weight than the present High Commissioner.

Did I correctly understand the Minister to say that the political speeches of our representative in London, although they do not satisfy us, satisfy his side of the House?

I was referring to the speech he made at Belfast.

Was that before he was appointed High Commissioner? Then I am glad, because our representative there does not just represent the Government, but the country; he does not just represent the S.A.P.’s but the whole country, and he is paid out of the National Exchequer. It is however, becoming more and more the practice for our representatives to make political speeches. Our representative in Sweden, who I believe has now gone to America, did the very same thing. I think our representatives should refrain from indulging in politics, so that they can have the confidence and respect of the whole country, and not of just one party. I think the Minister should give such instructions. I realise that these people have to take part in public life, but I think the Minister agrees that they should not make political speeches, whether those speeches are for or against the Government.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 12.—“Inland Revenue,” £340,000,

I would like to refer the Minister to a publication that was issued by this Department for many years, the report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, which has always been of the utmost value. It is very informative not only to members of this House but to the general public. I think it is a very desirable publication, it gives to the public and to this House information as to what revenue comes in from various sections, and in addition to that it gives an indication of how the taxable income is divided up in this country. For, I think, the last two or three years this report has not been published. It has been laid on the Table of the House; that means if hon. members want to get information from it they have to go to the Clerk of the Papers and start sudying that document there; in any case, during the recess it is impossible to get the report. There can be only two reasons to explain the non-publication of the report, either that the Minister’s Department is anxious to save the cost of publication—though I can hardly imagine in view of the small amount involved that that is the reason that the report has not been printed. Alternatively, there may be a difficulty about the supply of paper, and there again I feel that the Minister should see that the necessary paper is available from the Controller of Paper, because this report is of far more importance than some of the flashy papers for the printing of which paper is allowed by the Controller. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his consideration, and that it will be possible to resume publication.

I hope that it will be possible at no very distant date to revive this publication. I agree with what my hon. friend has said about its importance, but naturally where the Government has had to call on the public to economise on the use of paper it has felt that it, also, had to effect certain economies, and therefore we have not been able to publish all the reports we have published in the past. This matter will, however, be given further consideration.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 13.—“Customs and Excise”, £400,000,

I want to say something about the levy which is paid by the wine farmers. We know that when legislation was introduced a few years ago provision was made to the effect that on every leaguer of table wine purchased the buyer had to pay 10s., and that 10s. was divided between the K.W.V. and the Government. The Government said they would require more officials to control that part of the revenue, and they thereupon made arrangements for that amount to be paid. I doubt whether there is any other section of the community—there is certainly no other section of the farmers, whether they are controlled or not—who have to pay specially in the way the wine farmers have to pay. Last year the amount collected by the Government in this way was about £20,000, but I don’t think they spent even £5,000. I feel that as these people constitute part of a community which is now being specially taxed and whose product is yielding a revenue of £600,000 according to the estimates—we think it is going to be more— they are made to suffer very great hardships under these conditions. I therefore think this amount of money should be returned to the table wine farmer. It is due to them. The price of his commodity is very low. The Government fixes the price on the recommendation of the K.W.V. and the price has been fixed at £7 per leaguer, about 2d. per bottle.

Order order. I do not think the hon. member can discuss that under this vote; he cannot discuss taxation.

I am discussing the levy, the amount paid by the wine farmers to the Department of Excise. I just mentioned the fact that a large sum of money is this year being levied on their commodity by way of tax, and as no other product is called upon to pay for the control that is exercised over it I asked for that amount to be refunded. The wine farmers cannot raise the price of their wine because they have to compete with beer and other liquor, and this 10s. levy prevents them from increasing the price. So far as the K.W.V. is concerned they only take the amount they need for administration, and the balance they pay out to the wine farmer. I therefore feel that the Government should repay its share to the table wine farmers, and I am making an appeal to the Minister to grant that concession. Now there is another point. When excise officers go into the district to exercise supervision when spirits are added to wine, the wine farmers have to provide transport, or have to pay transport expenses. This is most unfair. There are agricultural officials in all the districts but the farmers do not pay the expenses. If a veterinary surgeon is needed he drives for miles and miles at the expense of the State, but if the wine farmer adds spirits to his wine the Excise Officer has to come to the farm and the farmer has to provide transport and bear the expense. The Minister, of course, knows nothing about this, but it seems to me to be an unfair arrangement. If you call a policeman to a farm to investigate a crime you do not pay his travelling expenses. This Excise Officer is there to see that all the spirit is added to the wine, and that nothing is taken away. I therefore consider that the expenses should be borne by the State. This is unfair victimisation of one branch of the agricultural industry. It does not happen in any other part of the Public Service, or in any industry. The officials are called in only when they are needed; they are not called in unreasonably, and I feel the State should bear the expense. I feel the Government should refund this money. The Government cars are there for the officials, and I feel I am entitled to ask the Minister to bear the cost of transport.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) spoke about a levy payable under the Act dealing with good wine. May I first of all say that this levy has nothing to do with the tax on wine.

I did not say it had.

These are two separate things. This levy is collected in terms of the Act.

I know it, but the Minister can refund it.

Yes, but not without changing the Act. As the Act now reads the levy has to be collected. That provision in the Act is part of the arrangement which was made at the time to encourage the production of good wine, and I am not prepared at this stage to alter the law. The hon. member further raised the question of transport expenses. He quite correctly said that that arrangement was not made in my time of office. I shall go into that question.

There is one matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister with a view to obtaining from him some expression of opinion. At present under the Customs Act provision is made for a dumping duty, and the experience of the public is this ….

Are you referring to the ordinary dumping duty?

Yes. Instead of waiting until the industry concerned has to report to a department that dumping has taken place, instead of waiting till that stage has been reached before investigations are instituted by the Board of Trade—which often extend over a long period—in view of all the harm that can be done by dumping taking place during that intervening period before sufficient information can be gathered from overseas to enable the Minister to take steps for the protection of that particular industry, in the light of these considerations, would it not be better for the department to organise a system of continuous investigation so that the department or the Board of Trade would always be in possession of the relevant information? If this were done the Minister would be in possession of an adequate fund of up-to-date information which would enable him to take preventive action without delay. The present procedure for obtaining the requisite information is protracted and involved. Enquiries might be made overseas in regard to the home consumption price of the article, and that information could be sent to the department every three or six months, so that with that information in their possession the department could take appropriate steps without delay when dumping takes place. I am aware that the question is complicated by international considerations, and that to apply a dumping duty forthwith without enquiries being made through normal channels overseas, might be interpreted as a direct insult by the country concerned; and that the procedure is to refer the matter to the country concerned for local investigation, so that the Government will tackle the industry concerned and probably call them to order. In the meantime that overseas country will report accordingly to our Government, and the matter will be left there. Then perhaps a new concern will start up, there will be a repetition of dumping, and the whole procedure will have to be gone over again over a period of months and months, and the same harm will be done before steps can be applied. If some system can be introduced in the department to keep in touch with overseas markets so that when dumping takes place immediate action can be instituted by the department, our industries would feel the benefit.

The Minister gave me a very astute answer. I never said that this levy was the same thing as the tax on wine. The one has nothing to do with the other. The one is collected in terms of the law, and the other is a tax which the Minister is now going to impose. I only want to point out that the Minister is going to get £600,000 out of the products of those farmers while he is also collecting this £20,000 by way of levy. If he did not take the 5s., the farmer would be able to add the 5s. on his product, but he cannot do so now because it would unduly raise the price of wine. I therefore ask the Minister to refund it. I do not think the House will object.

The hon. member is now advocating an amendment of the law.

The Minister can voluntarily agree to it.

Not in conflict with the law.

I cannot off-hand remember any other amount which the Minister refunds, but even if an admendment of the law is necessary he should have sufficient intelligence to know that he is overcharging these people.

The hon. member cannot advocate an amendment of the law.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has raised the question of the administration of the provisions of the law in regard to dumping duties. He would like us to have a system of continuous investigation overseas in regard to all possibilities of dumping. I doubt very much whether we have the facilities—certainly not in the present circumstances—to make that possible. I think that my hon. friend will appreciate that; but I am quite prepared to go into the matter further and if necessary I shall discuss it with him.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 14—“Audit,” £165,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 15 — “State Advances Recoveries Office, £120,000.

There are just a few points which I want to raise. First of all I have here an application form which has to be filled in under the Farmers’ Relief and Cattle Provision Scheme. If a farmer wants to make application for an advance from the bank he has to fill in this form— which in itself is almost a whole book. Could it not be simplified? This form has to be forwarded to the office for the collection of State advances—fourteen pages long. The farmer in any case does not like filling in forms. When a farmer goes bankrupt I believe the form he has to fill in is a good deal shorter, but if he wants to get an advance for fifty sheep he has to fill in a whole book.

I shall have a look at the form.

Now there is another matter, and if I mention the incident it will explain my point. Let me say first of all that this is in regard to a man who got a loan under the scheme for the purchase of draught stock—donkeys—and this question concerns the repayment of the loan. I don’t for a moment want to say that people who contract debts should not repay them, but in some cases they actually have to pay back more than they should be called upon to pay, and I say that that is the fault of the office or of the officials in the office. This man in 1936 got a loan of £30 to buy ten donkeys. Of that £30 he repaid £20 12s. 6d., so that the balance of his debt was only about £9. He then stopped farming and he returned the donkeys to the department. The donkeys were sold with the approval of, and on the recommendations of one of the Commissions which had been appointed. A few years after the donkeys had been sold to him for £30 the official sold the donkeys, which the man had returned for £5 18s. 6d. In other words, he got £24 1s. 6d. less than he had paid for the donkeys. Now this man is called upon to repay the full amount. He paid £26 11s. and he has not even got the donkeys. I know this man, he is a decent chap. He is poor, and he is still paying the Government for his donkeys. I cannot understand how the Department can sell donkeys for £5 18s. 6d. which only three years ago cost £30.

Perhaps the market changed.

No, that’s not the point. I have been told that they had those donkeys and they just sold them to the first man who came along. Well, that’s a small thing, but we are dealing here with a poor but honest man. He wants to pay his debt and it seems to me that he has been put in that position to a very large extent as a result of the attitude of one of the officials of the office for the collection of State advances. It is not due to his own neglect. The Department sold him the donkeys at a price, and then sold them to someone else at a much smaller price. I am not asking for people’s debts to be written off, but in a case like this, where it is not the man’s own fault, we should meet him.

In my constituency, at the time when the Farmers’ Assistance Board came into existance, a farm was bought from a certain Brodie which was given to a large number of poor people and others with the idea on the part of the then Minister of Lands of testing the system of small-scale farmers. That was changed into a settlement, but that settlement does not fall under the Minister of Lands. I am told that it falls under the Minister of Finance.

Was this farm bought by the Minister of Lands?

No, it was bought by the Farmers’ Assistance Board. A large number of youths were trained near Upington to become small-scale farmers eventually, and after having completed their period of service, they were established there. There are approximately twenty or thirty of them. They are mostly young farmers.

Who controls them?

The Farmers’ Assistance Board controls them. Last year they had a large crop of lucerne, but they are small farmers and they could not get a press to bale the lucerne. The result is that thousands of pounds in weight were lost. They have asked me to put this matter to the House and to ask the Farmers’ Assistance Board to come to their assistance in connection with the matter. This is one of the new settlements which is intended to test in this country the system of small-scale farmers or peasant farmers, prevailing in Europe. The land along the Orange River was cleared, and in consequence of the recent floods they were practically the only settlers who suffered great damage. I approached the Minister of Lands, but he told me that he had nothing to do with the matter, and I hope the Minister of Finance will cause investigations to be made into the position which exists there through the medium of the Farmers’ Assistance Board. Those people are industrious. They produce well. They are young beginners, and they would like to be assisted to get their own lucerne press; and in this case since they suffered as a result of the floods, I hope it will be possible to come to their assistance.

I notice there is an item in respect of two advisory members to the Farmers’ Assistance Board, their remuneration being at the rate of £4 4s. per day. I should like to know from the Minister what the object is in having those two members, who they are and why advisory members are being employed. Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are certain people who, owing to adverse circumstances, are not able to pay on the due date. I want to say that the Farmers’ Assistance Board has been very helpful. They have granted extensions. But what I find fault with is that they are continually sending reminders to those people that the due date is such-and-such a date. Those continual reminders are annoying. I think the Farmers’ Assistance Board should adopt another policy. If they have given the person concerned a year’s extension, they must not continually send him reminders during that year. Another point is this. We have a few cases—there are very few of these cases —where the individual got hopelessly behind and will never be able to pay his arrear debts. The Farmers’ Assistance Board has not got the right to write off any portion of the debt, or to come to such a person’s assistance, so that he will be enabled to rehabilitate himself again. I know that this is a matter of policy. I should like the Minister to give the Farmers’ Assistance Board power, where they are convinced that the person concerned cannot pay his arrear debts, coming to his assistance by writing off that amount which is beyond his means. I recently referred a certain person to the Farmers’ Assistance Board. Even if this person were to live another twenty years, he would not be able to pay the amount which is outstanding, but the Farmers’ Assistance Board has no right to write off debts. I think the Minister should give them that power.

I should like to reply to the few points that have been raised. With regard to the last point I think I can say that the Farmers’ Assistance Board deals with the cases submitted to them in a very reasonable way. They have no right to write off debts, but where it is necessary they can make a recommendation to the Treasury and obtain approval for a certain amount to be written off. My hon. friend also spoke of persons who obtain extensions and thereafter receive reminders.

Too many of them.

I cannot understand in which cases that would happen, except in those cases where the people have also obtained other loans. In any event, I shall ask my department to go into that. He also referred to the provision which is being made for two advisory members. That is something which dates back to the days of my predecessor. He appointed these two advisory members, whose services are used very little at the moment. It will be noticed that provision is only being made for £100 on the estimates. Practically no use is made of their services in the present circumstances. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) referred to a certain settlement of small-scale farmers in his area. I have no personal knowledge of it and I shall ask the Farmers’ Assistance Board to look into this matter. My department assures me that this matter will be dealt with as sympathetically as possible, but further investigations will have to be made. I understand that there are persons who have already taken transfer of their property, and that shows that they must have made a good deal of progress.

Yes, they are making progress, but they experienced a setback as a result of the flood.

Then there is the question of the donkeys which the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) raised. It is difficult for me to deal with such a matter unless I have all the particulars in front of me. Generally speaking, the position in such a case is that where application is made to buy donkeys, the applicants themselves put through the purchase.

In this case the price was fixed by the local committee.

Usually it is within the discretion of the applicant whether he wants to pay that figure. Furthermore, when the stock comes into the possession of the office and is sold, it is done by public auction. Perhaps that did not happen in this case. If the hon. member will furnish me with the particulars I shall go into the matter.

I just want to say in support of what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, that the general policy is this: If owing to negligence or owing to other circumstances the applicant farms at a loss and the goods are returned to the Assistance Board, and those goods do not yield the amount which he owes to the Government, he is held responsible.

That is so.

I have dealt with such cases. I am now thinking of the case of a widow who inherited stock which was bought in this manner, and hardly any of that stock is left. She offered to buy the stock, but she was warned beforehand that if the sale did not yield the amount which had been advanced, she would have to pay in the difference. I think that there should be greater concession in these cases.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”, £148,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Union Education,” £1,471,700,

I would like to avail myself of the privilege to speak for half-an-hour, although I shall not utilise the full half hour. There are three matters that I should like to discuss and to bring to the notice of the Minister. They relate to the training of certain classes of people who have to give practical service to the country and who do not enjoy the facilities or the opportunities to receive that training that they ought to have. In any case, it is largely to be ascribed to the fact that there is not a single authority which in itself can take the initiative to make that training available. I come to the first class. Take the training of chemists. In South Africa there are 1,600 chemists who practice as apothecaries, and during every year the opportunity is given to 40 of them to qualify for that profession. It is clear that the system has collapsed, and that it is no longer efficient. These people are trained at a technical college for a year after the matriculation, and after that they have to serve three years as apprentices to a practising chemist. The position has become so serious that the chemist, as a rule, refuses to take on these apprentices. The reason for that is that a fairly high wage is linked up with the engagement of such an apprentice. He has also to be given time off to attend certain classes and so forth. Now I want at once to come to the point and that is that there is a strong professional opinion amongst those who have a special knowledge of the matter, that the time has arrived when full-time training should be provided for chemists, and that they should be trained in one or two places: Either in the technical colleges that also fall under the Union Department of Education, or in our universities. Personally I have not a great deal of knowledge on this point, but the information that I have has brought me to the conclusion that the training should take the form of a two year course at the university, with a subsequent period of six months’ apprenticeship to a chemist. What is at present required from a chemist apprentice when he is working for a qualified chemist? In the course of three years he has to make up about 600 prescriptions. That work could be done at a university or at a technical college in the course of a year. But special provision must be made for it, and I should like the Minister of Finance to take the matter into serious consideration, and to give the people responsible for the training of the chemist an opportunity to express an opinion, and if necessary he should compel them to give the training that is required. It is necessary for about 150 apprentices to be trained every year, and under the present system it is not possible to do that. It is simply not being done. I will now leave that matter there. It is not a difficult matter, but it is a matter that will entail the expenditure of some money when the time comes. In the three cases over which I want to talk, I want to point out that practical work has to be performed for the whole country, and consequently we ought to make the funds available. We make the funds available for the same people to train them in other directions, both at our technical colleges and at our universities. It will not involve the expenditure of a large sum of money. It is a question of organisation and of changing the system. I leave this matter with the Minister in the hope that he will take steps in connection with it. Now I turn to the second class of persons that have to be trained, and although this matter has been discussed for years by various authorities, we always reach a dead end. I refer to the preliminary training of nurses. It has been mooted that this should be carried out in technical colleges. A commencement must be made with the training for a period of six months. A start has been made for such preliminary training in the training school for nursing sisters in connection with the hospitals. But all the—expert opinion is—there are no two opinions on the matter—that there must be certain definite schools, that there perhaps should be three or four such schools established that would furnish a good preliminary training to these nursing sisters. They must be schools of the standard of a good normal college. In view of the fact that we require teachers we are agreeable to establishing normal colleges for the training of our teachers. But as we have divided control between the Provincial Administration and the Central Government in connection with our hospitals, and because the educational side of this is controlled by the Government Department, there is simply no single authority who will take the initiative in connection with this matter.

We have the same position in connection with the teachers.

They are trained by the Provincial Administration. But here we are dealing with nursing sisters who, after their training, are engaged in the main in the service of the Union departments. My point is that there is no single authority who really can do that work. True, the nursing sisters who work in the hospitals fall under the provinces, but a large percentage of the nurses fall under Union departments. It is perfectly clear to me that the establishment of such a preliminary school for nurses ought to come under the Union Education Department. Of course, it should be established in conjunction with one of the large hospitals where that can be done. The big difficulty that naturally always crops up is, who will accept the financial responsibility. That is shifted from one to the other.

There is today an urgent necessity for such a school so that we can reduce the period of training for nursing sisters, and consequently I hope that effective steps will be taken to institute a school of this nature with the special object of imparting preliminary training to nurses. Then I turn to the third class of person who should be trained, namely, the specialists in the various branches of medicine. In the past these people have been trained in America and in the different countries of Europe. The time has arrived when specialists should be trained here for service in South Africa. Matters have already progressed so far in the two existing medical schools that they are training a large number of doctors, and already provision has been made for the training of certain classes of specialists. But nevertheless we find that there is a diminishing number in the country, and therefore we must take steps to extend the training of specialists. I think it will be found—I am certain of it following on discussions that I have had with the universities—that they are anxious to do this work, and we hope that it will be done. But whenever we tackle this matter we find that there is a big stumbling block. That is the money that is required for such a purpose. It will not be a large sum, but money is necessary in order to place the two existing universities—and later also the third—in a position to do this work, and they have not at their disposal the funds necessary for this special purpose. It is not a large number of people who are thus trained. We believe that here in South Africa we can in the meantime train about twenty to thirty a year in the two existing schools that have progressed so far that they are able to do the work. The matter has thus reached the stage when we are confronted with the financial stumbling block, and provision will have to be made in that respect. Now I am well aware in regard to two of the universities that they have already reached the maximum grants to which they are entitled. In the case of Johannesburg it is £122,000 and in the case of Cape Town £100,000. But here we are dealing with a special case, with a special class of people that the country requires, and while it is a course that will last for a couple of years, and which those who take it up will have to pay dearly for—it will cost them every year from £200 to £300— I consider that we have to do something towards meeting the universities in view of the fact that they will have to make available facilities for the training of these people. I should therefore like to ask the Minister that when the application is directed to him, within a month or two, he will really see what can be done to push this matter. It is not a large sum of money that will be required. But it is a question of policy. I want to add this, that the specialists who will be trained here in South Africa will be better and more efficiently trained according to information that we have, than those who have gone overseas for their training. It is clear that we shall be able to do this work here, and that we shall be able to do it in a manner that will redound to the credit of our universities. It is a work that is absolutely essential for South Africa, and we must see to it that it is brought about. Another point I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is this—the question of bilingual training in the technical colleges, especially in the large towns. I am not referring to the smaller branches in the smaller towns. There they have the facilities that there ought to be for the training through the medium of both official languages in the technical colleges. I am not referring to the number of people on the staff of the colleges who know practically no Afrikaans; I am referring to the position as it is at the moment, and I think that an effort must be made to institute parallel classes that ought really to be there, so that those who come from Afrikaans-medium schools or from the platteland, will have the opportunity to be trained in the same college with the second official language as a medium of instruction. The facilities at the moment are not what they ought to be, and better provision should be made.

I should like some information from the Minister in connection with higher education, in particular the education at our universities and technical colleges. On this vote the total grants for universities this year amount to £485,000 a slight increase of £20,000 on the previous year. For technical colleges the total grant is £403,700, also a slight increase of £18,700. Now, as most of this money will be devoted to administration and salaries in these institutions, and if we keep in mind that the vote for capital construction is only £47,000, a smaller sum than in 1943, these points raise the question as to whether these institutions have applied for special grants in connection with new workshops, more departments, or for other building construction. Secondly, was consideration given to the needs of exservicemen in framing these estimates? When the Minister of Native Affairs was acting as Minister in charge of the Civil Re-employment Board he said in Johannesburg in 1Θ41 that he had set up various committees, two of which were in connection, respectively, with the universities and technical colleges. As one who for many years was connected with technical education I know that the technical colleges submitted to the Minister very complete plans in connection with the training of ex-servicemen, and I would like to know now whether the requirements as set out in those representations were considered in framing these items. I am pleased to note that a sum of £6,000 has been allocated for the year on this vote in respect of ex-servicemen. That is an excellent step and the Minister must be congratulated on that. A very important point, however, is this, that both the universities and technical colleges are now full. After the war the admissions to these institutions will be very much heavier than they are now. The question arises as to whether it will be possible in the technical colleges to provide the special training which we intend to give our ex-servicemen. In that connection it would be interesting to have the Minister’s opinion as to whether he would consider the establishment of three special training schools for our ex-servicemen and their dependants, special schools with special staff and specially equipped. They could be administered, efficiently, under the aegis of the Technical Colleges. I also want to raise the question of bursaries. For technical education an amount of £14,000 only is allocated for this year. I suppose that amount is about 5 per cent. of the total fees to be paid for vocational training by the parents of the country. There is no doubt that some step forward is necessary in regard to vocational education in the Union in order to make it more freely available not only to the platteland boy, who is urgently requiring bursaries for assistance in regard to vocational education, but generally; and mainly because the young people attending full-time classes at our technical colleges are the sons of artisans, and of people who are not normally in receipt of big salaries. It would be a great service to the country if the Minister would undertake, I do not expect it this year, of course, but in the near future, to make wide provision whereby facilities for free education as are now given, even up to matriculation, in certain provinces of the Union, could be extended to these deserving boys and girls who are getting vocational training in our technical colleges. If any type of child should get the utmost encouragement from the State, if for any type of child education should be made freely available, it should be for those who are getting vocational training. I know the Minister may say: Where is the money coming from? Yesterday I suggested a capital levy. I think the Minister could quite reasonably recommend a quid pro quo finance policy and say to those who have been able to make enormous wealth out of the war because they have obtained their economic security to do so from the men who have gone on service, that the best service they can render is to make a sacrifice of their wealth commensurate with the sacrifices made by the men and women on service, even if only to make possible extended vocational education; and to throw more widely open the doors of our technical colleges to ex-servicemen and women and their dependants and to those who are today denied that privilege because of lack of means.

I understood the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) correctly, he suggested that the Minister should bring about a change in the training of chemists, that instead of the present system they should attend the university for two years and after that go to a chemist shop for six months. I may say that that suggestion of change has been discussed, but giving effect to such a policy would be fraught with difficulties. I agree with the hon. member when he said that having only turned out 44 newly qualified chemists last year, that number is not sufficient to keep up a sufficient number of chemists in the country. We know today there is a shortage of chemists but the Minister should take into consideration the fact that there are roughly about 100 trained chemists in the army in the Medical Corps. There may be others, of course, in fighting units, but our records only show the number of chemists in the Medical Corps. According to our records there are 104 trained chemists in the Medical Corps. I want to suggest that when these men come back it will make the position somewhat easier. At the moment—and I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to this fact—apprentices are not being taken in by chemists to the extent that they should be taken in, and that is one of the causes of shortage in the future. But it is here in Cape Town or in the Cape Province where the chemists are most guilty of not taking in apprentices. One of the reasons which has been given is that they have not got the time to train the apprentices, and the other reason is that under the Wage Determination they are required to pay too high a wage to the apprentice during the first few years. A further reason which is advanced is that the apprentices have to be allowed time off to go to the Technical Colleges for a few hours a day. These are difficulties which can be got over. In the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act the system of apprenticeship is laid down. That, of course, can be amended by an amending Act. What the hon. member suggested is worthy of being followed up, and I think the pharmacists should consider whether it is advisable and necessary to make such an alteration. I am associated with the Pharmacy Board and I know that that point of view has been put forward, but I think the main thing we have to keep in view is that we must have the best form of training this is possible, and whether that is to be achieved by the means suggested by the hon. member for Stellenbosch or by means of some improvement under the existing system, is a matter for enquiry. I would say this, and I think the hon. member will agree, that the system of education and training in the technical colleges in itself is undoubtedly an excellent system of training. The Pharmacy Board is well satisfied with the training that is given to the student chemists in the technical colleges. They are well satisfied with that training, but as I say, if there is any other means whereby we can effect an improvement in the system of training, obviously it will be up to the Pharmacy Board to adopt that means. I would like it to be recorded that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch should not be looked upon as any reflection on the type of chemist that is produced in the technical colleges in this country, because I think I can say that the chemists trained in South Africa are equal to any chemists trained anywhere in the world. I had a good deal of experience in Great Britain and in Canada with regard to the system of training there, and I can assure the House that the chemists trained in South Africa are equal to any trained chemists in the world. But having said that, I want to say that the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Stellenbosch is worthy of consideration. But there is one other point of view and that is the economic effect of such a suggestion. The hon. member does not tell us how he is going to get over the apprenticeship difficulty once the students have attended university. They will still have to be taken in by the chemists for six months.

What about the hospitals?

The hospitals are not allowed to take in any one except trained chemists. That is in the interests of the patients themselves. It is a very dangerous thing to put an untrained or unqualified chemist in a hospital to dispense the medicines for the patients in that hospital. The law protects the patient from such a danger, so that that would also be difficult. In my opinion it can only be arranged through a chemist’s dispensary where the student would be continually under the eye of a, registered chemist responsible for his training so that that difficulty still exists. I would suggest to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that whilst I agree that that point might be followed up, there may be some other means whereby we can compel the chemists to take a certain quota of apprentices. I agree with the hon. member that in years to come, if we do not train our own chemists, we will have to go overseas to get them, and therefore I would like to see that we train them, and I would like the chemists of South Africa to realise that they have a duty towards South Africa to take in boys for training. I know that some. hon. members have spoken recently with regard to the policy, but I have noticed that they were mostly Cape members. I think in the Transval, particularly On the Reef, the chemists do take in apprentices fairly freely, but in the Cape—and the same applies to Natal generally—they are not in my opinion meeting the position, and I hope the Minister will send some sort of communication to the Pharmacy Board and get them to go into the whole question with a view to meeting what may be a serious position in the future. But whatever is done must not be done at the expense of the training of these young people.

I should like to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) for cheaper or free education in our trade schools and technical colleges. Fairly considerable amounts are being made available under this vote for our universities. This is, of course, the last occasion on which our universities will receive these allowances, but what we must take into consideration is that the university is the school for the son and daughter of the rich man and the middleclass man, while the technical colleges and the trade schools are the schools for the poor man’s son or daughter. I feel, therefore, that that is one part of our education on which we have not yet spent the necessary money. I refer more particularly to the allowance to the Witwatersrand Technical College. Then, of course, there is the question of free training. I feel that the time has arrived, especially since we are entering upon a post-war period where we expect great expansion in the industrial sphere, when we should accept the principle of free training in technical and trade schools. Another aspect of this matter is this. As hon. members will know, we have in this country, not amongst the younger generation but amongst the older people—one might almost say the remains of a difficult period through which South Africa passed—a large percentage of elderly people who are unskilled workers. We find them today on our roads, in the service of municipalities, in trenches, dams, and hard work of that nature, work which they are practically incapable of doing. I feel that we should not cultivate a second generation of unskilled European labourers, and we can only prevent that by giving the children of those people sufficient facilities to continue their education, whether as technicians or as artisans. One can hardly find words to emphasise this matter sufficiently, especially when we bear in mind that we allow free education up to Standard VIII and matriculation and give considerable bursary facilities when it comes to university training. Those people can scarcely afford to pay for the education of their sons up to Standard VI, and what hope have they got of going as far as matriculation; they have practically no hope of paying for university training. Then I hope that in the future provision will be made for more accommodation. On the Rand, for example, many parents who earn a good deal and who may be able to send their sons to the technical colleges, find that there is no accommodation. In the trade schools, especially applications are some times refused owing to lack of accommodation. In a country like this it is a pity that our education should suffer owing to lack of accommodation. I want to express the hope that we shall remedy those defects in our educational system in the near future. Then there is a third aspect of this matter—one which causes great hardship to the parents. In the majority of cases where the father applies for training facilities for his son, whether it be as an electrician or as a carpenter, or whatever trade it may be, he is expected, when he takes his son to the school in question, to be able to say by which firm his son will be employed when he qualifies. He must be able to say that he is going to work at the Crown Mines or with the municipality or with some firm or other in Johannesburg when he completes his training. That is a very difficult restriction, and I am now speaking of parents who do pay for the training of their sons. In a country like South Africa where there are many ceonomic fluctuations, it is difficult for a firm to undertake to employ a person in four years’ time when he comes out of the trade school. That is, of course, extremely difficult. With regard to the mines—I think they deserve the credit of the House for that—they look after their own people. If the father works on the mines, the mines usually guarantee that his son will be employed when he qualifies. I think the municipalities do the sarhe. As far as they are concerned, however, the avenue of employment is very limited, and I would like to make that point in the hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter. I do not want to mention this point to the detriment pf the trade schools in Johannesburg, but when a boy applies for training in some trade or other, the trade school first satisfies Itself that he has an aptitude for that particular trade, and it is for that reason that applications are sometimes refused. I want us to accept as a principle the elimination of a second generation of unskilled labourers. Let us give the son and daughter of, the poor man an opportunity of equipping themselves for life; on the salary which they obtain today they cannot afford to pay for that training.

I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to protest very strongly and to warn in all seriousness against Europeans and non-Europeans being thrown together at the universities, and in this connection I refer especially to the University of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand University. Things are going too far now. We know that the universities are self-governing bodies, but the Minister also has a duty towards the people and it is essential that he should put the people at ease and satisfy them in this connection. That road is the road of national suicide. It is the road of extermination not only for the Europeans but also for the Christian civilisation in South Africa; it is the road of calamity for the non-Europeans as well. We have this state of affairs that some years ago a native was appointed to the staff of the Witwatersrand University. You, Sir, know what repercussions that gave rise to. These things have caused great mischief in South Africa. Latterly things have gone so far at the Witwatersrand University that European and non-European students have partaken of their meals at the same table and drunk coffee and tea out of the same cups. Where is it going to end? We had the case in the University of Cape Town where a European girl was disrobed in the presence of nonEuropeans. It was immediately said: “Yes, but that is against the regulations.” But the fact remains that these things are done and once the die has been cast it is no use saying that there are regulations which prohibit this sort of thing. They have gone even further now. We have now been informed that the head of the department of Histology at the Witwatersrand has appointed a nonEuropean as demonstrator for the 200 second year students. That is an un-heard of state of affairs and things are becoming so bad that the people have every reason to feel disturbed about this matter. The time has arrived for the Minister to intervene. I am one of those people who are not opposed to the non-Europeans being given an opportunity to develop. But they must have separate universities, and the money for those separate universities must be found, whatever the source may be. Take a portion of the war expenditure. The expenses involved in establishing a separate university for non-Europeans are not so great that we should expose ourselves to the bitter fruits which we are going to reap in consequence of this practice. This state of affairs can no longer continue. I have been told that there was a very painful love affair between a European girl and one of the non-European students at the Witwatersrand. We must not forget that the universities are the very places which must develop the most sensitive ethical feelings in our students; they are the places where the finest ethical feelings should be developed also with regard to the colour bar, and one really gains the impression that these two universities were specially chosen as instruments to blunt as far as possible the feeling of sensitiveness in regard to the colour question. That is a very dangerous process and the time has arrived for the Minister to intervene in this matter and to put at ease the people who have every reason to be disappointed, who have every reason to be deeply shocked, and to put a stop to this state of affairs.

I do not wish to add to the Minister’s worries.

Do not worry about that.

But I wish to add one plea. In my constituency we have a committee which deals with education and this committee seeks out deserving boys and girls of poor parents and provides financial assistance for further studies. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to make provision for a more generous scale of bursaries.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not associate myself with the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) in connection with what happened at the Witwatersrand. At first glance we ask why those things should happend at the Witwatersrand University? Why should all those coloureds and Europeans be thrown together in one university? It can very easily be obviated by expanding the university. We require expansion in any case. I spoke to a number of professors at the Witwatersrand and they assure me that notwithstanding the report of the Committee they were convinced that an extension must take place immediately, especially as far as the medical section is concerned. This occurrence at the Witwatersrand where a native has now been appointed as demonstrator to the second year medical students is not only a question of the appointment as such, but it is something which is going to have bad results. There is already a movement amongst the European students of the Witwatersrand to convene protest meetings immediately to discuss what happened. I want to ask whether one can hold it against those students. The maintenance of the colour bar is today in the process of being wiped out in every sphere. I just want to point out in passing that what happened in the trade union disputes on the Witwatersrand, where the Church had to intervene in order to protect the interests of the European girls and to maintain the colour bar, led to one protest meeting after another. I cannot see why it is necessary; we do not want to deprive the native of the right to receive training, but he should receive his training quite apart from the Europeans and when he qualifies he should practise and work amongst the natives, but not amongst the Europeans. There is not the slightest doubt that here where Afrikaner sons and daughters are being trained together with non-Europeans, the seed is being sown for the removal of the colour bar, and the Minister must not tell us that he has not the right to intervene. Whatever the Minister’s own views may be in this matter, we want to make an appeal to him, for the sake of the Christian European civilisation of South Africa to do his best once and for all to draw a clear dividing line between Europeans and nonEuropeans in our universities. This thing is going to cause clashes. Those clashes are on the way, and the Minister will not be able to say that no blame attaches to him. We warn him that those clashes are on the way, and Afrikanerdom will not allow the tradition in regard to the maintenance of the European civilisation in South Africa to be touched. I therefore want to make a very urgent appeal to the Minister to give us the assurance today that he will exercise his influence to put a stop to this once and for all.

I am not quite clear on how far under this particular vote one can develop the point that I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. I would like to ask the Minister if he could give us some information as to the facilities that are to be provided for University training for people who wish to take up agricultural pursuits either as farmers or as officials in the Department of Agriculture.

That is provided under the Agricultural Vote.

Could not the Minister provide for that under the item “Bursaries”? Can he give us an assurance that provision is being made for bursaries for a class of people that I think are very necessary to train if agriculture is to take its rightful place in South Africa.

The bursary provision here is only in connection with the technical colleges and there is bursary provision under the Agriculture Vote.

If that is a matter that can be discussed under Agriculture, I shall not make any further comments on that subject. I feel that today those universities are being filled by men and girls in South Africa; I hope those men and women will not fill the universities to such an extent that there will be no room for a large number of our returned soldiers who will want to take up university education. I will discuss that more fully under the Agricultural Vote, but I hope the Minister will bear that in mind and see that these men who have been deprived of an opportunity of completing their education are able to do so when they return.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister a certain matter in connection with which he may say that it concerns the internal management of the university, but since we are giving a grant to the universities, I think on the pound for pound basis, the Minister will admit, I think, that every student ought to have equal opportunities to make use of the privileges which flow from this grant. With a view to bringing about a sound state of affairs in the sports world, I want to make a plea that the Minister should give special atten tion to this matter. There are certain students at the University of Cape Town who are not allowed to make use of certain sports grounds or buildings. Until recently sports was the one sphere in which everyone could participate. People of every political creed, even those who were in favour of the war and those who were opposed to the war, played together, for the sake of health and sport. Unfortunately there was an individual who saw fit to drag politics into the sports world, and as a result of that we have this unfortunate division in rugby circles. There are certain people who feel that in the circumstances they cannot participate as they did in the past, and now the University of Cape Town has gone so far as to refuse the right to certain students to practice on the sports ground and to make use of the sports buildings. For the sake of the spirit which formerly prevailed in sports circles, I want to ask the Minister to use his influence with the University and to ask them not to make this distinction. I hope he will not say that he cannot do anything in the matter, because he has considerable influence in view of the fact that the State is making a great contribution. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) spoke of the fact that unfortunately Europeans and non-Europeans are being thrown together at the universities. There again the Minister may say that the higher education of Europeans and non-Europeans is a matter in which he cannot make any distinction. But here we have an act of discrimination against European students. We are not going into the merits of the case; but a section of the students feel that they can no longer participate in sport as they did in the past, and because of the views they hold they are prevented from engaging in sport on the University grounds. I think we must get away from the war and this political division. When one participates in sport or when one watches people participating in sport, one’s thoughts are not on the war and I want to ask the Minister whether he does not agree that it is a good thing to have places where one’s thoughts can be detracted from the war and the troubles of the world. There are a number of Afrikaners who feel, rightly pr wrongly, that they cannot participate in sport if the gate money is used for purposes with which they do not agree, and because of that they are expelled from the sports grounds of the University. They have to practise at other places and their game consequently suffers. Nevertheless this section of the Afrikaner students have obtained good results. I hope that the Minister as an Afrikaans-speaking Minister, as Minister of Education and not as a member of a Cabinet which is engaged in war, will use his influence with the authorities who have seen fit to persecute and to trample upon his blood of his own blood. This is nothing but persecution. If money is granted to the Univer sity, a portion of which is used for sports purposes, this Government has the right to stipulate that that money shall be used to the advantage of every student. This gentleman, Mr. De Villiers, has caused this unfortunate state of affairs in the sports world—I am almost inclined to say—for his own purposes. Why must the students suffer in consequence of this? I hope the Minister will use his influence. I understand that an effort will be made in the near future to remove this unfortunate division, and I think if the Minister were to indicate that he would like to see an end to this unfortunate division and that he will no longer allow one section to be persecuted and treated unfairly, as far as the privileges are concerned which are created by means of money which we vote, it will go a long way towards restoring unity in the sports sphere. I make an appeal to the Minister as Minister of Education and as a sportsman to show a sportsman’s spirit and to say that he will do everything in his power to remove this unfortunate division.

I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister whether he would recognise a new system of education which I hope is about to be introduced, and whether he would treat these institutions and take them under his wing in the same way as he does such institutions as technical colleges. I am alluding to the nursing colleges that it is proposed to start. We have had an acute shortage of nurses throughout South Africa, and an idea that has been suggested to me in connection with this shortage is the establishment of nursing colleges where these young ladies could be taught the technical side of nursing by means of intensive courses similar to those which the Union Defence Force officers attend at Roberts Heights. The plan is that they could do their practical work at the hospitals and then return to the college; by doing this a larger proportion of nurses could be trained, because you would not only have nurses engaged in the course of their ordinary vocations in hospitals, but you would have the larger quota at the universities as well. Although the public do not seem to appreciate the fact, there are plenty of girls willing to come forward as nurses. But what we want in the country are trained nurses, qualified nurses, and we thought this college would be an appropriate way of assisting to obtain them. Apart from that, there is the fact that the girls in the hospitals have to live a strenuous life, and the idea is to separate the time required for their technical training from that occupied in practical training at the hospitals, and it is thought that this would give better results. If I told you that a girl at Groote Schuur ….

I think the hon. member is going too far now. I have allowed him to put the question to the Minister whether he would consider making a grant for this purpose. I think the hon. member should be satisfied with that.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel), but I want to go further and tell the hon. the Minister that the position at the University of Cape Town in connection with the studying together of Europeans and non-Europeans is hopelessly unsound, and I cannot see why a meeting of the university councils cannot be called and a definite policy laid down. We Cannot follow the policy which they follow in England, where Indians and people from all parts of the world, Europeans and nonEuropeans, are welcomed, because there the position is quite different from the position in this country. Those coloured races who are welcomed overseas at the universities do not belong to the native population of that country. In this country things are going altogether too far. The position is extremely unsound, especially as far as the medical faculty in Cape Town is concerned, where a large number of coloureds are being trained as doctors. They have to operate on or dissect the same bodies and sometimes visit the hospitals together with European students and be present at the bedside of patients when they are examined. I am one of those who would like to see every facility granted to afford the coloured population in this country an opportunity of developing. At the Technical College in Cape Town an example has been set which is worthy of being followed by our universities. Not far from this House of Assembly the Technical College established a branch of the college to give instruction to the coloured students, quite separate from the main building, which is situated next to the City Hall. That can also be done in connection with the universities. They can study separately. I am convinced that the coloured students would feel happier if they had their own university. That is already being done in connection with the training of nurses. Coloured nurses are being trained in the New Somerset Hospital, and I think we should also have a separate university for the coloured people. Let us follow the example of America. There they have a separate university, the Booker Washington, where the negroes of America study. They are proud of their university. Why cannot we have it here? Then I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) in connection with the training of chemists. Of recent years there has been a desire on the part of the Afrikaans-speaking youths to become chemists, but there are no facilities for them, and as the chemist business is organised today, the chemists can not take in students as apprentices. In the first place the wages they have to be paid are far too high. But there is another aspect, and that is that they have to serve with a chemist for three years as a apprentice. And what do they learn? Only to sell over the counter; they are nothing but salesmen. They are taught very little in the way of dispensing, etc. It is necessary, therefore, that university facilities should be created for the training of chemists, and after the completion of their course they can be placed with chemists for further practical training. But even that, in my opinion, is not necessary. This is a profession. We as advocates or doctors do not serve an apprenticeship. We are supposed to be trained at the university and to practice our profession on leaving the university. That course might also be adopted in the case of chemists. A proper division for chemists should be established at some university or university college to enable the students to receive their training there. Then there is another difficulty in connection with the placing of chemists’ apprentices, and that is that the majority of chemist shops today belong to a great trust which has chain shops over the whole country and they are not agreeable to employing the sons of South Africa in their business as apprentices. They are out to sell their preparations. They are not concerned about serving the people. The majority of them are foreigners and they cannot be bothered with the training of apprentices. A position has developed which, unless the State, unless the Minister intervenes, will result in a tremendous shortage of chemists in this country and when we are faced with that problem there will again be an outcry to import chemists from overseas. This profession has caught the imagination of a large number of Afrikaner sons, especially in the platteland, and one finds that large numbers have enrolled for the course at the technical colleges, and that number is increasing every year, but after having completed the first year of study they are faced with the problem of obtaining employment with chemists. The Potchefstroom University College started such a course, and last year a number of students completed the course at that centre, but they were only able to have one of the students placed. It is also felt that too little work is being done at our universities in connection with research. We have capable students in our country who, if the facilities existed, would quite probably carry on with research. When one thinks of the Cavendish Laboratories at Cambridge, which are supported by the State and which have acquired world fame, and to which students from all over the world come to do research work, one asks onself why we cannot undertake something on the same lines at one of our universities, and why sufficient bursaries are not available to enable capable students to undertake research work. What strikes one in these estimates is that a sum of only £1,250 is being granted for bursaries in connection with research in our universities. We are a country with great problems, especially in the agricultural sphere, and we ought to do a great deal more research work than is being done today. We are on the eve of great economic development in our country, and here we find that a sum of only £1,250 is being made available in the form of bursaries for research work. There are students who are capable and who may want to do research work, but who are not in a position to pay for it themselves. We ought therefore, to make available many more bursaries. Then there is an amount of £250 on the estimates for a vocational training centre. That strikes me as being strange. What does it mean? To what extent is the department interested in vocational training, and what can be done with an amount of £250? Then there is another matter, and that is in connection with nursery schools. There is an amount of £200 in connection with nursery schools. What does that mean? Does this not fall under Social Welfare, or is this for the training of teachers who will eventually control and be at the head of nursery schools? Then there is also an item of £25,000 in connection with the National Council tor Physical Education.

It was my intention to refer to the future of technical colleges in the Union, but as the matter has been touched on briefly by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) I shall refrain from doing so. The increase in grants to technical colleges is a clear indication that these institutions are more than justifying their existence. There has been a great demand in recent years for this type of education, and from all I can make out the demand will be far greater after the war. A large number of our young men now in the army will on their return be taken into industry; many of them when they joined had just left school, and they will realise that they require further education and certain education facilities. We believe that the type of education of the future for these men is that provided by the technical colleges. The demand will have to be met, and how can it be done? As far as the larger centres are concerned there are no difficulties; but I am concerned with the young people in the country districts, in the platteland. There is a strong desire on the part of these young men and young women in the country today to attend technical colleges, but there are difficulties, and one of these difficulties is that of accommodation for the pupils. I know that there are boarding grants, but they are far from being adequate. An experiment has also been tried in my own area in having these boys and girls from the country boarded in the town, but owing to lack of accommodation it is impossible for these would-be students to be provided for. You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that most of the students that we have in our technical colleges are drawn from the poorer classes. I am not concerned with the rich people and perhaps not with the middle class people, but there is a class of people in the country we must provide for, and it is for that type I am pleading. They cannot afford this education, and we must in some way or other encourage them by meeting them. In many areas there is deep concern about the financing of hostels. That is our snag. During these days it is very difficult to find an individual who will give us a grant towards institutions of this kind. We have made several appeals, but in vain, and I believe the institution that I represent, the East London Technical College, is not the only one so situated. I am well aware of the formula, which means a third, plus a third, plus a third, which the Minister knows; but under present conditions it is impossible to carry that out, and I should like to ask the Minister if he can in any other way make a suggestion that will assist us to meet the demand for hostels, by putting aside that formula or by loaning a sum of money on the same terms as money loaned for the building of technical colleges. I am making this appeal for hostels, because as I have said, the two alternatives are either to extend our technical colleges—and I do not see how that can be done—or the establishment of hostels in various centres. I do not know the position in the Free State, though I know that the Technical College in Bloemfontein draws its students from the whole of the Free State. We look on the Technical College at East London, not only aS an East London institution but also as a Border institution, and we have applications from prospective students from the sea to the border of the Orange Free State, and from the Transkei to the Midlands. We want to meet those students in some way because as far as I am concerned, I feel extremely sorry for those boys and girls in the country who are denied the type of education which they are keen to receive.

I would still like to reply today to the points which have been raised. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) spoke of the provision which ought to be made for the training of three types of persons, the first being chemists. Reference was also made to that by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). It think it is clear from what has been said here that this is not merely a matter for the Minister of Education; this is a matter in which the Pharmacy Board must also be consulted, especially where it concerns the question of apprenticeship. The hon. member who raised this matter made a plea for provision at some university institution or other. That is already being done. As the hon. member for Gordonia remarked, a course has been instituted at the Potchef stroom University College, a one year course, and I think that that work has been crowned with a certain measure of success, although difficulty is experienced in connection with the placing of persons who have completed the course. In any event, this will have to be gone into further, more especially by the Pharmacy Board. With regard to the training of nurses, that is one of the matters where one finds oneself on the borderline between provincial and Union duties. Hospitals are provincial institutions. It has been intimated here that the Union Department of Education should also take an interest in this matter from the point of view of education. As I have said, we find ourselves on the borderline. Take, for example, the ordinary normal colleges which are under the control of the provinces. But from the point of view of the Department of Public Health the question might be raised whether more should not be done, and whether the Union Government should not give greater assistance in connection with this matter. There have been discussions between that department and the provinces, but the outcome of those discussions have not yet been brought to my notice as Minister of Education. I do not know how far this matter has progressed, but I shall, of course, consider it when it is submitted to me. In the first place the Department of Public Health is the department concerned. Then there is the question of training of specialists in medicine. My hon. friend said that as far as the university is concerned, finance is the stumbling block, and that certain proposals will be submitted to me. When those proposals are submitted to me I shall, of course, go into them, although I must say that I am not particularly in favour of departing from the present principle in connection with the financing of universities, under which we do not give allowances for special purposes, but merely a globular allowance. I just want to add— this also applies to the matter which has been raised—that as I have already told the House, I propose to appoint a special committee of investigation which will go into the whole question of financing of the universities, and that investigation will probably be of importance in connection with this matter as well. Then the hon. member raised the question of instruction through the medium of both official languages in the technical colleges. That was also discussed on a previous occasion, and I then explained that I did not regard the position as quite satisfactory, but that a good deal of progress was being made. During the past year even greater progress has been made, and the institution which perhaps made most progress is the Technical College of Pretoria, where provision is made for instruction through the medium of both official languages. The some applies to other institutions, but not to the same extent as is the case in Pretoria. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel), the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) referred to the position of European and non-European students. In order to show how difficult this question is I want to quote from a report which I have in front of me, and to which the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) is one of the signatories. I think that he is as much in favour of separation in connection with this matter as anyone else. That committee proved, in the first instance, that it would not be fair to establish an additional medical school for non-Europeans at this stage. They also stated—

That relates to a separate medical school, not to a school within a school.

They pointed out the difficulties in connection with students, etc., and came to the conclusion that for those reasons a new medical school for non-Europeans was not practicable. The committee then, went on to say—

They referred particularly to the University of the Witwatersrand. I think as a result of that the University of the Witwatersrand has now informed me that they would like to discuss with me this whole question of the training of non-European students. Unfortunately it has not yet been possible to arrange that discussion. It will, however, take place upon my return to Pretoria. In the meantime, I am afraid I cannot take the matter much further. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) referred to the unfortunate position in the rugby world. I regret it as much as he does, and I am as anxious as he is that some solution should be found, but I cannot interfere with the universities in a matter of this kind. We give a globular allowance to the University of Cape Town, but the greater part of its revenue is derived from other sources. The University of Cape Town has the right to spend that money as it deems fit, and the fact that the University of Cape Town devotes perhaps a small portion of that money to the maintenance of sports grounds, does not give me the right to intervene.

But surely you can exercise your influence as Minister of Education.

The hon. member must not advance that argument. The Minister of Education must definitely refrain from any attempt to exercise his influence on our universities. They are independent bodies, and it is not customary for the Minister of Education to exercise his influence on the universities. The hon. member for Gordonia raised the question of research work. I just want to say this, that we are not satisfied with the present position in connection with research work, and the Government is considering the possibility of considerably altering the system. With regard to the vocational training centre, that is an institution which came into being under the Mental Hygiene Society in Johannesburg, in connection with the training of backward pupils. It was originally under Social Welfare, and it is now being brought under the Department of Education.

Why is it such a small amount?

That is all that is required by the institution. There is only one institution and it is a small one. With regard to the nursery schools that is something which is on the borderline between the two departments—Education and Social Welfare—but it is essentially an educational matter, and my department is the most suitable department to deal with this matter in conjunction with the provincial education departments. The amount was £2,000 and it is now being increased to £3,000.

†Just one or two other points. The hon. member for Durban (North) (The Rev. MilesCadman) raised the question of grants to technical colleges. I have already said that we are appointing a committee to go into the finances of universities. I would point out however that these grants are fixed on a formula dependent on the revenue from other sources, and also that the provision of £47,000 on this vote for capital services is not the total provision. Further provision will be made on the Loan Estimates. We have not taken specific account of the training of ex-servicemen but in that regard schemes are still being worked out by the Directorate of Demobilisation and in the light of these schemes the matter will be further considered. On the question of vocational education, our hands are to some extent tied by the present system of financing these institutions on the basis of their other revenue, but that matter will have to go into the melting pot in the light of the recommendations of the Planning Council on the report of the Social Security Committee when the whole question of education is considered. Finally, I would say to the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) that this matter of a Nurses’ Training College is in the hands of the Department of Public Health at present. We shall consider it further when that Department makes its recommendations but I do not think that the system of subsidising universities and technical colleges will be very helpful in this case because that system is based on the monies received by these institutions from other sources.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No 18.—“Industrial Schools and Reformatories,” £286,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture,” £1,526,200, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 31st March.