When the debate was adjourned I was about to say that this amending Bill is of exceptional interest and also that it is very comprehensive. It is of exceptional importance because it introduces new legislation, and it lays down new principles in connection with our pension legislation. It is very comprehensive, because it has the effect of amending five existing Acts. The War Special Pensions Act, 1919, the Old Age Pensions Act, 1928, the Blind Persons Act, 1936, the War Pensions Act, 1941, and the War Pensions Act, 1942. These amendments embrace supplements or existing pensions in various directions. Among those supplementary pensions are some we welcome, but there are, inter alia, some new trends that we feel that we cannot do otherwise than oppose at this stage. In the first place I would like to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) in connection with those new pensions, and I want to direct my attention particularly to that part of the Bill that relates to the old age pension which is going to be made payable to natives. At the outset I want to say that there is no one on his side of the House—I think there is no one amongst our population—who today can be accused of grudging the natives a proper standard of living. As the hon. member for Waterberg has stated, there is no one, especially amongst the farming population, who can be accused of allowing old natives on the farms to suffer from hunger, but seeing that a new direction is now being given to our pension legislation it is necessary that in the application of this new policy proper enquiry should first be instituted, because once you have the measure on the statute book it will not be altered for years. It will not be easy to depart from the principle that is introduced, and it is necessary in the case of such legislation, in which such amounts are involved, that there should be proper enquiry before the stage is arrived at when the legislation is put into effect. In order to achieve our object I want to propose the following amendment—

I propose this because, as I have stated, it is a matter which is very wide in its scope, and that can have far-reaching consequences. It is a matter on which investigation is still being made today in various spheres in connection with this problem, and it is consequently necessary that proper enquiry should be instituted, and that due provision should be made for the control of those pension awards, before this feature of our pension measure can be placed on the statute book. With all deference I wish to point to a tendency that has developed, especially in recent years, in our legislation in this House having for its aim to grant more and more services to the native section of the country. While on the one side there are more and more grants of services, no higher taxation has been imposed on the native population for practically the last fifteen or twenty years. The tendency is especially that, while more and more services and privileges are accorded to the natives, increased taxation is not imposed on them. On the other side we have this picture, that the services of the European population are more and more curtailed, while the taxation on the European population, and especially on the poorer section of the European community is being increased to a remarkable degree. Here we have a sharp contrast; it relates to the whole relationship between European and nonEuropean. It is necessary, before comprehensive measures of this character are adopted, that the position should be thoroughly investigated. To demonstrate my point, I want to refer to the supplementary expenditure that has been placed on the estimates this year in connection with services to the native population. This year supplementary expenditure has been announced, exclusively for natives, and under which the European section of the community who are in similar circumstances do not derive any benefit. The following amounts figure in the current financial year. There is, for instance, the £1,800,000 mine subsidy, a tremendous sum which is given to a handful of natives as a supplementary allowance and privilege, while it has not been given to Europeans. According to the estimate of the Minister of Finance, the old age pension for natives will run into £700,000. We on this side of the House maintain that it will amount to much more than £700,000. We go further and say that no proper enquiry has been made, and no sound estimate has been made, and that no adequate provision has been made in this connection at all. According to the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, there is also for the financial year, an increase on the Vote “Native Affairs” of £423,000, of which £275,000 is an increase for native education only. If I take these two contributions together, I get an increase of £2,923,000, and we say that that estimate of the Minister’s is too low. But in spite of these large increases in expenditure on natives, there is absolutely no increase in the taxation imposed on the native population. It is perhaps necessary that we should observe how in recent years the services for native education have been increased, while the taxation has remained constant all along at a £1 poll tax. In 1926 there was granted for native education one-fifth of the native income tax; in 1936, ten years later this was increased from one-fifth to two-fifths; in 1937 it was again increased to three-fifths. Let us now look at what the tempo of the increase was between 1926 and 1938, a period of twelve years. The contribution was increased from one-fifth to three-fifths, or by 40 per cent. At the end of 1939 it was still three-fifths, but since the present Minister has taken over the reins of office, and since he has gained control of the Treasury, the amount has risen rapidly. In 1939 it was still three-fifths, but in 1940-’41 it had mounted to two-thirds; in 1942-’43 to five-sixths, and in 1943-’44 to six-sixths, an increase of 60 per cent. from 1939 to 1943. I should like to give a clear explanation of the increase. The requirements of the natives have indeed been increased, but in the twelve years from 1926 to 1938 there was a steady increase to 40 per cent., while in the years from 1939 to 1943 there was a further rise of 60 per cent. That is the position, while the natives have not contributed a single additional penny to the Treasury. Now not a single penny of native taxation finds its way to the Treasury; every penny is devoted to the Native Development Fund. If we examine the figure of actual contributions, we find that in 1937-’38 the amount paid to the Trust was £481,000, and in 1942-’43 the amount was £1,150,000, so that in a few years it was practically doubled. The question is whether, specifically in these years, their requirements had risen so extremely quickly. Though there was a steady rise in the preceding years, the tremendous rise occurred after the present Minister assumed office; indeed the amount was practically doubled. For native education purposes, an amount of £564,000 was paid in 1937-’38, and in 1943-’44 the amount had already increased to £1,400,000. To give further confirmation of this, I should like to quote the words used by the Minister in his Budget speech. He stated—

There was no balance remaining over from native taxation to be devoted to the Trust Fund. He said further—

I should like to place this further position before the House, that while the Minister in his Budget speech stated to us that that position had been reached, the European taxpayers are drained to make provision for native education, which was not the case in the past. While the Government and the country are still considering the problem of native education, which is in the hands of the Provincial Administrations while it is financed by the Union Parliament, while that problem is still unsolved, this additional amount is taken from the European taxpayer to make provision for services to the natives. Is that justified? Is it not necessary that there should first be instituted a proper investigation to determine whether something more cannot be obtained from the native himself to make provision for the increasing services? The Minister comes along, while that problem is still in the melting pot, and places a burden on the shoulders of the European taxpayer. Now he comes this year with another additional burden, the expenditure in connection with native old age pensions, which will also be placed on the shoulders of the European taxpayer. I want to allude to one very important aspect of the matter; and it is that since the commencement of the war the native population, as also the coloured population, have had these favours showered on them such as has never before happened in the country; the natives who have joined the army and who are still in the army, whether in the Union or outside the Union, now receive money on such a scale as they could never have dreamed of previously in their wildest dreams. We know that the position is that many native women who receive the money ask what they can do with it. I shall not go into that aspect of that matter. Other speakers will do that. But the fact is that a large section of the native population have, since the outbreak of war had more money than they ever had before. But the Minister comes here and places a further burden on the European population in order to make provision for the natives. On the 4th March, 1943, the question was put to the Minister as to what amount was paid to native soldiers and their dependants in the country up to the end of 1942. The answer was that the amount paid to the end of 1942 to native soldiers and their dependants was £3,617,000. That is supplementary earnings for the natives, something that they have never had before. While on the one side you have a tremendous increase in their income, the taxation that is imposed on them has not been increased in the slightest degree. I am glad that the Minister of Native Affairs is also in the House. This whole matter is of extreme importance. Native affairs deserve the utmost attention of the Government and of the Minister of Native Affairs particularly. I have on a previous occasion pointed out that race migration is in progress in connection with the natives on a tremendous scale. Measures must be taken in that connection. But before proper enquiry is instituted for a solution of the racial migration, and while it is occurring, while all these matters are pending, while the economic consequences cannot yet be foreseen, the Minister of Finance presents a proposal of this sort. The whole question of native wages is today in the balance. No one less than the Minister of Native Affairs sent a circular letter to the farmers and asked for hints in connection with a revision of native wages, and so on and so forth. The Minister knows that the matter is pending enquiry, and while that is the position the Minister of Finace, without further investigation, places an additional burden on the shoulders of the European taxpayers. I only want to say this to the Minister of Native Affairs that if he wants to retain control of the natives, and that has to be done, and also if we are going to grant them pensions, a proper system of registration should first be introduced if he wants to have proper control. So long as that has not been done no proper control can be exercised. You cannot accept a measure of that sort before the whole subject has been investigated and proper control instituted. I want to indicate one or two difficulties that will arise as a result, in connection with the grant of pensions to natives. I want to tell the Minister of Finance that it will not be as easy as he imagines to exercise control. Take, for instance, the fixing of the age of natives. It has been stated that this will happen by means of an estimate. It is a very difficult matter to do this by way of an estimate. There are thousands and thousands of natives in the country who cannot say how old they are. As soon as this measure is in force all the natives, old and young, will crowd along. They will state that they have no work and that they are old and entitled to a pension. How are we going to arrive at their age? In the Bill a qualification is laid down in respect of property. How is that going to be controlled? Every one who has had to deal with natives knows that everything is done by families. If an old native makes application for pension and he has any posessions, if he has cattle and sheep, he will say that they belong to his uncles or his son-in-law. Practically all of them are brothers-in-law and their possessions will be transferred to the younger natives to enable the older natives to draw a pension. How is the Minister going to obviate that practical difficulty? I want to mention another matter in this connection. How is the Minister of Finance going to exercise control over the influx of natives from the adjoining territories? He will have to have a police force on the boundary to prevent aged natives crossing our borders to draw a pension that they are not able to draw in their country. I also want to point out what the effect of this will be on the labour position. The Minister of Native Affairs knows, and every member of this House knows, that the labour position on the platteland is terrible. The native will now receive an increased pension in the village location and a still higher pension in the city. On the farms he will receive 10s. a month, in the village location perhaps 15s., and in the large towns £1. The inevitable result is going to be that farm natives, who are still able to render service there, will drift into the village location to obtain the increased pension there. The Minister of Native Affairs knows himself how he has to struggle to stop the influx to a place like Cape Town. Seeing that the natives will receive a higher pension here, we may expect that there will, in the first place, be an influx from the farms to the village locations, and also to the large towns. The platteland will be drained of its labour force. All these matters demand proper enquiry before a measure of this character can be applied, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will give thorough consideration to them before he decides to introduce new and comprehensive measures that he will not be able to control. Once the measure is there it will have to be carried into effect, however difficult it is. I want to leave that matter there for the present. I now would like to refer to another aspect of the Bill, namely, the provisions in connection with the Oudstryders pensions. I am glad that the hard heart of the Minister of Finance has been softened, and that provision has been made that the Oudstryders will not be wronged when they convert the old age pension to an Oudstryder’s pension. I only want to ask the Minister to look at the position as it was. Before the 9th March, 1943, it was intimated to the Oudstryders that they would receive an equivalent pension to the old age pensioners. In other words that the old age pension would be advanced in the case of the Oudstryder, but the conditions of the pension remained precisely the same. Year after year we on this side of the House have stood up and pleaded that special recognition should be accorded the Oudstryder. If a person asked for his old age pension to be converted to an Oudstryder’s pension, then one had to give a sound reason for wanting that done. We stated that we considered that there ought to be some recognition for the war service that the man had performed. The Minister of Finance then yielded, and in Act No. 33 of 1943 provision was made that the Oudstryders should receive one-third more than the old age pension. That measure of the Minister’s was received with applause by all Oudstryders throughout the length and breadth of the country. They accepted that with pride, although it was but a trivial amount. They said that the State now recognised to a certain extent that they had rendered special military service. Unfortunately the Minister then came and overthrew that scale with the announcement he made during this Session that the old age pension would be increased by £6, an increase that was not granted to the Oudstryders. I feel that that is an injustice. A group of the Oudstryders were then placed in an unfavourable position because they would have been better off with an old age pension. Now the Minister has come as a result of the plea made by this side of the House, and he has stated that a clause will be incorported to ensure that no Oudstryder will get less than he would have received if he had not converted his old age pension to an Oudstryder’s pension. We are thankful for that. But why cannot he revert in principle to the position that existed after March, 1943? Give the Oudstryder once more the recognition that he welcomed with so much goodwill, namely, that the basis of the Oudstryders pension should be one-third more than the old age pension. Then these people will feel at the same time that they have received a certain measure of recognition from the State because they are Oudstryders and because they made sacrifices in the days when their fatherland was in peril. This is no new thing, because the Minister, as I have already explained, admitted it away back in the Act of 1943. The Minister now stipulates that the Oudstryders may not receive less, but that they may receive an amount equal to that of the old age pension. The arrangement that they should receive one-third more because they had fought has not been fully confirmed. I want to ask the Minister even at this stage to effect an alteration and to make provision for the Oudstryders of the Boer War who for years and years have waited for this pension. I want again to point out that the soldiers who fought in the war of 1914-’18 received that pension as soon as they had turned 60, and that applies also to those soldiers who have fought in this war. The Oudstryders of the Boer War had to wait for many years, and in many cases they reached the age of 70 or 80 before they were granted the Oudstryders pension. Make provision now for that increase to be granted them! Only a small number of them are concerned because they are rapidly following each other to their long rest. An injustice has been committed in their case, but it is not yet too late to redress the injustice in the case of the survivors amongst these veterans. Then I want to refer to the clause in the Bill wherein provision is made that where a soldier has been incapacitated to the extent of 80 per cent. in consequence of wounds received during the war the frst £50 of his earnings will not be taken into account in calculating the amount of the supplementary allowance. Here I would appeal for a similar provision in respect of the old age pension. It is a painful matter when we come across cases as we often do, where the pension is just sufficient to keep him alive, and no more. In such a case the old age pensioner perhaps does some work to augment his income so that he can live decently, but as soon as he does this his pension is affected. If a person is 70 or 80 years of age then he is regarded in the labour market as having an 80 per cent. disability, and he should be allowed an opportunity to earn a trifle so that he may in his declining years be enabled to improve his position if only a little. Then I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to the plight of old people who find themselves in an impossible position when one of the married couple dies. Provision is made for exceptional cases but it is a thorn in the side in regard to the fate of these people. The old man and the old lady both receive old age pensions because the income is calculated on the basis of half in respect of one and a half in respect of the other, and each of them has thus a claim to a reasonable pension. Then one of them dies. The surviving spouse remains in the same room or house. He or she must continue to pay the same rent. The bulk of the expenditure remains constant, but one of them has passed away and the one who has survived is faced with this position that one half of their former combined pension has now lapsed because it is calculated now on the basis of one person only. Sometimes it happens that the surviving spouse is only informed of the position some time afterwards, and in consequence there is not only the loss of half the income to be faced but a refund has to be made by instalments in respect of the amount that has been overdrawn. Is it not possible to make provision in such cases. I know of such cases in Cape Town. I know of one such case where an old man said to me that he had to go without food one day every week to be able to get a bed every night. He would have to remain for one month without shelter if he had his meals every day. I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness whether provision cannot be made in a case of this sort. I said at the outset that this Bill affects amendments to a considerable number of Acts. And I want in conclusion to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance that when amending legislation is introduced affecting four or five Acts the new clauses should be set out in such a way that we shall be able to see at a glance how the original sections will read if the amending clauses are accepted. I want to associate myself with what was stated by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). We are here dealing with five or six Acts that are being amended, and it is extremely difficult for members to trace all the sections that have to be amended if they are not clearly indicated in the amending measure. I hope that the Minister will in future give his attention to this matter. My last word is that with reference to our observations regarding pensions for coloured people and Indians our attitude must not be taken to mean that we grudge these pensions to these people; but we are here in a responsible position, and it is the duty of the State and of this House before accepting such measures to institute a proper enquiry as to what such measures are going to cost the country and what the effect of them is going to be, so that we may be able to form an idea here of what the result of the measure is going to be before such comprehensive measures are undertaken.

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment in its present form as it fails to comply with the provisions of Standing Order No. 161. I may also refer the hon. member to May, 11th Edition, where it says on page 473—

It is therefore also not in order to move amendments on the second reading of a Bill which deal with the provisions of the Bill or which anticipate amendments which may be moved in Committee. I regret therefore that I am unable to accept the amendment.

I should like to draw the attention of the House more specifically to the war pension section of this Bill, but before doing so I just want to say a few words in regard to the amendments which are proposed here in connection with pensions. Our whole legislation in connection with pensions is in a state of confusion; it is such a labyrinth that it requires hours of study to acquaint oneself with it in the slightest degree; one has to go through a large number of Acts. I have before me a list of the Acts which I had to go through in order to acquaint myself to some extent in connection with the pensions which are payable in South Africa to the four or five different classes of people, and even then one is not completely familiar with the position. I have written down the names of nine Acts which have to be gone through in order to get some sort of idea in regard to our pension laws in South Africa. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to see whether we cannot get a consolidating Bill next Session. In the first place I want to ask whether it is not possible for him to take the House into his confidence in connection with the pensions which have been paid to the various classes of persons up to the present. It would greatly assist the House if the Minister, instead of issuing only a White Paper in connection with the Bill, could give members a summary of the whole pension position in South Africa. One can only deal with such a Bill when one has a clear picture of the position as a whole in South Africa in connection with pensions, and I want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister not to come before the House with measures of this nature in the future until such time as we have an idea of the general position with reference to pensions. The question arises whether a small population such as that of South Africa, a small European population of 2½ million, can afford to grant pensions on such a lavish scale. It must be a considerable sum which is already being paid annually if one takes into account the war pensions together with old-age pensions as well as the gratituities. I say it must be a considerable sum which this small European population is paying. The question arises whether we, as a small European population are able to pay such enormous sums at this stage. The Minister will remember that, as far as old-age pensions alone are concerned, the amount is somewhere in the neighbourhoor of £2½ million per annum. In addition to that we have the war pensions, and that brings us to a total of more than £3,000,000 per anuum—and I am putting it at a conservative figure. In addition to that there are the gratituities. The question which one ought to ask oneself if one has any sense of responsibility is this: Can this small population afford to pay pensions on such a lavish scale? Having regard to the disclosures which have been made this Session in the discussions in connection with the future of South Africa as an industrial country, and its future as a country with a gold mining industry, I think it is not proper for this country to distribute pensions so lavishly. It simply cannot be done. Our population is small and we are still a young country. We came to this southern corner of the globe with a definite trust. If I may put it briefly, that definite trust or instruction to the European population was to spread in this country the blessings of the European civilisation, and for that purpose certain means were placed at our disposal, and for that purpose the European population of this country has been blessed with greater mineral riches than perhaps any other country in the world except the United States of America; and having regard to the discussions which have taken place in this House during the present Session, one must come to the conclusion that a great portion of those mineral riches which were placed here for the European population, has already been whittled away; it has already been wasted. I say therefore that the European population of South Africa came here with a definite trust to spread the blessings of Christian civilisation in a dark country. We have been engaged with that task for a comparatively short period, and we have already wasted a great portion of those riches, and as far as monetary matters are concerned, we are proceeding at a pace which will place us in the position that we will not be able to carry out that trust. We place ourselves in such a position that we shall not be able to carry out that task. We spend money on a scale which no other country has even dreamt of doing. I say that very definitely. New Zealand and Australia are countries which have made great progress as far as pensions are concerned; and New Zealand and Australia, as far as pensions are concerned, have limited populations. As soon as one extends pensions to the non-Europeans and to the natives, one is faced with an unlimited expenditure. I think therefore that in introducing this amendement during this Session, the Minister has rendered as great a disservice to South Africa as anyone can render to the European population in South Africa. The Acting Prime Minister, with his liberalism, is half a century before his time. Surely, it could not have been the object, at a given moment, without a thorough investigation, blindly to grant old age pensions to the natives in South Africa, while one definitely knows that although the initial expenditure is £700,000 per annum, it will eventually run into millions of pounds. I want to enlarge on what the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. Serfontein) has just said. We on this side of the House are not opposed to giving some sort of grant to the aged native. We have our magistrates for that purpose; we have made funds available for that purpose in the past. But the time is not ripe in South Africa for a measure such as this. In the first place the time is not ripe for it unless one first institutes a thorough investigation, and in the second place the time is not ripe for it unless one has a proper national census and until such time as national migration can be properly controlled. The Minister of Finance is putting the cart before the horse. He has heard from the Department of Native Affairs how difficult it is to control the movement of natives. He knows that there are 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 natives in the Union, and he knows that this is only the southern point of vast masses of natives. In addition to that there is the fact that within the Union of South Africa we have the British Protectorates where old age pensions are not being given to the natives, but in addition to that the borders are unguarded; the borders are wide open and those natives can freely flock to the Union. One can only control these things when there is a proper system under which the movement of the people can be controlled. But the Minister now comes along and simply throws away our country’s money. In the near future he will have to feed the natives of the other territories within the Union as well as the natives in territories outside the Union. The European population of South Africa is too small to be able to afford that, nor are we prepared to do so. I say the hon. Minister is at least fifty years before his time as far as his liberal attitude is concerned. When pensions were granted in 1928 to Europeans and coloured people by the Union Government, the matter was first carefully investigated; we contested an election on that point. That promise was made in 1924. The whole country decided the matter, and at the recent elections, six months ago, not a single word was said in regard to old age pensions for the natives. The Government did not make it an issue during the election. I make bold to say that if the people had known that the Government proposed to make available millions of pounds in respect of old age pensions for natives, the people would have wanted an opportunity to express their opinion on the matter. It is not right, six months after the general election, since it was not made an issue at the election, to place the people before an accomplished fact today. As far as I know how the Minister of Finance did not tell the natives that the United Party would give the natives old age pensions if they got into power, nor did I hear any member on that side make that statement. The Minister is rendering South Africa a disservice. If he were to put this matter to the people tomorrow, the European population would say at once that we are not able to do it, that we cannot afford it. I regard this measure which the Minister now proposes as one of the most important which we have had this Session, and one which deserves the greatest attention of the House. I now want to say a few words in regard to the war pensions. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture of the war pensions at the moment in view of the fact that gratuities are also payable, but I just want to remind the House of the fact that there are different war pensions for Europeans and non-Europeans and natives— for the three groups. I just want to say a few words in regard to these three groups. There are two classes of persons particularly who should be given pensions. In the first place, where the head of the family dies on military service, and in the second place where he becomes disabled as a result of injuries. As far as war pensions are concerned, where the head of the family dies, I just want to indicate what the pension is at the moment for Europeans and non-Europeans respectively. Take the case of a European with a wife and three children. In the case of the private—I am excluding the higher ranks because they fall into a category of their own—the widow and three children get £220 per annum where the man dies on military service. That is exclusive of gratuities or any other allowance. In the case of a coloured family where there are three children, the pension is approximately £80 per annum where the father dies on military service; and in the case of a native family— a wife and three children—the pension is £43 in round figures, where the father’s death is attributable to military service. The wife gets £25, i.e. the first wife, and there is no allowance to the second and third wife, but an allowance of £6 is made in respect of each of his children; and there is no limit to that number. How is control going to be exercised? The children of uncles and relatives may be included, because there is no control of native families; there is no national census, and the £6 may have to be paid ad infinitum. I can well imagine that a native who had two or three wives, has a large number of children and that the amount will not remain at £43 but will be as high as £83 and £85 per annum, on an average. Out of the goodness of his heart the Minister now comes along, although these provisions were accepted in 1942, and, 18 months later again grants an increase. As far as Europeans are concerned, there can be no objection, because the cost of living has risen a great deal, and one would like to see that they are able to live decently. It would seem, however, that here too, a restriction might be effected. Take the case of a family where the head of the family becomes disabled as a result of war service. If he has a wife and three children, the allowance can now rise to £144 per annum. But I want to draw attention more particularly to non-Europeans and natives, because the Minister is now going to grant an old-age pension as well, and the total burden on the European taxpayer will become unbearably heavy. We must remember that a pension is a recurring liability. One does not pay a certain amount today, and that is the end of it. At the conclusion of the previous war, our war pensions account amounted to £1,000,000 per annum. Today, twenty-five years later, we are still paying pensions amounting to almost £500,000 per annum in connection with the previous war. Now the new pensions are being added. A pension is something therefore which is payable for many years—a sort of marathon. The people have to pay heavily. It has been estimated that up to the present a sum of approximately £15,000,000 has been paid in war pensions in connection with the previous war. As far as coloured people and natives are concerned, especially natives, the Minister is making the position more and more difficult for any subsequent government. Just think what the position would be if a subsequent government were to take away or reduce the pension. One can therefore accuse the Minister, if not of a crime, then of thoughtlessness. His duty is not only to take his party into consideration; this is not a matter only for a Party Government; it is a matter for the entire country and also for the Opposition. In passing this measure, the Minister also binds the Opposition. Without proper investigations having been made, without a Select Committee having investigated the matter, the Minister comes forward with a measure which binds the whole country and which will place the Opposition in a difficult position if it comes into power.

You will never come into power.

It is only when the hon. member talks in his sleep that he is so confused. The country is being placed before an accomplished fact and once this pension has been given, it will be very difficult to take it away or to reduce it. The Minister is now adopting a far-reaching liberal policy, and it is not right to bind the country in this way. It would inevitably cause a tremendous commotion if a subsequent Government were to abolish these pensions. In other countries the position is different. We know that in Britain and in America and in many other countries the Government is adopting a different procedure. Especially when it comes to the question of pensions, there is consultation between the various parties before the Government introduces a measure of this kind. Why? Because pensions represent a long-term policy and once a, pension has been granted it is difficult to reduce or to abolish it. I strongly resent the fact that the Minister is placing the country before an accomplished fact. It is not right. In the case of a family where the head becomes disabled, the allowancè is laid down in Act 44 of 1942. Provision is also made for coloureds and natives under the Act of 1942. When a coloured person becomes totally disabled, when the head of the family becomes disabled, the disablement pension, in the case of a family of three children, amounts to £126 under the Act of 1942. In this Bill it is made considerably higher for the coloured person. The Minister now proposes to give £15 to the wife of a man who is hundred per cent. disabled, whereas formerly she received £12, and whereas a coloured child formerly received £10, the child will now get £12. In other words, the family is getting a considerably higher sum. Take the case of a coloured father who loses the thumb of his one hand. That is regarded as 40 per cent. disablement. In that case the family of the coloured man, where there are three children, gets a little more than £7 per month under the Act of 1942.

No.

Pardon me, I meant 100 per cent. disablement. In respect of 40 per cent. disablement it is £30 for himself, £4 16s. for his wife and £12 for three children; i.e. a total of £47. Now the Minister proposes to give the wife £6 instead of £4 16s.; and the sum for every child is increased from £4 to £4 16s. That represents a considerable increase to a wife and three children.

£3 12s.

Yes, £1 4s. plus £2 8s. Let us now take a native family where the head of the family becomes disabled through war service. Up to the present the wife received £9 in the case of 100 per cent. disablement and £6 for every child. The Minister is now increasing it to £10 for the wife and £8 in respect of every child. Take the case where the native loses the thumb of one hand. In that case the pension of the native family is as follows : £50 for the husband, £9 for the wife plus £6 in respect of every child.

That is in the case of 100 per cent. disablement.

Let us now take a case where the disablement is 40 per cent., where the native lost the thumb of one hand. In that case he gets £20 plus £3 12s. for his wife, plus £2 8s. in respecct of every child. In addition to that we must remember, as I said a moment ago, that the native has many children, and you can calculate what the annual pension will be in the case of a native family where there are eight or ten children. That is the income of the family if the native loses a thumb—for the rest of their lives they get that considerable sum. Where the native loses the thumb of one hand, it places the native family concerned in this position that for the rest of their lives they will get a considerable amount every year. Now the Minister comes along with this inexplicable provision in the Bill that where the chidren of the native marry, they can in certain circumstances continue to draw this pension for the rest of their lives. That is the position when they are physically or mentally unfit. Why that provision was inserted in the Bill, only the Minister will be able to explain.’ When a native girl marries, the native who marries her is expected to be able to maintain her. Why should the European have to pay this pension to such a family ad infinitum? That is briefly the position with regard to coloureds and natives under the Minister’s pension proposals. The Minister knows that when the Act of 1942 went through this House, we on this side raised serious objections because we felt that it was not right to allow natives and coloured people to take part in the war, and, moreover, because it is not right to saddle South Africa for years and years with a pension burden of this nature. The last point which I want to raise is this. Because this pension is being granted to coloured people and to natives in those cases where the head of the family dies or where he becomes disabled, you will have this position that a large number of coloured and native families will be able to live on the pension because it is so high. The Minister is proposing a scale which the European population can not only not afford, but he is also proposing a scale which will make the native and the coloured person accustomed to a standard of living which they cannot enjoy on the wages which the European is able to pay to them, or the wages which have been paid to them up to the present. We do not want to deny that we are the guardians of the coloured people and more particularly of the natives. We want to take care of them, but at the same time we expect them to work; and today there is a tendency on the part of the coloured person and the native not to work during the war because the allowances which they are getting are sufficiently high to make it unnecessary for them to work. Just imagine what the position will be if this Bill becomes law. We have gained experience since 1942. We have seen that Act in operation. What has been the outcome of these large amounts which are being paid? Up to the present, i.e. up to the end of February of this year, 10,600 natives have already been discharged, and large sums have been paid to them, a total amount of £38,500. That is only the beginning. When the great flood of natives return this account will rise tremendously. This £38,500 was paid to native families, and a position immediately arose where a large section of those natives refused to work for the European. No one will get up in this House and say that the time has arrived when the natives should no longer work for the European. The native relies on the white man for employment, and the white man needs the native. But by creating a standard of living such as this, you allow a native to maintain a standard of living which will induce him to refuse to work for the European. It does more than that. These high allowances have not only got that effect on the native and his family, but it has the same effect on the natives in that area. If these native families get these high incomes, what will the effect be on the other native families? They will immediately want higher wages for the work they do. They get all this extra money for nothing because the head of the family lost a thumb! There will then be an agitation, to which we have become so accustomed in this country, for an increase in the wages of the natives, and there will never be an end to it. Here we have the representatives of the natives, and as soon as the natives become accustomed to the new pension scales, they will demand the payment of wages to natives which will give them the same standard of living, and there will be no end to the demands of those people. When one gives them an inch, they take a yard. I predict that these members who represent the natives will get up and say that even these pension scales are not yet sufficiently high. I have no doubt of that. They want more, and time and again they will ask for the amount to be increased. I said that the Minister of Finance had rendered certain services to this country. He also rendered disservices to the country, more than I should like to mention. But of all the disservices which he has rendered to this country, this disservice to the European population is the greatest. I have no objection to his being liberal towards the natives. His liberalistic policy is his own affair. But South Africa does not agree with him. South Africa does not share that liberalistic policy, and the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as Minister of Finance and as Acting Prime Minister, should not in this way force something on to the country which South Africa cannot afford; and I think I am right in saying that South Africa does not want it. The second fault I have to find with this measure is that the Minister is placing the entire population before an accomplished fact without proper investigations having been made, and without proper consultation. I want to make an appeal to him to say that as far as these increases are concerned, especially as far as the coloured people and the natives are concerned, he will consider the question of having these proposals further investigated before they are applied. Since the Session has already progressed so far, why does he not appoint a commission of enquiry to go into this matter thoroughy during the recess so that we can consult every shade of opinion in South Africa in regard to this matter and so that this side of the House will not be placed before an accomplished fact in this way.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for the various amendments he has made to the War Pensions Act and other Pensions Acts. I refer particularly to the War Pensions Act.

It has been said in this House on many occasions that our Act is second to none, and it is therefore very pleasing to hear the Minister say that even with the amendments he has put forward he still does not consider this Act a perfect one. I feel that the Minister’s decision to take steps now to amend the Act rather than wait for the report of the independent committee is a wise one, in that something can be done now, and at a later date the whole War Pensions Act, may be amended. I also feel that members on this side of the House are very pleased with the sympathetic hearing the Minister has given the representatives of the B.E.S.L. and the M.O.T.H.S. which has resulted in many of their views or suggestions being incorporated in the amendments. Further, the fact that these particular bodies will be represented on the independent committee will, to my mind, assure us that we shall have a War Pensions Act as perfect as possible. I would also like to congratulate the Minister on having made the Act applicable to Indians and natives. This to mv mind, is yet another step in the direction of social security. I do not share the views that have been expressed by various members opposite that in rural areas natives after being given a pension will refuse to work. It must be remembered that in the rural areas the pension amounts to £6 per annum or 10s. per month. It would appear that hon. members opposite consider 10s. per month sufficient for a native to live on. They may base their views on the low rates of pay they have been accustomed to give their native employees. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has given us figures showing that there are 234,000 male natives in the Union above the age of 65, and 80,000 native women over 60, making a total of 314,000. Then by some wonderful calculations he states that of these 314,000, 300,000 would be eligible for old age pension, and he takes the average pension at £8. This he states, would impose a burden of £2,400,000 a year on the European taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the figures as given to this House, are misleading, and too high, and the hon. member has jumped to the conclusion that when a native is entitled to a pension he will throw up his job for the magnificient sum of 2s. 6d. per week. To my mind it is an absurd proposition to take the average pension at £8. The pension laid down will not apply to those natives who are in receipt of an income exceeding £18 per annum in the city, that is plus pension, £13 10s. if he is resident in a town and £9 per annum if he is resident in a rural area. It will be seen, therefore, that the number of beneficiaries will be very much lower than the hon. member has indicated, and the average pension will similarly be considerably less. In conclusion, I would just like to touch on one section of the Blind Persons Act, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he would consider making a slight amendment to that Act. As hon. members are aware, the Act lays down a means test and I would ask the hon. Minister to consider whether he would be prepared to abolish the means test in the Blind Persons Act, so that the blind pension would be available to every blind person in the Union irrespective of his or her income. To my mind that would not cost the country a great deal, and it would provide one form of social security, and probably the only form of social security we can give the blind person. I sincerely trust the hon. Minister will amend the Act on the lines I have indicated.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) said on the subject of the Oudstryders’ pension, when he asked that they should be given a better pension. I want to go further, however, and would like to ask the Minister of Finance not to grant the Oudstryder pension only under the means test, but to grant it to all of them, irrespective of their means; and I want that to apply not only to the Oudstryders themselves but also to the widows of these who have passed away. I consider it fair to grant these pensions to the widows because those Oudstryders, when they were on commando, did not get any pay. The soldiers who fought in the 1914 war and those who are taking part in this war are all drawing salaries. In view of the fact that only a small number of Oudstryders are left, and those that are left have only another 10 or 15 years to live, it is no more than fair to grant the widows an Oudstryder’s pension. I want to emphasise that many of the Oudstryders’ widows are suffering great hardship today, and I do feel that better provision should be made for them. In regard to the native old age pensions I would like to say this to hon. members, that this particular provision is undoubtedly the most important we have had before the House this Session. We have no conception of what is it is going to cost the country. When I saw the provision proposed it reminded me of a Hollander in the Anglo-Boer War who hid away in a hole, poked out his rifle, fired it and exclaimed : “I hope it will hit somebody”. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance is applying the identical tactics in this case. He hasn’t the slightest conception of what it is going to cost the State to give the natives old age pensions. The public has to agree to it without having any idea of what it is going to cost. Let me mention a few figures to show how much has so far been done for the natives, and where we are going to land ourselves if they are granted these old age pensions. We find that native education in 1944-’45 is going to cost us £1,933,828. Native blind are costing us £160,000. Then there is hospital and medical treatment for natives, which comes under Provincial Councils. Unfortunately the figures in this respect are unobtainable but I want to be consistent and I don’t want to exaggerate. I want to give a figure which is a liberal estimate. If we have 7,000,000, and we estimate hospital and medical treatment at 3s. per native, it would give us an amount of £1,050,000 and that money would have to be paid by the white population every year on behalf of the natives. On top of that we have the Poor Relief grants which the natives are in receipt of today and at a low estimate, on the same basis as the blind, they amount to £166,000. So we have a total of over £3,000,000. But that is not all. Assuming this provision for old age pensions were to pass—and on the figure adopted by the Select Committee on Social Security it would amount to £1,600,000 at a conservative estimate—it brings the total up to £4,915,828. If we add the subsidy paid to the mines in respect of native wages, amounting to £1,800,000, it gives us the globular amount of £6,715,828 which is what the white population has to contribute. In addition to that we have the housing scheme. We have the milk and fruit scheme in the schools and the war pensions. Now let us see what we have done for the natives from 1926 to 1944. An amount of £16,491,576 has been spent on native education; there is a further amount of £4,753,988 expended on land purchased for natives. Those two items alone amount to £21,245,564 spent on the natives. Then there is the matter of buying land for the natives. If we calculate this on the same basis as the land which has already been bought—and this is a low estimate because I doubt very much whether we shall be able to buy land at that price today— there will be a further amount of £12,500,000 over and above what has already been spent. This brings the amount up to £33,745,584. I am not including the expenses in connection with coloureds and Asiatics, which the white people have to bear. I hold that if this pension to natives is passed we are creating a new precedent in this country for which our children will not forgive us. We as a small white population are going to incur an intolerable liability by granting pensions to the natives. They will come to the Union in hordes from the adjoining protectorates. In their own protectorates they do not get these pensions. We are so far ahead of the rest of the world that we are now proposing to give them these pensions in spite of the fact that we have our own poor white problem to contend with. We have more than 300,000 whites in this country who are living below the breadline. Let us attend to the needs of our own people first and after that to our neighbours’ needs. If we insist on granting this pension, it will deprive the farmers of at least 30 per cent. of the labour force they have on their farms today. The natives will simply refuse to do any work. At least 30 per cent. of the labour at present employed by the farmers are the cripples and the aged. The others are in the army; and I therefore contend that this proposal will create a labour problem on the farms which will aggravate the problem facing us today. We know that as long as the native has food he doesn’t do any work. Now we are giving him more chairs to sit on, and we are giving him further opportunities to drink beer. I am convinced that any member who gives his vote in favour of this provision will not come back to this House. His constituents will settle with him. We must not make this a party question. We have not many more than 2,000,000 whites in this country and we are now setting out to make these whites the beasts of burden of the 7,000,000 natives— and the whites will have to bear the burdens of the natives. Not only are We going to create the danger that a native who even today is not disposed to work, will take things easy and do nothing at all, but we are creating a further problem in respect of which we will be faced with economic and social difficulties and eventual racial assimilation. The natives are even now claiming rights to which they are not entitled. Where are we going to land if we allow this sort of thing? We on this side of the House are not opposed to the old natives being cared for.

Yet you don’t want to pay them any pension.

Let each race look after itself. Thousands of young natives who do not want to work are roaming about the country. Make them work and establish a fund to look after the aged people. By passing this legislation we are going to upset the native completely. The native is prone to broadcast things very quickly and the expenditure will increase tremendously as soon as it becomes known among them that they are going to get these pensions. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) says there would be a means test. The means test will fall away entirely. Who knows the native better than the white population of this country does? As soon as a native finds that he can get something for nothing he simply does no work. All these old men will come forward and claim that they have no means of subsistence. The few head of cattle they possess will be distributed among their aunts and uncles and cousins and nieces and the aged will have nothing at all and expect to be assisted by the State. This whole subject must be carefully considered and all its implications taken into account.

This is probably the strangest debate that has ever taken place in this House, or that has taken place in this House for a very long time. Here we find the whole of the Opposition who have spoken today, without exception, taking the Government to task because they are giving very, very small old age pensions to worn-out citizens of the country whose skin happens to be black. I have heard no real argument why the native should not get an old age pension as well as a white worker.

Why did you go to sleep? If you had listened you would have heard the reasons.

It is no good listening to the hon. member; he was born in a concentration camp and has carried it through his life. He was one of those unfortunate boys who was born at the wrong time, and on account of that this bitter hatred will run right through him for the rest of his life. For these people we have nothing but sorrow and sympathy. I mean that, because I know how their mother’s suffered. It is impossible for them, and it always will be impossible for them, to look at things from a rational point of view. I want to congratulate the Minister on what he has done. My only trouble is that he has not done enough, and I think, Sir, our country is moving not in the way my friends on the other side think it is moving, but moving to the left; that is why the native should get better treatment and better old age pensions than are laid down in this Bill. The hon. member thinks the African can share the troubles and ribulations of South Africa, and can fight for South Africa and can work for South Africa, but if he be a farm boy he must be left to fend for himself. Then hon. members opposite get up and tell us that all the boys on the farm, when they become old men, are looked after by the farmers. That is not so.

That is true.

For a section it is true, but not all. Many of them are left to be looked after by the natives themselves. I know, I have lived amongst them and I have seen it. I know and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) will tell you, we both know of a large number of poor natives who are blind, and who can only manage to exist for about ten or eleven days a year, and we have had—particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove—to go round cap in hand and collect money to keep these people going for the remainder of the year. It is a shocking state of affairs, but it does happen in South Africa. We know that nurses go out there to the natives and do their best. We know that doctors go out there and do their best to attend to these poor natives. In a place like Alexandra you get a large number of natives who have come from the country districts, who have come from the platteland, and they are starving. I do not believe for a moment that my friends really mean what they say because they are a generous people and come from generous stock, and I do not believe for one moment they want the old natives to starve, or the old blind natives to starve; but they are talking like this for the sake of votes. The hon. member mentioned about elections. They won’t win our seats; if I stood for a seat in the platteland I would win it; I always win my seat. One of the hon. members opposite stated that if a native gets five bags of maize he won’t work any more; that he does not work. Who wants to work? I have never known anybody who wants to work. We would prefer to enjoy ourselves, but we have to work, and the native works as well as anybody else. It is the native who has built up this country, he has ploughed our fields, he has built our railways. An hon. member said that they are “baie lui.” Well, some members of Parliament are “baie lui” too. The native has been the greatest asset this country has ever seen. Without him we would not be working our low grade ore, and we are now beginning to find that all our wealth is based on gold and our gold is based on the back of “Jim Fish.” He is becoming a rather important person in South Africa, and he will probably remain one for some time. I know the Minister is anxious to bring up the Nursing Bill, and I hope he does. I hear they have 56 nurses here. I say God bless them all. There is nobody more useful or nicer than a nurse. [Interruptions.] I did not know there were any nurses in the gallery. I do hope that our friends will support us with this native question. I know that the line they are taking is not the old proposition or policy that was laid down by the republics. The republics looked after their blacks. Why should these young men who one day may be in the Government—times do change—lay down this principle at the present moment that the white man is really paying for the black man. That is not true. In this country it is quite untrue. In this country one section of the community lives to enjoy an old age pension, and members of the other section have to work themselves to death to pay for this. That is what happens. The black men working in the mines die in large numbers to pay for an old age pension for a large number of our people who have never worked a day in their lives. I hope that will go home, because it is meant to go home.

I would like to appeal to the Minister at once to drop this proposal of giving natives old age pensions. If he does not drop it at once then let him at least accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) that the whole matter should be thoroughly investigated first. It is our duty, our bounden duty, to investigate all matters in regard to native legislation in advance so that we may know the eventual effects of such legislation. And we must look at matters not only from the point of view of South Africa, but also from the point of view of the surrounding areas as well as from the point of view of the whole of Africa as a background. We know that what is passed here today will have its repercussions in other parts of Africa tomorrow. Superficially, this provision looks a very fine one, but we should not lose sight of the fact that this Bill, which we are passing here today will have the most dislocating effect on the social structure of the Bantu, more so than any other legislation passed by this Parliament in the last few years. It will cause serious dislocation in the social structure of the Bantu. We should not forget that the native treats his own people very well. As a matter of fact no other race in the whole world treats its old people as well as the native does. Why? Because the whole principle constitutes one of the chief pillars in the life and social structure of the native. The Bantu’s outlook on life is that the spiritual aspect is the determining and dominating factor in life, and the older the native grows the nearer he gets to the spiritual world. Hence it is the native’s sacred duty to show an evergrowing reverence towards the aged native, and to look after him. It is one of the sacred duties of every native family not only to care for the aged but to make them happy. We know of an instance of a Bantu’s son having carried his father on his back over a hundred miles, and even 150 miles, to secure for him the best that was obtainable. It is one of the fine things in the life of the Bantu population. But in this Bill we are making an onslaught, and a very serious onslaught, on one of the finest features in the life of the Bantu. This matter affects the whole life and social structure of the Bantu, and we have no right to make that onslaught. We must not do it. On the contrary, we should rather take steps to strengthen and develop these fine elements in the life of the Bantu. We are engaged in destroying one of the finest foundation stones in the social structure of Bantu life. And what will be the result? We shall get a condition of affairs under which the family will no longer approach the matter from a religious point of view. The family is going to feel that its responsibility to the old natives is now to be moved on to the State. As such they will accept it and they will pass the responsibility for the old people on to the State. As the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has rightly said, on account of the Minister’s proposal to differentiate between the amount to be paid to the farm natives and that to be paid to the urban native, you are going to have the position that the towns are going to be old age homes for natives. There will be an influx of aged natives into the towns. A further important point in regard to this matter is that aged natives will now be smuggled into the Union on a large scale from the adjoining territories. They will be smuggled in even from Northern Rhodesia, and this will take place on a scale which is going to give the Minister a lot of trouble. The Bantu will be carried here for hundreds of miles. They will come from the two Rhodesias and the Protectorates and the Union will be an old aged home for natives from adjoining territories. Superficially, this seems to be a very humane action, but in fact, it is the very opposite. It is inhumane. On the face of it, it looks as if we are doing the natives a great service. But it is a disservice. It is not an act of charity, it is a crime to the native population. We have not the right to make such an onslaught on the structure of the Bantu races and even less have we the right to place a heavier burden on the white population. Instead of destroying these fine factors in the natives’ life we should develop them. It has been said by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that the Minister of Finance is 50 years ahead of his time. As a matter of fact he is beyond his time altogether. I am saying so because we have not the right to destroy these fine features in the life of a nation in the way we are proposing to do. What is more it has been rightly emphasised that we must not lose sight of the religious point of view in the natives’ life because it is a great stimulus in the life of the young native to leave his home to find work so that he may care for his old people. If hon. members would study the life of the native they would find that large numbers of them leave their tribes to go to work because they look upon it as a sacred duty to attend to the needs of their aged folk in that way. Hon. members would be astounded if they were to study this question to find the extent to which this is happening in the lives of the young natives. And now we set out to destroy this characteristic by the proposal introduced. It is our sacred duty to the lives of these people not to disturb such features in their lives. This measure also affects our economic life very closely, particularly from the point of view of the labour supply to the factories and the shortage of farm natives. We shall find that it is going to lead to idleness and unemployment among the natives. We shall find that numbers of young natives will go and stay with the aged people and do no work at all. Instead of this being a constructive principle in the native’s life, instead of its cohtributing to the formulation of the native’s code of living, it will have a demoralising and destructive effect on the life of the young native. We have no right to tackle the matter in this way. I wish again to make an earnest appeal to the Minister for the sake of the natives themselves and for the sake of the country’s economic life, as well as for the sake of the sound principles involved in the relationship between the two races—for these reasons I appeal to the Minister to drop this provision. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has proposed that this question be first thoroughly investigated. I would like to appeal to the Minister to drop this provision at once so that it will not create a further source of dissatisfaction and racial conflict between the Europeans and the natives. With these few words I hope I can induce the Minister to give the matter his serious attention and I particularly want to appeal to him to make sure to what extent this provision is going to dislocate the whole life of the native population and also their relationship to the Europeans. If the Minister is not prepared to drop this provision at once, a thorough investigation should at least be made into the implications involved.

I think it is no more than right that we should draw attention to the fact that one of the members of this House has been abducted during the last few minutes. An hon. member opposite got up to speak—and we know what his attitude is in regard to these matters—but the Whips immediately swooped down on him and we now see that he has been abducted from his seat. He is no longer here. It is perfectly clear that many hon. members opposite agree with us on the subject and it is a most unpleasant reflection on the freedom of the debate if we know that an hon. member opposite wants to speak and because it is suspected that he doesn’t agree with the Government, the Whips do not allow him to take part in the debate. Hon. members opposite can say what they like but they share with us the serious objections which are being raised from this side of the House to the manner in which old age pensions are being given to natives and also against its being done at this juncture. We find occasionally that long after a Bill has been passed it is thrown up against us that we did not vote against the second reading of the particular measure, if, at a later stage we raise objections to certain principles contained in such a measure. We had an instance of that the other day. It applied to a law which contained principles to which we objected, but it also contained other principles to which we had no objection; yet it was thrown up against us that we had not voted against the second reading. This Bill puts us in the same position, and that is why the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) put his amendment which was unfortunately ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. We find that we cannot vote against the second reading of this Bill because there are certain parts of it with which we agree. It is deplorable that the Minister of Finance has inserted this provision in regard to old age pensions for natives in a Bill which deals with other pensions. We are in favour of the one but against the other. I therefore want to make our position perfectly clear so that we shall not be criticised afterwards for not having voted against the second reading. We would have been prepared to vote for the amendment if it could have been put, namely, that this Bill be not passed until such time as the Minister had further investigated the question of old age pensions for natives. But we are not going to vote against the second reading of the Bill for the reasons I have mentioned, although we reserve unto ourselves the right to discuss this question on its merits in the Committee stage, because when we are in Committee this particular question will not be linked up with the rest of the Bill. When the Government in 1928 introduced old age pensions for Europeans it had a thorough investigation made into the whole subject, the extent of the expenditure involved, what its effects would be, its administration and its general implication. It was only after the whole question had been thoroughly investigated that the Nationalist Party Government introduced the system of old age pensions. The present Government, however, introduces a measure granting old age pensions to natives as well without all the implications having been investigated, without the extent of the expenditure or the effect or the method of granting these pensions having been fully investigated. This is a totally different question from the other one. Take for instance the question of the age of these people. It is perfectly easy to get to know the age of a white person because he has his birth certificate, but in the case of the native it is most difficult to know the man’s age. Those of us who have had anything to do with our courts know how difficult it is to determine a native’s age. I have often had instances in my own practice of the Judge wanting to know a native’s age. Doctors and others have given evidence but they could only estimate that the native was between 50 and 60 years of age, or between 60 and 80. This Bill does not provide how a man’s age can be determined. No standard is laid down. It is most important to have an investigation made to determine the best method of deciding a man’s age. It is going to create an extremely difficult position unless some definite basis is laid down. Another question which is not clear to me is the difference between a town and a dorp. We know that the native on the farm gets 10s.; in a dorp he gets 15s.; and in a town £1. What is the difference between a dorp and a town? Is there any form laid down in the Bill? I do not know which places are to be regarded as towns. I do not want to go into all the details now because I don’t want to detain the House. What strikes us here is that we are now going to grant old age pensions to the natives while Great Britain, which is supposed to be so kindly disposed towards those natives who are her subjects, has never yet thought of doing so, and our difficulty is that this Bill will have the effect that we shall have to pay these pensions to a large number of natives who are British subjects. The Minister may say what he likes, but we who are familiar with the position along the boundaries of the native protectorates know what happens. The natives in Basutoland freely cross the border. A native may live in Basutoland, but he will draw his pension in the Union. They will simply come to the Free State, they will get themselves registered there, and after that they will cross the border again, and, if necessary, they will sleep in Basutoland every night, but at the end of the month they will return to places like Ficksburg, Clocolan and Ladybrand to draw their pensions. What restrictions can the Minister propose and how is he going to stop them from doing this? Further in the interior of South Africa we shall get this position, that the natives on the platteland who draw 10s. will hear they can can get 15s. in a dorp, so will go to the dorp; and there they will hear that in Bloemfontein they can get £1, so they will go to Bloemfontein. All these questions should have been investigated. On the farms we can still find a lot of use for natives who are 65 years and over. Many of them are strong enough to be cattle herds and to do light jobs in the yards. They are also going to get a pension now so they will drop any jobs they might otherwise do, and if they hear that they can get 15s. in the dorp, they will drift there. It is nature and we can hardly blame them. We should bear in mind that the native in South Africa has no conception of the value of money in relation to other things. If he can get £3 per month in a town and his cost of living is £2 15s. there, he will prefer to go there rather than somewhere else where he gets £1 per month, and it only cost him 5s. to live. He doesn’t look at what he has to spend— all he considers is how much he gets. We have numerous cases of that kind. A native works on a farm. He gets all his food, and most of his clothes, but he will prefer to go to work at a place where he will perhaps get £2 per month and will have to buy everything for himself because he does not possess the capacity of distinguishing between the value of what he earns and what he has to pay. He only considers the money itself. The money attracts him and this £1 will draw him to the towns. We who know the conditions, are worried about it. It may not affect certain natives who are in the towns, but we, who live on the borders of native areas, know how dangerous the situation is. We are going to pay old age pensions to a large proportion of the natives whose homes are in Basutoland, Swaziland and other parts, and who will come into the Union for no other purpose but to draw a pension. I should like the Minister to assist us by telling us how we are going to check these things. Take a place like Ficksburg which is right on the border. There is a bridge over the Caledon River and the natives cross it all day and everyday. What is there to prevent them from getting registered in the Free State and sleeping every night in Basutoland? It is a very serious matter. And let me repeat what other members on this side have said. We are very anxious to assist the old decrepit natives so that they will not be cast aside in their old age. But it can be done in a different way. They can be assisted in the right manner. I am not going to put forward all sorts of suggestions today, but we do want a proper investigation to be made before anything else is done. If necessary we can have institutions or bodies —we have our magistrates and our pension officers—who can make investigations to find out where there are old indigent natives. But what is going to happen now? The native will simply get a book and he will draw his pension every month, and beyond that he can go where he pleases and even take on a job. That sort of thing is wrong and will give rise to all sorts of difficulties. Even with regard to the Europeans we have had numerous instances of people drawing old age pensions and then taking on light jobs, and after four or five months the Commissioner finds out that these people have been working and have been earning £4 and £5 per month; the pensions are withdrawn and the individuals are called upon to repay the amount which has been paid out in the meantime. Where you are dealing with a white man it is easy to keep a check—and even there the Commissioner often only finds it out after a year—but where the native is concerned it is going to be most difficult to exercise any control at all. When you are dealing with natives who roam about from place to place, who have no fixed abode like the Europeans, by which they can be traced, you will find that thousands will be drawing old age pensions and will continue to work, and you will never find out that they are doing this work. Take a native of 65 years of age who is on a farm. He may be looking after sheep or doing some other jobs on the farm. Often he has a few goats or sheep of his own. Will these things have to be taken into account in connection with his pension? All these things raise difficulties which we, as a party, are not prepared to undertake at the present juncture, irrespective of the heavy burden which it’ is going to impose on the country. We do not begrudge the native any help he can get, but this is a half-baked way of doing it. This way is going to cause all sorts of difficulties. We want the whole question to be thoroughly examined beforehand and for that reason we cannot support the Minister’s proposal. We shall go into it in greater detail in committee. In regard to the question of pensions for soldiers I want to tell the Minister that there are instances of great dissatisfaction. The way in which compensation is granted to soldiers is causing a lot of dissatisfaction. Let me mention one case which recently came to my notice to show how dissatisfaction is being created. A sergeant of police joins up and goes to the front. He is injured and he also suffers from shell-shock. He returns and goes back to the police. After six months he is examined and he is found to be unfit for further service. He is told that he is 60 per cent. incapacitated, and he therefore has to be retired. He applies to the military authorities for a pension. He is examined and regarded as 20 per cent. unfit. The police officials told him that he was 60 per cent. unfit but the military authorities told him that he was only 20 per cent. unfit. Surely both cannot be right. The man appealed and after a long delay his degree of military incapacity was raised to 40 per cent. and his military pension was raised accordingly.

Give me the details and I shall go into the case.

Very well I shall do so. But I fail to understand how the one body can fix his incapacity at 60 per cent. and the other at 20 per cent. You can quite appreciate that that man now has a grievance. The police authorities found that he was 60: per cent. incapacitated. His civil pension and his military pension together amount to only £8 per month. That man was thrown out and had to find ways and means of making a living. I shall give the Minister the details. There is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice in regard to pensions. I should like to know whether the Minister has considered the case of parents of soldiers who have been killed—where the parents were dependent on the soldiers. Nothing more is being done for them and the Bill is making no change in that respect. Has the Minister considered the question whether better provision cannot be made for the parents of soldiers who have been killed? That is all I want to say on that question. I still hope that the Minister will give his serious attention to the other quesion, if necessary by introducing amendments which will place the whole position on a better basis.

I shall be very brief. As far as the question of pensions to natives is concerned, I want to support most strongly and confirm what was said here by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel), and that is that I cannot see how these proposals to provide pensions to natives can be applied in the platteland. I am not referring to detribalised natives who live in the cities and towns. No one is opposed to provision being made for old natives who are in needy circumstances, and who cannot look after themselves. Indeed, it would be inhuman to be opposed to it. But I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the conditions on the platteland are entirely different. There you still have the tribal custom, and the Government and everyone admits that one does not want to interfere in any way with native tribal life. How are you going to apply the means test to the old natives? We know that the head of the kraal is usually the oldest native in the kraal. He possesses all the assets of the kraal. He has full control of all the assets. He may no longer be working. He may even be blind, but we know that he has control of those assets. Then there is also the lobola system. All the amounts which are paid under this system are regarded as the assets of the whole kraal, and these are administered by the old native. He is the boss. He has full control. If one granted a pension to that old native, one would break up the whole tribal system. The natives would no longer acknowledge him as the head of the kraal. They would adopt the attitude that the Government is now taking care of him; and I feel that in this way very great damage will be done to the whole native tribal system. We feel strongly that there should first have been a thorough investigation into this matter, because we are convinced that the native chiefs and captains themselves will not support this system. I am convinced that if you ask the heads of the bigger tribes whether they are satisfied that the Government should take care of these old people, instead of every kraal being responsible for them, they will certainly reject it. It was pointed out here this morning that if there are cases where care should be taken of those natives in their old age, where no provision is otherwise made for them, the native commissioners or the magistrates can very easily do so. We know that before the pension laws were passed these old people had to go to the magistrates for assistance. We have the pauper relief system under which the magistrates take care of paupers. Everyone who is in needy circumstances is assisted. Exactly the same procedure can be followed as far as the natives are concerned, and I am sorry therefore that in introducing this measure we will undoubtedly encroach upon the established institutions of the natives; I am convinced that many of the natives themselves would certainly not welcome it. Now I just want to say a few words in connection with Oudstryders’ pensions and old age pensions. I do not want to repeat arguments which have been advanced by previous speakers, but I very strongly want to emphasise two points particularly. I feel that since such a pension is being granted, the amount which the pensioners themselves are allowed to earn should be increased before it is taken into account. Many of the Oudstryders are compelled to come to the cities and towns. They are compelled by economic circumstances to come to the towns, and it is impossible for them to live in the cities and towns on the small amount which they receive. The £3 10s. per month which they receive is certainly not sufficient to enable them to hire a room and to buy food and clothing as well. The amount which the pensioner may earn has now been fixed at £30 per annum. As soon as his earnings exceed that figure, his old age pension is proportionately reduced. The small amount which he earns, plus his pension, do not enable him to live decently. This in itself is very strong criticism of the old age pension system, but there is an even more serious aspect. As soon as the pensioner obtains employment with a municipality or elsewhere, and he is paid a cost of living allowance as a result of the fact that the cost of living has increased, that cost of living allowance is also deducted from his pension. That is surely unjustifiable. I know of cases where people have received the increased amount of 10s. or £1 per month, and as a result of the increase in the cost of living they now receive a cost of living allowance to make up the difference. But now the Government is deducting that allowance from their pensions. I hope that this will be one of the things for which the Minister will make provision in this Bill. Then there is another matter which is also very unfair and unjust, and that is as far as our Oudstryders are concerned. If they are in receipt of a pension because they were wounded in the Anglo-Boer war, that amount is also taken into consideration in applying the means test. That is extremely unfair. The individual concerned may have lost his arm or leg or eye, and it is to compensate him for that terrible loss that he receives this pension. Why should that be taken into account in applying the means test? I just want to point out the discrimination whicih is made between officials who are in receipt of pensions, and the Oudstryders. I do not begrudge the officials their pension. Once the official receives his pension, it is his to do with as he pleases. His pension cannot be reduced, whatever his earnings may be. Why should the Oudstryders be treated so unfairly? I hope the Minister will still make provision in this legislation, if he is not prepared to go further, under which the pensions payable to Oudstryders in respect of injuries they suffered, as well as the cost of living allowance which they is paid to them when they are employed, will not be taken into account in applying the means test.

I feel that the legislation introduced by the Minister of Finance is infringing on the family life of the natives. The native knows that his family has to look after the aged people and he is proud to do that, and as the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) pointed out, the old native sits in front of his hut and is happy and content, and his children are responsible for his care. Now the Minister comes along with legislation to break up the family life of the natives by giving them pensions, which will mean a serious infringment on their family life. I want to ask the Minister to investigate the matter before going on with this legislation. The second point is this: We shall find that natives will migrate from the rural areas to the towns, for the children will feel that they need no longer look after the old natives who will receive a pension of £12 and the latter will also migrate to the towns; the children are already trekking to the towns in large numbers and the shortage of farm labour in the rural districts will be further accentuated. The old native with his kraal and family will be sitting in the towns and the children will no longer be responsible to work and care for them. You will not be able to find a single instance of a native starving on a farm where he is in the employ of the farmer. Now, however, they will migrate to the towns and the cities and the difficulties there will become still greater. There will be many of them loafing around whilst no farm labour will be available in the rural districts. We feel that the Minister should once more consider this matter very carefully and have it investigated properly before putting into operation this legislation. In the third place the farmers on the platteland will revolt against this legislation. They will feel that they have to pay for natives who are sitting there and who have never known starvation and who were looked after by their children and the farmers will feel that the children will no longer want to work because they need no longer look after their old people. There will be a great influx of natives from the rural areas into the cities. Apart from that, difficulties will crop up in regard to the neighbouring territories. From the other side of the border natives from Swaziland will move to the Transvaal in order to draw an old age pension from the State here. If the Minister will give us the assurance that he will prevent the influx of natives from neighbouring territories, that he will establish a police cordon in order to keep them out, he will at least be doing something to alleviate our concern. We feel that this legislation is unsound for the natives, for the farmers and for the country itself. The farmers always made use of their old natives as herd boys, especially when they had to move with their sheep from time to time. Now the natives will sit near their huts, because on that 10s. a month they will be able to exist. They do not buy much in the way of clothing. Usually they only wear their kaross, they are not actually accustomed to clothing where they live in their kraals and they will be able to put practically the whole 10s. aside and still look after their children too. The labour problem in the platteland will grow from bad to worse. There is another point I just want to discuss briefly and that is the position of the Oudstryders. In my constitutency there are numbers of Oudstryders drawing their Oudstryders pension. They are now not allowed to do small jobs of work. The Oudstryders may perhaps be able to earn a few shillings here and there, but as soon as he earns £2 or £3 per month, his pension falls away. We feel that the Oudstryders should not be penalised in this way when they have still the initiative to earn a little bit extra. When they can get an odd job we should give them the chance and the opportunity without decreasing their pension. There are also other cases which should be dealth with specifically. There is for instance the case of a widow at Amsterdam in my constituency. She has four-deaf-mute sons. She receives £4 pension per month and two of the sons receive £2 each, a total of £8. Now she is sitting there with four grown-up men at home. How can they make ends meet on £8 per month? It is said that two of the sons are physically fit and are able to get an odd job here or there even though they cannot speak or hear. The health department there has tried to give them some work, but they do not always have an interpreter available and it is very difficult to make them understand what they have to do. They perhaps work for one or two hours and then they take their spades and walk off. I should like the Minister to deal specially with cases like that. It would be better to spend the £700,000 which the Minister now wants to give to the natives, on the old and maimed among our own people. I believe in the motto that you must first look after your own people. We believe in the guardianship of the European over the native, but the natives are today being assisted on a large scale and it costs millions to grant them certain privileges, and now the Minister comes along and wants to give them a further £700,000, whereas it is not necessary to do so. It will only have a detrimental effect. The Minister will also find that there may be many more aged natives in our country than he has perhaps estimated. For that reason we want first of all a proper investigation before going on with this legislation.

I also feel compelled to put a friendly question to the Minister of Finance. I have already brought a few cases of Oudstryders to the notice of the Minister, who, as a result of small jobs which they did, could not obtain a pension. I want to ask the Minister to abolish the restriction altogether as far as Oudstryders are concerned, and also in respect of old age pensioners. Most of the people who today draw Oudstryder pensions are broken people, they are physically no longer able to do a proper day’s work. We must look at these people closely. I feel that perhaps they are regarded too impersonally and that they are classified under those poor who have always been poor. But that is not the case. Many of the Oudstryders are men who were well off at one time and led a very decent life and were in good circumstances, but as a result of circumstances they are unfortunately in the position of being extremely poor. Their health is broken down, and if they do get an opportunity to improve their position slightly by earning something extra, they are begrudged that. I ask the Minister to look at these people a bit more closely. They have lost everything in the fight which they fought for their father-land. In the fight they weré exposed to the heat of the day and the chill of the night. The commandos Were not properly equipped, they did not have proper tents and not sufficient bedding. Their clothing was scanty and as a result of that we know that with a few exceptions, all of them became sickly and broken people. Now they show that they still wish to do something for themselves and to do something to improve their position somewhat. Let the Minister abolish the restriction. Consequently I ask the Minister to have the matter invesigated. As far as old age pensions for natives are concerned, I feel that it is urgently necessary that this matter be postponed until it has been thoroughly investigated. I feel convinced that nobody knew that the Minister intended to introduce such legislation. During the election we heard nothing about it. The Minister made no mention of it in his public speeches. The people know nothing about it. If they had known, the people would have raised their voice against it. We know the natives intimately. We have grown up with the native and we know that if he has the opportunity, then he won’t work. I am now speaking of the Zulus in Natal. I have frequently seen the native male sitting down and looking on while the native girls cut the corn. He sits down with a pot of beer and the native girl must cut the kaffir corn. If he gets the opportunity, he does not work. The Minister should not put this legislation through before a thorough investigation has been made. With regard to Oudstryders and old age pensioners, I make an earnest appeal to the Minister, and as regards old age pensions for natives, I ask him first to have the matter investigated.

May we know from the Minister whether the intention is to make this Bill applicable to South-West Africa?

No, we cannot do that. They can only do it themselves.

Once it has been accepted here, they will probably follow suit. In any case, if they do not do that, we will also be burdened with the natives and coloureds of South-West, who will migrate here. We know that there are many Bastards in South-West Africa, such as the Rheboboth Bastards, who have got their own territory and who have certain administrative rights there; the Bondelswarts, the Bondeldraers, the Veldskoendraers, all of them Bastards, who live just across our borders. We must expect to get a great number of the old Bastards here if the legislation is accepted and if it is not applicable to South-West. Many of these natives migrated there years ago from the Cape Province. They will return hat in hand to obtain the pension if this legislation is passed. Then there are the Ovambo, the Klipkaffir, the Nama, the Herero, the Damara, and their aged people will come here. And what about the Bushmen? They live on “uintjies” at present, but if they can get money for nothing, they will migrate here.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was busy expressing our thoughts in connection with the pensions to nonEuropeans, and we emphasised the fact that this Bill will also cover the Bushmen population in areas over which we have no control. I think it ought to be clear to all of us that if we start paying pensions to that section of the population, we will be paying pensions for a longer period than the period they have already lived, and that they will also get more than they have ever had in their life. I also wish to indicate the extent and effect of this legislation. The Minister of Finance has said that the intention is not to extend it to South-West Africa, unless that territory itself should decide to do so. But he must realise that this legislation places the mandatory power under certain obligations. We are the mandatory power of that territory, and that places us very definitely under an obligation. The mandate territory is administered under our supervision, and what is good for our population, will surely also be useful, good and necessary for that population. I am opposed to this legislation because I feel that the time for it is not ripe yet. We are premature with this legislation. No State in the Continent of Africa has yet passed such legislation. The mighty Britain also has not done so for its territories:

Must we not give a lead?

I am pleased about that remark, but the same speaker made the remark in this House the other day that we go much further in our consideration for the non-European population than any other territory in Africa, and that was before this legislation was brought before the House. I feel that, although we must give a lead, we must not lose our heads and go too far. With this legislation I feel that we are hot only premature, but that we suddenly go too far. I say that the time for this legislation is not ripe. But even if the time were ripe, then I feel that with the introduction of this legislation we are not keeping account with reality. We suddenly want to go too far, and we are too idealistic. I feel convinced that if the Minister of Finance had come forward with half the amounts which are proposed here, then it would still have been a fair compensation or pension for these non-Europeans. But this legislation means an immediate burden of taxation of millions of pounds on the population. I also oppose this legislation because no proper investigation was made before the Bill was introduced. There was no searching investigation. If proper investigation had been made and if evidence was obtained, also from the supporters of the Government on the other side, then the Government would have received sound advice, men who were prepared to give the Government good advice, but who would not have been prepared to go as far as this legislation goes. I am further opposed to this legislation because no estimate of the cost was submitted to us. By this Bill we are asked to vote money, but we are not told how much money we are voting. It is a leap in the dark. We have tried to calculate what this legislation is going to cost, but the Minister says that our calculation is wrong. Nobody, however, tells us, even approximately, what the expenditure will be. I say that we are asked here to accept legislation which will cost the country millions, but nobody has told us, even approximately, what the amount will be. The Government and the party on the other side ask us to vote money, and this party is also bound, when there is a change of government, to make these pension scales applicable; we know that it is going to place a heavy burden on the population, but you do not give us a proper estimate of the amount it is going to cost. You cannot, therefore, fairly expect that we must accept this legislation with closed eyes. I say that we feel that the time for this legislation is not ripe, that the matter has not been properly investigated and that you have not taken us in your confidence with regard to the costs thereof. The Minister ought to know what the costs will be, and I also believe that he does know. But if he were to make it public, then his own supporters would not be prepared to accept this legislation. I do not believe that the Minister of Finance will come to this House with legislation which involves great expenditure, if he has not checked up what that expenditure is going to be. I not believe that for a moment. But he will forgive me if I say that I also believe that he is afraid to give us that information, out of fear that if he mentions that expenditure, then his own supporters will not be prepared to accept this legislation.

I am also opposed to this legislation because similar legislation is not simultaneously introduced in the adjacent territories. We know that the result of that will be that the Union will be made the dumping place of all the old and broken down natives, of all those who are of no futher use to the adjoining territories. We feel that we are justified in our attitude with regard to this matter. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily…

Hear, hear!

But I trust that the Minister will reconsider this legislation before he pilots it through the House, and if possible, that he will refer it for proper investgation and for a proper estimate of the costs. Before I sit down …

Hear, hear!

Before I sit down, I wish to say a word with regard to the Oudstryders. [Interruption.]

If they continue like that on the other side, then we must continue speaking.

Yes, the greater the uproar from members on the other side, the longer we will remain on this Bill. They force us to make use of our rights in this House. They do not listen to what we say, but simply make a noise on the other side. They consider that they have a powerful majority and that they can simply pass any legislation and we must be satisfied with it. I will make use of this Bill on every platform in the country.

We expected that.

The members on the other side have not got the courage to get up to defend this Bill.

Neither to support it.

Yes, there they sit under the Whip. They are kept quiet by their Whips. All they can do is to make interjections to bring this side off their course. I see that the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) is here, and I notice next to him the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe), a member of the Native Affairs Commission and a very ardent supporter of the Government. I hope that the hon. member for Potchefstroom will rise and express his opinion of this legislation. I hope he will do that. Then I would like to speak about the pensions of the Oudstryders. Why is the principle, which was accepted in the past with regard to their pensions, not applied in this legislation? Why must these people continually come to the Government, hat in hand. The Oudstryders have now said that they have confidence in the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Is that the way the Minister of Finance respects their confidence? Is it fair to treat the people, who sacrificed everything they had for the country, in this manner in the evening of their lives? We do not wish to make political propaganda out of the matter. We want to keep the matter out of politics. But we do not know how to approach the Minister to get something done for those people without raising our voice, and if we raise our voice, it is said that we try to make it a party political matter, while we do not want to do that. We would like to get all the advantages for them which we possibly can, and all we can do is to plead to the Government and to that big, powerful majority which the Government has behind it, to grant those Oudstryders, irrespective of any income they may have, a pension with the same additional advantages which they have enjoyed thus far. Give them a pension, and not only the Oudstryders, but also the widows of the Oudstryders. These people are in the evening of their lives. That part of the population is dying out. They are falling away rapidly. It is perhaps the last opportunity we will have to plead for them. Cannot we improve their conditions considerably by this legislation? I seriously make an earnest and friendly appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

That is purely politics.

I just want to say this to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) : An empty barrel must keep its tap closed, otherwise people discover that it is empty.

It is quite clear to me that hon. members opposite have been muzzled. Not one of them has shown the courage to stand up here and discuss the grant of pensions to a certain class of people. But they can be assured of this, that we shall make the people acquainted with the facts from one platform after the other.

You will be doing it for political reasons.

If one throws a stone amongst a lot of dogs and it hits one they all howl.

We would rather discuss the Nursing Bill. We like the nurses better.

That does not help; the more these people shout the longer we will talk. They are not able to put me off, and if they want to talk I hope that I will be able to speak loud enough so that I can hear myself.

What has the hospital to do with taxation?

The fellow will have to go to another sort of institution, to Valkenburg.

There is no more room there.

They will find room for you quickly enough. The longer I am in this House the more I feel that the Minister looks after the coloured people and the natives better than he does after his own people.

Now you are talking nonsense.

One only gives “nonsense” to a donkey.

Order, order.

It is quite clear that the Minister is now proposing to give pensions that no other Minister previously has been in a position to give. The only reason I am on my feet is to register a strong protest against the discrimination which is proposed here in this legislation against the platteland.

That is untrue; we know that story.

The position is quite clear, that the Minister does not realise what the effect of his proposals is going to be. What he is setting about is driving the old people from the platteland to the towns; that is what he will do in the case of the natives. The native pattern of life is completely different to that of the European. No matter how old a native may be he remains the head of his tribe. He is always cared for by the members of his own tribe. Today you are placing them in a position that they also will have to come to the Government to draw a pension. As a result of this discrimination the Minister is going to worsen the labour position in the country. He is going further than that; by this legislation he is going to alter their way of living and the rights and privileges that they have enjoyed. But what does he care so long as he gives the natives and the coloured people more money—even the Turks. That is what he is doing. I am surprised that there is still a single constituency in the platteland to return a Government supporter. This Government has always discriminated against the platteland, even with their old-age pensions. If a person lives on a farm his expenses in the case of illness are much more than those of the man who lives in a town. The town dweller has the doctor within call, and the majority of these old people require medical attention. They are not in a position to call in a doctor, because their pensions are too small to enable them to meet the expense of having a doctor come out to the farm. But the man who is living in a town receives free medical treatment; he receives medicine free. Not only is this discrimination against the platteland unfair, it is disgraceful that the people in the platteland villages should be treated so badly. I have often taken the stand that whenever the Minister fixes pensions, and fixes them on this discriminatory basis, he is doing an injustice to the platteland. If it costs a man £5 to live in a town it also costs him £5 to live in the platteland. His living expenses are just as high. I am therefore registering this protest. I shall protest to the end, because it is unfair. The Minister may perhaps say, “We represent the towns, our vote comes from the towns; we can do what we like”. I want to warn him if he continues in that way he is going to run up against trouble. As far as I am personally concerned, I wish that I could send all the old-age pensioners to the towns. Instead of providing suitable places for these people where they could live decently, he is engaged in discriminating against the old people in the platteland. I also want to say that the Minister does not realise what is going on where the native is concerned. What he is doing is to upset all the tribal customs. He believes that the only difference between a European and a nonEuropean is the difference in the colour of his skin. Consequently I feel that he does not realise what he is doing. He does not see that he is engaged here in doing things that must ultimately give rise to difficulties. Why cannot he give a pension to the semi-fit people in the platteland? Why should he give a pension to the native and exclude the European. A semi-fit person cannot obtain work on the platteland, but in the towns it is not difficult. A man like that is often stuck in the country with his wife and children. As far as semi-fit people are concerned, I could wish that the Minister might be kept awake for one night by the cries of the children of those people because they cannot get food.

May I, in the first instance, just refer to two points of a general nature that have been mentioned here. In the first place the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) mentioned the question of the consolidation of our pension legislation. Our pension legislation falls really into two classes. There is the legislation in connection with war pensions; that was consolidated two years ago, in 1942. Then there is the pension legislation in connection with social pensions. I am in agreement with the hon. member that it would be desirable to consolidate this legislation in a greater measure than is the case today, but, as the hon. member realises, it is all part of the social security scheme that is now being evolved. The Planning Council has itself gone so far as to draw up a Bill that embraces in the one measure all the benefits in connection with social security. It is very probable that we shall approach the matter along those lines, but in any event the question that the hon. member has mentioned will be taken into consideration in connection with the development of the social security scheme. Then the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has also mentioned a general question of considerable interest. In reference to this Bill he mentioned the question of the desirability, when introducing legislation that will entail increased expenditure of a considerable nature, of submitting to Parliament complete information in connection with the Bill. As far as this Bill is concerned the position is of course that in connection with the proposals relating to military pensions it is extremely difficult to furnish an estimate, because we do not know at this stage how many casualties will occur. In respect of the other benefits provision has been made in the supplementary estimates as far as regards the current year. Of course the expenditure in connection with this matter will increase; my hon. friends are quite right when they say that. But in any case we are not going any further in this Bill than what has been frequently proposed by various bodies who have dealt with the question of social security, and our proposals are within the framework of their recommendations. But to return to the general question that has been touched on by the hon. member for Fauresmith, I just want to say this, that I understand that a procedure of that kind has been followed in the British House of Commons, and seeing that my hon. friend has now referred to the point, I intend to obtain information in connection with the procedure that has been followed there, and then I shall go into the possibility of following a similar procedure here in the future.

†Mr. Speaker, I said in introducing this Bill that it fell in two parts. The one part dealt with social pensions and the other with war pensions, and I think I should deal with those two parts separately. As far as the proposals in this Bill in regard to war pensions are concerned, it is clear that the House is in general accord with those proposals. The Bill has been welcomed as an attempt to remove some of the existing difficulties in our war pensions system, pending an investigation into the administration and interpretation of the Act which I have promised. I appreciate the fact that the Bill has been welcomed in that spirit. I am glad, too, that the proposals in regard to supplementary allowances have been welcomed generally inside the House and also outside the House. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) does not quite like the term “allowance” because he is afraid that that suggests that it is not payable as a matter of right. But in our law we talk today of wives’ allowances and child’s allowances, and those are payable as a matter of right. I do not think, therefore, that the use of that word carries the implication my hon. friend attaches to it. It is true there has been a certain amount of criticism of the war pensions part of this Bill, both general and specific. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) said that the Bill bases its benefits on the standard of minimum needs, and that at the 1939 level. I do not think that is quite fair. When my hon. friend spoke he was doubtless thinking of the schedule provisions of the principal Act as they will be amended by this Act, but those scheduled provisions were fixed in 1942, and were then placed at figures considerably higher than the 1939 level, and those conditions are now to be improved still further in this Bill. But apart from that my hon. friend forgot the fact that pensions are not merely payable on the basis of the schedule, but there is what used to be, and still is called the alternative pension, and will if this Bill is accepted, be called the supplementary allowance, which is certainly not based on the minimum standard of financial need. I think, therefore, that my hon. friend’s criticism was not a fair one. I do not propose to delay, the House by going into the more specific points which hon. members have raised in regard to the military pensions part of the Bill. I do not think they would expect me to do so; and I notice most of those hon. members who raised those specific points are not present here at the moment. But I do want to say a word or two again about one more general point that has been touched upon, and that is the question of the differentiation between service inside and outside the Union for pension purposes, especially as far as widows are concerned. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) went so far as to say that we must pay a pension in respect of every man who died in uniform. Surely that goes too far. In this war we have recruited men of all ages, of all medical categories, from A.1 to C.6, and surely many of those who have died during the war while in uniform would have died in the ordinary course of events, anyhow. I do not think we can expect the taxpayer to accept a responsibility as far-reaching as the hon. member for Krugersdorp suggests. It is true we do give a special concession to the widow of the man who dies up North. In that case we do not enquire into the cause of death. But that, Sir, is a concession; it is definitely in the nature of preferential treatment which the men who go up North merit and deserve. But while that is so, I do not think it is fair to use that merited preference the preference we have given to the men who have gone up North, as a justification for urging that the same concession should be extended to everybody. If that was done it would mean imposing an unfair burden on the general taxpayer. I would point out that we do, in Section 24 of the Bill, which amends Section 17 of the original Act, make two quite substantial improvements in the position of the widow. In the first place, we cover the case of the widow of the man who has been brought from up North because of disease contracted there and who dies in the Union; and in the second place, by substituting the word “service” for the word “duty”— on the suggestion I may say of the Soldiers’ Organisations—we are taking quite an important step forward. But I feel we can hardly be expected to go further than that, the more so in view of the provision we have made, and I think no other country makes, in the matter of special pensions for those who do not qualify under the substantive terms of the law. May I at this stage raise another point which has come up in this House on several occasions in the past and which was raised again by the hon. member for Berea—that is the question of establishing the onus. The hon. member for Berea referred, as other hon. members have done in the past, to a statement made by the M.O.T.H.S. That statement of the M.O.T.H.S. is based on a provision which was in the pension regulations of Southern Rhodesia. The hon. member for Pinetown has repeatedly raised this matter in the House, the point being that in those Southern Rhodesia regulations it was laid down that any injury received, disease contracted, or death occurring, during full-time service was to be deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by service unless the contrary is clearly proved. As for the question of the onus of proof, when this matter has been raised in the House before, I have said that I do not quite see how this thing works, how this question of onus of proof is actually operating. Last time it was raised in the House I said I had taken the trouble to find out from Southern Rhodesia how it worked there, and the answer I got was that the whole matter was under consideration. I now have heard further from Southern Rhodesia, and it appears, doubtless on account of the very difficulties I had in mind, that Rhodesia has now dropped that clause and the clause in the Rhodesian regulations is now practically the same as Section 4 of our Act. The onus of proof has been removed from the State probably because of the administrative difficulties which I pointed out.

†*May I just at this stage refer to a point that has been emphasised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Esasmus) in connection with war pensions, namely, the proposed increase of the allowances to wives and children as regards nonEuropeans. He enlarged considerably on a matter regarding which he feels the strongest objection should be made. In my speech on the second reading I pointed out that a similar increase was also proposed in reference to European women and children, and that we were trying to preserve the allowances on an equal basis. According to the figures that he has mentioned here, it appears that the increases as regards nonEuropean families will amount to about 8 per cent. Bearing in mind the increased cost of living, it is not such a tremendous increase, and it is not necessary to say much about it.

†Now I come to the other part of the Bill, that is the part dealing with civil pensions; and here, before I go on to the main question raised, namely, that of the grant of old age pensions to natives, I would like to say just a word about the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). They have referred to the discrimination in our existing pension laws and administration as between Europeans and non-Europeans. Actually, Mr. Speaker, this Bill removes a good deal of the present discrimination. This Bill, for instance gives invalidity pensions for the first time to coloureds. This. Bill therefore should have been welcomed from the point of view of removing discrimination, but of course it is perfectly true that it does not fix the same rates for Europeans as for non-Europeans. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) seems to think that we should fix the same rates for non-Europeans as for Europeans. Well, Mr. Speaker, we must be realistic. We must take into account economic facts. We must take into account varying standards of living; and may I remind my hon. friend that in all the social security reports we have had so far they have taken into account all those economic factors and varying standards of living, and that in every one of these reports there is proposed a continuation of the present discrimination in the rates payable to Europeans and non-Europeans. My hon. friend may say discrimination goes too far, and that it is to some extent a matter of administration and not legislation. That would take us a little beyond the scope of this Bill. I hope in time, that that will correct itself in so far as on a realistic basis it can be corrected as our social security scheme develops.

†*Now I come to the objections that have been raised against the proposals in connection with old age pensions for natives. The arguments against the proposals have proceeded in the main along three lines. In the first place it has been stated that it would have a bad effect on our general policy, that it will work against the policy of separation. That seems to me to be rather far-fetched. It has been stated that it will weaken the desire for work amongst the aged natives. I do not know whether that argument was ever employed when old age pensions were granted to Europeans and coloured people as well. It has been further stated that South West Africa will have to fall under this provision. That is a matter for South West Africa itself. Old age pensions for Europeans were in force in the Union of South Africa for at least fifteen years before the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa granted the sanie privilege there. It has been stated that it will cause difficulties in connection with the Protectorates. I have never heard that the grant of pensions to blind natives has caused difficulties with the Protectorates. It has been stated that the Union will become the refuge for natives from the Protectorates. It is overlooked that it will be necessary for those natives to have resided for fifteen years in the Union before they can draw a pension, so I cannot imagine that they will come to the Union just for the purpose of drawing an old age pension after a period of fifteen years. As far as I am concerned, I cannot get away from the very simple question: What is our duty, what is our human duty? What is our duty as a Christian society in regard to the aged people amongst the poorest section of our population? We accept the principle of trusteeship. While we are today active in making better provision for Europeans under the motto of “social security”, while we are ever extending this provision for our own people, I cannot see how we can refuse to do the same for the poorest section of the community. I cannot see how we can refuse to do this for them. It has been stated that an investigation is necessary. Well, one would have thought that this is the first time that hon. members had learnt of this. Apparently they have forgotten that as far back as my budget speech, three months ago, I mentioned this, and that it has been repeatedly referred to several times since then. It has been mentioned in a report of the Social Security Commission that was investigated by the Planning Council. It was investigated by an interdepartmental committee that made enquiries on the subject of health and social conditions among the natives. It was enquired into again by a select committee of this House during this session.

Why did you not make it an issue in the elections?

I know that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as members of the committee voted against anything of this sort as far as natives are concerned. They are consistent. But they did not succeed in convincing their colleagues on the Select Committee. Nor did they succeed in convincing this House.

This matter was not mentioned at the elections.

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and other hon. members have had a considerable amount to say over the improvements that have been brought about in the last few years as far as the natives are concerned. I am not going to make any apologies for that, for having done something to improve the lot of the poorest section of our population. What we have done in this connection was done in the light of our conception of trusteeship, and was nothing else than our duty. The second line of argument is this: Can the European bear this burden that will grow—I admit that it will grow—on behalf of the non-Europeans? The hon. member for Waterberg has stated that the native will not contribute a brass farthing towards this pension. Possibly that is correct. We do not propose at this juncture to obtain more in the way of taxation from the native. But is direct taxation all that we get from the native; is that all that he contributes? In the last resort all the money for our social services is derived from the general national income, and I ask you: If it were not for the natives who work in our mines, who work in our industries, who work on our farms, what would our national income have been? The native also makes his contribution to the national income from which these services must be financed. He also has a right to a claim on these national services. I repeat that the native population is the poorest section of the population, and how can we expect, as our friends opposite apparently expect, that the poorest section of the population should pay for its own social services. Do we expect that the poorest section of the European population should pay for its own social services? What country in the world expects that the poorest section of the people should pay for their social services? Now it is being stated that with my liberal ideas I am half a century before my time. I have already referred to those commissions and committees which have recommended those proposals. I have before me now an address that was delivered in Another Place a year ago, in which the leader of the party of my hon. friends opposite, speaking on behalf of himself and in the name of his party, pleaded in his personal capacity for the grant of pensions to aged natives. He stated that it was our Christian duty, that it was our moral duty —it was he who did that. It was done by the other side, and then my hon. friends say that on account of my liberalism I am 50 years before my time. That hon. Senator is not 50 years before his time any more than I am. No, it is not something that can be contested on those grounds.

Who said that?

Senator C. A. van Niekerk.

He did not advocate this system.

We can go into that later. The third line of attack on this Bill was in connection with the administrative difficulties. I think mv hon. friends fail to realise that it is not our intention to employ the same machinery in this connection as we are using with reference to Europeans and coloured people. Provision has been made in Clause 45 of the Bill that the administration of this part of the Bill will be carried out by the Department of Native Affairs and the Native Affairs Commission. There will be administrative difficulties, difficulties in connection with age and in connection with means, but those difficulties, or some of them at least, have already appeared in connection with pensions that have now been paid out over a course of several years to blind natives, and if those difficulties could have been overcome at that time, we shall also be able to overcome them now. The hon. member for Waterberg has referred to the difficulty there will be to distinguish between natives and coloureds. That difficulty will always be there; also the difficulty of distinguishing between whites and coloureds. Those difficulties we shall never be able to eliminate entirely in a country like South Africa, but as far as that is concerned, this proposal does not create any new difficulties, because even under the Old Age Pension Act the same difficulty presented itself of defining whether a person is coloured or not, whether he is on the one side, a European, or on the other side, a native. The identical difficulty exists at present, and the definition in this Bill of coloureds and natives makes absolutely no difference as regards the position in that connection to what is laid down in the Act of 1928.

What is the position of a non-European wife of a European?

I am afraid that I cannot go into that aspect of the matter now. The position will be the same as it is at present. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) and also our hon. friends opposite, have put questions in connection with Oudstryder pensions. I do not propose to go into all these aspects just now, because I have already done this in the past. The hon. member for Krugersdorp raised this objection to the present principle, that the Oudstryder pension is an anticipated old age pension. I am afraid that I cannot promise him that we will depart from that. It is the same principle that has been followed in the legislation of other countries in connection with war veterans. The hon. member for Boshof spoke about the additional one-third that we added last year to the Oudstryder pension. That one-third that was added was never intended as something permanent, but only as a temporary increment, pending the general enquiry that was in progress at that time and which is being continued now in connection with social security. It was a temporary grant. We are not taking that away now. Where it is to the advantage of the pensioner, it is continued; but it remains a question for consideration what the position of the Oudstryder is in relation to the general position of the old age pensioner under the social security scheme. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) and other hon. members dealt with the question of the means test, and they spoke about incidental earnings. That is something that applies to the old age pensioners as well as to the Oudstryders. It is a very difficult question. It has already enjoyed the attention of the committee on social security and of the Select Committee of this House; which went into it and in the light of the findings of those committees the Government will again give consideration to the matter. In the meantime pending that investigation, it will not be possible to effect an alteration. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) alluded to the question of discrimination against the platteland—in other words, that we were paying different scales of pensions in the towns and in the villages of the platteland. I can only say this to him, that that question enjoyed the consideration of the Social Security Committee, the Planning Council and of the Select Committee on Social Security, and those three bodies recommended the continuance of this discrimination.

That still does not make it right.

One other point, Mr. Speaker; both the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) raised the question of the abolition of the means test as far as the blind are concerned. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a matter which should be dealt with in relation to the general question of the means test as affecting other pensioners as well. The question of the means test received the consideration of the Social Security Committee which reported last year, and it has also received the consideration of the Select Committee of this House on Social Security which went into this difficult question. I can only say the Government will go into the matter very carefully in the light of these reports. That I think is all I can say at the moment. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have sought to deal as fairly as I can with the various points which have been raised in regard to this Bill; I repeat that I am glad that the proposals of the Bill in regard to war pensions have been so well received, and while there has been opposition to the main proposals in the first part of the Bill as far as old-age pensions for non-Europeans are concerned, I have no doubt that the good feeling and the good sense of the House as a whole, and of the country outside, will confirm the proposals which we are making in that connection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 30th May.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendments standing in my name on page 827 of the Votes and Proceedings. The last one is necessary in view of the fact that we are not issuing “B” shares at once. The first two are in pursuance of what I said in the second reading exempting the trawler companies from the provisions of 1 (a). We discussed this question at great length under another clause and I hope it will not be necessary to discuss it again and go over the same ground at this stage. Briefly the position is that this clause was originally drafted to deal with the small fishing stations where schemes for the development of inshore fishing were to be started and where it might be necessary in dealing with a number of fishermen who were entirely unorganised and might not appreciate what was being done for them. It might be necessary to exercise a certain amount of power to compel them to come under the Corporation. It was not intended to apply to the trawling companies who operate for the most part from Cape Town. Therefore, Sir, I was prepared to make it clear that this was not the intention. I move—

1. (2) The Governor-General may, in any proclamation under sub-section (1) by which any person is prohibited from disposing of any species of fish otherwise than through the corporation or a company, fix the charges which may be made by the corporation or by the company, as the case may be, in respect of the disposal of fish on behalf of such person, and prescribe, in the case of the corporation, the purposes for which the moneys collected by way of such charges, may be used by the corporation.

I want to draw attention to this new clause dealing with the exclusion of the trawling companies—a most important clause. The Minister says that we discussed this question in connection with a previous clause. That is so, but none the less I want to say a few words on the subject. I want the House to understand what it is all about. Originally, as proposed by the Select Committee, the provision was to this effect that all fish, 100 per cent. of the catch, could be placed under the control of the Corporation. In other words the Corporation in terms of the Bill, once it became law, could provide that all the fish caught along our coasts, could be sold through one channel under control. The Corporation could say where it was to be sold, how it was to be sold and at what price it was to be sold. But now the Minister proposes this. He says: “Yes, that it is quite all right. The Government can, in terms of Clause 28 on the recommendation of the Central Board provide that fish shall be sold through one channel and it can provide that the fish is to be handed over to the Corporation, but with just this slight difference. It is correct that you do it, but I am going to provide that only one-third of the catch shall be under control and two-thirds of the fish caught will be excluded.” Why does he do that? The Select Committee which sat for weeks on the Bill would not have sat as long as that had it not been for the fact that private fishery interests gave extensive evidence to show that they should not come under the provisions of the Act in regard to the control of fish. The trawling companies asked the Select Committee to exclude them from the provisions of the Act insofar as the sale through one channel was concerned. Hon. members will find that in the evidence, and they not only ask to be excluded insofar as the sale was concerned but they also asked that all companies associated with them should be excluded. After we had gone into this question in Select Committee for weeks ….

To which companies are you referring?

I am referring to Irvin and Johnson and the National Trawling Company. Irvin and Johnson definitely asked for itself and its associated companies to be excluded and a similar request was made by the National Trawling Company. But the National Trawling Company is a small company with a capital of £250,000 while the assets of Irvin and Johnson run into more than £1,000,000. They asked that they should be excluded. We listened to that evidence and with the Minister in the Chair we examined those witnesses, and after the witnesses had been examined and after they had left the Committee room the Select Committee discussed the matter for some considerable time. Clause 28, after having been very carefully considered and discussed by the Select Committee was drafted as it stands here today viz. that the Corporation was to have full control over the sale of fish. That was the finding of the Select Committee and the Minister was the Chairman of that Committee. That was the Select Committee’s considered opinion after it had heard evidence and after it had discussed the matter for hours; we said no, and no again. If we set up a Corporation to control the whole fishing industry it is no use asking for two-thirds to be excluded, because there is no point in having a corporation if that is done. What is the use of controlling one-third of the fish production and throwing two-thirds on the open market free of control. The Select Committee realised what the result would be. What will be the results if you control only one-third of the fish production and you allow two-thirds to be thrown on the market, arbitrarily and without control? You will have the old story again, and you might as well take this Bill and tear it up like a scrap of paper. And then the trouble started. When Irvin and Johnson couldn’t get their way they started making propaganda, and they did so on a scale that they alone could manage. I want to congratulate Irvin and Johnson on two points. First of all let me congratulate them on their ability to make propaganda. It is a long time since I last saw a Parliamentary Bill in respect of which such intensive and such systematic propaganda was spread as that which was spread by Irvin and Johnson. I never knew there was so much paper in the country as Irvin and Johnson had at their disposal—paper to make propaganda. They snowed up members of Parliament with memoranda and they sat on the Minister’s doorstep. They sat on the doorstep of the Minister of Finance as well and I hope the story will be told one day as to who gave in first, but whoever it was it was an inglorious retreat.

A Dunkirk.

It wasn’t even a retreat according to plan. It was just a disorderly retreat. In the Lobbies of this House for days we discussed nothing but this question. All we discussed was whether they would succeed in their attempts to persuade the Government, Would they get the Government on their side?

You are dreaming.

And eventually one morning we found out that the Government had capitulated. And were not those gentlemen pleased! Were not Irvin and Johnson pleased. They immediately stopped their agitation, and what is more they immediately stopped approaching members in the Lobbies, and hon. members who were on the Select Committee, who took part in the agitation remained perfectly quiet and absolutely satisfied. They are quite happy with the Minister’s Bill now. The Minister cannot be satisfied, because throughout the sittings of the Committee he maintained a very strong and steadfast attitude and I want to compliment him on his firm attitude in Select Committee, but unfortunately he was unable to keep it up.

Now tell us something about Laaiplek.

I don’t know who gave in—I don’t know whether it was the Minister of Finance or who, but the Government has to take the responsibility for it.

Before this particular clause is disposed of I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has said. The public is entitled to a reply from the Minister and I hope his reply will be forthcoming.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the memorandum issued by the Department of Commerce and Industries which was handed to the Select Committee. That memorandum to my mind was to a certain extent a revelation of the fear in the minds of the Government of this powerful company. In that memorandum the Department discusses the way in which Irvin and Johnson can be handled in order to induce them to support this Bill. I want to quote two paragraphs to show what the Department itself says about Irvin and Johnson. I am quoting from Memorandum F which was handed in by the Department of Commerce and Industries—

The holy terror which the Government has for these powerful capitalists reveals itself clearly here. The Government does not know how to handle this matter. It does not know how to handle Irvin and Johnson because it is conceivable that they will not submit to the Department’s instructions. And then the report goes on—

Two things appear from this, that even when the Minister’s Department submitted this memorandum to the Select Committee that Department was also very anxious for Irvin and Johnson’s catches, amounting to two-thirds of the whole fishing industry, to be handed over to the Corporation, and in that respect the Minister tried to bring the House under a wrong impression when he said the other day that there never was any intention of including Irvin and Johnson.

Not under this Clause.

But this Clause deals with the question of handing over the fish to the Corporation. That is the essence of the Act.

No.

This Clause 28 is in essence the sale through one channel, and the hon. member cannot get away from it that Irvin and Johnson are now excluded from the handing over of fish for control by the Corporation. Is it not so? If it is not so then words have no meaning. What has the Select Committee been discussing all the time if it is not the question of sale through one channel? What does Clause 28 say? It says that the Governor-General can decide on the advice of the Central Board that the catch of fish is to be handed over to the Corporation for sale through one channel. That is all Clause 28 says, neither more nor less. If the sale of fish through one channel cannot be controlled, a large part of the Bill may just as well be torn up. It is also perfectly clear, however, that fear of Irvin and Johnson dominates the position, because if one studies the memorandum one finds it stated there that the Corporation in regulating matters will have to fix the price more or less on what Irvin and Johnson charge in their business. Has anyone ever heard anything like it? Has anyone ever heard of a Department of State putting forward a proposition like that, that the Corporation must regulate things in such a manner, that it has to meet Irvin and Johnson in such a way, that when the price level is fixed, it has to be fixed according to the business conducted by Irvin and Johnson. That is what it says here. In other words the big capitalists have caused the Minister and the Government to turn tail. I am not a bit surprised at the fact that the Minister eventually capitulated in such an inglorious fashion. I am not a bit surprised after having read the memorandum. We are told that Irvin and Johnson have rendered this country a great service by developing our deep-sea fishing industry. I don’t want to argue that point; I only want to say that other things have also been done which have been in conflict with the interests of South Africa. That was revealed in the Select Committee. The hon. the Minister knows to whose evidence I am referring. It came out that until the 1940 Act stopped them, they threw the fish back into the sea to keep it off the South African market and thus keep up prices. Until the Government introduced the 1940 Act, the trawling companies threw fish back into the sea on a scale which sounds almost incredible. We asked why they had a wireless set on the trawlers. The reply was: “ Wireless sets are installed to keep those concerned informed in regard to the catches.”

That is not true.

Read the evidence of Dr. Van der Horst, Question 1223. I asked Dr. Van der Horst this—

The reply was—“ Yes.” And when I asked whether they were still utilising it the reply was again in the affirmative. My next question was—

The reply was—

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member accused me of telling a lie. In support of his old father-in-law he accused me of telling a lie—he did so by way of an interjection. I am now quoting him question and answer.

Where does it say that fish were thrown back into the sea?

Read the evidence, read Question 1234 and Question 1235. Dr. Van der Horst admits there that fish used to be jettisoned into the sea. I asked—

And the reply was—

I therefore say that if the great services which Irvin and Johnson have rendered South Africa are referred to—the great services rendered to develop deep-sea fishing—I don’t deny that contention—but one should also remember the way fish was dumped into the sea and how South Africa was detrimentally affected thereby. And the greatest disservice which is now being done to the country by this self-same trawling company is that it is compelling a powerless Government to do a thing which they themselves know to be against the interests of the fishing industry. It is against the interests of the industry. I am sorry it is so. If one really wants to exercise control, one has to have control over all the fish that is caught. Otherwise it means nothing. Today we have control over only the one-third of the fish that is caught by the inshore fishermen, but Irvin and Johnson are so strong that they told the Government: “We want to exclude our two-thirds of the fish and we want to sell them as we deem fit.” I emphatically protest against this amendment. I protest as the Minister protested in Select Committee, and as he protested a week afterwards. I protest as the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) protested, and as other members in this House and in the Select Committee protested. I am sorry that the Minister was not strong enough to show Irvin and Johnson the door.

In the few remarks I want to make about this clause I propose looking at the question from a purely national point of view. The enterprise of Irvin and Johnson as well as other trawling companies has been referred to in sneering terms in connection with Clause 20 as well as in connection with this clause. Hon. members have spoken in such a sneering manner that the question has arisen in my mind whether any company or any individual can possibly be encouraged to invest money in a private enterprise in this country.

Have you seen how much profit they have made this year?

The question of profit does not enter into it. What I am concerned with is the enterprise itself. Ours is a young country and we are grateful for undertakings of this kind. Here we have an undertaking which on its own initiative has gone to the extent of investing £1,000,000 in the development of the country. When this question was being debated on a previous occasion, hon. members spoke slightingly about the enterprises established by this company throughout the country. When Ladybrand was referred to, where this company has also set up a business, one could almost hear hon. members laugh. Now let me ask them whether they want the concerns established by Irvin and Johnson in which they have invested their own capital to be closed down?

But surely that has nothing to do with the matter.

Irvin and Johnson, when they invested their capital, had no idea that legislation of this kind would be introduced, but they did so in their own interests and in the country’s interests, and we were perfectly satisfied to see them invest their money; we were pleased to see them developing the industry, especially as nobody else had undertaken it. And now that this Bill has been introduced hon. members refer in sneering terms and in terms of ridicule to a company which on its own initiative has invested so much money in the industry. It is in the interests of a young country like South Africa which is in need of considerable development. Assuming this Bill had not been introduced—we would have been perfectly satisfied with conditions as they are and we would have thanked heaven for Irvin and Johnson who are developing this country. Why haven’t other people with money tried to make these big profits of which we hear so much today in connection with Irvin and Johnson? They could also have taken the risk of possible heavy losses. Ours is a young country and we need as much development and as much business experience as we can get, and it is a mistake to speak slightingly about a company which has already invested £1,000,000 in such an important industry.

Are you in favour or are you against the exclusion of the trawler?

The fact of the matter is that the State in this Bill is making it possible for the other inshore fishermen to send out trawlers and to compete with Irvin and Johnson. I believe that Irvin and Johnson will before long try to come under the provisions of the Bill and not to keep outside. Their production of two-thirds of the fish, and the inshore fishermen’s one-third is a thing of the past. This Bill creates facilities for the inshore fishermen to send out their own trawlers. It will not astonish me to hear that the trawler companies are even now regretting the fact that they have asked to be excluded.

Are you in favour of sale through one channel of agricultural products?

I am in favour of sale through one channel where no channel exists as yet. But in this case there already is a channel, a channel created by a private undertaking which has invested a million pounds in connection with it. That is a totally different question. If the hon. member had invested a million pounds on his own initiative in connection with the development of the country would he be satisfied to see that million pounds wiped out by a stroke of the pen? Would it be an encouragement for the investment of capital in this country? Those same arguments were used when the broadcasting corporation was established and when the old private broadcasting company disappeared from the scene. Before the law was passed we were quite satisfied with the existing broadcasting service.

Even if we do include them they will still make a 15 per cent. dividend.

I want the inshore fishermen to be protected and I think they can lay a claim to protection under this Bill. But we have this situation today, that the inshore fishermen are not able to supply all the fish needed. They are now protected by fixation of prices under this Bill and they will be able to compete with the trawling companies and I feel that the trawling companies will very soon try to come in under the provisions of this Bill. Let us try, though some of us may have contrary views about the matter, to look at it from a national standpoint, and let us be reasonable with the people who have invested so much of their capital in our industrial undertakings. Personally I should like to see Irvin and Johnson and other companies come in under this Bill so that we may have sale through one channel. I would support that. I feel, however, that a serious injustice would be done to a very important section which has done a great deal for the development of the industry. Let us consider the matter from a national standpoint. If we want to see money invested in this country it is our duty, when we get the opportunity, to see to it that concerns which have been created here as the result of private initiative are not destroyed. Hon. members appear to have that intention now that they have the opportuniy. I hold no brief for the trawling companies, but I do not begrudge them the opportunity for carrying on their own enterprise in which they have invested so much money, because I feel that they will try very soon to come in under the provisions of this Bill.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it is not very much use asking the Minister to change his mind at this stage of the Bill, but I would like to protest once more against the emasculation of this Bill, in favour of Irvin and Johnson, whose case has been put by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) and the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). The hon. member for Caledon seems to suggest that because at certain times particular firms may have invested sums of money in a particular trade or industry, they are ipso facto entitled to control that trade for all time.

I never said that.

This fishing industry, as I understand it, has been admitted by the Government to be one of South Africa’s greatest national assets. In other particular lines, where industries have been considered national assets, pretty strict measures of control have been exercised. Even in our greatest industry, gold-mining, the Government has, from time to time, felt impelled to enact very strict measures of control, yet we find in this particular instance— I must come back to it again on behalf of Parliamentary Government— in this particular instance this amendment is the result of pressure exerted upon the Minister by the Chambers of Commerce in this country.

Nothing else.

The Minister admitted it.

I did nothing of the sort.

By inference you did; you said nothing would satisfy the Chamber of Commerce. One gathers again that the Minister has come under the blighting influence of vested interests. We are getting to the stage now when we don’t know exactly who is running the Bill. I would hate to think that the hon. member for Houghton has anything to do with the economic development of this country; if he has, God help us. The hon. Minister in his reply to the second reading debate dealt in cavalier fashion with the arguments which were advanced. He waved his hands and said: “This is the position and you must be good boys and accept it.” But, sir, there is a vital principle concerned here. We are continually, in this House, being asked by particular interests to come to their assistance. That is on the one hand, but on the other hand, when it is suggested that the Government, in the interests of the country, and in the interests of consumers, should come to the rescue and impose some kind of conditions, we are immediately met with this story of the sacred rights of private enterprise. In other words, it is perfectly correct for the Government to come to the rescue of an industry and by Acts of Parliament place that industry in a position to make great profits year after year without really doing any work for them, that is apparently correct, but when we look after the interests of the consumer in reference to the price of fish, when we look after the interests of the people of this country who never appear to get enough fish, when we endeavour to lay down a system whereby this policy of security will be carried out, the Chambers of Commerce have only got to come along to the Minister and the Minister immediately caves in. If that kind of thing is to be continued I cannot see for the life of me where the hon. Minister is going to have any economic development in the Union at all. The argument he advanced on the second reading was that the purely social aspect of this particular Bill would take another two or three years to put into effect, therefore there is no particular hurry to bring the trawling industry under the aegis of the Corporation, but that is not an argument that will hold water. I believe that the well-organised business represented by the trawling interests should be called upon to pay, and pay very heavily for the subsidisation of these social welfare projects which are contained in this Bill for the inshore fishermen. It is no use to tell me that they have invested all this money. I know they have invested this money in this particular industry. But I know something more, I know that for a period of years, by pursuing a policy of scarcity, which denied the people of this country cheap fish, they have made piles and piles of money, probalby very much more in profits than ever they have invested in the industry.

You are right.

And they have made that money at the expense of the smaller man and at the expense of the consumers of this country who have had to pay an exorbitant price for fish, and they have made it at the expense of that class of people in this country who we are daily being told are suffering from malnutrition because they cannot get enough food to eat. I have no particular sympathy for this particular undertaking, they have had a very long run, they have made very large sums of money out of the fishing industry, and they are a very, very small portion of the population. Why the Chamber of Commerce should particularly interest itself in Irvin and Johnson I cannot for the life of me understand. I want to suggest to the Chamber of Commerce that if we want to be perfectly logical we should carry it out in every instance. Why should we subsidise the sugar industry?

We do not.

It is one of the biggest scandals of the country, and it was done under one of the worst Bills ever passed in this House. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lesson to be learned from the method in which the Government treated the sugar industry. I am not suggesting for a moment that the sugar industry should be damaged. It is a necessary industry and contributes very much to the welfare of Natal, but it should not be subsidised in the manner in which it is. Here I want to point the lesson. I know through long conversations that I had with a very prominent British chemist, who was sent some years ago to this country with £1,000,000 capital to be invested in by-products, and he found that the Government had so arranged the sugar industry, and made it so easy for them to make their annual profits, that they were not interested in by-products, to South Africa’s loss. I make bold to say that the sugar industry today is the most wasteful industry in the country and we are going to perpetuate the same thing in the fishing industry. There is no question about there being innumerable by-products which arise from the fishing industry and which might be made into very great economic assets, and, incidentally, these by-products are, in some instances, things which the people’ of South Africa stand very much in need of. But if you so arrange your industry, so give it protection and so allow a monopoly to get control as to make profit-making easy, there is no incentive to further development or exploration of the possibilities of by-products. South Africa has a great deal of wealth in by-products of various industries, but we do not pursue a policy of developing those by-products, and I feel, Mr. Chairman, if the trawling portion of this industry is not going to be called upon to bear a portion of ther responsibility, not to their shareholders, of whom there are only about 150, this amendment, this Irvin and Johnson protection amendment, which the Minister is now moving, is being moved in the interests of about 150 people who control the whole of the trawling industry in this country. Because in most instances the actual retail selling of the fish is also in the hands of these particular people through subsidiary companies.

It is gratifying to notice the attitude which the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) adopted in connection with this matter. I only hope that he and his party will not do what they did at the second reading when they ran away from their principles when it came to a division. I hope that when this matter is put to the vote he will stand by what he said and the principles which he enunciated. But I am prepared to enter into any reasonable wager—and I cannot do it under the rules of the House—that the hon. member and his party will disappear when it comes to a division, and if he does not disappear he will vote as he usually votes nowadays— against his conscience. We heard a very remarkable speech in regard to this Bill, in connection with which I want to say a few words. I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). He spoke here as a great shareholder of Irvin and Johnson—perhaps he is one; I do not know.

You know very well that I am not.

But in any event I find it very remarkable that such a speech should come from someone who belongs to the class of producers who believe that their products ought to be sold through one channel. His whole speech was in connection with Irvin and Johnson, and he stated that if this clause were passed as the Nationalist Party wanted it, it would be tantamount to a death sentence on Irvin and Johnson, by one stroke of the pen. That is surely the greatest nonsense which I have ever heard. The poor Irvin and Johnson who throw back fish into the sea in order to keep prices high will now be ruined if the amendment of this side is accepted! The poor Irvin and Johnson who, according to the hon. member, do so much for South Africa, who are not at all concerned about profits but whose only wish it is to serve the public, will now be ruined! But it is the same Irvin and Johnson who, a week or two ago, paid 15 per cent. dividends on their shares to the unfortunate shareholders whose only wish it is to serve the public of South Africa, and not to promote their own interests at all.

And there was still a bonus of 10 per cent.

The shareholders of this poor firm, Irvin and Johnson, for whom the hon. member is now pleading, because he is afraid they will be put out of business, were not satisfied with 15 per cent.; that was not a sufficiently high return on their shares in this company, which they did not establish in their own interests, but only to serve the public of South Africa; they want this further concession of a bonus of 10 per cent.! In other words, in one year they received 25 per cent. on the money they invested in this company. One can therefore understand the hon. member for Caledon getting up and pleading for this company which is so oppressed. He went even further. He said that within a few years Irvin and Johnson would plead to be included under this scheme. The two-thirds—because the sale of fish is under their control to a great extent—will ask to come under the wing of the one-third. The baby ostrich will try to find shelter under the wing of a bantam hen. He says he wants to make it two-thirds. In the near future the inshore fishermen will all start with trawlers! Does the hon. member know that a trawler costs between £11,000 and £22,000? Will the inshore fishermen have between £11,000 and £22,000 to spend on a trawler? If the hon. member reads the Bill he will see that even if there had been inshore fishermen who could afford a trawler, they would not come under the one-third, but under the two-thirds, and that would only strengthen Irvin and Johnson’s position to remain outside. He now asks: “ How can one apply control to a company which has invested a capital of £1,000,000? The capital of the Zebediela, the Transvaal orange growers, is also £1,000,000. When we suggested control in connection with oranges, was the hon. member then opposed to the Zebediela Company being included under control? No, he was in favour of it and I was also in favour of it. In the one case the hon. member wants to exclude a company because it has invested a capital of £1,000,000, and in the other case he wanted to exclude a company which had also invested a capital of £1,000,000. The hon. member must be consistent. Perhaps it is too much to expect of him. He says the position was different as far as agricultural products were concerned, because we asked that agricultural products should be sold through one channel since those channels were non-existent. The channels for sale did exist. The channels for the sale of every type of argicultural product did exist previously, but those channels were unsatisfactory. They were unsatisfactory because the producer did not get enough. They were unsatisfactory because the consumer was called upon to pay too much; and because those faults existed in the channels for the sale of agricultural products, the farmers decided that we should sell all our products through one channel. Look at the parallel between this case and the case of agricultural products. There is a very close parallel. In the case of agricultural products it was decided to sell through one channel in order to protect both consumer and producer. In this case the producer is being protected, but the public is not being protected. The public is not being protected, and one of the objects of this Bill is to protect the public against the producer, who asks prices which are too high and who systematically withholds fish from the market by throwing them back into the sea in order to keep the prices high; and now that we want to alter the position and put a stop to those things, what does the hon. member for Caledon do? He runs away from the principle which he so ardently advocated in connection with his own products. One should at least try to be consistent. It is almost impossible for the hon. member for Caledon to be consistent, but let him try to apply to the industry of other people what he considered to be in the best interests of his own industry. He cannot understand me, because he is so taken up with the poor Irvin and Johnson who have to be protected, that he does not care what happens to the members of the public, as long as Irvin and Johnson can go on declaring 25 per cent. dividends on the money which they invested in the fishing industry.

I should like “to submit a few figures, which may surprise them, to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) and other hon. members on that side of the House who may be concerned about Irvin and Johnson. The hon. member for Caledon is concerned about this Bill, in its original form, being applied to Irvin and Johnson. Apart from the figures which were mentioned here by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) I want to draw the attention of hon. members to what happened in the deliberations of the Select Committee on Public Accounts this year. It appears that Irvin and Johnson, apart from the money which they make out of the fishing industry, are also engaged in augmenting their income in other ways, and it appears that what happened was this, that they were leasing trawlers to the Government, and that they, together with a few other companies, made a sum of £193,000 out of the Government and out of the taxpayer in one year. I want to point out that the finding of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in regard to this matter reads as follows—

In other words, they leased their fishing vessels to the Government, and in a period of two years they get more from the Government in the form of rent than those vessels originally cost. The Select Committee further expressed its opinion in this connection. It recommended that steps should be taken in connection with the owners of these vessels who, it would appear received unusually high rents for approximately two years.

Can the hon. member tell me what that has to do with the Bill?

It was argued by the hon. member for Caledon that the position under the Bill in its original form, before this amendment was moved, would be that Irvin and Johnson would suffer great financial losses.

I did not say that. I did not say that they would have suffered losses.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Caledon and other hon. members on the other side, that they need not be concerned about the question of losses which Irvin and Johnson may suffer. I just want to mention one other figure. Evidence was given by the Auditor-General that a certain ship of theirs which was valued by Lloyds at £26,000 was leased for a total amount of £47,000. They received £47,000 in the form of rent in respect of that one vessel. The hon. member for Caledon need not therefore be concerned about the capitalistic company. To me it is a matter of great concern that during the past few weeks we have had propaganda here which would be called lobbying in America, lobbying by means of correspondence and circulars addressed ro these members, on a scale which was nearly the same as the lobbying of America which brought politics to a low level; and I say that it is a matter of great concern to us that we had this type of thing in the past few weeks, and that that propaganda was conducted with so much success that even a Minister of the Crown yielded to it.

I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been advanced on previous occasions that Irvin and Johnson should not sit on the Advisory Board. The House has thought it fit to accept that amendment of the Minister’s that they should be included, that they should also have representation on the Advisory Board. I want to tell the Minister that I think that he owes the House an explanation in connection with his attitude. It is indisputable that when the Committee met the idea and the object of the Minister was very different to what it is today. I should like the Minister to take the House into his confidence and tell us why he is now excluding Irvin and Johnson. I want to ask the Minister to inform the House why we were convened as a Select Committee, why we were put off on various occasions and why the Minister met various people. I want to ask him whom he met, and when he came to the conclusion that Irvin and Johnson had to be excluded from this Clause. I understand that the difficulty has been that the monopoly of Irvin and Johnson was not sound for a fishing industry in South Africa. We now have the position that two-thirds of the fish supply does not fall under the provisions of the Bill. Let us assume now that Irvin and Johnson will function as they have functioned in the past— if Irvin and Johnson continue along the same lines, as they have hitherto, it is possible that no part of the fishing industry will fall under the Bill. What happened in the past? I should like to quote from the report of the Select Committee. At page 252, question No. 1422, we find the following—

Mr. Abao’s answer was—

In other words, as soon as a company was formed Irvin and Johnson bought them out. Then a question was put—

To that the reply was given—

The following question was—

Mr. Abao’s answer was—

Then followed this question—

Is it not clear that it is possible for Irvin and Johnson to place an even larger proportion of the fish supply outside the scope of the Bill if they continue buying out small fishing companies. I do not believe it will help much to argue the merits of the case here. I do not believe there is a single member in this House, who is unprejudiced, who will not support this argument from the angle I have taken. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to be fair. This is not a Bill that is going to affect the result of the war. It is not a Bill that will bring about the fall of the Government, or do anything else. It is not a Bill that will have the slightest effect on the result of the war. If there are members on the other side who are supporting the Government purely on account of the war policy, I would ask the Minister to make it clear to them that he is leaving it an open question for the House to vote on freely. The arguments that are used here are not arguments that have been used just by members on this side in the Select Committee, but hon. members opposite who were on the Select Committee also used those arguments. With one or two exceptions, that was the general opinion. What does it avail us? We go and sit on the Committee; we sit there for weeks, and we arrived at the same conclusions, and then the hon. Minister comes here and he moves amendments and uses all the party machinery to have his views adopted. With all respect I do not believe that it is the Minister’s own view. I believe the position is that the capitalist forces will not permit the Minister to have his own way. I want to make this appeal to the Minister: He did not answer the last time, and I want to ask him now to please tell us why he will not leave this question, which is of a non-political character, to the free vote of the House. I make an appeal to him to do that.

Before the Minister replies, I want to say a few words on one point. The Minister has made an observation which induces me to do that. I hope that the Minister does not wish to bring the House under a wrong impression. By way of an interjection he intimated that I had not given the right interpretation to Clause 28, as it now stands in relation to his proposal. I am anxious that no confusion should be caused. The Bill says that the Governor-General— that is the Government— can prohibit any person to dispose of any sort of fish mentioned in the proclamation to any other person than the Corporation. It is surely clear enough that the Corporation must obtain the power to control the whole of the fish supply. Now the Minister comes and proposes to insert the words “fish other than is caught by trawlers.” The purpose of Clause 28 is sale through one channel. The Minister proposes to exclude all the fish that are caught by trawlers. That is very clear indeed.

I do not accuse the hon. member of wilfully placing this House under a false impression; but I do say I differ from him on the interpretation of that clause from the practical point of view. I agree as the clause stands, without my amendment, that in theory it would be possible by a proclamation to compel all the catchers of fish to dispose of the fish to the Corporation. From the practical point of view, however, it is absolutely impossible by a mere proclamation, at one swoop, to compel the whole of the existing fishing interests to sell their output to the Corporation. If we were going to do that it would be necessary to set up very complicated machinery in order to be able to do so. Although that clause is framed in wide terms—and this is where we differ— the intention of that clause was to deal with the small places, it was necessary to compel to co-operation where we were dealing with the in-shore fishing.

Why was Irvin and Johnson dissatisfied with this clause?

I am not here to defend or to attack them. I have carefully refrained from doing either in this debate. But the fishing industry agree, if I understand rightly, with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that as the clause stands, an attempt could be made to put them out of business overnight. I say that was not the intention. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has stated his case very forcibly; in fact he overstated it, and he has thereby succeeded in frightening the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Bumside). I hope the hon. member for Fordsburg will not think it necessary to disappear when the division comes, and if he will stay I may be able to adduce some arguments to fortify him. The hon. member suggests that this amendment will so weaken the Bill that the Corporation will be powerless to play its part in the fishing industry, and the people who are catching two-thirds of the fish will be able to sell their fish at any price they like and do anything they like. That is going too far. In this very clause the Minister retains the power to fix the price of fish. He may fix the price of all fish, and moreover all the powers in this Bill which the Select Committee agreed upon, powers to take over as a going concern any existing undertaking in the fishing industry, powers to establish new companies, power to do anything whatever, anything that one can think of in the fishing industry, are all embodied in this Bill. None of them are taken away. The only difference is that if the Corporation wants to do any of these things it will have to come to Parliament and ask for an issue of shares to do them.

If we have the same Government they will do it.

It is not a question of Government but of Parliament.

If you say: Vote for the Bill; they will vote for the Bill.

If the hon. member thinks that the Government is going to be here for ever, I hope he is right. If the Corporation wishes to go in for a large issue of these shares or to do any of the things that are laid down, they must come and explain their policy to Parliament. So the discussion on this clause has really been a storm in a teacup. This amendment does not really weaken the powers of the Corporation. In practice, this sub-section could not be used for the purposes that the hon. member for Moorreesburg suggests it might be used; and all the powers originally asked for for the Corporation by the Select Committee remain in the Bill, circumscribed only by the further provision that in order to get the capital to carry out these objects they will have to come to Parliament to authorise the issue of those shares.

Question put: That the words in lines 20 and 21, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—25 :

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie. J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Strauss, E. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Noes—66 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H.J.L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Words proposed to be substituted by the Minister of Economic Development put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—65:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander. M.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Stallard C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—25 :

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Strauss, E. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Words proposed to be substituted accordingly agreed to.

Remaining amendments proposed by the Minister of Economic Development put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 28,

I move—

1. 29.
   1. (1) The Governor-General may, after the Minister has consulted the advisory council, by proclamation in the Gazette, impose on every fisherman in respect of all fish of any species (other than whales or seals) specified in the proclamation, which is landed by him, a levy for the benefit of the Corporation at a rate not exceeding one-twentieth of a penny in respect of every pound of the weight of such fish when landed, as determined in the manner prescribed under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2); and may in like manner withdraw or amend any such proclamation.
   2. (2) The Governor-General may, by a proclamation under sub-section (1)—
      1. (a) impose a levy at different rates in respect of different species of fish;
      2. (b) prescribe the manner in which the weight of the fish may be determined for the purposes of the levy: Provided that in so determining the weight of the fish, the head and any entrails not used for commercial purposes shall not be taken into account;
      3. (c) prescribe the persons by whom the levy shall be collected on behalf of the corporation, the times at which and the manner in which it shall be paid to those persons, and the times at which the proceeds thereof shall be paid to the corporation by those persons;
      4. (d) in exercising his powers under paragraph (b) or (c), make different provisions in respect of different species of fish and different areas;
      5. (e) exclude from the levy, fish landed at any place or in any area specified in the proclamation, if the proceeds of the levy in respect of such fish would, in his opinion, not justify the expense of collecting the levy.
   3. (3) The Governor-General shall, in such proclamation, specify the purpose for which the proceeds of the levy may be used by the corporation.
   4. (4) Any levy under sub-section (1) which has become payable by any person, shall be a debt due to the corporation and may be sued for and recovered by the corporation in any court of competent jurisdiction.

This clause provides that the Governor-General may impose on every fisherman, in respect of any species of fish, a levy. The provisions are very wide, and the intention is that a levy on certain species of fish may be made for the benefit of the corporation, to be used for such purposes as the Governor-General may specify. It may be suggested, Sir, that it is going too far to say that we should impose on every fisherman a levy, but in the amendment there is ample provision made for exempting certain people from the levy, and, in fact, it is clear that this levy will be borne by the large fish-catching interests. I am given to understand that the fishing interests know about this amendment, do not object and are prepared to pay this levy. The maximum of the levy is one-twentieth of a penny per lb., and it is fixed as a maximum which cannot possibly be passed on to the consumer, and therefore cannot affect the price of fish

Why cannot it be passed on?

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) can pass on a twentieth of a penny per lb. to the consumer, he is welcome. The hon. member forgets that the Minister is going to retain the right to fix the price of fish. Nothing can be passed on without the Minister approving it.

Then who is going to pay it?

It will be paid somewhere between the catcher of the fish and the distributor; it will come out of the profits. How it is divided between the fish catcher, the wholesaler and the retailer is a matter for them to work out between themselves. I want to make it clear that in the provisions of the amendment the levy can be made upon any particular species of fish, and people can be exempted, under 2 (e), from the levy, if there is not sufficient justification for the levy being made. It is quite clear that this levy will be paid by the fishing interests who are now operating in the trade.

Mr. Chairman, I think, a part of this clause might be amended for the benefit of all concerned. In Section 2, sub-section B, it reads—

Mr. Chairman, it is not the practice to gut the fish before they are landed, neither is it the practice to take the head off the fish. That, to my mind, is an unnecessary complication. It should not be necessary to specify the purposes for which the levy is imposed in the Governor-General’s proclamation. I suggest to the Minister that those parts in the clause are superfluous and he might easily drop them.

I hope that the House will vote against this amendment proposed by the Minister. In the first place the Select Committee did not think of it. It was not mentioned in the Select Committee. For weeks the Select Committee was occupied with this matter. They heard a large number of witnesses, and the matter was never brought up. Now we have this proposal of the Minister’s as an afterthought It is peculiar, but it appears to me that the amendment has been arrived at after considerable consultation. Why is the Minister proposing the amendment? My own impression is that because the big men outside did not want it, he is unable to propose it. Why are the big people outside agreeable to supporting this amendment? They know that it also affects the inshore fishermen. They know that the levy cannot be imposed on the fish before the Governor-General has decided, but the Governor-General is actually the Government, and there the big men have something to say. The Governor-General only decides after the Minister has consulted the advisory council, and the advisory council will be comprised largely of the gentlemen whom we are talking about now. The advisory council will be comprised not only of members who are producers of fish, because this company, as we have previously indicated, also controls the sale of fish; they furthermore control the canning of fish. Thus they will have on the advisory council if not the majority, then in any event very strong representation.

The Minister nominates the members of the advisory council.

I do not want to say that I have lost confidence in the Minister, but the big men have accomplished a very big thing here; and the Minister should not tell me now that he may do something, and will do something, that they don’t want him to do. He will forgive me if I say that. He has rudely shaken the confidence that we reposed in him, and consequently he will have to use a better argument than saying that he nominates the members to the advisory council. A Government that can give in on such an important point as this may also yield on other points. Two things must happen before this levy can be imposed. The Government must decide on it, and it will have to be advised by the advisory council, on which Irvin and Johnson will have a big say. Now we come to another matter. My information—I do not know whether it is correct—is that the inshore fishermen will resent this levy very strongly. If the Minister proposed that only the two trawling companies should pay the levy, then the temptation would have been very strong for me. But we say that if one person has to come under sale through one channel, then all should be brought under it. The Minister has stated that this tax will not be passed on to the consumer.

The Minister can also fix the maximum prices for fish.

I hope from the bottom of my heart that he will do that. I want to mention two bodies that were subject to a levy, and where the people did not pay it. It was passed on to the consumer. The consumer had to pay that levy. That happened in connection with cinemas. We know that every time an extra tax is imposed the admission charges are increased. The public has to pay. The same thing has happened in connection with cigarettes. The tax is imposed, but in the end the consumer pays it. When the Minister says that the levy will not be passed on to the consumer I accept that he has very good information that that levy will not be passed on to the consumer. In any case, I do not think that the inshore fishermen ought to be asked to pay this levy. He has a hard enough time as it is. A few days ago 50,000 snoek were caught round our coast. If the inshore fishermen had to pay the levy that the Minister is now asking, they would be liable for a payment of £300 on those 50,000 snoek, taking the average weight at from 25 to 30 lbs. I say that we on this side of the House who represent the inshore fishermen cannot allow that to happen. If there is a levy of one-twentieth of a penny on a lb. the total amount would be about £300, assuming that the average weight of the snoek was 30 lbs., and I cannot feel justified in voting for such a levy because these people are not in a position to pay. Why has the Minister not done what the Select Committee recommended? Let the State contribute £500,000 and then let the public buy “B” shares. This is an afterthought, and I am afraid that it brings the Bill no further.

I should also like to identify myself with the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and to ask the House to vote against the amendment moved by the Minister. The reason we are asking this is, in the first place, because the Minister himself admits that the levy will be paid “somewhere in between”. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has rightly said that if the Minister states “somewhere in between” then it will go usually to the one comer or the other corner. In practice it will always be the person who catch the fish, or the consumer, who will have to pay that levy. I now want to ask the Minister what the object of the Bill was when he introduced it. The object of the Bill was to control the price of fish. The Bill was introduced as a result of the great dissatisfaction that prevailed because the price of fish was so high. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has figured out here what the levy will be. He has stated that it would be £300 on a catch of 50,000 snoek. I think it would work out at much more than he stated. That levy will have to be paid either by the fishermen or by the consumers. May I just say this, that the 50,000 snoek that were caught here were big snoek.

By whom?

By the inshore fishermen, of course. They sold them at Somerset Strand for 5s. a fish. I think the Minister will admit, however good his intention is to have the levy provided “somewhere in between”, that it eventually will have mainly to be paid by the consumer. We know that if you impose a levy of l/20th of a 1d. the price will not be increased by l/20th of a 1d. but it will be increased by a ½d. The object of the Bill, in a certain measure, was to eliminate as far as possible the dissatisfaction that exists over the price of fish. It may be said without fear of contradiction that the experience is that every housewife speaks in the strongest language about the high price that has to be paid for fish. They all complain about the high price of fish today. I do not think it is reasonable on the part of the Minister, after he had given the impression that the Bill would be introduced as approved by the Select Committee, for him to come here with amendments regarding which the hon. members who served on that Committee know nothing at all.

There was absolutely no discussion on it.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) knew anything about this beforehand; the hon. member nods his head; he did know about it. He was not on the Committee, but he knew of it. He knew that there was such a proposition, but no member of the Select Committee was aware of it. The Minister will have to admit that we tried to assist him in every respect on the Select Committee. We who served on the Select Committee knew nothing about this, but the hon. member, who represents big capital in this House, who has admitted that he represents big capital, states that he knew that such a proposal was on the way. I think it is unfair towards us that we were not vouchsafed any information regarding this matter; but apart from that I think that the Minister with the best intentions in the world, will not be able to impose that levy “somewhere in between”. It will, in the long run, be borne by the consumer, or by the fishermen.

The new clause before the House now is in similar terms to the clause of which I gave notice, and hon. members will recollect that during the second reading I suggested this levy. It is true, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) said that nothing was said of this in the Select Committee, but it was in consequence of the deletion of the trawler interest from the distribution of fish that this clause is now introduced. What I want hon. members to remember is this, that the Select Committee accepted the principle that the trade, the fishing trade as such, will contribute towards the social and economic uplift of its workers. The Select Committee accepted that. Now, how is the whole industry going to contribute towards that social and economic uplift unless you impose that levy? The trawlers will make no contribution towards that uplift of the inshore fishermen, and that uplift would only have been left to 25 per cent. of the output of fish, and the 75 per cent. would have escaped it altogether.

Why not tax the 75 per cent. for a change?

You are taxing it now. 100 per cent. of the producers will contribute towards that object of social uplift under the provisions which the House has agreed to. I asked the hon. member unless you have that levy, where will the income of the Corporation come from?

Would you be prepared to exclude the inshore fishermen from the tax?

Yes, some of them.

If I propose it will you support it?

The levy is imposed on the whole industry, and some of the inshore fishermen will be exempt where it is not worth while collecting it.

Where do you see they are exempt; that is not correct.

Hon. members will know this levy applies to the big trawling companies. I want to say this in justice to Irvin and Johnson that they realise their responsibility and they are not opposed to this contribution. I do not think they liked it very much, but I think they feel morally bound to contribute.

Who likes a levy?

You appear to be quite happy and the company is happy, but the fishing industry is not.

I hope that hon. members will not press their objection to this, because after all it is something you are getting from the industry, but to suggest that l/20th of a 1d. would be passed on to the consumer, well, it would be absolutely out of the question. But I do want to tell hon. members what else I suggest, that this levy should be at the disposal of the corporation for any purpose they like to apply it to. And I hope when this corporation is established that the surplus fish of the inshore fishermen will be sold to the poorer section of the community at half the price that fish is being sold today; in other words, at cost price to the corporation; and part of that levy can be used by us for the cost of the distribution of that fish to the poorer classes. There is no reason why the fish should not be included in relieving the poorer section of the community, just as cheap butter is. We should let them have cheap fish; sell it much below today’s price, not alone the fish produced by the inshore fishermen to be put on the market, but we hope by arrangement with the trawling people they will supply a certain amount of fish to the Social Welfare Department at their wholesale price, which is in the neighbourhood of 3½d. and 4d. per pound. We, the corporation, will then let the poor people have the fish at that price.

After what the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) has said, namely, that he had no objection to the inshore fishermen being excluded from the levy, and after his statement that he himself felt that they would be excluded from the operation of the Act, I should like to move the following amendment to the Minister’s motion—

The levy will then only be payable by the two big deep sea fishing companies, Irvin and Johnson and the National Trawling Company. If the hon. member is correct let us test it by accepting this amendment. I hope the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) will support it, because he also represents inshore fishermen. Let them be excluded, and let only these big men pay.

Leave it in the hands of the Minister.

I should also like to make an appeal to the Minister to accept this amentment. He has shocked our confidence a little, but he will regain it to a great extent if he accepts this amendment. According to the evidence given before the Select Committee, the people who experience the greatest difficulties are the line fishermen, the inshore fishermen. They should be assisted most, and we particularly had them in mind during the discussions in the Select Committee. Here we now have an amendment which may make the Bill more acceptable to the public and to the fishermen. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I cannot accept the amendment, because in fact the levy is not intended to be confined to the trawling companies. There are other companies engaged in the fishing industry, and there is no reason why they should not make a contribution too. There are also the canning factories.

The trawling people are producing two-thirds of the fish.

I cannot tell you the exact figure, but large quantities of fish are being caught by other people. The difficulty about this clause, if you are going to take that line, is that inshore fishermen are not defined in this Bill, and they are not defined because the Select Committee tried for some time to arrive at a definition, but unsuccessfully.

Trawlers are.

Yes, but the difficulty would be to exempt inshore fishermen; that really cannot be done in the absence of the definition in the Bill, and it is very difficult to define them. Although the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) takes the darkest view of my activities, I think the only thing to do is to see that the levy is administered in the way it is intended it should be; and the way it is intended is that levies should be paid to the very greatest extent by the companies catching fish.

I would prefer to see it in the Bill.

I have no doubt you would, but there are no means of putting it in the Bill.

Why not, if that is your intention?

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Strauss, E. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—68:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann. K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Proposed new clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

Mr. Chairman, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on page 734—

Provided that no officer shall so enter upon and search any dwelling house and that no policeman shall, except in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1917, so enter upon and search any dwelling house.

I am not going to detain the House, but I just want to say that I regard the sanctity of a man’s dwelling as inviolate. I proposed this in Select Committee, and the Committee agreed that I should bring up this amendment here.

I move—

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Development, put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Neate put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31, The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT : I move—

1. (i) contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of any proclamation under section twenty-nine; or.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 33, The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT : I move—

1. (3)
   1. (a) Whenever any person is charged with having contravened the provisions of a proclamation under sub-section (1) of section twenty-eight, any fish to which the charge relates shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed not to have been caught by means of trawling.
   2. (b) Whenever any person is charged with an offence under this Act, any fish to which the charge relates shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed not to have been caught as described in paragraph (a) of section thirty-eight.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 38, The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT : I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED :

Amendments to be considered on 30th May.

Before calling upon the Clerk to read the next Order, I wish to draw attention to Part III of the Nursing Bill. This Part deals with the property, interests and constitution of an association of professional nurses and the question has arisen as to whether it can properly be included in a public bill.

The principle which this House observes is that while a bill dealing with the right to practise a public profession should be a public bill, a bill dealing with the property, interests or constitution of an association of professional persons should be a private bill.

I think that this procedure is very sound as it preserves the wholesome distinction between questions of public policy and questions of private interest. In this instance the Government in seeking to regulate the right to practise a public profession has considered it necessary, as a matter of public policy, to recognise and regulate an existing private association registered under the Companies Act of 1926, known as “The South African Trained Nurses Association”. There is nothing to prevent the Government from following this course if it thinks fit. There are indeed certain provisions relating to Part III of the bill, such as the provisions imposing compulsory membership of the nurses association and penalties for the contravention of the Act, which can only be made by means of a public bill; but I think I should point out that what may be done by the Government by means of a public bill may also be done by private members in public bills introduced at the instance of other professions, trades and callings.

Third Order read: Second reading, Nursing Bill.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, you have been kind enough to inform me, in advance, that you intended making a statement on Part 3 of this Bill. And in doing so, you indicated to me the nature of the remarks you proposed making. The House, I am sure, will readily appreciate that, in the light of what Mr. Speaker has pointed out, the Government had to give careful consideration to whether it should proceed with this Bill, with the provision of Part 3 still included in it. It is quite clear, from what Mr. Speaker has said, that if Parliament is to concede to the nursing profession what that profession has unanimously asked for, namely, compulsory membership of the South African Nursing Association, then that can be done only by means of the introduction of a public Bill. I have applied my mind to the possibility of omitting Part 3 of this Bill, and providing for compulsory membership of the existing South African Trained Nurses’ Association, as registered under the Companies’ Act of 1943. This course, if adopted, would obviate the necessity of having to deal in this Bill with the constitution and membership rights of a statutory association; in other words, would obviate the necessity for having to deal with the constitution and property rights of an association in a public Bill. But if that course were to be adopted it would involve the principle of conferring on a private association, already registered under the Companies’ Act, this exceptional privilege of compulsory membership. It would involve dealing with an association, which is not a creation of a special statute but of the Companies’ Act, in this particular way, and I have not been able to find any authority for following that particular procedure. But even if the Government were to ask the House to follow that procedure, it would, in effect, mean that Parliament could not insist upon what it may consider an essential safeguard in such circumstances, namely, a limitation upon the association’s power to make regulations affecting the members of the Association. In terms of this Bill now before the House a statutory association is created, and, in terms of Section 19 of the Bill that association is empowered to make regulations. In terms of Section 19, however, there is a restriction upon this regulatory power, because certain of them may not be made without the prior approval of the Minister. There is that safeguard. If the House is to give this association the privilege of compulsory membership, then the House may feel that it has to couple with that privilege the right of control in the hands of the Minister. It would not be able to do that if it merely conferred upon the existing association under the Companies’ Act the right of compulsory membership, because the moment the House attempted to do that, to add to a provision conferring compulsory membership on an association another provision dealing with the constitution of the association, it would be immediately dealing in a public Bill with a matter which is normally more germane to a private measure. If, then, Parliament is to legislate to enable a statutory nurses’ association to have compulsory membership, with all the necessary safeguards which should accompany such privilege, it must adopt the procedure of a public Bill. The Government has decided that the circumstances surrounding the nursing profession in South Africa justify it in asking Parliament to adopt such a course. Nursing is a national service. Most of our nurses in this country are in State employ. We all know that in South Africa at present, for one reason or another, there is an acute shortage of nurses. The Government had cause to summon a conference in Pretoria at the end of last year in order to try to find ways and means of meeting this acute shortage. We are short of nurses in our mental hospitals, we are short of nurses in our infectious diseases hospitals, and we are also short of nurses in our general hospitals, and it is clear that, if we are to deal with this shortage, we have to take certain drastic steps. It is, in the opinion of those who know the profession, an essential prerequisite of dealing with this aspect of planning for the future, that the nursing profession be given its own charter. The nurses themselves, without a discordant note, have asked to be allowed to regulate their own affairs in this way. I think it may fairly be said that nursing is much more of a public service profession than other trades or callings which might, in future, want to proceed in a similar way. I should like to emphasise, therefore, that while the Government’s adoption of this procedure in the case of the nursing profession creates a precedent in Parliamentary procedure, this should not be taken by others as an assurance that the Government will in the future be prepared to take similar action in their cases. Nor need Parliament’s acceptance of this Bill, with all that it involves—and it is for the House to say whether it will give its blessing to this measure—mean that it will offer a warm reception to public Bills of this nature which may be introduced by private members in the future. Every case will have to depend upon the circumstances surrounding it. I do not look upon Parliamentary procedure as something fixed and rigid, but as a living growth, an animated organism, like the great living body of our Common Law. And it is for Parliament itself, within the four corners of the Rules laid down for its guidance as administered by you, Mr. Speaker, to shape and colour that procedure in the light of changing circumstances and the exigencies of any particular occasion. I come now to deal with the Bill itself. Hon. members will recollect that in March, 1943, a Nursing Bill was introduced by the hon. member for Cape Eatsern (Mrs. Ballinger). That Bill could not be proceeded with at the end of last Session of Parliament. Towards the end of 1943 the representatives of the South African Trained Nurses Association interviewed the Government and asked whether the Government would be prepared to take over the Bill. The Government agreed to do so, and subsequently various modifications were made in the Bill as introduced last year by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. I should like to take the opportunity this afternoon of paying a tribute to the hon. member for Cape Eastern for the work she has done in sponsoring that measure, and for the assistance she has given me in the course of the last few months in relation to this measure. I should like, also, to pay a tribute to Mrs. Cribb, Organising Secretary of the Trained Nurses’ Association, for the work she has done, and for her assistance to the Department of Public Health in helping, with the consent of her Association, in the propaganda campaign for more nurses. I should like to thank also my hon. friend, the member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), as President of the Medical Council, for his wise guidance and assistance in a number of difficulties I have had. And then I would like to thank hon. members on this side of the House, many of whom, if I may be allowed to use the term, have badgered me for many months for this Bill—and many of whom are anxious to speak this afternoon, but who have expressed their willingness to refrain from doing so in order that we may expedite the passing of the second reading. I thank them for their moral support and for their restraint.

Only that side of the House—you are bringing politics in again.

If my hon. friend will allow me, I wish to say that I am also informed that there will not be many members speaking on the other side of the House—not because many do not wish to speak, but also for similar reasons—many of those who might wish to speak will refrain from doing so in order to allow this Bill to pass. I thank them also. There is one major difference between this Bill and Bill No. 1— the one introduced by the hon. member for Cape Eastern.

Of course on that side of the House …

I hope my hon. friend will not interrupt what is, in usual circumstances, a most delicate operation. There is one major difference between this Bill and the Bill as introduced by the hon. member for Cape Eastern at the end of last year. In the latter Bill it was proposed to establish a statutory Association, and the Council to be established was part and parcel of the Association. In this Bill the Council is divorced from the Association. It is proposed to set up a Nursing Council which will be the watchdog of the interests of the public as a whole. It is also proposed to establish a Nursing Association which will be there to look after the needs of nurses and nursing. That will mean that the proposed Council, when in operation, will not find itself in a position in which its duty to the public and its duty to the nurses may conflict. That change has been made on the advice and the suggestion of the Medical Council, and those who sponsored the Bill were quite prepared to meet the views of the Medical Council in this regard. Then there is another innovation of some importance. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 provides that when a regulation is passed by the Council which in the opinion of the Minister affects the medical profession, and when a regulation is passed or recommended by the South African Medical Council, constituted under the Medical Act, which in the opinion of the Minister affects the nursing or midwifery profession, the Minister shall not approve of such regulation without having consulted the South African Medical Council or the Council as the case may be. It will be seen that in this Bill provision is made for reciprocal consultation in the case of regulations being passed by the Nursing Council which may affect the medical profession, and by the Medical Council which may affect the nursing profession. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it has become quite evident that certain measures must be taken urgently if the present serious shortage of nurses in the Union is to be eliminated. The nursing profession has clearly expressed the view that the enactment of a nurses’ charter is a necessary preliminary, if the desired object is to be achieved in the shortest possible time. At present the position is that control over the nursing profession is exercised by the South African Medical Council under the provision of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, No. 13 of 1928. The nursing and midwifery profession is represented on the Medical Council by two members only, out of a total of 25 members, and it has been claimed that, in such circumstances, progress in so far as the profession is concerned must inevitably be slow, no matter how willing to co-operate the S.A. Medical Council may be. Nurses, as a body, would naturally tend to place less confidence in the Medical Council than in a council of their own. Incidentally, an attempt was made in 1938 to obtain such a Nurses’ Council, but this was frowned upon by the Medical Council, and it did not succeed. The lead in drafting legislation to give effect to the wishes of the profession was taken by the S.A. Trained Nurses’ Association. And, after many negotiations, and a ready willingness on the part of the Association to meet the constructive comments of the Medical Council and the Department of Public Health, the provisions of the present Bill have emerged. The Bill constitutes an attempt to place the nursing profession on more or less the same basis as the law societies. It provides for the re-constitution of the S.A. Trained Nurses’ Association, which was established in 1914 and registered as a company under the Companies’ Act, with extended powers and duties. The further salient features of the Bill may be summarised as follows—

1. (a) The appointment of a South African Nursing Council to regulate the profession as a whole in the interests of the public.
2. (b) Provision that the Council shall keep a register of all practising nurses and midwives.

At present there is a good deal of uncertainty, I am informed, regarding the number of nurses registered and the actual number of nurses who are practising in South Africa. The following figures are taken from the memorandum on the constitution and functions of the S.A. Medical Council, published by the Council’s journal in January, 1944. It gives the following details in regard to registered nurses in the Union: The number of nurses registered at the end of 1942 were: Medical and surgical nurses 7,611; mental nurses 1,313; male nurses 206; midwives 5,991; making a total of 15,121. I am informed, however, that these figures do not reflect the true position because of a certain amount of duplication. Medical and surgical nurses who also hold the midwifery qualifications appear twice on this statistical list, similarly with a mental nurse holding the midwifery qualification as well. Under the present system, in the opinion of the Nursing Association, there is no means of ascertaining how many unregistered but qualified nurses are practising; and, in regard to the registered nurses, there is no record of how many are practising and how many are not. Therefore to make a computation of the strength of the nursing profession of the country at the present time is very difficult indeed. The compulsory registration of practising nurses provided for in the Bill will immediately enable an estimate to be made of the active nursing force of the country; it will enable the output of trained nurses and midwives to meet the demand to be planned; and it will mean that all practising qualified nurses and midwives will be under control. That is obviously in the interests of the nursing profession as well as the interests of the public as a whole. Then the Bill goes on to provide powers enabling the council to define, deal with and prevent unprofessional conduct amongst nurses and widwives. It provides for the prevention of unauthorised persons from holding themselves out as trained or registered nurses or midwives. It makes provision that all practising nurses and midwives registered with the council shall be members of the South African Nursing Association to be constituted under the Act. Then there are provisions empowering the Association, as reconstituted, to prescribe the subscriptions payable by members or classes of members of the Association of prescribing the respective rights (including voting rights), privileges, duties and habilites of members of the Association; and of taking such steps as may be deemed necessary to safeguard and improve the conditions of service of nurses, midwives, student nurses and student midwives. I may inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that when the House goes into Committee I shall ask for certain amendments in terms of which these powers prescribing subscriptions, prescribing voting rights and so on, shall be subject to the approval of the Minister, thus enabling a measure of control to be exercised over a body which will now have compulsory membership, and which will be dealing with a large number of persons who will be compelled to be members. I shall also ask the Committee to accept an amendment, the effect of which will be that the penalty provisions will not be applicable to Part 3 of the Bill. In other words, the criminal sanctions under the provisions of this Bill will not be applicable to the workings of the Association as such. If a member, who is of course, a compulsory member commits some offence under the Association’s charter, that will have to be dealt with according to civil remedies, and the criminal sanction will not be applicable there. It is claimed, Mr. Speaker, by the nursing profession in support of this Bill, that it will pave the way for many advantages. Amongst these it is suggested : That it will lead to a vastly increased recruitment of suitable young women for training, through the improvement in the status of medical nurses; that it will result in training and working conditions which will not only be acceptable and beneficial to the nurses, but will ensure the best possible nursing service to the nation; and that it will safeguard the public against the impositions of unqualified nurses and midwives. There is, of course, Mr. Speaker, a precedent for the nursing profession asking to be allowed to regulate its own affairs in this manner. I find that in England and Wales there is legislation, the Nursing Act of 1943, providing for the setting up of a Nursing Council. That Council has a personnel of 25 persons, 16 of whom are nurses while the remaining nine are appointed by the Ministry of Health, the Board of Education and the Privy Council, who elect two. There we have a precedent for the establishment of a Nursing Council, where self-determination is given to the nursing profession as such. The Council regulates the affairs of the nursing profession in Britain and Wales, and there is a majority of nurses upon the Council. In Scotland a similar body has been established, and there, with traditional caution, the number is slightly smaller. There is a total of 15 members on the Council, and the nurses’ representation is 11.

Does the Privy Council nominate in Scotland?

In Scotland there are six persons appointed, one by the Privy Council, one by the Scottish Education Department and one by the Board of Health. In England two are appointed by the Privy Council, two by the Board of Education, and five by the Minister of Health, New Zealand and Australia have similar legislation. It will be seen by this reference to legislation in other countries that our South African nurses are not unique—that they are not guilty of some local feminine whimsicality— in seeking to obtain for themselves self-determination in their own particular field of activities. I believe, and I am sure hon. members on all sides of the House will believe, that this Nursing Bill is in the highest public interest, for it will provide protection for members of one of the noblest professions in the world, and the public they serve. I hope the House will pass this Bill. I know that it has been long awaited. Some may say that the process has been unduly prolonged. I may say that never before has any birth been attended by so much care and anxiety. Nor perhaps could any royal birth be attended by so many who are qualified to minister. It certainly is a novel position to find myself in, not to have to pace the corridors anxiously awaiting the result, but to see other persons, particularly feminine persons doing so, while I have to produce the baby. And, if the process of gestation, in the opinion of some, has been unduly prolonged, I hope the result will adequately justify what has happened.

Never before, Mr. Speaker, has there been so much doubt, not so much about the paternity which may perhaps be to some extent in doubt, but in this case the maternity. The hon. Minister came in by a short head at the end. He need not want for assistance in this matter. The position, Mr. Speaker, is there are large sections of the medical fraternity who feel that their point of view ought to be expressed this afternoon, and I feel that it is my duty to make their position clear. The hon. Minister has told us that there are precedents for this. Not only are there precedents, but the position in South Africa was quite unique in that the nursing profession was controlled from within the South African Medical Council. It was not necessary to look for a precedent, as that was quite unique and has turned out to be an example to the rest of the world as to the procedure which should be followed in such cases. The nursing services, Mr. Speaker, are auxiliary services to the general health services in the country. They are auxiliary to the medical personnel engaged in these health services. These services are intended for two purposes, namely, in the first place, for carrying out what is prescribed by the doctor in regard to food, medicines, treatment, etc.; and secondly, for ministering to the bodily needs of the patient in every detail. And because we have been operating under the Act of 1928 in this country, which made provision for the health services to operate from one single council, it has been to my mind one of the greatest services to the country; and in the second place it has been an example which should have been followed elsewhere rather than that we should have struck out in the opposite direction, and not followed the example of other countries where these services are divorced, and where the control of these services is divorced. I will therefore read a motion which was passed by the Branch Council of the South African Medical Association—

There is a good deal to be said for that, but we will not flog what is very nearly a dead horse. It is therefore clear that the training of every nurse must be in the hands not only of the nurse, but also of the medical profession; and that in itself is sufficient reason for retaining these services within the compass of a single general medical council, and a development on those lines would, to my mind, have been the correct procedure, and would have been the correct procedure in the estimation of the Medical Council itself. The Medical Council stated its opinion as follows—

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, that will not be the case now, as the Minister has made provision for nursing representatives to remain on the Medical Council, and the Bill makes provision for two medical practitioners appointed by the South African Medical Council, to be members of the Nursing Council. The resolution continues—

That is now clear, and the Medical Council has no objection—

That is now all clear. The resolution goes on—

The opinion of the Council goes on further, but I do not need to quote it. The provisions of this Bill are, on the whole, satisfactory and necessary, and as far as the Nursing Council is concerned the provisions have been carried out in the past by the South African Medical Council up to a point most satisfactorily. There is, in fact, very little that is new as far as the powers under this new Bill are concerned. The South African Medical Council, as the hon. Minister has stated, was started after the passing of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928. From that date for ten years the South African Medical Council brought into being a system of registration of nurses, a system of examination of nurses, and a disciplinary system which equals that of any nursing council, I think, in the world. For the first ten years of that period the Medical Council laboured in the interests of the nurses with President, Dr. Billie Davis of Natal, who happily is still with us. Dr. Davis had the interests of the nurses at heart and worked for their interests together with the nursing representatives, Miss Alexander and Mrs. Bennie, and I want to say this, that the spirit of co-operation and the spirit which was shown during that period in bringing into being this examination system, and this registration system, worked well over this period. When representations were made for a nursing council, or for further representation on the Medical Council, I remember that the council was in so far sympathetic that they said it was clear that the nurses should have more representation, that the nurses should eventually control their own affairs, and the words of Dr. Davis were then: “How many nurses are now members of the S. A. Nurses Association?” If I remember correctly, there were then from 700 to 800 members. He suggested to the nursing members first of all to increase the representation of the nursing profession within the Nursing Association, and then to ask for separate representation. Now, Mr. Speaker, this brought about a spirit of cooperation and the necessary singleness of purpose which worked extremely well and which was extremely valuable to the profession with its auxiliaries. It has been said that there are certain inherent dangers in divorcing these two professions. There can be no question that if a state of affairs were to arise in which the nursing profession felt that they are not subject to the orders of the medical profession, that a very serious situation might arise. There have already been indications, occasionally, very occasionally, but I have no great fear, Mr. Speaker, that anything of this nature will occur today or in the near future. But I point out the danger and I am glad that provision is now being made to retain a certain amount of representation common to both parties. Now, Mr. Speaker, instead of retaining this ideal of controlling all health and curative auxiliaries within the compass of one central Medical Council, we are unfortunately departing from that. It was quite possible to give all the powers under this Act to the nursing profession under a Nursing Board operating under the South African Medical Council, and with more nursing representation, if necessary, on the Council, where they would have had the same control as they have today, only you would have had that closer contact between the two professions, although as I have said one is and must remain auxiliary, it cannot be regarded in any light as a profession which will give orders to the medical profession either today or at any time. That position can never be altered, and for that reason I believe we must look forward to the time when this divorcement is brought to an end, and when we again come asking for an amendment of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and when the Nursing Council, that will be constituted under this Act, will become a Nursing Board under the South African Medical Council, in the same way as we expect that the dentists of this country will be controlled by a Dental Board operating apart from the Medical Council, except that their resolutions and their findings are subject to control by the General Medical Council. In the same way we expect to have a Board of Auxiliary Services which will operate under the Medical Council, which will report to that Council and which will continue with its work in the interests of the section which they represent. If it was felt that that was not enough equality, and I feel that that has been behind a great deal of this proposal, I mean that there was not enough equality, then we could have a Medical Board under the general Medical Council acting only for the medical profession. I cannot help but envisage for the future some steps in that direction, which will make an end of this divorcement and which will bring together all those who have control of the health services of the country, rather than driving them further apart. Beyond this I raise no objection to any of the clauses in this Bill. There are certain amendment which the Minister has been kind enough to show me, and I want to say that with regard to one provision which it is proposed to make by way of amendment, that is, to give representation to the Provinces in this Bill, represents one of the advances, which will be a real advance, in the powers which the Nursing Council will have. There is actually today no advance in the powers which the Nursing Council will have under this Bill, but the fact that they may have representatives of each of the Provinces will form a link between the Nursing Council and the very people who have to provide the money for all nursing services, for all improvements in nursing education, and for all forward steps that can possibly be taken. This has been somewhat of a last minute change, Mr. Speaker, and it has been due to fright, almost, on the part of the Provinces, due to a feeling that they would not have the power, or rather, that the power was passing into the hands of other persons. Now it is perfectly clear that this Council could have no power whatever of increasing the numbers of nurses by a single one, except in so far as they are able to erect schools of nursing with the money which they get from the Provincial authorities, or in so far as they can increase the number of nurses training by having more hospitals and better hospitals made available for training. Therefore I say that this provision, which I hope will be made by way of amendment in this Bill, will be one of the most valuable parts of the Bill; it will form that link between the Provinces who control the finance and the Nursing Council. Unless you give the Nursing Council powers of taxation, powers to build hospitals in order to train nurses, and powers to build nursing schools, they can get no further power through this Bill. In Clauses 4 provision is made for an appeal to the Minister in the case of a sentence for improper or disgraceful conduct before application is made to the law court. I think the Minister should make it clear to us whether that means that the Minister may set aside or vary the findings in cases such as this. I think on the whole it is a departure from practice, but it may be a salutary power. I think we should consider that matter; I have not been able to make up my mind about it; I am slightly nervous lest it should apply to the medical profession as well. In Clause 2 provision is made for the offices of this Council to be in Pretoria, and I think that that is very necessary. If the Council were to go to some other part of the Union it would probably be Cape Town, and that would further complete the divorcement between the two Councils. I hope therefore that that will remain a part of the Bill, and that those who are appointed in the first instance by the Minister, after the Bill becomes law, will keep to the personnel that has been trained by the South African Medical Council, because that is a personnel which has been given certain opportunities for developing experts in such matters as examination, registration and other things. This is a very complicated business. I hope, therefore, that those persons who are appointed by the Minister will realise that those who have been trained should be used as far as possible when appointments are made for the control of this Nursing Council; I refer to Registrars, clerks, etc. The Bill provides for conditions of registrations, syllabus of training examination, examination certificates, schools of nursing, disciplinary enquiries, appointment of officials and reporting on nursing agencies and the making of regulations. Now, with regard to officials, I think it is common cause that the registrar of this Nursing Council should be proficient in both official languages. I know perfectly well that all those who have to do with this Nursing Bill realise that that is a sine qua non, and I hope that that amendment will readily be accepted. The provision made for reporting on nursing agencies is unforunately a provision with no power behind it. But it is a salutary provision in that there is a certain number of mushroom agencies which have sprung up in South Africa and which, to my mind, act detrimentally to the interests of the nursing profession. They have tended to make a money business out of nurses, and it has had a bad effect. We have even had a case where a patient died at 5 past 12 in the morning and a guinea was charged for that five minutes because the nurse had been there over 12 o’clock, and then £3 3s. was charged for laying out the patient. I think the nurses feel that this is a scandalous state of affairs. Although there is no power behind this sub-clause it will at any rate, I hope, become clear that these agencies are very much better in the hands of the Nursing Association. Section 11 makes provision for compulsory registration of all nurses who practise for gain. Where unqualified persons practise for gain it must be under medical orders. Obviously that is a very necessary provision, but I must point out here that in no circumstances is it intended to prevent, or can we ever prevent, untrained persons from helping at any sick bed. That is such a primary function that one cannot say no untrained person must be allowed to help at any sick bed, and for these reasons. In the first place no trained nurse may be available. In the second place, as things are today it is practically impossible for persons with a salary of £30 a month to employ any trained nurse at the rates prevalent at present. As long as these people are prevented from calling themselves nurses, or giving themselves out as being nurses or qualified persons, we will have achieved a great thing in providing that the Nursing Association can look after its members and see that they act in the right way and in the right spirit. Chapter 3 is a chapter which deals with the Nursing Association. There again a new power is being is being given to what is really a private association operating under the Companies’ Act, which will now under this Act be an incorporated body with not exactly statutory powers, but with statutory sanction, and this Nurses’ Association will have certain powers over their members in so far that they may prescribe subscriptions. It is clear that where a Bill like this goes through Parliament as a public Bill such subscriptions must be limited. It would be quite wrong to give unlimited powers in a case like this and either it should be limited to 10s. per annum, or not exceed 10s. per annum, except with the consent of the Minister or controlled by the Minister, but some provision must be made to protect the individuals in the Association. I say, again that under the conditions prevailing today there is of course no danger whatever of exploitation, but we must keep a hold over the future. Then what I regard as important is that this Nursing Association, in that it has compulsory membership, will be able to do as a corporate body much more for the private interests of the profession by way of making provision for pensions, by way of making provision for further education, for the publication of journals, and for assistance to the members in time of sickness and unemployment—the fact that it is compulsory gives them a large membership, and the fact that they will have a large membership will mean that they will be able to organise assistance to the profession in a way which it has perhaps not been possible to do up to now. But a very great responsibility will rest on the controlling body of the Nursing Association. It is clear to me that the Nursing Association will have to control large funds in the future, that it will have to look after all the benefit funds of a very large section of the community running into perhaps ten thousand, twelve thousand and perhaps fifteen thousand people later on. And I think also that the control over the regulations which the Minister retains is necessary and in future that control will certainly be a safeguard. It has been said that they wish to provide a better and more comprehensive nursing and midwifery service for the Union. I regret that I cannot really see, or visualise, what the Minister visualises, namely, that these bodies will be able to give to the country a larger number of nurses as they are required. I wish the Minister would realise that it is the State which is responsible, both the central Government and the Provincial Governments are in the first instance responsible for the training of larger numbers of nurses, and I do not wish to raise any bush behind which the Government or the Provinces can hide, and say: “We are not responsible for the shortage of nurses; we are not responsible for the absence of training schools; we are not responsible for the salaries which are paid.” We are all very glad that the salaries of nurses have been increased, even in the Cape Province which has always been very slow, but it is important that these things shall be kept within limits, within the necessary limits, and that the State should see to it not only with regard to nurses, but with regard to all classes of services, that the salaries are adequate for the services performed and adequate for the lives which these people have to lead. Finally, let us disabuse our minds as to the reasons for which the Nursing Council is called into being, I might almost say the alleged purposes for which it is called into begin. There is nothing here for the protection of the public beyond what protection existed before, and that is disciplinary powers to deal with those who do not behave themselves, or do things against the public interest. There is no new power given, for the extension of nursing services, no new power for the increase in the numbers of nurses, and with regard to the efficiency of nurses—that naturally depends on the training in the schools and in the hospitals which are controlled by the Provinces. These are very important matters for which we have fought for years, and there again we have behind the Bill a dual control—not a treble control— Government control, Provincial which the Nursing Committee of the Medical Council, and they quarrel as to whose baby it is and as to who should do a particular thing. I am very glad and I feel that this Nursing Council will not fall into the pitfall into which the Nursing Commitee of the Medical Council fell. When some years ago I proposed in the Medical Council that the period of the training of nurses be brought down to three years because of the shortage that was arising, and the serious shortage there would be in two years—that is last year—the people who opposed it tooth and nail were the nursing members of the S.A Medical Council. I must say that, and I am glad to hear, or to have it on good authority that it is not the intention of the people who are sponsoring this Bill to raise that period; they talk of raising the status; they talk of prolonging the period for the training of a nurse; we want the nurse who can perform a certain type of service which can be learned in three years and not the type of service which must be learned in four or five years. I have had grave suspicions that these powers might mean that there might be elements in the nursing profession who wanted to raise what they call the “status”, the standard of a profession, at the expense of the needs of the public—not monetary expense, but at the expense of the ethical status—that they wanted to raise the status to something rather nearer a doctor—although that doesn’t give you much status, God knows, but that they might continually want to raise the status. The primary thing we must realise is that a nurse can be trained in three years to give certain services to the community, and that is what she is intended to do. She is not intended to learn how to give an intravenous injection and do certain complicated proceedings; she can learn everything in three years, and whether it is today or in 100 years’ time, she will learn what she has to do in three years, and if there are nurses required for special services, there can be longer courses for that, but the country today neds 6,000, 10,000, 12,000 or even 15,000 nurses who can perform a definite function and nothing more than that. That is what is necessary and those services are required throughout the country for the whole of the country. Now that I have pointed out these dangers I think we can say that there are certain safeguards in the Bill in regard to these matters. To proclaim any delight at this divorcement which is about to take place would be, to say the least of it, very ungallant. The Medical Council naturally will have a much simpler task if this Bill becomes law, but I say it would be ungallant and much more than that to express delight. I believe that the closest bond should exist and be retained between all sections of the personnel of the auxiliary health services of this country. There may have been faults. I think the thing could have been done in a different way, but at this stage it seems to me that the best course is to adopt this Bill with certain amendments which will be moved, mostly by the Minister, but some by this side of the House, and I trust that the House will at this stage give its blessing to the Bill in the hope that in the future when something better is proposed, and when calmer reflections have shown that there will be no derogation of status, no derogation of glory, but only greater glory when they resume their place in the comity of health services, namely the General Medical Council of South Africa.

We have become accustomed in this country and all over the world to bodies of trained workers having their own organisations, organisations which can thoroughly guard their own interests. If we consider the important part which the nuring profession plays in South Africa then I feel that we can do nothing but welcome this Bill. As the Minister has said, this Bill is bound to give a new status to the nursing profession. If there is such a shortage of nurses, and if the problem is so hard to solve, then I feel that this Bill will undoubtedly contribute towards relieving the position. As the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has said, the idea is not, as so many other associations think, that a person should have so many years of training before he can become a trained worker in any sphere of life where that training is necessary. The idea is that this Bill will help to draw to the nursing profession a better type of applicant—and that, as a matter of fact has already been going on. If the trained nurse has to deal with intricate work, as she has to do, and as we all know, then it is necessary for her to have the proper type of education and training when she enters the profession. If we expect the nurses to undergo a proper training and to give efficient service to the public and to the medical profession, then one thing is certain, that the provinces have to come together. I hope the Minister will set up some body or some form of co-operation whereby the salaries of the nurses in the four provinces can be brought on to an equal and better scale. On several occasions when I was in Pretoria I was interviewed by the representatives of the S.A. Trained Nurses’ Association, and judging by the evidence which they placed before me I can only say that I was thoroughly impressed with the thoroughness of the work which these people do. We hope that this Bill will maintain, not only the present standard but that it will increase and improve the standard and add to the thoroughness of the work done in the past. I cannot help feeling, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch has said, that this Nursing Council should work in the closest collaboration with the S.A. Medical Council. As I have said on previous occasions we have so often experienced that committees and councils work in their own interests, that here every possible effort should be made for the interests of the Medical Council and the Nursing Council to have some connecting link. This is the sort of thing that has caused considerable trouble in the past, and these councils and boards have in the past often been passing the buck and the responsibility. For that reason I think in so important a profession the Minister, with the powers in his hands in this Bill, should see that the closest co-operation should exist between these two councils. Another point which struck me—it also came to my notice as a result of interviews I have had with trained nurses and their association—is the fact that there is such an enormous percentage of Afrikaans-speaking ladies entering the nursing profession today.

And very nice too.

There is no objection to their being nice. We would like to see some more nice ones. The point is that if they enter the profession they should be given the opportunity to be trained in their own mother language, and it is for that reason the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has referred to the necessity for the Registrar of that Council being a bilingual person. If we want to get the best training and the very best results, the opportunity should exist for the Afrikaans nurses to get proper training in the Afrikaans language, and not only as far as certain aspects of the training are concerned but in regard to all aspects of the training. We know of instances where hospitals have these facilities, but they give only half of the training in Afrikaans; in certain cases the lectures are in Afrikaans, but the theatre work is in English. It appears to me that sort of training will lead to the old argument of the dual medium school. One point is clear that these members of this council which is proposed under Clause 5 (1) should be bilingual. This council has been given exceptional powers; in fact it is nothing less that a court of law. It is capable of removing certain persons from the role of registered nurses. It has the power to impose fines, etc., and in the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking persons who appear before that council, I consider it is most essential that the council should consist of bilingual persons. I hope the Minister will agree and that he will accept the amendment which I propose to move on this point in the Committee stage.

It is not my intention to postpone the happy second reading of this Bill for more than a few minutes. I would gladly have imposed on myself the self-denying ordinance which the majority of the House have so considerately imposed on themselves in order that the Bill might go through at once, but in this mattter I am not entirely a free agent. Since the Nursing Bill first came onto the stocks, I have taken orders from those I have agreed to serve when it was first initiated, and until this Bill is finally through I accept those orders. The order I am now placed under is that I should express the satisfaction of the nurses who have sponsored this Bill at the willingness of the Government to take it in hand and to put it through this House, as well as to do so at the present time and in the present terms. The Nursing Association, which today, as I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) knows, represents a far larger proportion of the nursing profession than it did before this Bill came onto the stocks at all, the nursing profession sees in this Bill the one hope of their contributing what they have the capacity to contribute to the building up of the nursing services which are so urgently needed by the community at the present time. I do not think they interpret their desire for raised status in anything like the terms the hon. member for Stellenbosch has suggested, and about which I am quite certain he is not in the least bit afraid. He has known the nurses too long to believe they would ever put their own interests before the interests of the community. I think anyone who has had experience of the nurses of this country knows that the impulse behind this Bill is simply the genuine and sincere desire to provide the country with the services on which alone can be built up that standard of public health and public health services the whole community is now desirous of. That is the only sense in which they are asking for improved status, that they may stand before the public as directly responsible for the standard of service which will be given in the finest tradition of nursing; and that they may attract the best of the young people of this country who are available for service into the profession, not merely for the material gain—which they hope will be steadily improved—but in that essential spirit of service to which youth has an urgent need to respond. It is in that sense, and in that sense only they are attempting to gain that improved status which they believe the power of self-government will give them. So on those grounds they are grateful to the Government for the Bill. They are also anxious, however, that the medical profession should realise that in no circumstances need they ever, visualise the situation in which the authority of the medical profession would be questioned. The nurses know only too well the interdependence of the two services, and recognise the point at which they are themselves under the medical profession. All that they ask is that in the wide field in which the medical profession is in its turn dependent on the goodwill of the nurses, they should be allowed to carry on with that responsibility on which ultimately good service depends. Nor, I think, have they visualised any permanent divorce from the Medical Council. No one was more pleased than the nurses about the decision of the Medical Council to reciprocate the nurses’ own offer of full representation on their Council with an offer of full representation on the Medical Council. I think we can assure the medical profession they need never fear that there will not be the fullest co-operation between the nurses and themselves in this regard on the part of the nurses. The nurses themselves are, I believe, fully conscious of what they have inherited from the Medical Council. The hon. member for Stellenbosch put to this House the way in which the Medical Council had built up the whole organisation of the nurses. The nurses regard themselves as fortunate in inheriting what the Medical Council has done in that regard and are anxious to build well on that very good foundation. I should like to sympathise with the hon. member for Stellenbosch in the disappointment he has expressed that it has not been found possible at this stage to reform the Medical Council and to create a federal organisation in which all the services relating to health and nursing would be integrated; but I feel that that is only a matter of time. I feel that sooner or later all these services will have to be integrated, that those services which are essential to the health of the community will have to be drawn together in some such manner as the hon. member for Stellenbosch has visualised; but I believe that the powers that are being given to the nurses under the terms of this Bill will result if and when that plan is fully launched, in a success being made of a federated council which would not have been possible without this experience and this development. On these grounds I wish to express my fervent hope that the Bill will now go through the second reading.

I want to be very brief. I am very glad that on this occasion an anaesthetic has been administered to hon. members on the other side. I do hope that they will be enabled to vote when the time comes and to get out of the anaesthetic. We all welcome this Bill, but to allow me to say that I am afraid that the hopes which are cherished in connection with this Bill may not materialise. When one goes through this Bill one finds, except for the provisions which have been made for registration and other matters which are not of such great importance, that this Bill does not go far enough at all. I had hoped that more powers would be granted to the bodies which are contemplated in this Bill, and in this connection I fear that the expectations may not be realised. This legislation has been contemplated for many years, and since we have delayed so long, I think we might as well have waited a little longer until such time as the report of the National Health Services Commission can be considered not only by the Government but by this House, because I know that they thoroughly investigated the conditions under which nurses are called upon to work, and if they make recommendations, if suggestions are made in the report in the interests of nursing and of nurses, then I should like to know from the Minister whether he will pass further legislation to give effect to those recommendations. I hope he will not say that legislation has already been passed, and that he cannot therefore give effect to the recommendations of the commission. For that reason I say that in my opinion it might have been more in the interests of nursing and of the nurses if we had waited until the report was dealt with. When one reads through this Bill one finds, for example, that not the slightest provision is being made in connection with the fixation of the remuneration of the nurses. The inadequacy of the remuneration is surely one of the main reason why there is such a shortage. The majority of the nurses who are trained are matriculated girls. They progressed far enough to go to the university. Instead of that they chose this profession, and we admire them for it. Sometimes they have to work for three or four years before they are admitted. During that time they could practically have obtained a degree at the university, and would then have received much higher remuneration. I am sorry that no provision is being made in this Bill, not for their rates of pay, but provision is not even being made to enable the boards to make recommendations in connection with their remuneration. I think the Bill should have provided for that. Then again, I find nothing in the Bill in connection with the hours of duty of nurses. Hon. members know that nurses, especially on the platteland, have to work extremely long hours, and there again there is no provision enabling the board to make recommendations in that connection.

There is a great shortage of nurses, and we on the platteland realise it even more than the people in the cities. In the cities there may be more social amenities and more people are therefore attracted to this profession, while on the platteland it is very difficult to obtain nurses. I should therefore like to see their lives being made as happy as possible and their conditions of employment as attractive as possible. The rates of pay and hours of duty should be improved. We would then attract more people to this profession. Provision is being made here for the appointment of various people on the body which will be created. I notice for example that the Chief Health Officer and the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene will serve on the board and two persons to be appointed by the Minister who will not be registered in terms of the Act; in other words, two unregistered persons—two laymen. May I say that since this is a women’s organisation, women will be appointed by the Minister. The Bill does not make provision for that. He might appoint men, and it may be necessary to accept an amendment to the effect that women are to be appointed. Then there must be two medical practitioners. I approve of that, but I hope that one of them will be a woman. This organisation is a women’s organisation, and I hope therefore that the Minister will see to it that the persons appointed by him are women. Then there is another point which I want to mention without lengthening the discussion, namely, the uniforms of the nurses. I am glad to see that the council may determine that the nurses shall wear a prescribed uniform. But the difficulty is that people who are not nurses at all also wear those uniforms, and the Bill makes no provision to prevent that. An ordinary servant girl who looks after children sometimes wears the uniform of a nurse, and that is surely something which ought not to be allowed. To these few words, I just want to add that we are grateful for the services which the nurses throughout the country have rendered to the people, not only the registered nurses but also unregistered nurses. I hope that this Bill will not disappoint the unregistered nurses too much, and that they will be satisfied to work under the provisions of the Bill.

I regard this as a very important national matter, and I want to express a few thoughts in this connection. The nursing service is a great national service, but nevertheless there are certain malpractices which we must face, and as the Bill reads at present, we have no certainty that those malpractices will be eliminated. I notice in Clause 3 that the council may, with the approval of the Minister, promulgate regulations. I have been connected for quite a number of years with one of the most important nursing establishments in Cape Town, and we find today that we train nurses and that they then take up other employment. Those other spheres of employment are not under the proper control of the organisation of the nurses, and we frequently find that the services of nurses are exploited for private gain. We find, for example, that certain people form a company to establish nursing services, but they do not take the slightest interest in the nursing services as such. All they do is to have a registration office for the enrolment of nurses. The nurses then go out to do this work at fairly high fees. What is necessary is this. Under this Bill we are going to give an elevated status to the nurses of this country. They will have to comply with certain professional standards as far as that profession is concerned. As in the case of the doctors, they will have to undergo a prescribed course of training, and even after completing their course of training at the hospital, it will have to be laid down that they will have to work for at least a year at some nursing establishment or other under proper supervision. Today they go out into the world and hire out their services to a company which has nothing to do with the profession as such. I could mention the following company, for example: The nurses hire out their services to this company, and when application is made for the services of a nurse, one of them is sent out at a fairly high fee which has to be paid to the company. The company, of course, pays a lesser fee to the nurse. In that connection malpractices take place. If the patient dies, the company demands an additional fee to lay out the corpse. Up to the present it has been part of the duty of the nurse to lay out the patient properly, and all this was included in the usual fee. My information is that those companies require the payment of £1 1s. to £3 3s. That does not go into the pocket of the nurse but into the pocket of the company. I hope that under Clause 3, where regulations can be promulgated, the council of the nurses will ensure that such malpractices do not continue, and that they will make a point of seeing that the ethics of the profession are properly maintained. This is a far-reaching practice. One of the older nurses tells me that this represents a malpractice on the part of those companies, because it is part of the nurse’s work to lay out the deceased patient with respect and in a proper manner; and those companies are turning this into a money-making concern. I hope the Minister, if he is not advised by the council in connection with this matter, will, as a result of these cases which have now been brought to his notice, see to it that these malpractices are eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that the House welcomes this Bill and is anxious to pass it. I wish, again, to express my appreciation to members of the House. Many of them, I know, have been anxious to take part in the discussion, many of them have a number of nurses in their constituencies, but they have refrained from speaking, not because they are not concerned with the Bill, but because they are anxious to assist and expedite its passage. I also thank those hon. members who have offered their comments in a constructive spirit. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with the main point raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), namely, that perhaps the introduction of this Bill is a departure, and perhaps an incorrect departure, from the practice hitherto existing, of combining the administration of nursing affairs with those of the medical profession inside the Medical Council. It is clear that there is a strong feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country, amongst the nurses, that they shall have autonomy in their profession. There are, as I pointed out earlier, precedents for that, and I think we must give an opportunity to our nursing profession, which has rendered so much good to our country, an opportunity of self-determination and showing whether it can run its own affairs. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has dealt with my friend, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, and I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to her comment. There were one or two points raised by the hon. member to which, however, I should like to refer. He has referred to the appeals to the Minister and has asked me whether those appeals, provided for in Section 4, will be appeals on the merits and whether they might finally determine cases. The answer is yes. The Council has certain disciplinary powers, analogous to those exercised by the Medical Council, and it is proposed, in terms of this section, to enable a nurse who may be subjected to certain disciplinary action by the Nursing Council, before having to incur the expense of an application to the Supreme Court to make an application to the Minister. There are precedents for that course of action. It is an attempt to get speedy justice in all cases that involve members of the profession in what may ultimately prove to be quite heavy expenditure. And then the hon. member suggested that the Registrar should be bilingual. Now, Sir, that Registrar will be an official who will, no doubt, be in touch with the public and large numbers of nurses, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. I agree with the hon. member and I am prepared to accept that amendment.

What about the Council?

The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) has asked me whether I am prepared to accept an amendment making it compulsory that members of the Council should be bilingual. There, I think, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to go into details because the matter is one that can be discussed in the Committee stage. But there is a clear distinction between the Registrar and the members of the Council. Some of the members are elected. The profession itself has the right to elect what nurses it sees fit to send forward to the Council. These elected members are not officials, they are not persons who will be compelled to be in touch with the public, and I think, provided we observe in this Bill what I always understood as a fundamental principle in this country, namely, equality of language rights, we do not need to go any further in this Council and provide for compulsory bilingualism. In these circumstances I do not think it would be correct to accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Gezina. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has commented with some feeling of regret that there is no provision in this Bill for the regulation of wages, working hours or conditions of service for nurses. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) was at pains to point out, and I entirely agree with him, that the question of wages, working hours and conditions of service is not a matter for the Medical Council; it was not in the past and it will not be directly a matter for the Nursing Council in the future. In actual fact the question of wages is a factor in dealing with the nursing shortage in South Africa. Recently there have been certain changes in the salary scales of nurses, and I do not propose to comment on that this evening, except to remind the House that such introductions have been made in the case of mental hospitals and other Government hospital services, and increases have been provided for by the Public Services Commission, with retrospective effect from 1st September, 1943. Certain of the Provinces have fallen into line, but a great deal more has to be done in the future in regard to wages and salary scales and working conditions. These are essentially matters which the Nursing Council, as such can appropriately discuss, and there is provision in this Bill for the discussion of such matters. Section 4 (1) (k) of the Bill provides that the Council shall have power to consider any matter affecting the nursing profession and make representations or take, such other action in connection therewith that the Council deems advisable. Section 20 enables the Minister to call upon the Council or the board of the association to advise the Government on any matter affecting the nurses and to communicate to him any information they may have. So there clearly is provision in this Bill for both the Council and the Association to advise the Government and the Provincial authorities, and there is provision in this Bill for the Council on its own motion taking spontaneous action and making recommendations to the proper quarter. That is as far as a Bill of this sort can possibly go. But the establishment of such a Council, where the nurses themselves will have self-determination, will be a stimulus towards paving the way in the direction of such improvements as the hon. member has referred to. So I do not think the hon. member need have any fears on that particular aspect of the question. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) referred to the question of malpractices, and he hoped that the Council would deal with these alleged malpractices. The council has the power to deal with all matters affecting the ethics of the profession, and no doubt it will do so whenever it is necessary for it to take such steps. I am quite prepared to have the remarks which the hon. member has made brought to the notice of the Public Health Department for such enquiry as may be necessary. And finally, may I say to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, that we are making a new start, we are offering the nurses a new deal as far as their profession is concerned. But whatever may be done in this Bill does not close the door to any developments in the future. It may be that there will be developments so far as the Medical Council is concerned, and so far as other bodies are concerned, which will enable the nurses to fit into the picture. That is a matter for the future, but there is nothing in this Bill which closes the door irrevocably against any such developments. In the meantime this Bill gives the nurses that opportunity which they have been seeking so long. I hope the Bill is going to pave the way for improvements in the profession, and for stability in the profession, which is so essential to the public health needs of South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 30th May.