As the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) intimated I had the opportunity to consider his amendments. I think, however, that we should not accept those amendments. I think that they go too far in the direction he indicated, and that they are actually conflicting with what we intend achieving by this clause of the Bill. The basis of this proposal is to make use of relief from taxation for the encouragement of the co-operative priciple. The co-operative principle means doing business with members of the co-operative society. We do not want to interfere with that principle. What we aim at in these two clauses is really to have three classes of co-operative societies and not only two; we shall have two classes of co-operative trading societies, but altogether three classes of co-operative societies. First of all there are the agricultural co-operative societies. In their case the position remains as it is today, and we not only want to promote the co-operative principle, but it is the intention of the Co-operative Societies Act to assist the farmers especially in regard to production costs, and for that reason we do not interfere with the rather far-reaching provision in regard to taxation which has been laid down in the Co-operative Societies Act in regard to agricultural co-operative societies. Then we have the second class, namely, the closed co-operative societies. As I explained on a previous occasion, they are regarded as co-operative societies doing the greater part of their business with their own members, but which in view of the circumstances also do business with non-members in so far as that is necessary for the general aims and activities of such societies. There are co-operative trading societies which limit their activities in regard to non-members in that respect, and as I indicated we are also prepared to grant relief from taxation in those cases. We do so in regard to the bonus they pay to their members up to a maximum of 10 per cent.

That is very little encouragement.

No, this is a fairly good encouragement. If their intention really is to promote the co-operative principle, their profits should not amount to more than 10 per cent.

No, but as far as the taxation is concerned.

You want to make it worth while by granting a bonus of more than 10 per cent.?

No.

According to my proposal they get relief from taxation to an amount of a bonus of 10 per cent. They receive that on the full amount.

They ought to be exempted from taxation in regard to the business with their own members.

Yes, but I want to limit that to the bonus of 10 per cent. In other words, their profits which will be exempt from taxation will be limited to the 10 per cent. bonus. In most cases they should not grant a bonus of more than 10 per cent.

They cannot pay more than 8 per cent. on the capital.

Yes, but the bonus is not calculated on the capital. Under my proposal they will receive exemption for the amount of the bonus up to 10 per cent. In the third place, we have other trading societies which do not limit their activities as far as their business with nonmembers is concerned. In their case we do not propose to grant relief. The hon. member for Fauresmith now wants to advance class 2 to the position of class 1 and class 3 to the position of class 2, and that is going too far. It is not necessary to give the special relief to closed co-operative trading societies which we give to the agricultural co-operative societies. We assist them sufficiently by granting them relief for an amount of the 10 per cent. bonus. As far as the second proposal is concerned, that would mean that the open co-operative trading society would also be entitled to receive relief from taxation up to an amount of a 10 per cent. bonus to members. That would have the effect of not being an actual encouragement for co-operative trading societies to limit themselves as far as possible to the promotion of the co-operative principle, namely, the trading with their own members. Therefore the amendment which my hon. friend proposes will in that respect go in the opposite direction and will not be encouragement for co-operative societies to really promote the co-operative principle.

They will be able to receive more if they become closed societies.

It goes too far. What we propose here is to leave the agricultural co-operative societies in the position in which they are at present, to grant the proposed relief to closed co-operative societies and furthermore not to favour the open co-operative societies, with the express purpose of promoting the co-operative principle of trading with their own members. The proposals we make here enjoy the full support of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who specially aims at promting this co-operative principle. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

I am very sorry that the Minister does not see fit to accept these amendments of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I thought that the amendments were so fair that the Minister would be prepared to accept them. I received a letter from the Co-operative Society at Lichtenburg, in which I am asked to do everything I possibly can to have this alteration made in the Bill.

Is that an agricultural co-operative society?

No, it is a co-operative trading society—The Western Transvaal Co-operative Stores. This co-operative society has done a great deal of good in my constituency. It was welcomed by the whole population and I feel very sorry that that co-operative society may now be done an injustice, and that it may fail as a result of this proposal of the Minister. The amendments are very fair. I was glad to hear from the Minister that he wants to assist co-operative societies, but it looks to me as if these proposals of the Minister go in the opposite direction. He is anxious to encourage them, but his taxation proposals are going to kill them. I am sorry that the Minister adopts that attitude, and I want to express the hope that the Minister will still realise the seriousness of the matter and will even at this stage still accept the amendments. The amendments are very fair, and the people in my constituency would appreciate it very much if the Minister would accept them. In that spirit I want to appeal to the Minister.

I do not want to add anything to what the previous speaker said in regard to the desirability of the amendments. I want, however, to bring the following aspect of the matter to the notice of the Minister in connection with the application of his taxation proposals. I happen to know that there are a number of co-operative societies which have struggled for many years in order to obtain sufficient capital to continue business with a profit, and which for that purpose often had to incur liabilities in the form of loans or deposits from their own members. Of course, I know that it is not the Minister’s duty to accept responsibility for the difficulties in regard to the application of the Act, but it will make the position of those co-operatives much easier if the Minister were to postpone these proposals for the period of one year. That would enable those co-operative societies to adopt the necessary measures, so that in future they would be able to carry these burdens. I do not want to go into the principle now, but I put the request to the Minister whether he cannot postpone the application of his proposals for one year.

Question put: That the word “or” in line 41, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—53 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L,

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and F. W. Waring.

Noes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Amendment in Clause 28 and amendments in the Title put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Agreed to.

I also want to object to the increase contained in Clause 40, the increase for coloured children. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will explain to the Committee how the percentage for coloured children compares with the increase for European children. I do not think we shall say much about this question. In principle it is the same as that contained in the previous clause.

The increase in the case of European children is from £30 to £36, and in regard to coloured children from £10 to £12; it is proportional.

I just want to say that we object to this clause for the same reason as we objected to the previous clause. The coloured people who served in the army had special privileges during the war period. I just want to draw a comparison here, between the people who served in the army, whether outside the Union or at the home front, and another large section of the European population, mainly the Afrikaansspeaking section, which was opposed to the war. That section which was opposed to the war is being taxed in the same way as the others as far as the war expenditure and its aftermath are concerned. The coloured people who served in the army had those privileges, whereas another section of the population which made no money out of it at all have to be taxed in order to obtain the revenue to make provision for a permanent pension. I just want to ask the Minister whether this was also included in the representations made by the B.E.S.L. Were special representations received from the coloured people?

During the debate representations were made that we should go much further still.

As far as they are concerned, there was no increase in the cost of living, which would justify that rise, and we object to that rise.

I should like to hear from the hon. Minister what is more or less the estimated number of children which will benefit under this scheme; and secondly, what will be the amount that will be required. I want to point out to the Minister that we are now laying down a principle which will enable people to obtain enormous amounts of money from the State; the State will have to pay out enormous amounts. Especially the families of coloured people are very large. I do not know whether you will find that 10 per cent of them have not more than one or two children. Usually the families are very large. Under our Children’s Act we had the principle that the maximum a European child could receive was £2 per month. Today the allowance for the coloured child is increased from £10 to £12, and so it goes on according to the disability of the coloured soldier. If he has a whole string of children he receives an enormous amount, sufficiently large for the whole family to live on. I want to point out that we have already reaped the bitter fruits of these excessive pensions and allowances to coloured wives and children. The position today is that they not only live on that, but that they keEp labourers from working; and other people who do not want to work live from these allowances. I feel that we should protest with all our might against this increase. I think it is most unfair and that it will mean for South Africa the largest burden which we, as a people, will have to carry as a result of the large pensions we have to pay, especially to natives and coloureds. They receive much more money today than they ever received before, and we are thereby encouraging laziness.

I regret that I cannot supply the figures asked for by the hon. member, because it will naturally depend on the course of the war. We do not yet know how many casualties there will be, and what the amount will be. As far as the principle is concerned, I want to point out that in this legislation we have put the pensions of coloured people mainly on the basis of one-third of the pensions of Europeans. We have had many objections against this proportion. It was said that one-third is too little. Seeing that we are now increasing the pension in regard to European children, we cannot but increase the pension for non-European children too. We cannot judge the matter only from the point of view of the rural areas, where the standard of living and the cost of living are lower. We also have to consider the towns. The hon. member may say that we are paying too much in the rural areas, but on the other hand it is being said that the payments are too low as far as the towns are concerned. We can only follow the middle, course, and because we are still adhering to the original proportion I hope that the hon. member will not object to it any longer.

I realise the Minister’s difficulties and also his motives, but we still feel that too heavy a burden is being placed on the State, a burden which we shall have to carry continually, and we do not even know what the total burden on the country is going to be We do not know what the ultimate burden is going to be. I should like to know whether the allowance is also going to be given to illegitimate children and step-children, and all kinds of children?

They must be children of a soldier.

Can it be a step-child of a soldier?

If he maintains the child.

Can it be an adopted child.

If he maintained the child before that time.

Does it also apply to the children of a native, does the same principle apply there?

We are not dealing with the general principle now, but with the increase in the allowance. The general principle in connection with all children, European as well as non-European, is that we make provision for the children which are maintained by a soldier.

Whether it is his own child or not?

It may be either his own child or a step-child or a child which has been properly adopted.

This will lead to still worse consequences. We know how difficult these people find it to determine what is actually their family, and if they will moreover be able to adopt children indiscriminately and maintain them and draw pensions for them, we shall encourage them to become skollies. Instead of persons entering the labour market at a certain age, they will now be kept away. They will work only when they are forced to work, and here they are receiving a means to shirk work. We are certainly not doing those people a good turn. We are not opposed to the humanitarian principle, to assist people who have made sacrifices, but surely we should consider the consequences. It is obvious that the scope of the Bill will be much wider than the Minister’s own supporters ever believed. I spoke to some of them, and they gave me the assurance that it would only apply to legitimate children. Now, however, it goes much further. Any child maintained by a soldier will receive the allowance. I wonder whether the Minister would not reconsider this matter. We are not actually going to help the coloured people who will benefit in this way.

We are not dealing here with the definition of “child”, but only with the scale of the allowances. The definition of “child”, and this applies to all, is that it must be a child of a volunteer born at any time during the period before his enlistment, or the period of his service, or within five years thereafter, and includes “a child whose mother the volunteer has married during any such period, a child legally adopted by the volunteer during any such period, and any child regularly maintained by the volunteer at the time of his discharge”.

How are you going to determine whether a child has been legally adopted.

It must have been done according to law. But I do not think we can now discuss the definition of “child”. That can be found in the Act. We are now dealing only with the scale. The hon. member may think that there may be a number of children who will receive an allowance according to that definition, whereas in his opinion they should not receive it, but that surely cannot be a reason why we should not treat the large bulk of the children in a fair manner.

I did not intend discussing the pension question, but I have received instructions from my constituency reading as follows—

I want to do my duty as the representative of Losberg to warn the Minister against the principle of pensions to natives.

The hon. member is out of order. This clause has nothing to do with pensions to natives

With reference to what the Minister said, that we cannot discuss the definition of “child” because that had been accepted on a previous occasion, I want to point out that the consequences of the defination are now becoming so serious that we definitely have to go into this matter. Here the allowance of all children is being increased by £2. The matter is now becoming of such magnitude that we have to object to it. If we had had another definition the magnitude might not have been so great, but it is exactly on account of the definition that the matter is now assuming proportions which are most disquieting. We therefore say that we have to protest against the increase because larger and larger amounts of money will have to be made available.

The CHAIRMAN put Clause 40 as amended and the Committee divided. After the Tellers for the Ayes and Noes had been appointed the Chairman drew attention to the fact that Mr. C. M. Warren had moved from the “Noes” on his left to the “Ayes” on his right and stated that as he had done so after the Tellers had begun telling he must resume his place with the “Noes.”

on a point of order asked whether several other members had not also crossed the floor after the Tellers had been appointed?

Yes, but they did so before the Tellers had begun telling.

Ayes—55 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H. Hopf, F.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J,

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

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.

Tellers: R. E. Bell and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—25 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

S. Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Last night the request was made that Clauses 2 to 9 should stand over, and I understand that hon. members on the other side are now prepared to revert to those clauses. I therefore want to move—

Agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 2 to 9, standing over.

On Clause 2,

Clause 2 deals with the extension of the old age pension to natives and Indians. I just want to tell the Minister of Finance that he may perhaps now have an idea of what the impression in the country is about the provision that is being made here. Our objection is not that we begrudge any native to be assisted in his old age when he is infirm. Our objection, however, as the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) said here, is that we are opening a door which will prevent us from limiting the assistance. We are starting something here which will involve a burden which the Minister of Finance cannot estimate at present and which he will still less be able to estimate in future. Up to now the Minister did not tell us clearly how he is going to control the old age pensions for natives, and in order to give him an opportunity to be quite clear on the point, I should like to put a few questions to him. The first one is, how is he going to control the ages of natives? It has been said that this will be estimated. It is often difficult to estimate the age of a European, and in the case of a native it is much more difficult still, and we should like to have a clear explanation from the Minister. The second question is: How is he going to control the influx of natives from the neighbouring territories; if he does not control that efficiently, this legislation will simply mean that the Union of South Africa is going to be the old age home for the natives of the neighbouring territories. We sometimes find that natives living on the borders of the Union and those living just outside the Union are members of the same tribe, and how is the Minister going to prevent natives from the adjoining territories coming into the Union in order to draw the old age pension here. My third question I have already raised during the second reading. A means test is going to be applied in the case of natives, and the Minister knows that it is an extremely difficult matter to determine what the possessions of a native are. As far as his possessions are concerned, he is subject to the tribal tradition. There are numerous provisions in regard to his possessions which consist mainly of movable property. The means test will have to be applied in regard to movable property, and everybody who has had dealings with natives in our law courts and otherwise, will know that it is the most difficult thing under the sun to determine what the property of a native is. The traditions of the natives play so great a part in regard to his property that we shall not be able to determine it.

The effect of this measure will be that as soon as a native reaches the age when according to estimates he may be taken into consideration for the pension, he will not possess a farthing. All his possessions will be allegedly the property of his uncle or brother-in-law, and we know that they are all uncles and brothers-in-law of one another. The property will be transferred to the younger generation in order to give the older generation the benefit of the pension. I put these three short questions to the Minister, and we should like very much to receive a clear answer to them. If we are going to apply a measure of this nature, it will in the first instance be necessary to have a thorough control over all natives, and we cannot have that thorough control if we do not have, first of all, a proper system of registration of natives. Only then will it be possible to have a proper control, and as that does not exist today we shall find that the flood gates of the Treasury will simply be opened, and we do not know where it is going to end. The European taxpayer will be called upon to shoulder this burden, and for that reason I should like to have a clear reply from the Minister on these questions, and whether he has already made an estimate of what this burden will amount to in future.

As I have said before, the administration of this Act will in accordance with Clause 45, fall under the Department of Native Affairs as far as natives are concerned. The decision of the matters referred to by my hon. friend will therefore be in the hands of Native Commissioners. As far as the age is concerned, an estimate will have to be made, as is done in many other cases. We have no system of registration of births as far as natives are concerned, and it will therefore not be possible in all cases to prove what the age of a particular native is. Those difficulties, of course, also crop up in regard to Europeans and coloureds—of course to a much lesser extent. But the fact that those difficulties do exist in connection with coloureds did not prevent us from paying old age pensions to coloured people. The means test will also be a matter to be dealt with by the Native Commissioners. There will be difficulties, but I think that this is a matter which we can leave to the discretion of the Native Commissioner, who will know what the general provisions are which Parliament wants to be applied. As far as natives from adjacent territories are concerned, I cannot see great difficulties, because they have to be domiciled here for 15 years before they can be considered for this pension.

How are you going to determine that when there is no registration system?

They have their passes.

They do not keep a pass for 15 years.

But there is a record in the office. I cannot see that this will cause great difficulty.

You are not even sure of a census, and how can you then be sure of these passes?

They have passes which are registered in the office of the Commissioners. The latter will be able to find out whether a native has been domiciled here for 15 years or not. I want to say, however, that although there are going to be difficulties, I do not consider that a sufficient reason to refuse to apply this fair provision to natives. It is our duty to do this, and although we shall encounter difficulties, that is not going to deter us from applying this fair provision.

The Minister says that it has to be done, that it is fair, and that he is simply going to do it. We maintain that the circumstances and the time are not suitable for such a step. The Minister knows how long it took to grant old age pensions to European persons. I pointed out on a previous occasion that a very thorough investigation took place into the whole question of European old age pensions and how they should be granted, before this House accepted the measure. The Minister now comes along with this measure and is not able to give any indication of how it is to be applied and how all these difficulties will be overcome. It is very easy for the Minister to say that the ages of natives will be estimated: but how is that to be done?

They only know whether they were born before or after the rinderpest.

In the courts of law the ages of natives have to be estimated time and again. The native simply declares that he was born either before or after the rinderpest, before or after the great dust storm, or before or after the great locust plague. We have no registration of births of natives and it is extremely difficult to arrive at their ages. Only the week before last I had a court case in which the medical evidence was that they could only estimate the age approximately. The Minister knows that those difficulties exist, and why did he not first institute an investigation so that we might have incorporated in this Bill a guiding principle as to how these matter should be dealt with. Who is going to judge these things? I do not know who is going to judge the ages. In the case of the Europeans you have his birth certificate or baptismal certificate, but who is going to determine the age of a native? It will have to be the Native Commissioner. But how is he going to determine it? This age question is going to cause great difficulties. Then there is the question of the means test, which is also going to cause a great deal of trouble. The hon. Minister says that the Department of Native Affairs will have to determine that. We know what the position is in regard to natives. The native who will be nearing the age limit will not possess one single ox or head of cattle. We shall find that the cattle belongs to his uncle or his brother-in-law. Then there is a still greater difficulty. What about the natives crossing the border time and again? There are no restrictions whatsoever. The Minister referred here to passes. The native gets a pass today, and tomorrow he comes for another pass. That native will have to prove that he has been resident in the Union for such a period. What proof is the Minister going to demand? There are natives coming from the territories to work in the Union for a couple of months. Take the case of Basutoland. Those natives come to the Union every year. They come for the shearing or harvesting or other work, and then they go back again. They will simply declare that they have been in the Union for fifteen or twenty years, because they have been working here for two or three months every year. There is no registration of natives, and how will they be able to prove that they have been resident here for a certain period? Apart from our other objections, we have these practical objections which are so to say insurmountable. I am sorry that the Minister of Native Affairs is not in his seat. The Minister of Finance said that the Department of Native Affairs will administer this. I should like to know from the Minister of Native Affairs how this is going to be applied, and how they are going to determine these matters. The House is now being asked to accept this clause without knowing how the department is going to take decisions in regard to these serious practical difficulties. I was waiting to hear what the Minister was going to say, but his reply was most disappointing. He said that it had to be determined in some way or another, but he could not say in what way. We have these special difficulties in regard to this matter. The Bill should make provision for the solution of these difficulties, and we on this side of the House cannot vote for the clause under those circumstances.

I should like to know from the hon. Minister how many natives, according to his opinion, are going to be affected by this clause. Surely they must have some idea of it. The House is asked to make provision for legislation, and surely there should be an estimate of the amount, which in his opinion, the country will have to pay for it, and we are entitled to ask him how many natives, males and females, will come under this measure. Before we make provision for old age pensions, we had a proper investigation. We had our census and we knew how many persons would be entitled to the pension. We made our calculations as to how many of them would comply with the means test. We now ask the Minister how many natives will fall under it. In regard to the Oudstryders we did the same thing. In that case the Minister before introducing the legislation, wanted to know how many people would come under it. He wanted to know exactly how much it would cost. Seeing that in the case of Europeans this was investigated properly, why has the same not been done in connection with the natives? I feel convinced that if he had properly investigated the matter, not only in respect of the numbers, but also in respect of the need, he would have found very few people in favour of it. As we have already said, we are not against old natives being provided with clothing and food, and we have already mentioned how in the past these matters were handled in regard to our poor whites. We made provision for them under the assistance scheme for paupers. The magistrate looked after them. Give the Native Commissioners the power, where such cases occur, to supply the necessary means. Now, however, we are going to extend it to every native throughout the country who has reached the age, and it is quite impossible to estimate how old the native is. When you come to the means test, you are faced with still greater difficulties. I assume that all native females over the age of 60 years will also be entitled to this pension. Then there is a further aspect of the matter which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. Has the Minister already considered in how far this measure is going to affect the serious shortage of labour. We notice that the farmers are holding meetings everywhere because they cannot obtain labourers. In the past the position in the rural areas was that native kraals looked after the old people. The young natives of the kraal had to work from time to time in order to be able to provide for the old people. If they have not got to do that, they will loaf around in the kraals and drink beer. In the past they were forced to work, so that they would be able to look after the old people. It was an obligation they had to fulfil. The Government now comes along and relieves them of that obligation. There is no longer any need for them to work. Yesterday we already made provision that when one of them has been killed in the war, the old natives in the kraal will be looked after—£8 for each of them. When in the past there were four young natives in a kraal able to work, the position will now be that in cases where there are six children, they will receive £48. Furthermore provision is being made for the old people, and the kraal is therefore going to receive an enormous amount. What will be the effect of this? None of those natives are going to work. At present we are already faced with a shortage of labour on our farms; but then the position will be far worse than it is today.

May I point out to the hon. member that he is now discussing the principles of the Bill. That may be done during the second or third reading stages, but not in Committee.

But we are now in the Committee stage and we are entitled to deal with every clause.

The hon. member may speak on it, but he should not deal with it too fully at present.

What is the result going to be if we include the natives? Up till now this aspect has not yet been discussed during the Committee stage and this is a very serious matter. Members who did not take part in the debate during the second reading will also like to say something. We then come to the question of the means test. We also discussed that during the second reading stage. The Native Commissioner who will be charged with the administration of this legislation, will not be able to judge what the assets of the old native are. In many cases that native is the head of the kraal. As we have said before, the assets belong to the kraal as a whole. How is the Commissioner going to apply the means test in that case? Let us assume that the old native owns 20 head of cattle. According to the means test he will in that case not be entitled to a pension, but now he will say: “These are not my cattle; they belong to all the people in my kraal.” How are you going to apply the means test in that case? If you are prepared to accept that he is keeping that cattle in trust for his tribe, then every native, quite apart from his means, will be entitled to the pension. Just imagine what that is going to cost the country. We feel that this matter has not been properly gone into. We have not yet had the evidence of Native Commissioners who have been dealing with natives for many years. We also have not heard that they have been asked how this is to be applied. If there is such evidence, we should like to hear about it. We want to know how they are going to arrange matters so that only the persons who are entitled to it, will receive the old age pension. Whilst we are not against provision being made for the old native, we still feel that this is the wrong way of dealing with it.

I should like to hear from the hon. Minister whether this legislation is also going to apply to the natives of the Caprivi Zipfel.

No, it will not apply to them.

I just want to point out that that area falls under the administration of the Union. Here in the report of the Native Commissioner it says that the first permanent shop in the area has been opened in 1940 only. If we now had to pay old age pensions to natives who for the first time had a store in their area in 1941, it would be a proper mess.

And South-West Africa?

Furthermore I assume that South-West will not be covered by it. I should like to tell the Minister that the position in regard to the natives is such today, that the farmer has to rely on the old natives in order to be able to produce. The younger natives are enticed by the mines and the industries to move away and the farmer has to provide the country and even to supply war needs, by making use of old natives today. I personally had more than once to take an old native in my service who has a small boy who is three-quarters idiotic, but I had to employ him in order to get that young boy to assist in the ploughing. When these natives are all going to draw a pension, the position will be that on the farms they receive £6, in the smaller towns £9 and in the cities £12, and I assume that the natives will all try to migrate to the cities in order to receive the £12 rather than the £6 on the farm. I now want to know how we are going to produce the country’s food if that is going to happen? At present we already have to rely on old natives. They will be given a subsidy in the cities under this legislation and consequently they will all want to move to the cities. They will place the young natives in schools there or they will let them work. I prophesy that this principle will result in …

May I point out to the hon. member that the principle of this Bill has already been agreed to at the second reading.

I am speaking of the results this legislation will have. I should like to point out that the result will be that this country will be producing less foodstuffs. I want to repeat that the farmers have to keep their farms going today with the assistance of old natives, and the latter are now going to be lured away to the towns.

I only want to deal with the Minister’s reply to the three questions I put to him. The application of this clause will provide a pension for natives, and that will be calculated on three factors, viz., domicile, age and property. I asked the Minister how he is going to control and determine those three things. As far as the first one, the domicile, is concerned, the Minister admitted that it will be difficult to control. He agrees and says that it will be difficult to control, but we must close our eyes to this difficulty, as he said. The Minister wants to lay down that a native has to be resident within the Union for a period of 15 years, before becoming eligible for the pension. The actual facts are that there exists a continual stream of natives from Basutoland to the Union and vice versa. A continual mass movement takes place and the native in Basutoland will say: “I stayed with Baas So-and-So in the Free State.” It is simply impossible to control it. It is impossible to determine where the native lived. Year after year he goes to Basutoland and works for a little while in the Union. How are you going to control it? The Minister mentioned the pass system, but the application of the pass system is not such that you can determine these facts on the basis thereof. There is a continual forward and backward movement and it is impossible to determine accurately what the position is. I also want to point out that even at the dynamite factory here at Somerset West one could find natives from Nyassaland and even Swahilis. Can the Minister tell us how many natives from outside our borders are living in the Union? He cannot do so There are natives who were recruited in Ovamboland in order to work in South-West and who thereafter came to the Union. The mines recruit natives from outside our borders. It is quite impossible to control it. The Government is not in a position to control the natives within our borders. Here at Cape Town there has been an influx of 60,000 natives from the Eastern Province and other parts of the Union. They have infiltrated in spite of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act and the Minister of Native Affairs is at his wits’ end and cannot control the natives within the Union. How on earth are they going to control the natives coining in from abroad? So much about the first aspect. As far as my second point is concerned, viz. the question of age, the Minister failed to give an answer. I therefore now proceed to the third point, the means test. How is he going to apply that to natives? This is a serious question. We are going to grant pensions on the basis of the property of the native. If you cannot apply the means test, how will you ever reach control? It will simply mean that we shall have to grant pensions to all natives. In regard to the question of domicile, I still want to ask the Minister a further question. Will he give this House the assurance that unless a native can produce written proof that he has been domiciled for at least 15 years in the Union, no pension will be granted to him? I should like to see what the Minister is going to do. What is he going to do if an investigation has to take place into documents which are 15 years old? The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) raised his voice against it. He said that his electors feel that this is a most dangerous clause. He can now interpret the feeling of his constituents. That is in order here. The constituents ask where the end is going to be if pensions for natives are to be introduced. Those are the people who are dealing with natives every day. When have the greatest blunders been made in South Africa in regard to native affairs? The greatest blunders have been made by people who wanted to control matters without ever having been in contact with natives themselves. That happened when the British Government tried to interfere in native affairs in South Africa. Today we have a Government laying down the law without the people who will have to administer it being acquainted with the living conditions and mentality of the natives. The Minister said that he would leave the control of pensions to natives in the hands of the Native Commissioners and that the Department of Native Affairs will be entrusted with the administration as far as Clause 45 is concerned. As the Minister admitted himself, the control of these pension matters is a very difficult problem. We want to give all the credit due to the officials of the Department of Finance who are dealing with pension matters. The manner in which they have administered the pension laws, has been exemplary. Now, however, the Minister is going to entrust the administration of pensions under this legislation to persons who have no experience in this field. The pensions commissioners falling under the Department of Finance are people with experience, but in this case a matter of a very difficult nature is to be placed into the hands of people who have not the slightest experience of this specific work. I am convinced that this is going to result in a lot of trouble. I also feel that this clause is going to alter the relationship between Europeans and nonEuropeans, and that the consequences will be far-reaching.

I just want to come back to one point. The hon. member asked whether the natives have to furnish written proof that they were resident in the Union for 50 years. No, not written proof. The Department of Native Affairs has the native’s record as far as the payment of hut tax is concerned. The Department will be able to check up whether a native paid hut tax for fifteen years, and if that is not the case, he is not eligible for a pension. The Commissioner has to satisfy himself that the native has complied with the requirements of the Act, and in that way the onus eventually rests on the applicant. There may be cases where pensions will be granted to natives who may not have been entitled to them, but there will be many more cases where the pension will be withheld, although the person concerned is really entitled to it. We cannot make this system 100 per cent. perfect, as little as we can do it in connection with coloured people.

In that case, is this measure desirable?

Generally speaking, it is desirable to make provision for old natives, and if it means that in a few cases pensions will be granted to natives who are not entitled to them, I shall not be greatly concerned about it. That also happens today in the case of coloured people and Europeans. I do not think that minor administrative difficulties should make us neglect our duty towards the less privileged section of the population.

The Minister is going to experience great difficulties as far as control is concerned. I know of numerous cases where natives live in the Free State for eleven months, and then go over the border into Basutoland for a month and pay their hut tax there.

If he pays his hut tax in Basutoland, he does not get a pension from us.

I am only mentioning this to point out the difficulties. Actually he is resident in the Free State. The Minister said the other day that the Europeans are the guardians of the natives. I fully agree. The question, however, is what the guardian is worth. One soon discovers that one can spoil a child if one abuses one’s guardianship. The native is no more than an overgrown child, and we should therefore be very careful not to do the wrong thing. Care should be taken of the old people, but let the natives, generally speaking, also contribute to the burden. Let the millions of natives in our country also contribute to a pension fund out of which the State can provide for the aged natives. On a previous occasion I mentioned what the European population had done and was still doing for the natives. I do not want to go over the same ground again, but the fact remains that the native population has greatly increased. We have carried out our mandate of guardianship 100 per cent. and protected the natives. Let me just point out that in the old days it was customary among the natives to tie the old natives, both male and female, to the gate of the kraal and to drive cattle over them, and then to bury them in the kraal. As the result of the influence of civilisation those practices have been discontinued.

The hon. member should not discuss the principle of the Bill.

I am only mentioning it in passing. Then I want to point out that the native in Basutoland pays £1 8s. per annum if he has one wife, and if he has two wives he has to pay £2 16s. The result of that system was that the native soon discovered that it paid him better if he had more than one wife, to live in the Union where he only pays £1 per annum. We shall therefore be in this position, that to a great extent we will be saddled in the Union with old women from Basutoland. In that connection we are creating problems for ourselves, and I want to suggest that the Minister of Finance should go into this matter thoroughly before he proceeds to pay old age pensions to the natives.

I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that pensions will only be paid to natives on condition that they furnish adequate proof that they paid hut tax in the Union for at least fifteen years.

I am prepared to consider it, if that will partially meet hon. members on the other side. I do not think, as far as I am concerned, that it will make much difference.

In the Old Age Pensions Act it is provided that the Commissioner of Pensions, when deciding in regard to the grant of an old age pension, an increase in or a reduction thereof, or the discontinuance thereof, shall take into consideration the means of the spouse or child to contribute to the maintenance of the old person. Will that also be applicable in the case of the natives?

My hon. friend knows that there is a further clause in this Bill in which it is laid down that it will no longer be necessary for the Commissioner to take into account the extent to which the children are able to contribute to the maintenance. That provision is being deleted from the Act. That is done in Clause 3 (e) of this Bill. It will be of general application. Section 6 (2) of the existing Act will then be applicable to everyone.

The hon. Minister has not yet satisfied me in regard to the means test to determine whether natives are entitled to a pension or not. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we find natives who are very rich, not rich landowners, but rich cattle owners. I know of a native who has 250 head of cattle in his kraal. He is comparatively old and will be entitled to an old age pension on the ground of his age. If we were to ask him what he possessed, he would say that everything belongs to his children or relatives. He will be eligible for a pension, and we may therefore have this position that we shall be paying pensions to rich natives. In this respect the native will receive preferential treatment as against the European. The European, according to the means test which is applied to him, has to be desperately poor before he can get a pension; but the native may be rich and yet be eligible for a pension. I feel that this is a great injustice, and I should like the Minister to make a statement as to how he proposes to apply the means test; whether the native will receive preferential treatment, or whether he will be treated on an equal basis with the European from the point of view of means.

The Bill lays down that there will be a means test. The rich native will therefore not be entitled to a pension.

How are you going to determine it?

It is left to the native commissioners.

But they will not know either.

There will be difficulties, but in the majority of cases the commissioner will have the necessary information, and he can call for further information in order to determine what the position is. With regard to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), I shall go into the question of such an amendment. It is difficult to move it at this stage, and it will probably have to be done in the report stage or in the Other Place. I am prepared to consider it. That may assist my hon. friends.

Did I understand the Minister to say that he was prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that the native will be required to have paid the hut tax regularly for fifteen years before he will be entitled to the pension?

I shall consider such an amendment.

I just want to say that the Minister is going to experience endless difficulties in connection with this matter. The native does not know when he was born. He can only tell you that he was born before or after a certain event.

Some of them even say they were born before the great trek.

There is the danger therefore that pensions may be granted to natives although they are under the age limit. The Minister himself knows that he cannot apply any satisfactory test. Then there is the other factor that many farmers take care of the old natives on their farms. In know of cases where the old native is given his own little place. He may continue to do light work, but he is well taken care of. Now the position will be that, in order to get the pension in town, the natives will leave the farms where they are well looked after. They will move to the towns and also come in from the reserves beyond our borders in order to get pensions. I feel that there will be discrimination in this sense that many natives who are not entitled to it will get pensions while others who are entitled to it will not get it. The Minister himself realises that he cannot properly control this matter. He cannot determine the age of the natives nor their means. It will therefore lead to injustices on a large scale, because there has been no proper investigation.

I just want to draw attention to the definition of “native.”

That comes under the next clause.

It relates to this matter. Hottentots, Bushmen and Korannas are also regarded as natives. Do they pay hut tax?

I think so.

No, they do not pay.

The whole of South Africa is open to them and practically belongs to them, and yet they do not pay any taxes. Reference is also made to persons who live under the same conditions as natives in the reserves. Do they pay a tax? Then there are also American negroes to whom we now propose to pay pensions.

The hon. member should rather discuss that matter under Clause 3.

The point is this. It seems that the scope of this Bill is so vast that a whole army of officials will be required to carry out its provisions. According to the admission of the Minister of Finance, they will not be able to apply it properly, and we shall have this position that pensions will be paid to natives who are not entitled to them, while others who are entitled to a pension will not get it, because they cannot comply with the requirements. I strongly object to this clause, and I trust that we shall have the support of other parts of the House in voting it down. It is an impossible clause. Not only is it impracticable, but the Minister himself cannot tell us what the final outcome will be. Apart from the labour difficulties which will be created on the platteland, its consequences are immeasurable and we cannot tell what the consequences will be. We want to point out that not only will this country become the haven of refuge of the old people who are described in this definition, but natives will also percolate through from Bechuanaland and the Northern Territories to obtain employment on the mines. Recruiting companies have already opened an office in the Caprivi Zipfel. Natives are invited to go to the mines. The Minister and the Department of Native Affairs are aware of that Owing to the shortage of workers on the mines they encourage the natives to come to the cities. The natives sometimes walk a distance of 500 or 1,000 miles to get to the recruiting offices, and eventually they arrive in the Union. The effect and the consequences of this Bill are immeasurable, and I am strongly opposed to this clause.

Clause 2 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—62 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, 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, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. 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: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—24 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 2, *Mr. NAUDÉ: I should like to move the following new clause to follow on this clause—

1. 3. Section 6 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1928, is hereby further amended by the addition of the following further proviso to sub-section (1) thereof:
   Provided further that an allotment of cost of living allowance payable to a pensioner or a war veteran shall not be regarded as income (or means) for the purposes of this sub-section.

I should like to point out that there is a provision in the Act which lays down what such an old age pensioner receives. Section 6 (1) of Act No. 22 of 1928, as amended, reads as follows—

1. (a) A white pensioner, the rate of £42 per annum; or
2. (b) a coloured pensioner, the rate of £21 per annum,

nor shall it be at such a rate as will make the pensioner’s income (or means) together with the pension exceed—

1. (1) £72 per annum, and in addition thereto £12 per annum in respect of every child below the age of sixteen years who is supported by him in the case of a white pensioner; or
2. (2) £39 per annum in the case of a coloured pensioner.

These amendments were brought about in Act No. 34 of 1931 and Act No. 34 of 1937. Here we have the position that there are many of these people who had certain means. I want to confine myself principally to people who are employed in the Government service, people who work on roads and other Government works, or people who are employed by municipalities. If a man is in the employ of a municipality or of the Government, he is granted a cost of living allowance by the municipality or by the Government. If his income is then increased above £72 ….

May I point out to the hon. member that I am unable to put the amendment to the Committee without the recommendation of the Governor-General, as it would involve increased expenditure.

It would bring more people within the scope of the Bill.

In that case it will involve increased expenditure.

The amendment accordingly dropped.

I should like to move a further proviso, to add to the new Clause 3 ….

May I point out to the hon. member that there is not a new Clause 3.

Then I want to move—

The object of the amendment is to make further provision ….

The hon. member cannot move this amendment if it will involve increased expenditure.

My impression is that it may result in reduced expenditure. I know that the Minister shares my views. I think he will be able to devise a plan to put it in some other way, if he agrees with me.

The amendment dropped.

On Clause 3,

I wish to move the following amendment—

I am convinced that this will result in decreased expenditure, because provision is being made here in respect of members of a force other than the Union forces. That means that people who participated in the war but who did not belong to the Union forces, will be included when they come to this country, and we are not in favour of that. We do not mind this provision being applicable to people in the Union, but we are not in favour of applying it to people outside South Africa. A similar amendment was accepted in the Solders’ and War Workers’ Employment Bill.

What was accepted there?

That the person must have been domiciled in the Union. He must have been either a Union citizen or have been resident in this country before or at the time of the outbreak of the war.

I am sorry that my hon. friend did not place this amendment on the Order Paper. As far as I see it, the position is this. Old age pensions are only payable to persons who comply with the provisions of the Act. There is therefore no question of granting old age pensions to persons who are not domiciled in the Union. In Section 6 of Act No. 34 of 1931, it is laid down that in determining the old age pension which is payable, the Commissioner must take into consideration the circumstances of the pensioner and it shall not be so much that the pensioner’s income (or means) together with the pension will exceed more than a certain amount. The proposed amendment extends the concession which was made to the allowance which is paid in the same circumstances by other governments. It does not, therefore, detract from the fact that the person concerned must be domiciled in the Union. It only states that no account shall be taken of the question of an allowance which is paid when the man serves in the forces of another Allied nation.

He still has to be a Union citizen?

Yes, it does not alter that position; and that principle was accepted in the Bill to which my hon. friend referred. In that Bill we recognised service in other forces. I move an amendment in the Afrikaans version which does not occur in the English version.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie was withdrawn.

In connection with Clause 3, I just want to discuss this question—and I hope to be in order this time—and that is that here we are apparently going to make provision for the expenditure of millions of pounds in order to make provision for unnecessary pensions to natives who do not need them, while we make no provision for pensions to persons whose positions are adversely affected by the war. The people who draw old age pensions and the people who are in receipt of Oudstryders’ pensions, and who receive a cost of living allowance as a result of the increased cost of living, are today in a worse position, because the cost of living allowance which is paid to them is regarded as means. It is deducted from their pensions; and where these people live in the cities or towns it is a serious matter. The cost of living allowance, to which these people are just as entitled as anyone else, is now taken into account. Section 6 (1) of the Act is the section which we want to amend, and that is the section which prescribes the means test. If the Minister cannot make provision whereby Europeans will get the benefit of this cost of living allowance I cannot see what justification we have for agreeing to provision being made for pensions to natives and others. We are opposed to all three sub-clauses which lay down the respective amounts as far as old age pensions for natives and Indians are concerned, but what I object to particularly is the amount which will be paid to natives who, in the opinion of the commissioner, are resident in the platteland. In the cities and towns where one finds the detribalised native, something may be said in the circumstances for the allotment of a pension. I stated on a previous occasion that it ought not to be paid in the form of an old age pension, but that the commissioner should decide on an amount which he regards as reasonable. I strongly object, however, to sub-clause (e) which makes provision for natives on the platteland. The arguments against that sub-clause have already been stated, and I merely want to move—

I want to say a few words in connection with the ability of children to support their parents. When the old age pension was originally introduced, I advocated that the children’s ability to take care of their parents should not be taken into account. I voted against the provision that the means of the children should be taken into account. There may be cases where the children are able to pay, and where there is abuse, but on the other hand there will be numerous cases where the old people will receive a lesser amount on the strength of the fact that the children are able to assist, while the children themselves have to struggle in order to support their own families. I am glad, therefore, that the Minister is bringing about this amendment. But I want to put a question in that connection. I personally appreciate very greatly the manner in which the officials of the department have come to our assistance in connection with old age pensions. I have always received the most sympathetic treatment when submitting cases to the commissioner. Where it was possible, he came to my assistance. It is clear to me that we will now be swamped by people who will want to know how their cases can be put right, because there are numerous cases where the ability of the children to support their parenets was taken into consideration in the past.

All these cases will automatically be reviewed. It was for that reason that we fixed the date at 1st September, and in the meantime these cases will be taken into review.

I am glad to hear that, and I shall take the matter no further. As far as natives are concerned, provision is being made for a different rate in respect of the city and the platteland. I should like to know what the definition is of a city and of a town. Is there any definition in our laws? What is meant by the place where an applicant resides? I know that a place where a Bishop lives is deemed to be a city in England. According to that test, George would be a city, as well as Grahamstown, which is called the City of Saints. But there is no such thing in the Free State. Recently there was a motion before the Provincial Council to declare Bloemfontein a city, but certain hon. members behind me objected so strongly that the motion fell through.

As far as that is concerned, it is left to the discretion of the commissioner. What we are really aiming at is what was suggested by the Social Security Committee. They drew a distinction between cities and towns.

Is there any test?

It is a question of the size of the population. We usually speak of the nine big cities of the Union.

Is it not desirable that it should be laid down in the Act, so that we shall know what the position is.

From the administrative point of view we have already drawn a distinction as far as pensions for Europeans are concerned. I do not think it is altogether possible to lay it down in the Act, because there is frequently an alteration of the borders and areas outside big cities, which may have to be taken into account. I think it is better to leave it to the discretion of the commissioner. After all, it is not a question of the prestige of any specific town or city.

Is Bloemfontein a city, for example?

Certainly.

In connection with Clause 3 (a), (b) and (c), it apparently deals with the allotment of pensions to natives and Indians. We have already voted against it under Clause 2, but it must be understood that we are opposed to it, even though we do not vote against Clause 3. We are definitely opposed to sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c), but we have no objection to (d) and (e). I move—

In this connection I just want to raise the question of the invalidity allowance. The people who draw this allowance will be affected. People are granted an invalidity allowance because they are disabled and because they cannot take care of themselves. In applying the means test, the invalidity allowance will also be deducted now. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of not taking into account this allowance in applying the means test. Let me make a comparison. Take the case of a person who is 80 per cent. disabled and who receives an allowance. The first £50 income is not taken into account ….

I shall consider it.

I want to put a question in connection with the means test for natives. The native on the platteland lives on the farmer’s farm; he is given his food; perhaps grazing for his cattle and a piece of land. How will all these things be taken into account?

The Native Commissioners will go into it, but we also have the power to promulgate regulations under Clause 19. I shall move an amendment in that connection later on. Perhaps we can discuss it then.

I should like to know when one is deemed to live in a town and when not. There are some towns where there are large peri-urban areas which are inhabited by natives. Will the Native Commissioner decide whether these people in the periurban areas are to be regarded as living in the town? Or must these people necessarily live inside the city or town? Will the Commissioner have to decide up to what point the town or city extends? Take a place like Cape Town. Large numbers of natives live just outside the urban area, in the Cape Flats or near Bellville or other suburbs. I would regard them as city dwellers. The boundaries of the city or town are fixed quite arbitrarily. Is the boundary of the town the last house? In the Karoo there are towns with a huge area of town lands. Carnarvon, for example, has a town commonage of more than 100,000 morgen. People who live 20 miles from the town hall still live in the urban area. What would be the position of these people?

That will be determined by the Commissioner.

Will he be able to determine whether anyone is to be regarded as residing in the city for the purposes of this Act?

He will be able to say that a person who lives in a certain part is resident in the city area.

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

As far as the allotment of pensions to natives is concerned, the principle has already been accepted and it will be of no avail to argue that point any further. But I want to give my strong support to the motion to delete this clause which lays down the various amounts to be granted to the natives. I want to repeat briefly what I said on a previous occasion, namely, that the natives are simply being encouraged in the tendency which one finds on their part to let tomorrow look after itself. It is so gener ally known to people who have experience of the natives that they only work when forced to do so and that they have no sense of thrift, that one is astonished to find that there are still people who doubt it. We maintain that by allotting pensions we will encourage that tendency, instead of our attempting to persuade the natives to change their mode of life. It seems to me, however, that there are quite a number of people —if we have to judge by the English newspapers—who doubt the proposition that the native, according to his traditional mode of life and the state of barbarism which he still retains to a great extent, is inclined to let tomorrow look after itself. The English newspapers in the Transvaal, like the “Rand Daily Mail” and the “Star,” when I was recently there, said all sorts of unpleasant things about the people who had made this statement. But it is not only we who make that statement; years ago certain English-speaking people who had gained a knowledge of the natives, expressed the same views. I happened to see an article in an English magazine the other day, “The World Review,” which is the successor of “The Review of Reviews”—or rather in a column of that journal, under the heading “Fifty Years Ago.” Just as some newspapers have a column in regard to events which took place twenty years ago, so the “The World Review” has a column of events which took place fifty years ago, and in that column I find the following passage in connection with the annexation of Pondoland [Retranslation]—

And then we come to this interesting portion—

That throws an interesting light on a proposition which we outlined here. It is high time—if we do not exercise supervision—that we teach the natives in South Africa to become useful inhabitants of the country who can contribute their share to the national income of the country and also to the development of the country. We should teach them a sense of thrift and to provide for tomorrow; and we shall not succeed in doing that if we are going to give an old age pension to these hundreds of thousands of natives who live in a state of barbarism. If we did that the result would be that they would be even less inclined to work and to provide for tomorrow. For that reason I support the deletion of this clause.

With the leave of the Committee, I want to withdraw mv amendment in favour of the other amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Naudé was withdrawn.

Question put: That paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—57 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

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.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Serfontein negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 3,

I should like to move an amendment, a new Clause 4, as follows—

1. 4. Section 19 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1928, is hereby amended by the addition at the end of paragraph (a) of the words “by any applicant or any particular class of applicants.”

Let me just explain this. Clause 19 is the clause which gives the power to promulgate regulations. The Governor-General may issue regulations in connection with (a) the form in which an application for a pension shall be made, and the evidence and information to be submitted with any such application; and then we want to add the words “by any applicant or any particular class of applicants.” That will give us the power to demand special evidence in such cases. I hope that will satisfy my hon. friends.

It would then very much simplify the forms which are issued in connection with old age pensioners and Oud-stryders. We have now learned from the Minister that the contributions by the children will fall away. That will facilitate the position very much.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I just want to ask the hon. Minister to give us a further explanation in connection with Clause 4, i.e. the defintion of a coloured person. We should like to know what the effect of it will be.

In the present Act “coloured person” is defined as follows—

1. (a) a Turk or member of a race or tribe whose national or ethnical home is Asia; nor
2. (b) a member of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa; nor
3. (c) a Hottentot, Bushman or Koranna; nor
4. (d) a person who is residing in a native location as defined in Section 19 of the Natives Taxation and Development Act, 1925 (Act No. 41 of 1925), under the same conditions as a native; nor
5. (e) an American negro;

and includes a member of the race or class commonly called Cape Malays and of the race or class commonly called Griquas.

Because we are now defining “natives,” it is possible to simplify this definition, but the meaning is exactly the same.

I just want to ask the Minister a question in connection with this definition. I see that in the definition of “native” for the purposes of this measure is included “American negro.” I simply want to ask him for what practical reasons that has been done. There are various definitions of “native” in the various segregation laws of this country; I am speaking purely from memory but I cannot recollect—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that “American negro” has been included in any of these laws. Has “American negro” been included in any other definition of “native”? It has not been included in the Natives’ Representation Act. I am taking it that I am correct in saying that “American negro” is here introduced in the definition of “native” for the first time. Why has that been done? The normal definition of “native”—there are certain variations—is “a member of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa south of the Equator.” That excludes Africans from the northern parts of Africa and Africans from other hemispheres. For what reason has “American negro” been introduced here? Does the Minister expect the arrival of American negroes here to any extent? At any rate what does the Minister mean by “American negro”? I know a coloured man in the Cape who is an American negro; I believe that even if he became a naturalised South African he would still be an American negro for the purposes of this definition. But in America the term “negro” does not mean a person of full African blood, but a person who is not white. A negro to the American is a person who is not white.

You couldn’t do that here.

No, this country could not afford to do that. There would be all sorts of complications if it were done. But I understand that an American negro means a coloured person, and someone we may even regard as white might be considered a negro as far as American conditions are concerned. I want to ask the Minister two questions:

The hon. member is correct, I think, when he says that we have not so far included “American negro” in the definition of “native.” Here “American negro” is included in the definition. There are very few cases of this kind arising and I do not want to disturb the position as it has been. In the past American negroes such as there are, who have been in the country 15 years—such cases have arisen—have been excluded from pensions, but now to make them eligible for pensions we have to bring them in as natives. But please do not let us go into the refinement as to what extent an American negro is a quadroon or an octoroon.

An American negro means a coloured person.

There are varying degrees in America. “Negro” covers everyone from the quarter-white to the fullblack, but as there are so few of these people, and we have had to bring them in we now bring them in on the native basis.

In connection with the definition of “native,” I do not know whether the Minister replied to this aspect of the matter at the second reading. There I raised the question as to why the definition of “native” in this Bill is quite different from the definition of native as given in the Representation of Natives Act. The Minister will know that in the various laws of the country, “native” is defined in different ways, and apparently in a different way by the court; and the question is why a different definition is given every year whenever a new Bill dealing with native affairs is introduced, so that eventually one has a host of definitions, one conflicting with the other. As I read this definition, namely, that a native is a person who is a member of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa, it seems to me that the child of a native who is a hybrid, that is to say, a native’s child with an Indian woman, a native’s child with a coloured woman, or a native’s child with a European woman, or vice versa—what would that child be according to this definition? Can the Minister tell us whether such a child would be regarded as a member of an aboriginal race? I do not believe that that is the case. In other words, we are opening the door for the hybrid children of natives to be regarded as coloureds. They would receive a higher pension, because this definition does not exclude them. The child of a native with a coloured person, the child of a European with a native girl, is not a native, because he is not a member of a native race. In order to meet that difficulty, a much wider definition of native was given in the Representation of Natives Act of 1936, a definition which envisaged that the child of a native, whether it be the child of a native and an Indian woman, or of a native and a coloured woman, or of a native and a European, would be regarded as a native. The definition reads as follows—

1. (a) Any member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa other than a race, tribe or ethnic group in the Union representing the remnants of a race or tribe of South Africa which has ceased to exist as a race or tribe; and
2. (b) any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (a) and;
3. (c) any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (b) ; and
4. (d) any other person, not being a European, who—
   1. (1) is desirous of being regarded as a native for the purposes of this Act; or
   2. (2) is by general acceptance and repute a native; or
   3. (3) follows in his ordinary or daily mode of life the habits of a native; or
   4. (4) uses one or other native language as his customary and natural mode of expression; or
   5. (5) associates generally with natives under native conditions.

In other words, if one of the parents is a native, the children in terms of the Act of 1936, are also deemed to be natives. And the children’s children also remain natives, even though they are hybrids. The Select Committee which dealt with the Native Bills at that time, very carefully went into the matter. With the assistance of the Law Advisers of the Government and of the Department of Native Affairs, a very long time was devoted to this matter; a study was made of it, and this definition was then accepted. After the matter had been thoroughly sifted over a period of a few years, this definition was accepted. I do not say that it is perfect, but in any event it is much better than the definition we have in this Bill. The definition of 1936 envisaged that the descendants of natives, whether inter-marriage took place or not, would remain natives in the eyes of the law, so that you will not get an increase of the coloured population as a result of inter-marriage, and later have the position that they are accepted as Europeans. The definition of the Minister leaves the door wide open for natives who are hybrids to be accepted as coloured persons, and perhaps as Europeans later on. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) argued in respect of American negroes that because they had inter-married in many cases, they should all be regarded as Europeans and coloured persons, and not as natives. There the Minister has a fine example as to what would happen if this definition of his were accepted. I shall be glad therefore if the Minister will accept the definition of 1936 and abandon his definition. I want to move—

1. (b) by the insertion after the definition of “Minister” of the following definition:
   “Native” means a native as defined in Section 1 of the Representation of Natives Act (Act No. 12 of 1936).

All we are doing in this Bill is to allot pensions to those who are not entitled to pensions at the moment. At the present time pensions are granted to Europeans and coloured persons. Now we are including under the definition of “native” everyone who does not at the moment fall under the definition of a “coloured person.” If we bring about a change as proposed by the hon. member we would deprive certain people of rights which they have today. We are not therefore creating a new distinction. The distinction exists today, and “coloured person” is defined in the existing Act as I have read out. Those who are excluded under the existing Act are now included under the defintion of “native.” In other words, all the persons to whom the hon. member referred, and whom he thinks would be entitled to the rights of coloured persons, must be persons who already enjoy the rights of coloured persons.

In the future you are going to open the door to many more.

The door is open. Those people have this right today. Anyone who lives in a location like a native, is a native in terms of the definition.

Then we may have this postion under the legislation of our country that a person will be regarded as a native under one Act, and under another Act he will not be regarded as a native.

As hon. members know, that is often the position under our definitions.

But here we are dealing with the existing rights of coloured persons; but you are now providing that everyone who is not entitled to the rights of a coloured person, will be entitled to the rights of a native.

Yes.

Under the definition of “native” it is laid down that Bushmen, Hottentots and Korannas will also be regarded as natives. When we spoke about pension rights the Minister said that the test would be whether the native had paid hut tax. From that we shall be able to determine whether the person concerned has been resident in the Union for fifteen years. I want to ask him whether Hottentots, Korannas and Bushmen pay hut tax? As far as I know they do not. There are a large number of Bushmen, Korannas and Hottentots in my constituency, and they are normally accepted as coloured persons.

They are not getting old age pensions today.

Many of them do. Only a little while ago I was in the Kalahari, and the man who accompanied me to open the gates was a Hottentot and he spoke the Hottentot language.

Did you understand him?

No, he also spoke Afrikaans.

So he was a dual medium man.

In my constituency there is a Bushman reserve. The State supports them there. They are given pensions before they reach the age limit. I think the Minister should delete that provision.

That they are to be regarded as coloured persons?

Many of them are regarded as coloured persons. They are accepted in the coloured community, and the Bushmen in the reserve are already being supported by the State. We shall now have this position, that they will leave the reserve in order to claim a pension when they reach the age limit. I think the Minister did not consider the complications of this clause. He should let it stand over. As far as I know they do not pay hut tax. If they paid the hut tax, they would he entitled to pensions. Why is it laid down here that they can get a pension when, in fact, it is impossible for them to get a pension, in view of the fact that they have not paid hut tax in the past?

The position at the moment is that the people there are not entitled to a pension. If we do not include them in the difinition of “native” they will be entitled to pensions as coloured persons.

Under the Act, what will be the position of those who are already getting pensions as coloured persons? Do they have to revert to the status of “native”?

If there are such cases, they are unlawfully getting pensions today.

The Hottentots are not black natives, but yellow-skinned persons. The Bushman is neither a native nor a Hottentot nor a coloured person. This morning I asked whether the Korannas and the Hottentots also paid hut tax, and the Minister replied in the affirmative, but I do not think that is correct.

I just want to ask the Minister a question in connection with Bushmen. They are the oldest inhabitants of this country and they are rapidly dying out. Today one only finds them in reserves. Is it the Minister’s intention to include them amongst natives for pension purposes? Is it the Minister’s intention that every old person in this country should get a pension? The Bushman has no social conscience. He is nothing but a collector. We cannot give them pensions merely because they are old. One cannot give pensions to people who have no social conscience. On what ground can it be justified? We have the Bushmen in the reserves, and I cannot understand why they should be given pensions. They are not entitled to it. How do they treat their old people? You will find in “Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrikas” of Fritsche that when Bushmen become old, the young men round them up, give them a little food for the last time and then build a stone wall around them, and there they die. It is one of the lowest races; it is a disappearing race. Why are you going to treat them as a civilised race?

The hon. Minister admitted in his reply that I was correct, and that under this definition they would be regarded as coloured persons, if there is inter-marriage between natives and coloured persons. I want to ask the Minister what the outcome will be if we create this position that a kaffir is to be regarded as a native under one Act, and as a coloured person in terms of another Act? There will be a number of people—and in the course of years it will be a large number—who will be regarded as coloured persons in terms of this Act. Thousands of natives are now migrating to the Western Province, for example. According to the Act of 1936 they will continue to be regarded as natives, but under the Act of the Minister they can be regarded as coloured persons. Apart from the unsound state of affairs which is being created, it will have a detrimental effect on the community itself. The position will be that members of the same community will draw different pensions, because in the eyes of the law one native will be regarded as a native, and another as a coloured person. It will create an impossible state of affairs. We may find in the same family that one person draws a pension on a certain scale and another person on a different scale. In the same community we are going to cause friction and dissatisfaction, apart from the unnecessary burden which is being imposed on the taxpayer, because a large number of people who are natives will draw pensions on a scale to which, according to their racial characteristics, they are not entitled. I want to ask the Minister to let this clause stand over so that his Department can reconsider it with a view to seeing whether they cannot abandon this definition, and substitute it by the definition which is contained in the Act of 1936. The native laws of 1936 contain many provisions with which I as well as others cannot agree, but they represent the result of many years of study, not only on the part of the Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, but also on the part of the Department of Native Affairs and the Law Advisers. That is the definition which was decided upon. The Minister now comes along, discards that definition and introduces a brand new definition. Where will it lead to?

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has asked me whether there is another case where an American negro is included in the definition of a native. There is one other such case in the Liquor Act, he is also included in that Act, indeed this definition is virtually the same as the definition in the Liquor Act. I hope that will meet my hon. friend’s question in that regard.

†*I am sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment, nor the suggestion by the hon. member that this clause should stand over. The position is quite clear to me. Certain persons have certain rights. The pension which is laid down here was calculated on the basis of the differing standards of living.

The definition of “coloured person” in the present Act was intended to give those people a pension which is on a higher scale than that of the natives, because their standard of living is higher. We now come to a new class.

Is not the standard of living of the thousands of natives we have in the cities, the same as that of the coloured people?

Generally speaking, their standard of living is lower than that of the coloured persons. We recognise that fact in this Bill in connection with military pensions and also in other Acts. This group of people has certain rights, and I am not prepared to encroach upon those rights.

But you are going to give pensions to a large number of people who will not be entitled to them.

No, we are only giving them certain rights as far as old age pensions are concerned. But no one is granted the rights of a coloured person unless he previously enjoyed those rights. The people who have received pensions up to the present as coloured persons, will continue to draw pensions as coloured persons; and then we have the other class.

Would the Minister not achieve the same object if he left the definition of “coloured person” as it is in the old Act and if he then gave a definition of “native”? I think the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) made out a strong case. The Minister is now for the first time giving pensions to a certain class of person who did not previously receive it, and it is necessary therefore to bring the definition of that class of person into line, as much as possible, with the definition of those persons in the existing legislation. The request of the hon. member for Waterberg is a very reasonable one. I think this is really a case where the more deeply we try to dig, the more complications we encounter. The position becomes more and more complicated, and the Minister becomes more and more convinced of the confused state of affairs in which he now finds himself. He is becoming convinced that he himself cannot be quite certain as to the division between the various races and the effect of the provisions of this Bill. I am sorry that he does not want to accept the suggestion to let this clause stand over, because thousands of pounds of the taxpayers’ money, which will be paid to people who are not entitled to it, are at stake. As the position stands at present, the matter is not quite clear. It is not clearly defined. We have drawn the Minister’s attention to increasing difficulties, of which he himself has apparently not yet thought.

Take the last definition in 4 (a)—of the race or class commonly called Cape Malays; or of the race or class commonly called Griquas.

That is taken from the existing Act.

What pension will be given to the descendant of a Griqua father and a Hottentot mother; will he be regarded as a coloured person?

It depends on the mode of living of the person concerned.

Is it left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Pensions?

Yes.

I should just like to have an assurance from the Minister in connection with the grants to Bushmen. If the Minister argues that pensions should be given to every aged person—coloureds, natives and Bushmen—the Government will assume the character of a charitable institution, which, with the blessing of the Minister will hand out pensions on a lavish scale, believing that it is more blessed to give than to receive. The Minister’s argument was that the native ought to get a smaller pension than the coloured person, because his standard of living is lower; but what about the Bushman in that case? Of all the natives his standard of living is the lowest. His standard is very much lower than that of the native, and he should therefore get a smaller pension than the native.

We do not want to create another class; we do not want to create a third class of non-Europeans.

The Bushman will not form a third class; his is the lowest class of all; of all the races in the world, his standard is the lowest. He is nothing but a collector. As a collector he practically stands on his own. He is dependent on nature and he has no organisation. We know how he treats his own children and his own old people. In times of drought the new born babies are simply killed. He is on the lowest level of development, and notwithstanding that he is now being given an old age pension. I do not know how the Commissioner of Pensions is going to get hold of him in order to give him a pension. He is still wild. We cannot apply the same provisions to the Bantu and to the Bushman as we apply to a developed race. The Minister, as a Liberal, wants to defend everything on this basis. It is all very nice to say that one is liberal and to try to defend everything on the ground of justice. But one’s Christian liberalism should not influence one to the extent of wanting to treat everyone alike. That would be fatal. One should treat the different races separately according to their level of development. What is good for a Bushman is not good for a member of the Caucasian race. How is the Minister going to determine when a person is a Bushman? The anthropologist first has to scrub down the Bushman before he can distinguish the colour of his skin. The Minister will have great difficulties. Anthropologically and ethnologically it is very difficult to determine the position of the Bushman and to say who is and who is not a Bushman. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister that he should rather give these pensions to the old people in my constituency who need it very badly, and who have to struggle to get it. No, I cannot agree with this provision, and I want to warn the Minister who relies on his fatherly and ministerial authority against his proposal to grant pensions to one and all, right down to the Bushman.

Question put: That paragraph (b) proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—63 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. O.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

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.

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

Noes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G.W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6, *Mr. NAUDÉ : I connection with Clause 6, I just want to point out that the allowance which will now be paid to blind persons is being increased from £36 to £42. But I feel that even this amount is certainly not adequate. Just a few weeks ago we had the unfortunate case of a blind person in Johannesburg. He definitely cannot live on this allowance. A blind person must have someone to look after him. Here the blind person is being granted the same amount as the old age pensioner, but there is a big difference between the two, because the old age pensioner can take care of himself to a certain extent, but the blind person must have someone to look after him. Take the person who lives in the city. He will now get £3 10s. per month. It is altogether impossible for him to live on that amount, and I want to protest against the inadequacy of this amount. In the same clause provision is also made for natives. Here again one finds that there is a difference, and I do not know why it should be so, but as soon as a distinction is drawn between Europeans and natives, it is always in favour of the native. Here the native is getting £18, but under the old age pension scheme he only gets £12.

He gets £12, £9 and £6 respectively. Sub-paragraph (c) is the relevant paragraph. Sub-paragraph (d) deals with the means test. It amounts to exactly the same.

In that case I accept it. Then I also want to say a few words in connection with sub-paragraph (h). It is provided that the words “or a veteran’s pension under Part II of the War Pensions Act, 1941” be added at the end of sub-section (5). In other words, where a person who is blind receives an Oudstryder’s pension, it is also taken into account in applying the means test. That is surely going too far. We continually talk of the debt of gratitude that we owe them. When the Oudstryder becomes blind he cannot take care of himself at all. He receives an Oudstryder’s pension, and that pension is then taken into account in applying the means test. If he is blind, he must have someone to look after him, and here it is laid down that his Oudstryder’s pension will be taken into account in applying the means test. We want to object to this strongly, and I want to move—

I should like to support the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). I mentioned a case a moment ago which was almost similar. That was the case of a person who is in receipt of the invalidity grant. I asked that that invalidity grant should not be taken into account, and I gained the impression from what the Minister said, that he would consider it. If he is prepared to consider it in the case of the invalidity grant, I think we have an even stronger case here. This case is definitely stronger. Let us assume that an Oudstryder, after great difficulty, succeeds in getting an old age pension. We know that the Oudstryders are very proud of their Oudstryder’s pension. They feel, however meagre it may be, that it is a recognition by the Government of special services which they rendered to the country and to the people. Take this case. The Oudstryder becomes blind all of a sudden, and because he becomes blind he applies for a pension. But now he is told that his Oudstryder’s pension will be taken into account in applying the means test.

In the first instance, I feel that to a certain extent we all sympathise with the statement of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) with regard to the amount of the blind person’s pension. But I think we should leave the further consideration of that point until we come to the general question of social security. In the meantime we must not forget that a blind person can also get a special allowance in respect of his guardian. He can get an allowance of £18 per annum. In any event, this is something which is only applicable in certain cases. The general question is something into which we shall have to go in connection with the general question of social security. The other question which was raised in connection with paragraph (h) also touches on the general question of social security. It is quite logical, since a person who receives the old age pension is not considered today for the blind pension, that the same should apply with regard to the Oudstryder’s pension. But since the question of the means test as a whole will be dealt with, I have no objection to the deletion of this sub-paragraph in the meantime.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

In connection with Clause 9, I just want to point out that anyone who converted his pension from an old age pension into an Oudstryder’s pension, will not be penalised now. But I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the inconsistencies which still exist. In those cases where the Oudstryder would have been adversely affected, and where he would have received less, they all fell under a certain category, since the basic allowance was £6, £12 and £18 respectively. Then the Oudstryder received an increase of one-third, i.e. a total of £8. He also received a cost of living allowance of £12, which brought him up to £20. That is in the case of an Oudstryder. In the same case, the old age pensioner received a basic allowance of £6, a cost of living allowance of £12, which brought his allowance up to £18. On this basis the Oudstryder received £2 more. But the Minister then increased the old age pension by £6. An Oudstryder therefore received £20, while the old age pensioner received £24. That applies to all cases where the basic allowance is £6 and £12 and £18. In the case of £18, the amounts are now the same, but in the case of £12 and £6 there is still a discrepancy. Where the sum is £24 to £42 the old age pensioner is better off. Why does the Minister now penalise the Oudstryder who receives the lower basis? Even this clause lays down that the Oudstryder will now be on an equal footing with the old age pensioner, but although he is better off where the sum is £24 to £42, he is in a worse position in the other cases, and I should like to ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot bring about a change, i.e. to make the grant of one-third applicable throughout. That would be one way of doing it. The other way is to grant the £6 allowance which is being given to old age pensioners this year, to the Oudstryders as well, and to remove the injustice in that way. Otherwise a number of people will be prejudiced by this Bill. And then I want to draw the Minister’s attention more particularly to the fact that the Oudstryders are rapidly dying out. If the Minister will only give the House the assurance that he will consider it—and I think every hon. member will admit that I made out a very strong case—I want to ask him whether he will consider placing it on such a basis that the Oudstryder can feel that he is receiving a certain privilege because he is an Oudstryder, that he is receiving this privilege because he rendered valuable services to his nation. Do not prejudice him. He is entitled to special consideration. I specially have in mind the Oudstryders of the Anglo-Boer War. They had to wait for a long time before any concession was made to them. Provision has been made for the people who took part in subsequent wars, but the Oudstryders had to wait for many years before something was done for them. In terms of the concession which the Minister is now making, the Oudstryders will be placed on an equal footing with other old age pensioners, but they lose the special increase which they were given as against other pensioners, a concession which they received in terms of the Act. I hope the Minister will consider this. It is a very strong case which can stand the test in every respect.

I cannot undertake to go further. I can only say that this whole matter will again be considered, having regard to the future. I concede that this is a position of a temporary nature, a transition stage. The one-third which we added last year was regarded in that light. But after this Session the whole position will again be considered, especially from the point of view of general social security. But I do not think I can go further at this stage. Although there was a danger of an injustice being done in connection with the basic grant of £6, that danger is now being removed.

The position is not being rectified. It is only being put on an equal footing.

That is correct, but where they might have suffered damages, we are removing that danger by means of this clause. The whole matter will, however, be investigated again as part of the general question of social security, and I hope the hon. member will leave it at that.

But may I ask this. I particularly referred to that section of the Oudstryders who are still alive today, but who are rapidly dying out. Their position requires early consideration. I accept the Minister’s assurance that the position will be reconsidered, but since he feels and must feel that this special section cannot wait another year, I want to ask him to make special provision for them in the meantime. The Minister stated during the course of the debate that he was in touch with soldiers’ organisations. Was he also in touch with the Oudstrydersbond?

Yes.

I take it that they communicated with him, but the Minister did not comply with their reasonable demands.

I shall meet them again. Of course, they want more; so do the soldiers.

I am glad to hear that the Minister will meet them again. We regard the Oudstryders as belonging to the generation of heroes of our population, and if the Minister can make a special grant in the meantime, it will be greatly appreciated. Let us make a further concession to them in the years which lie ahead, before they pass away. Without this clause in the Bill, they would have been wronged. I tried to ascertain how many would have been wronged if this clause had not been inserted and I find that there are about 300. The position has been rectified to this extent that they are being placed on an equal footing. I hope the Minister will be able to give them an additional grant during the current year.

Not without statutory amendment. I can only see what I can do without amending the law.

Clause put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 41 to 47, standing over.

On Clause 42,

In connection with this clause, I do not believe that it will help much to draw the Minister’s attention to what is being done here, but I want to draw the attention of the taxpayers to it. This change will mean that the native soldier who is 100 per cent. disabled, the soldier who lost two arms or one arm or an eye, will receive an annual allowance of £50. It will further mean that his wife and children will receive additional allowances. He gets £50, his wife £12. And if he has eight children under the prescribed age ….

You are now taking an extreme case.

No, it is not an extreme case. A native woman has at least one child every two years. She might easily have twelve children under the prescribed age. I am taking an average case. It is clear that the Minister does not know much about the native. He should come to my part of the world and see what the conditions are. Apart from that, the native may have two or three wives. I am taking the average case. Sometimes these women have a child every fifteen months, and a native woman might easily have eight children under the age of fourteen or sixteen. In respect of eight children, the native will get £80. I think the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) will confirm this; he knows under what conditions the natives live. The native would therefore get £50, £12 and £80 or £142 per annum, i.e. £11 10s. per month. I should like hon. members to note this. We are going to give the native a pension of £11 10s. per month. Take the native on the farm. He lives on the farmer’s land. If he loses an eye or an arm or two arms he receives an allowance of £11 10s. per month. Some of them may even get more. Compare that with the ordinary earnings of the native on the farm. I want to assure the Minister that the native on the farm who earns £3 is able to live a princely life, according to native standards. In all probability he also has a few head of cattle which graze on his master’s farm. I am taking a wage of £3, which is fairly high. The man who earns £3 is a deserving, hard-working native. On the other hand you have the native who receives an allowance, together with that of his wife and children, of £11 10s. per month or more from the State. I think it is a disgrace. I want to compare the position of the native with that of the Oudstryder and his wife, who may still have minor children. The maximum which they can get is £5 per month. But the native, an ordinary barbarian who lives on the farm, can get £11 10s. He may live on a piece of land belonging to the Oudstryder. The boss gets £5 but the servant gets £11 10s. It is not only unfair, but it is an insult to the European. What effect will it have on the natives on the farm? The native who works earns £3 per month, which is very high, but the native who is idle gets £11 10s. per month. Would his children do a stitch of work? We must not lose our sense of proportion. We were opposed to the enlistment of natives for military service, but even from their point of view, it is altogether wrong. This is an unheard-of allowance. I make an appeal to farmer members on the other side to get up and to say whether they approve of an allowance of £11 10s. being paid to the native, his wife and children, while the Oudstryder, who is old and unable to work, gets a maximum of £5 per month. The Oudstryder sacrificed everything for his country. He gets £5, but the barbarian gets £11 10s. per month.

For purposes of comparison, the hon. member took the case of a native with eight children. But those eight children have to be supported. The Oudstryder would not have eight children at that age, and if he has eight children, he can get an allowance in respect of those children from the Department of Social Welfare. It is not a fair comparison. The general position is that this House adopted the attitude that where people were prepared to serve their country on the battlefield and in the army, we should be prepared, where a person becomes disabled as a result of war service, to treat him fairly and liberally. In the case of the European soldier, apart from the additional allowance or the alternative pension which is now being replaced by the supplementary allowance, we agreed that a person who is 100 per cent. disabled, should get £200 for himself, £30 for his wife and £30 in respect of every child. In terms of the amendment which is now being made, the soldier will still get £200 for himself, but in the case of his wife, the allowance is being increased from £30 to £36 and in the case of children, also from £30 to £36 per child. Well, since we are doing that in the case of the European soldier, we should at least be prepared to do something in the case of the non-European soldier’s wife and child.

Is it in the same proportion?

In the case of the non-European’s wife, we are now increasing the allowance from £9 to £10. There the increase is proportionately less. In the case of the child it is being increased from £8 to £10. In that case the increase is slightly more. Although the native soldier who is 100 per cent. disabled would get £11 10s. per month if he has a wife and eight children, the European soldier, in similar circumstances would get £44 per month. If we look at the matter in that light and consider the relation between the European scale of pensions and the non-European scale of pensions, and if we bear in mind the fact that in these circumstances we increase the scales of the European soldier’s wife and children from £30 to £36 each, this clause is not unreasonable.

But you are putting a premium on polygamy.

It is not paid to more than one wife.

But to the children of more than one wife.

Yes, the children are there and they have to be supported.

The Minister stated that the European will get £44 as against £11 10s. for the native. But the native needs one-tenth of what the European needs to make a decent living. Take the case of 100 per cent. disablement. The native gets £50 per annum for himself, £10 in respect of his wife and £8 in respect of every child. I should like to know from the Minister what the earnings are of the native who works in the city and who did not enlist. He and his wife and children have to make ends meet on half that amount. He supports his wife and children on £4, £5 or £6 per month. We are in process of draining South Africa to the last drop. This is a policy which is altogether wrong. I am not allowed to criticise the policy at this stage, because it has already been accepted, but we cannot afford to grant this further increase. The Minister stated that ten children represented the exception rather than the rule. The Minister knows that it is laid down in the Bill that the children need not all be the native’s own children. It also applies to the children of the wife, or children awarded to the native in terms of the law, and even to children who are supported by him. It is also applicable to children who are born up to eight years after the war, in the case of more than 80 per cent. disablement, and five years in the case of less than 80 per cent. disablement. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider what this is going to mean. The country cannot afford these allowances. Then we come to the European’s standard of living and the native’s standard of living. It is absolutely wrong to allot pensions on the scale which was laid down in the old Act. The argument of the Minister is that because the pension of the European is now being increased, the pension of the native should also be increased. I can only come to one conclusion and that is that the Minister does not know what the consequences of this increased pension will be, otherwise he would not have agreed to these allotments. The Minister will know that there are perhaps 50,000 native soldiers. That means that there may be 200,000 or 300,000 children in respect of whom a pension of £8 per annum will have to be paid. That will entail the expenditure of a couple of million pounds. As has already been said, the native lives communally and when children are awarded to him under the customs of his race, they become eligible for this pension. I hope the Minister will still decide at this stage to abandon the proposed increase.

I agree with the previous speaker that it is impossible to pay this increased allowance in respect of the native’s wife and children. The Minister stated that a case of ten children was exceptional. In that case, he probably does not know the customs of the native. When a native’s brother dies he is obliged, in terms of native law, to take his brother’s wife and children.

He does not receive an allowance for them.

He has to support that wife.

If he supported her in the past, then it is a different matter.

In such a case the native has his own wife or wives, and, in addition thereto, the wife of his brother and all their children. There might easily be ten or fifteen children and three wives. Then it is also laid down that the pension will be payable in respect of children who are born up to five years after the war, in some cases, and up to eight years after the war in other cases. We know that the natives increase like rabbits. Where is it going to end? I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter and withdraw this increased allowance.

I wanted to move the deletion of this clause, but we shall vote against it. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said that the Minister had lost his sense of proportion. I want to prove that. As far as the natives are concerned, provision is made for the children of concubines, with the result that the native can get this pension in respect of two, three or four families, while the Act provides that the European can only get a pension in respect of one family. The Minister now states that because the position of the European is being improved, the pension of the native should also be increased. If the Minister wanted to retain his sense of proportion, he should have said that the native will get this pension in respect of one family only. As far as the other question is concerned, there is also the question of their former standard of living. That is a question which should be taken into consideration in the case of the Europeans. The natives usually earn £1 per month on the farm. Under this clause they will get £10 or £11 per month on the same farm. Surely, that does not reveal a sense of proportion. I do think the Minister should retain his sense of proportion. If he takes into consideration the standard of living of the European before the war, he should also do it in the case of the native. He should take the average standard of living of the native, and he should not throw the whole position out of gear. We shall vote against this clause.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the past we strongly urged him to grant increased pensions to the Oudstryders, and he stated that he could not do so. If those people earn anything, a certain amount is often deducted from their Oudstryder’s pensions, because it is apparently felt that they should make ends meet on £5 per month. But the native is allowed to get £8, £9 or £10 per month for his wife and children. This must be a tremendous shock to those people who suffered great hardships during all these years.

These natives are physically disabled.

I know of Oudstryders who, as a result of the hardships of the war, became 100 per cent. disabled and they received absolutely nothing in respect of that disablement. They have to be satisfied with £5 per month, and here the Minister proposes to give £8, £9 and £10 per month to a native family. Take the position of the widow of the Oudstryder. She lost her husband during the war. She struggled to exist. She lived in poverty and want and received nothing from the State.

If her husband was killed in the war, she would get a pension.

I know of hundreds of cases where the widow does not receive a pension.

Not if he died after the war; but if he was killed during the war, she would get a pension.

I see what the Minister means. There are Oudstryders’ widows who suffer the greatest want; and here we find that the Minister proposes to give this big allowance to the wife and children of a native who is 100 per cent. disabled. It is very unfair, and we really cannot understand the Minister’s attitude. The farmer pays a wage of approximately £2 per month plus food. The Minister is now creating a class of native who will get £8 or £9 per month. I believe that even members of the Minister’s own party feel that this is a dangerous principle.

The Minister drew a comparison between the European soldier and the native. He said that the European would get approximately £44 per month, while the native would get £11 per month. Bearing in mind the standard of living of the native, in comparison with that of the European, we feel that this is a disgrace. The standard of living of the European is surely not only 400 per cent. higher than that of the native. The standard of living of the native is now being placed on a very high level. The standard of living of the native is so low that it cannot be compared with that of a European. Where the native has an income of £3 per month, the European has an income of £20, £30 or £60 per month. Can we draw a comparison between the European and the native? Let us take the case of a native on the platteland who enlisted and who has five children. He now receives an allowance of £11 per month. He returns to the farm, and he gets so much that he has a pernicious influence on the other natives on the farm. He is going to live like a European, because there are many Europeans even who have not got an income of £11 per month. What is the position going to be? Will it not cause dissatisfaction amongst the natives on the farm? I want to ask the hon. Minister to take that into consideration. Under this legislation the farmer will be the suffering party. We feel that the farmer is being exploited, and the position will become so impossible that the farmer will later on not be able to make a living on the farm. As it is, he cannot get native labour today. The Minister of Agriculture has asked the farmers to produce more, but the Minister of Finance is now giving an allowance to the native which is so high that it will not be necessary for him to work. This legislation will cause great difficulties to the farmer. Let us rather appoint a commission of investigation to investigate this matter thoroughly, and thereafter the Minister can introduce legislation to this effect.

Clause 42 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—59 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connàn, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—24 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

St.als, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom. J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 44,

May I ask the Minister whether he will give consideration to the case of the South African national who is serving in a ship not registered in the Union, but serving the Allied cause, so that he may share the benefits of this provision in the Bill.

I will repeat what I have said on a previous occasion in introducing this Bill, that this question to which my hon. friend refers is part of a wider question in so far as it also affects South Africans who are serving not only in merchant ships but in other units. That question has to be regarded and considered as a whole. In the meantime these people are eligible for benefits from the countries in whose ships they are serving, and provision is made out of other funds for supplementing these benefits. But the whole question will be considered when the position is ripe for doing so.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

Arising out of Subsection (1) I move—

Sub-section (1) decrees—

I do not propose taking up the time of the House. I have already pointed out that a practically new department under the Department of Native Affairs is being created here. All pension matters have so far come under the control of the Commissioner of Pensions, and in order to have the necessary control we feel that it is essential also to have this particular matter under the Commissioner of Pensions. It is perfectly clear that this question of native pensions is going to be a very extensive one and that it will be much more difficult to control these pensions than the awarding of other pensions, and I feel, therefore, that it is necessary to leave it in the hands of people who have the experience, and to keep it under centralised control. Sub-section (2) reads as follows—

If he wants to hand over those powers to the Native Commissioner for purposes of administration, that is covered by sub-section (2). My amendment aims at retaining that centralisation so that we may have the most effective degree of control, and may have it in the hands of people who have experience of it and people who, as far as we have ascertained, have exercised that control very effectively. In praise of the Commissioner of Pensions we may pay this tribute, that he and his staff have exercised very effective control, and that being so, we want to place this particular provision in their hands and give them the necessary staff to enable them to do the work.

I am afraid that the adoption of this amendment would create considerable administrative difficulties. The object of this motion is simply to make the administration easier. The Pensions Office has not a widespread administration for native affairs, nor has it got the experience with natives which the Department of Native Affairs has. The latter Department already has experience in regard to pensions for blind natives. It has done the administrative work in connection therewith up to the present. But I am afraid to place this work on the shoulders of the Commissioner of Pensions. It would create an impossible position. But I can assure the hon. member that there is and will be the closest co-operation between the two Departments.

None the less it is a divided responsibility.

That is so, but I’m afraid that in the circumstances, in view of administrative difficulties, we cannot get away from that.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Serfontein, put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clauses 46 and 47 and the Title having been agreed to,

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 3rd June.

I wish to move the following amendment—

This is in connection with the 20 per cent. It states here at the bottom of page 6—

All farmers will come under this—whether the man is a practising farmer, a man who gets his main income out of farming, or not. I have read again the hon. Minister’s speech and I must say that the impression I have had all the time is still with me, namely that the Minister thought that he would catch that class of person who abused the law by evading taxation by investing money in farming although he was not a farmer. But the Minister had no intention of including the practising farmer as such, the man whose main income was derived from farming. I fail to see why the Minister wants to do so now, because those farmers are developing the country and they are increasing the capital production of the country. They are making the country more fertile so that more people can be settled on the soil. We feel that a far-seeing policy should be followed in regard to this matter and that the farmers who are engaged in this kind of work should not be handicapped. I told the Minister that of late years great expansion has taken place in the Western Province and also in other parts as a result of the concessions which have been made, and I hope the Minister will accept my amendment. But I want to emphasise again what the position is The Minister has said that he does not see his way to accept this, because he doesn’t know how to frame a definition of farmer. What is wrong with the definition in the Farmers Relief Act, Act No. 48 of 1935, where it says—

Leave out the word “European”. I make it even shorter in my amendment by saying “whose main source of income is derived from farming operations.” I hope the Minister will accept it.

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us at once that he appreciates our attempts to help him. I know that he wants to do the same as we. I made a speech the other day, and I am glad to say that the Minister listened very carefully because it was a good speech. I don’t want to cover all the ground again but I think we are largely in agreement on this point that the Minister wants to get hold of those people who want to buy farms with the object of losing or hiding the profits they have made in other businesses; and we on this side of the House look upon those people as undesirables among the farmers. The farmers don’t want them and the Minister of Finance doesn’t want them. To all intents and purposes we are now co-operating to our mutual benefit to try and put an end to that practice. The Minister’s contention is that if he wants to put an end to these practises, it is impossible for him to do so without detrimentally affecting all the farmers. He contends that the only way to put a stop to it is by checking all the farmers. One aspect of this question has not been emphasised, and it should have been emphasised, and it is this—why should the whole of the farming community be made to suffer simply because the Minister is having difficulty in laying hands on one small lot of people. I think if this clause is passed the whole of the farming community will suffer simply because the Minister is making an attempt to put a check on a small crowd of people, but if the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is accepted, we shall achieve our object. The Minister will get hold of the people he wants to and he will not do anything to those people who derive most of their revenue out of farming. They will get off scott free. He doesn’t want to do anything that will have a detrimental effect on the farmers. By passing this amendment a fourfold benefit will be achieved. The Minister will get his money, he will not do any harm to the farmers, but the people who have forced up the prices of land to the detriment of the farmers, will be caught. We fully discussed this question on the second reading of the Bill and I trust the Minister will accept the amendment.

As the hon. member has said, this question has been very fully discussed, and I have listened very carefully to the hon. member’s speech, but I am sorry to say that his speech has not convinced me. I have again considered the matter but I am not prepared to accept the amendment. The hon. member referred to the definition of the word farmer in the Farmers’ Relief Act, but it is laid down there who has to judge, who has to decide whether a man is a farmer or not. It rests with the Board. In this amendment it is not stated who has to decide.

We are prepared to insert that.

The hon. member will now want the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to be the judge?

Yes, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can exercise his discretion in regard to cattle—he has a considerable amount of discretion left to him in regard to losses.

I doubt very much whether it is desirable to give him the discretion which the hon. member wants to give him. Does the hon. member want the Commissioner to decide who is a farmer and who is not?

As far as I am concerned I am prepared to accept his discretion, and the majority of the farmers will also be prepared to do so.

Quite likely, but whether it will work satisfactorily is a different question. There is the further point that in regard to many farmers the position will vary from year to year. One year a man gets most of his income out of farming, and the next year he does not. One year he will come under the one system and next year under a different system. But let us leave that point. In any case my contention is that the provision as it appears in this Bill is fair and reasonable. Whether the man is a practising farmer or a chequebook farmer, he will have the right to spend 20 per cent. of the gross yield of his farm— not of his profits—on strengthening his capital position. Eventually if he sells his farm he is in a stronger financial position, and he will not be taxed there. I think the provision of 20 per cent. of the gross production of the farm is reasonable and adequate.

Regarding the Minister’s statements as to the increase of the capital value, I want to point out to him that in trade there is such a thing as goodwill— goodwill is developed. It doesn’t cost money because the individual by means of his business sense builds up his custom. The farmer cannot do it. He has to invest money in his farm to enable him to produce more. If the farms costs him £10,000 and he makes a nett profit of £1,000, the Minister cannot say that he puts back money into the farm and that that money is not taxed if one day he sells it for £20,000. If the man has developed his farm so that he can sell it for £20,000, his income is £2,000 and the Minister levies his tax on that. I want to say that the method the Minister is pursuing here is the rottenest business method imaginable. The Minister should give these people a chance and he should encourage them to develop their farms, because if he does so they will increase the national income and also the income which the Minister will tax. The Minister is now acting like a poultry farmer who gives his fowls less food and then expects them to lay more eggs. Rather let him feed them and then tax the eggs. His whole principle is wrong. I don’t want to go into other questions now, I want to say only this in general, that our taxation system should be such that it will have the effect of developing our industries—and farming is one of our most important industries—so that the revenue can be increased, and the taxes be increased in that way. If he does so he will eventually get back what he is giving out now out of those taxable sources which are being developed. I know that Dr. Van der Bijl and the Minister do not agree with each other on this point, but in that regard I must tell the Minister that I am on Dr. Van der Bijl’s side. I am 100 per cent. with him when he says that our taxation system should have the effect of increasing our national income. We should devise our taxes in such a manner as to give farming, like other industries, an opportunity of developing fast and on a sound basis, and if we do so, we shall have the benefits. We mustn’t tax the tree but the fruit which we pick off the tree. Rather let us give people a subsidy to plant the tree, and afterwards we can tax the fruit that comes off the tree. It is much better to do that than to place a tax on the tree, which may have the effect of preventing it from being planted—and that is exactly what the Minister is doing. Now in regard to this question of the discretion being left to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Discretion has to be left to someone, and the farmers will have no objection to it. If a farmer is a bona fide farmer he (the Commissioner) will have no objection to a man saying to him that he is a bona fide farmer. Then the Minister mentioned a number of hard cases which make bad law. He said that the farmer may one year perhaps make more profits out of his farming enterprise than out of his shop, and next year he would make more out of his shop than out of his farm. How many cases of that kind are there likely to be? There are only a handful. Perhaps one or two in each district, and because there is going to be trouble with one or two farmers in the district, all the farmers in the district are to be detrimentally affected.

It is a case of bad laws making hard cases.

Exactly. I am very sorry the Minister is not prepared to accept this reasonable amendment. All we can do now is to try and save something from the wreck, for I shall now deal with the next point.

Would it not be better first of all to dispose of this point?

Very well, we shall do so.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 7 in the English text where the words “for stud purposes” are used. The Afrikaans text says “aanteeldoeleindes.” I think that is wrong.

The legal advisers say it is correct.

All stock can be purchased for stud purposes. If there is one thing that surprised me it is the unsympathetic attitude adopted by the Minister of Finance, and I think this Session will be characterised by one thing, and that is that the people who are able to bear the country’s burdens are being exempted from increased taxation and are even given a subsidy for their labourers, but those people who are less able to bear the tax, people like the farmers, are being taxed more and more heavily. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the Departmental Committee which consisted of six agricultural experts. In paragraph 47 we find that this expert committee makes the following statement—

They admit that profits made by the farmers are disproportionately low. And then let us see what they say in paragraph 48—

And then again paragraph 79—

And then we find this in the same paragraph—

I want hon. members to take note of this—

That is the expert opinion of people who are familiar with this subject. I want it to be widely know that it was the Nationalist Party Government which, in 1929, exempted the farmer from income tax in respect of the improvements he had made on his farm. And now the present Minister of Finance proposes to place an additional tax on the farmer. No matter how the Minister argues, this is an additional tax on the farmer. This tax is being imposed at the expense of improvements to the farms, at the expense of the money which the farmer invests in his business to make it productive. As the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, the Minister’s policy will have the effect of restricting the development of farming, and thus it will frustrate increased production. The income of the farmer will not be increased as a result of his being prevented from making improvements. I hope the Minister will concede that point. I have heard hon. members say that the Minister of finance is a hard man, and that once he has made up his mind he doesn’t give in. I should like to tell the Minister that he is going to inflict a disaster on the farming population as far as improvements are concerned. The farmer often borrows money in order to improve his farm. The farmer goes to the Land Bank, or to private institutions to borrow money to improve his farm and, so far, he has always had the right to have his improvements exempted for income tax purposes—the money he has spent on improvements has always been deducted from the assessable amount of his income. The Minister now provides that he is only allowed to deduct 20 per cent. from his takings for one year for income tax purposes. No matter how the Minister argues the point, the only object he has in view is to get more money out of the farmers. That is what we have to thank the Government for—a Government which has lost all feeling for the farming population. In some cases the Government gives a subsidy for improvements and this report from which I have quoted recommends that the Government should go still further in that respect. Instead of doing so, however, we find that the Government has now brought in this Bill and is out, not to fatten the goose that lays the golden egg, but to destroy it before it can lay an egg. I think it is a most shortsighted policy we have ever experienced. The Nationalist Party in 1929 allowed the farmer to deduct his improvements from his assessable income—except the dwelling house which has never yet been regarded as an improvement, but now the Minister cuts the farmers’ wings in that respect. If the farmer buys sheep for more than he has made out of his farm in that one year, he is not allowed to transfer the amount in excess of his income to the next year. I really do feel that the Minister is doing the wrong thing by imposing these restrictions on improvements, and I feel that he should meet us. Under the clause dealing with co-operative societies in the Finance Bill the farmer is also deprived of a great many rights. In this instance the Government is not going to lose a great deal if the Minister grants our request, but if he doesn’t give in, the improvement of farms will be very seriously curtailed.

I want to assure my hon. friend that we fully realise the desirability of encouraging the farmer to increase his production. But as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has clearly realised, if we accept this principle in respect of farming we shall also have to apply it further. The hon. member for Humansdorp started off by saying that we must assist the farmers to improve their business and to develop it in such a manner that it will produce more. That as he indicated would also be done by way of relief from taxation. But he thereupon quite consistently applied that principle to all industries and if you once adopt that principle in regard to farming you have to adopt it in respect of other industries. And it goes further than that. If I, as a salaried man, set aside every year a certain amount of money which is going to be productive to the future, first of all I have to pay tax on it. If the industrialist sets aside money to make his business more productive, he also has to pay taxation on it. The money I have put aside can also work, it depends on the way I invest it. My savings can be just as productive as the savings of an industrialist. I fail to see how we can accept the general principle which was urged by the hon. member for Humansdorp. In the case of the farmer we are willing to meet him to a certain extent. We are doing something for him which we are not doing for others.

You are depriving him of righs which he has had before.

But none the less we are doing more for him than for anyone else. He will still have the opportunity of building up his capital for the future out of his profits free of taxation. The industrialist hasn’t got that opportunity. I, as a salaried man, haven’t got it. The farmer will still have it, but I think it is fair for the farmer to have that right. I feel that this limitation should be imposed and the proposal which we are making seems to be a reasonable one.

It is perfectly clear to us from the reply which the Minister has given that his first explanation is not in harmony with what he has just told us. It is perfectly clear that this tax is imposed for the purpose of being a tax, and not for the purpose, as we were originally told, of catching business men who are not bona fide farmers. On the second reading debate we emphasised that the Minister was imposing 100 per cent. tax on the farmers. It is very easy for the Minister to say, as he has done repeatedly, that the farmers are getting a concession of 20 per cent., but that doesn’t remove the fact that the Minister in the first instance imposed 100 per cent. tax and deprived the farmers of privileges which they have enjoyed for years, privileges which were granted them to enable them to produce more. This 20 per cent. concession is not taking us much further. The fact remains that we shall have to pay taxation on 80 per cent. I should like the Minister to tell us what taxes he has imposed since the beginning of this Session. I should like him to tell us about every tax which he has put on the Statute Book this year, about every item of taxation he has imposed on the farmers. And let him tell us whether every one of these items has not been a direct tax on the farmers. We have had repeated references here to other industries which have received certain privileges, and subsidies, and all kinds of concessions, but from the very start of this Session until today we have been faced with one motive on the part of the Government—that the farmer has to pay more. I say that the Minister is destroying the farming industry, he is killing us and he is making us so weak that in the end we shall be unable to pay any of those other taxes he has imposed upon us. We have had so many taxes imposed upon us that this further 100 per cent. tax is going to prove too much. So now the Minister has conceived this brilliant idea of giving us a concession of 20 per cent. I am sorry we cannot accept it. Rather let the Minister say this to us: “We are putting you in the same position as a salaried person in a town,” and if the Government tells us that it has made up its mind that the one section which has to pay more is the farming community, then we shall know where we stand. But the Minister doesn’t do that. He tells us that all he is out for is to lay hands on these big business men who try to evade paying tax—yet while creating the impression that that is what he is after, he imposes serious handicaps on the farmers.

The Minister has said that in comparison with other industries the farmers are getting something which other industries do not get. I wish to lay down the proposition, however, that if any other ordinary industry incurs expenditure which is calculated to increase its income, it is entitled to the same exemption from taxation as we are asking for. It is not only for the farmer that we are asking it but for others too. Let me give as an instance an industry which, for the purpose of making its production more effective, maintains research laboratories; the expenditure incurred in regard to such research work is exempt from taxation provided it is calculated to produce increased revenue. A great deal of the capital expenditure of farmers is incurred with the same object in view. Take capital expenditure incurred for the purpose of combating soil erosion, or for the purpose of improving water conservation, all such items of expenditure are directly connected with the increased revenue which can be made out of that land in future years. But now the Minister says: “I am going to limit this concession which you have had for so many years, and am going to limit exemption to 20 per cent. of your gross income.” I do not say that those improvements which are going to lead to more effective farming are going to be interfered with. The Minister says that only 20 per cent. of the gross income is to be deducted for income tax purposes. The English Minister of Agriculture recently said that there appeared to be a general tendency to think that the primary producer was entitled to a much smaller compensation for his labour than the secondary producer, and he said that underlying that idea was the tendency to obtain low prices for foodstuffs. We are anxious to have low prices for food, and those low prices are now to be obtained at the expense of the primary producer. He is to be allowed less compensation for his work than other manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, our Government in South Africa rightly or wrongly, does not subsidise the consumer of food, but it none the less wants to protect him. It wants to protect the consumer of the food against high prices; but now they do not subsidise the consumer but they expect the farmer to do so. In other words, they expect the primary producer to ensure lower food prices by putting its labour more cheaply on the market. In other countries big food subsidies have been granted in order to keep down food prices. In Canada between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000, and in England more than £200,000,000 was voted for that purpose this year. But in South Africa we expect the farmer to see to it that food prices are kept down, and the Government fixes maximum prices, but not stabilised prices for the farmer—maximum prices —he is not allowed to get more than a certain amount, but he may get a lot less and that price may be a fluctuating price. Compare that position with that of the mining industry—there the Government has secured a stable price for the gold owners since 1934. There has been no change in the last ten years. In terms of dollars they get the same price as they have been getting for the last ten years; in addition to that there is a provision that if there is an increase in their production costs, there is an automatic reduction in their taxes—70 per cent. of the increase in production costs is borne by the Government. Compare that position with the position of the farming industry. Take an important product of our agricultural industry, wool. If the Minister takes three periods of four years each, 1924 to 1928, 1929 to 1933, 1935 to 1939, he will find that in those three periods the extent of the pastoral products of which wool is the most important, has gone up between the first and the third period by 4 per cent. Only 4 per cent., but the value has in that same period dropped by 32 per cent. In other words, over that period of eight years there has been a tremendous change in the prices which the farmer has received a change to his disadvantage. This production has increased by 4 per cent., but, in spite of that, the return of that pastoral product has dropped by 32 per cent. In that time it can be taken that the production costs have not gone down. The margin of profits, the difference between his production costs and the price he has received, has therefore, gone down considerably. Where farming is concerned, therefore, we are dealing with an industry which already is suffering from great hardships because it does not have that assurance of stable prices. The production prices go up, but the prices which the farmer gets have not gone up to the same extent. I can also take other examples, but if we take all agricultural products together we find that between the first and the third periods there was an increase in extent of 41 per cent., but an increase in the value of the products of only 21 per cent. We want more effective farming to be encouraged. My friend, the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) will agree with me that we must increase the national income. We must increase the income per head of the population, and we can achieve that only by greater effectiveness in our production machinery You have to encourage them to make that machinery more effective as far as farming is concerned. Our principal asset is our land; it has to be improved so that it can be more effectively cultivated and we therefore say that what we are asking for is not a special favour in regard to taxation; it is a commonsense policy to say that improvements made on the land should be exempt from taxation. That, in actual fact, is not favouring the industry, it is merely the application of a far-seeing policy to ensure that in days to come the Minister, on the existing basis of taxation, will get more money out of this increased effectiveness of farming which has been encouraged in this way. We know that in the long run most of our prosperity and the health of the population depend on the primary producer.

I wish to move the following amendment—

Make it fifty.

I am only proposing 30 per cent. Let me admit that I would like to take the lot, but I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment.

In order to expedite matters, in order to prove that I am not such a hard-hearted Minister as my hon. friend told us, I am prepared to go to that extent. But do not let us forget that that is the percentage of the gross return of the farm, and I am, therefore, prepared to grant this concession. I hope hon. members will accept it in the spirit in which I accept the amendment.

Although the Minister has said that he accepts the amendment, I do not want to create the impression that we are satisfied with that. We are only proposing this in order to get something.

Yes, I understand that. Your amendment is the amendment which the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has moved.

Half an egg is better than any empty shell. The Minister was very much concerned this afternoon when we were discussing the other Bill that if he accepted the amendment of this side of the House, certain rights enjoyed by certain people would be affected. That was the Minister’s argument earlier, but now the Minister doesn’t hesitate by one stroke of the pen to take away rights which these people have enjoyed up to now. May I explain our attitude. This provision under which a farmer can deduct 30 persent in respect of certain improvements—can deduct an amount equivalent to 30 persent of his gross income—is going to hit the wheat farmers and the mealie farmers in the Free State and in the Transvaal very hard. Some years they have no crops at all, and then they have no income. I am not speaking of nett incomes now, I am speaking of gross incomes. The farmers in those parts have no income at all in some years. It means that if that man effects improvements in the course of a year like that, he cannot even carry over those improvements to the following year. I wonder if the Minister has considered that aspect of the matter.

In that case he will not pay any income tax.

But he will not even be allowed to carry it over. In ordinary circumstances if he had no income he could carry it over till the next year. I want to ask the Minister to consider making it possible to carry it over.

I feel very much concerned about this business. The Minister has told us that he cannot make any distinction because he cannot find a definition for “a farmer.” If that is so, he should tell us that he intends taxing the farmers more heavily. Why doesn’t he tell us honestly that the favoured treatment hitherto extended to the farmer has been too much, and that he is now going to reduce it. In 1927 the principle was laid down of granting the agriculturist certain concessions because he has to contend with difficulties with which no one else has to contend. The ordinary industrialist is not liable to the same losses as the farmer is liable to. The farmer gets these concessions also because we want him to increase the production of the soil, and after the concessions were granted, the farmers improved their land so that they were able to keep more people on the land. Take the case of the father who has two sons. He was able to improve his farm to such an extent that both sons could eventually be settled on the farm, and my contention is that this tax which the Minister is now imposing will act as a handicap on the development of the farmers in this country. I want to plead particularly on behalf of the North-West. The farmers along the Orange River have not had an opportunity yet of availing themselves of these concessions. They are on the eve of development and now that they can put what they have made back into the land, the Minister taxes them to the extent of 80 per cent. It is an injustice to these new parts of the country where devolpment has not yet taken place, and I must protest most emphatically against this tax. The Minister cannot compare agriculture with other industries or other concerns. Agriculture is the industry returning the smallest profits of all, and the farmer cannot depend on getting the same income every year, and for these reasons I want to protest most emphatically against the Minister’s refusal to meet us.

I have met you.

Yes, but what does that concession amount to? The Minister’s intention is to catch the man who is not a bona fide farmer.

He has not given us a 10 per cent. abatement.

That is a concession.

The Minister must not imagine that he can get round the farmers in that way. I feel that in the new parts of the country especially it is going to interfere with development. The Minister is so afraid of creating a precedent. He did so the other day with another industry. He asks why should the farmers receive favoured treatment. He gave favoured treatment to the mines the other day in connection with their native labour. He gave them a subsidy of £1,800,000. He considers it necessary for the development of low grade ore, and as we are of opinion that this tax is going to be a handicap to the development of the country, we feel that a concession should be made to the farmers as well.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G.W.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—59 :

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

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.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Luttig put and agreed to.

May I move the amendment standing in my name—

Let me explain the purpose of this amendment. The position today is that capital expenditure varies a great deal from year to year. A farmer may build a dam costing him several hundreds of pounds, or he may put up a fence, which is an expensive undertaking, or he builds a wine cellar, or something like that involving him in heavy expenses in one year, and now he is to be allowed to deduct up to 30 per cent. of his gross revenue. In that year his expenses may amount to 60 per cent. or 80 per cent. of his gross revenue, and after that there is the possibility of his not having any considerable capital expenditure for three or four years. I want the position of these people to be placed on the same basis as that of farmers who buy cattle and stock. They can buy up to 100 per cent. of their gross revenue and the balance can be carried over to the next year. The object of this amendment is that if in one year a farmer spends 50 per cent. of his gross revenue on capital expenditure, to allow him in that year to deduct 30 per cent. from his taxable income, and next year the remaining 20 per cent.

I expressed my view on this question on a previous occasion, when I said that to my mind the position of the stock farmer and that of the agriculturist differed. The stock farmer does get exemption in respect of the stock he buys and he is allowed to carry over an amount to the next year, but if he is on a cash basis, he eventually has to pay on the increased value of his stock. Now the man who builds a cellar effects a capital improvement and eventually he does not pay on that.

How do you make that out?

It is a capital improvement, and if he sells his farm, the value of the farm has been increased as a result of his building that cellar.

But he pays extra Income Tax all the time because he makes better wine in his new cellar and he has a bigger income.

Exactly as it is in the case of stock. There is a great difference between stock and the cellar.

He increases his income in that way and then he is taxed twice over.

Where the man builds a cellar the capital value of the farm is increased. But where people buy stock, when the additional stock is eventually sold, they have to pay taxation on that increase. That is the difference. I have tried to meet my hon. friends by increasing the percentage and I hope therefore that they will not continue to press their amendment.

Let me say that we are grateful for the concession which the Minister has made but we have accepted it because we can’t get any more. But we are definitely opposed to the whole tax. Let me point out to the Minister that the productive value of a farm increases if the farmer effects improvements, and the State, as a result, gets more out of the farm by way of taxation. The Minister says that if the farmer sells his farm, the capital value of the farm is bigger. But most of the farmers do not sell their farms. They want to keep their farms, and to improve them for then children and the generations to come. The productive value is increased and the State gets a direct benefit from it over a long period of time. I hope the Minister will agree to give us this concession.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

St.als, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—60 :

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M,

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

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, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (e) by the addition of the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (12)—
   1. (13) As deductions in determining the taxable income derived by a farmer an amount shall be allowed not exceeding £3,000 and equal to all the amounts paid by him during the year of assessment in respect of the reduction or redemption of a mortgage bond on a farm of which he was the owner and on which he himself conducted farming operations during that period.

Certain reductions are allowed and we now ask that where there is a bond on a farm up to an amount of £3,000, and the farmer pays off on the bond, those payments shall be allowed as abatements for Income Tax purposes. We exempt the man who invests his money in Union Loan Certificates in respect of taxation on the income derived from those Loan Certificates. Income tax is not paid on the income which a man derives from his Loan Certificates, and that is why we ask for this abatement to be granted in respect of the redemption of bonds. I move my amendment.

This question was, of course, discussed at considerable length last year, and I am afraid that my attitude is still the same as it was last year. As Minister of Finance I am unable to support a request for certain debt redemptions to receive favoured treatment for taxation purposes. If I were to do this for one section of the community other sections will expect me to do the same thing. Apart from that, I would like to say that I cannot see how a taxation Bill can be the right place in which to provide for the encouragement of such debt redemption. The scale on which Income Tax is levied varies according to the amount of the income. A taxpayer with an income of £10,000 pays on a much higher scale than the man with an income of £1,000. If the person with an income of £10,000 reduced his debt by £250 and the man with an income of £1,000 did the same, the result of this proposal would be that the taxpayer with the income of £10,000 would derive a very much greater benefit than the man with an income of £1,000 because the scale of income tax in the first place is so much higher. If we encourage debt redemption in this way the man with the bigger income is assisted on a much more generous basis than the man with the smaller income, and that, surely, is not sound. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will not press his amendment.

The object of the amendment is to help the man with the small income.

But it doesn’t work out that way.

The man with an income of £3,000 has no difficulty in paying off his bond. But the man with a bond of £3,000 earns perhaps only £700 and we want to make it possible for him to pay off his bond. The Government likes hearing the resolutions of Farmers’ Associations—if they are in favour of the Government. Well, this resolution was passed by the Cape Farmers’ Association. They have repeatedly asked the Government to do this and we are not asking today for any more than the organised farmers have asked. I fail to understand why the Minister cannot meet them. There may be a few people in that class with incomes of £10,000, as the Minister mentioned, but the great majority will come under the category of those who have bonds of £3,000.

May I point out to the hon. member that the 20 per cent. in his amendment should surely be 30 per cent. now.

No, that doesn’t enter into my amendment.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—62 :

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger V. M. L.

Barlow, À. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

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.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet. P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

G luckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

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, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—61 :

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

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.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

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, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S, F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the Title having been agreed to,

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment; amendment to be considered now.

Amendment in Clause 3 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading of the Bill on 3rd June.

I wish to move that in this clause it be provided that where money is advanced for any scheme, such money shall not be applied for any other purpose except to create separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. The Minister stated yesterday that the Government was in favour of separate residential areas, but, although the Government considers it advisable to have separate residential areas, although the Government does not want Europeans and non-Europeans to be mixed up in the same areas, it is not prepared to make it compulsory. I want to say this to the Minister that he must not take it amiss if I tell the people from a public platform that he is in favour of mixing Europeans and non-Europeans in the same areas. The Minister was born and bred in this country and he knows as well as I do that, unless the prohibition is laid down by law, he will never succeed in achieving his object. He knows the coloured people, he has grown up with them just as I have, and I know them, and he knows that, unless he lays down definitely where these residential schemes are to be, so that Europeans and non-Europeans are kept apart, he will be heading for trouble. The Minister must have seen conditions near his own constituency, here in Claremont—I believe the Minister of Economic Development addressed a meeting there—and he must know that the Chairman at that meeting was in favour of separation. One of the Claremont people got up afterwards and said: “You have to devise some scheme in regard to the coloured people because they are buying houses in European areas and they are depreciating the value of these European houses.” The Chairman had the ingenuity to say that that was not a matter for the Government but for the Municipalities. The Municipalities came together and had a Congress at Oudtshoorn. A resolution was passed almost unanimously asking for separate residential areas. The Minister knows that this matter was raised in the Provincial Council and, as a matter of fact, he made the statement some time ago, that, in view of the fact that the Government intended introducing legislation on the subject, the Provincial Councils should leave it alone. The Government had a Bill drafted. I believed it was Mr. Stuttaford who was Minister at the time, and he intended introducing the Bill, but the present Minister, although he knows that it is a bad thing for Europeans and coloured to live cheek by jowl, has not got the courage to make provision in this Bill to prohibit such intermixing, so he simply says that we are going to leave it to the municipalities, whether it is right or wrong. Either it is right to let them live together in the same residential areas, or it is wrong, and if it is wrong we should make provision for separate residential areas for Europeans and nonEuropeans. We, on this side of the House, say it is wrong for them to intermingle. The Minister himself says that it is wrong. He says it is undesirable. He said so yesterday, but said that we cannot force them, we should leave it to the municipalities to decide. The reason why we consider it better not to allow intermingling is obvious. This, for instance, will show that the coloured people themselves do not want it. An educated coloured man came to see me at Robertson the other day and told me very definitely that he didn’t want to live among Europeans, because it would mean that his children would play with my children, and mv children would call his children “Hotnots.” This coloured man was perfectly genuine—he preferred to live among the coloured people; he is a decent man; he is a teacher, and he knows that if he lives among his own people he will have no trouble about that sort of thing. That is what the educated coloured man says. I am not talking about the agitators, but about those genuine cases, and they would like the Government to provide for separate residential areas, and I feel, therefore, that proper provision must be made in the Bill. Let me say this, that unless we do so we may be faced with all kinds of difficulties; this policy of “laissez faire” is going to land us in trouble and the time has arrived when we should put our foot down and say: “Thus far and no farther.” And that is what the Minister did in regard to the Pegging Act in Durban in which he prevented the Indians from penetrating any further into European areas. Why did the Government take this action? It did so because it was considered inadvisable to allow this penetration to go on. Why doesn’t the Government do the same thing in the Cape? The reason is that the coloured man has a vote, and for the sake of that vote the Government is prepared to allow a generation of half-castes to grow up in Cape Town, this lovely town with its glorious surroundings. This is only the beginning of a generation of hybrids which will follow on this intermingling of the Europeans and the coloured. The only thing the Minister can do to prevent such a tragedy is to see to it that when new houses are put up Europeans and non-Europeans are kept apart. And above all, the Minister must take steps to have this policy strictly enforced. Has the Minister the moral courage to accept such a proposal? He can say that we are responsible for it. He himself admits that it is wrong for them to intermingle and he admits that they should have separate residential areas. If he admits that it is wrong for them to live together then he must prevent it. Why doesn’t he do so? There is one reason only, and that is that he is afraid of the coloured vote. But let me make a prophecy; whether he inserts that provision or not, in the long run he is not going to get that coloured vote. Neither will he get that vote nor shall we. It will go to another party. He has his chance now of saying that this Government it not going to lend money for housing schemes unless it is explicitly laid down that that loan will be used only for separate areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. On the platteland the principle of separate residential areas will be maintained, but the difficulty is in the towns where the people are apathetic, where they believe that the only difference beween a European and a nonEuropean is the colour of their skin. The Corporation of the City of Cape Town dares not go against the coloured people. The Minister wants to remain white and so do I. We do not want to run the risk of bastardisation. We want those who come after us to be white. The Minister has a golden opportunity now of making provision with that in view. In conclusion, let me say that if he does not avail himself of this opportunity, his conscience—if he still has a conscience— is going to worry him. He has children just as I have, and he must think of the future of those children. If matters go on as they are, there is no guarantee that the next generation will be white. The Minister now has the power to prevent future bastardisation and if he can make provision for separate residential areas under the schemes undertaken by the municipalities, he will render considerable assistance in this direction. [Time limit.]

We are speaking in the interests of and on behalf of 90 per cent. of the white population of Cape Town and its environment and also in the interests of other areas. We are the mouthpiece of 90 per cent. of the white population of the Cape Peninsula, and also, I think, of 50 per cent. of the coloured population when we ask that the first step shall be taken now, the first step, which is a small step only, only a beginning, to ensure that all available land of the municipalities, and also of the Divisional Councils will be allotted so that there will be separate residential areas for the white population, for the coloured population and for the native population. Although it is only a slight step in the right direction, we are very definitely the mouthpiece not of one section only of the European population but of all sections of the European population when we ask for an end to be put to this practice of Europeans and nonEuropeans living together. We must officially, by legislation, take the step which will lead eventually to the delimitation of separate residential areas for the various races. Those sections of the population which are really able to judge are in favour of delimitation and of separation, and the reasons why they are in favour of that are these: The Europeans are in favour of it because they don’t want this intermingling in the first place for social reasons, and in the second place for economic reasons, because the fact of the presence of coloured people in houses in European areas detracts from the economic value of those areas. The educated coloured man feels that there must be separation so that he will be able, unhampered, to develop and improve in his own sphere; so that he will be able to progress with his housing in his own area and eventually become the owner of the land on which he lives. I contend that the coloured population will also feel that they can develop more effectively in their own sphere. I feel, therefore, that it is necessary for the Minister to consider the question of making a beginning now. My impression is that the delay on the part of the Government is due to political considerations. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation and the Prime Minister also, have definitely stated that that is what they want, and I must say that in practice that is the policy they have followed. As far as I know the Government in the past 25 years has never provided money for any housing scheme which to all intents and purposes has not been a separate scheme, and that, in fact, was the Minister’s argument—that he was in favour of separation, but that that separation must develop automatically. We know perfectly well that in the European residental areas in Cape Town, unless there is a servitude on the land, unless the sale of the land is subject to certain conditions, penetration of coloured inhabitants takes place in those areas, and what we are aiming at is eventually to take the necessary precautions and get further powers to have separate areas for the different sections. It is a serious matter as far as we are concerned—a matter of far-reaching importance, not because we want to deprive the coloured people or the natives of any benefits or advantages; on the contrary, it is because we want to give them advantages, the chance of developing in their own residential areas, in such a way that in their coloured areas they will have only coloured officials, and in the native areas only native officials. We realise that such delimitation cannot be brought about in the areas where those people are employed. We realise that they are employed even in our homes; and while we realise that that position will continue, we feel that it is better in the interests of all sections of the population that a beginning should be made now by passing legislation for such delimitation and separation. I admit that it is being done in practice, but we cannot go ahead with such delimitation unless we make a start by passing the necessary provision under our legislation. I hope that at a later stage we may introduce such an amendment.

I wish to support the views which have been expressed by hon. members, and I therefore desire to move the following amendment—

As the hon. Minister said last night, the intention is to let the whole scheme develop in that direction. As a matter of fact, the concensus of opinion in the country is in that direction. Public opinion throughout the country and on both sides of the House is unanimous on the subject. All of us feel that way. We feel that, as the Minister has introduced a scheme which is intended to be permanent, a national scheme, we should start in the right way, and we are very anxious to assist him. He will have our whole-hearted support, but let us start in the right way and see to it that we follow the right course. There is no need for us to go into the advantages and disadvantages. That aspect of the matter has been thrashed out. The coloured man, the coloured community, does not constitute a community in itself.

The coloured community has no traditions, no background, nothing to bind them together, and as long as a coloured man lives among the whites and works among them the position will continue to be very difficult. If the Minister is prepared to accept my amendment, we shall not elaborate it. If he will assure us that he is prepared to accept it we shall stop the discussion at once. We are anxious to have this principle incorporated in the law. It will give the local authorities an opportunity of tackling this in the right spirit and it will enable them to build on a sound foundation.

I really do not understand what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is worrying about. He has painted a picture of the danger, as he called it, of mixed residential areas. He has attempted to cloud the issue by talking about political issues, and he has suggested that I am afraid to face certain issues. There has never been any question of either the Government nor I being guilty of any hesitancy in regard to its policy on this matter. The policy was made perfectly clear in the House and to the electorate during the general election.

To the electors?

Yes, our policy has been made clear time after time. My friend knows it was made a political issue.

When was it made a political issue?

It was made part of a political issue—the suggestion that this Government was not preserving and safeguarding white civilisation in this country. It was one of the points always made by the Opposition against any Government in power.

We stood for our policy, but when you speak in the Cape, you speak with one voice, and up in the North with a different voice.

Are you speaking for yourself?

My friend has no justification for that statement. This Government stands by the declaration which was made by General Hertzog in this House in March, 1939. General Hertzog then made a full statement on behalf of the Fusion Government, and in that statement it was made quite clear that the Government of the day did not support the principle of compulsory segregation in relation to the coloured community. In so far as housing was concerned, General Hertzog and subsequently the present Prime Minister and this Government have made it clear that they do not feel that the coloured community themselves wish any social intermingling with the European elements. They prefer to go their own way.

Are you really serious? Read the report which dealt with the coloured question.

What does my hon. friend mean when he says I am not serious? Does he think that I am not serious when I say that the coloured people do not want social intermingling?

No.

That is the statement I made, that in the opinion of the present Prime Minister the coloured community do not want social intermingling. But because I am serious, and the Government is serious, we want to deal fairly with it and we do not want the position to be distorted.

Will you tell us whether you are in favour of separate residential areas or not.

If my hon. friend who is so eager to talk will give me the opportunity to reply, I shall do so. I am attempting to deal with the hon. member for Swellendam who has raised this issue, and I have said that the Government has made its position perfectly clear. It believes that the housing schemes of the past, limited though they were, have paved the way for the introduction of townships where members of our different racial groups can go and live happily, and we hope that, by additional housing schemes in future, that policy will be accelerated. We see what is happening now in the Peninsula. A beginning has been made at “ Q ” Town and Bokmakirie and similar places. Houses have been built and are let to the coloured community. Members of the coloured community are not told that they must go there, they are not taken by the scruff of the neck and made to go there, but the provision of decent houses draws them there by a process of natural attraction, and they go there of their own free will. That is happening at present. My hon. friend for Swellendam has suggested that if we insert an amendment along toe lines moved by the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus), we shall alter the present postion, we shall alter something bad into something good. I do not think it would achieve that object—the hon. member was not frank with the House. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) was frank because he admitted that, in the course of the last 25 years during which housing schemes under the present Act have been operative, there has never been a single occasion where a housing scheme has been authorised for mixed housing. 271 applications have been approved of in respect of housing schemes since sub-economic housing came into operation, and never was there one application in respect of a mixed scheme. Every scheme was in respect of Europeans, coloureds, Indians or natives. What then is the danger?

Then what is your objection to having it in?

During the time this Government has been in power he has had nothing to complain of. Does my hon. friend fear that his party will come into power, and does he want them to be bound by legislation—because there is no reason to fear that while this Government is in power any loan will be given for a mixed scheme. No, the hon. member puts up a skittle to knock it down merely for the purpose of drawing a smoke-screen across an otherwise simple issue, I am not prepared to accept this amendment, firstly, because it is not necessary, and secondly, because I want to ask my hon. friend opposite to bear in mind the difference between carrying out certain policies on a basis of co-operation and consent as against compulsion. After all, the members of our coloured community are human beings like ourselves. It is no fault of theirs that their skins are coloured. They have sufficient indignities and injustices to suffer in this life. Are we going gratuitously, to add another pin-prick by statutory provision. When even on what the hon. member for Stellenbosch has said, it is not necessary? I plead with my hon. friends to have some feeling and not to press for things which are unnecessary for the purpose which they have in view, and which, if enacted, must give offence and give rise to a sense of desnair and despondency and fear of inferiority on the part, of a number of people who are good citizens.

The Minister mentioned a smoke-screen and he accused the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) of nutting un a smoke-screen with his amendment so that he might take refuge behind it and he tried to create the impression that in cases where the Government has granted housing loans there is not the slightest danger of houses built with that money for Europeans eventually being inhabited by coloured people; and hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) applauded him. I wonder whether those hon. member were really taken in by what the Minister said. The hon. the Minister has apparently only one type of housing scheme in view—the scheme undertaken by one or other utility company under which houses are let and remain the property of the utility company. There I agree that one can prevent coloured penetration into such areas, but the Minister knows perfectly well that that is* not the only type of housing scheme. What about the economic schemes, where a man has his own land, and builds his own house? I would like to ask the hon. member for Pretoria (East) if he knows of any law preventing a coloured man from buying a house in which white people are living. He knows perfectly well that there is no such law. The coloured man is allowed to buy in any European area irrespective of the question as to whether the money has been obtained for the building of the house by way of a loan under a housing scheme or not.

It is perfectly easy for a local authority to present a petition.

No Municipal Council has the power to say that coloured people will not be allowed to live in a particular area.

They can put a servitude on the property.

Only if it is their own property.

All the schemes are the responsibility of local authorities.

That is not so. Parliament gives the money to the municipal councils. The municipal council lends the money to the individual who wants to build a house. He builds the house on the land which belongs to him or to private individuals or to a private company. Does the Minister mean to tell us that the municipality can place a servitude on that land? If the municipality does the building itself the position, of course, is different. Take Pretoria. Land is sold all over by private owners and the Municipality has no power to prevent coloured people from buying land. The Minister knows this, but in spite of that he tries to create the impression that the Municipality can impose a servitude on it. It cannot do so. The law of the land does not give it the power to do so. I would like to ask the hon. member over there whether the coloured people in any part of the Transvaal are prevented from buying property and living among the Europeans, in any part of Johannesburg or Pretoria. Why is the Minister not honest with the House and the country? I asked the Minister what his party’s policy was in respect of separate residential areas.

And I told you what my policy is.

All the Minister has done is to make a misleading statement. I want to ask the Minister again whether he and his Government are in favour of separate residential areas. If they are, why don’t they pass legislation to give effect to their intentions. All this talk about it not happening does not take us any further. Only in connection with schemes undertaken by municipalities and utility companies can the local authorities and the companies place a servitude on the property preventing the property from being sold to coloured people. The Minister and his Government refuse to make such a law because they say it will cast a blot on the coloured community. They are more concerned about a blot on the coloured race than they are about the future of the white race in South Africa.

That is a distortion.

It is not a distortion it is simply putting matters in their right perspective. If the Minister is concerned about the future of the white race, let him pass legislation to bring about the establishment of European residential areas. The Minister said that it was not necessary to do so and the hon. member for Pretoria (East) applauded him. Now let me ask the hon. member whether he realises that his attitude was very casual. Does he know that in the heart of Pretoria coolies are today buying up large properties?

I am aware of it.

That happened in the days when the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was Minister of the Interior.

The hon. member for Piketberg did take steps from time to time to prevent it, but apparently the Minister refuses to do anything—and that is happening in the heart of Pretoria. Coolies who are married to coloured women are buying properties in the heart of Pretoria and they have these properties put in the names of the women.

They say that the hon. member for Piketberg was their best friend.

We, on this side have for 10 years been advocating a policy of separate residential areas, and the Minister should not try to be funny now.

I have explained my policy.

Yes, you have explained it, but in such a way that nobody can understand it. The Minister has told us that the coloured people have to put up with quite enough humiliation and injustice and he is not going to introduce such legislation now.

Can you mention one single instance of a coloured man having bought land in the centre of Pretoria?

The land is registered, not in the name of the Indian, but in the name of a coloured person or something like that. He buys it in the name of his wife. The hon. member knows as a lawyer that there is no law in the Transvaal to stop a coloured person from buying property in the heart of Pretoria.

I don’t deny that.

Is he in favour of there being such a law. Apparently the hon. member is in favour of it, and that being so I want to ask him to support us in our effort to urge the Minister to insert such a clause in the Bill.

Talk to the Minister.

I am also talking to the hon. member, because he is responsible just as I am, and if the Minister makes nonsensical remarks here, he applauds them. At Nylstroom coloured people are buying properties in the heart of the town, and neither the Municipality nor anyone else can stop them.

What has that to do with this Bill?

The Government intends undertaking big projects under this scheme and we say that in every instance, where new residential areas are laid out, those areas must be subject to a provision that coloured people shall not be able to penetrate into European residential areas, nor will any European be allowed to penetrate into coloured residential areas.

Funds can also be made available for the coloured population.

Certainly, and I say that the Europeans must be prevented from penetrating into their residential areas. We do not want a repetition of the tragic conditions which prevail today in respect of the laying out of residential areas. We do not want to have Europeans and coloureds in future being mixed up in the same residential area. Take an area like Tamboers Kloof in Cape Town. A place like Het Loo originally must have cost £20,000 or £30,000 to build. I am sure that today you couldn’t get £5,000 for it simply because the coloured people are living all round the place, and I have no doubt that they will penetrate even further. Unless legislation is introduced they will get the whole of Tamboers Kloof ; and while that sort of thing is going on we find that the Minister and the Government are not moving a finger to put a stop to it

He says it will be a blot on the coloured population.

Yes, even if they want it themselves.

Your party was in power for nine years, why didn’t you ever think about it?

What an argument! The Government introduces legislation and new schemes almost daily—are we to ask the Government why it never thought of doing these things before? The Minister has a scheme here which, he contemplates, will take 20 years to complete— should we ask him now why he didn’t do it 20 years ago? [Time limit.]

If there is one thing which we feel very serious about, it is the necessity of having separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. We take a very serious view of it especially in the Transvaal, and I want to give my full support to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). The Government intends spending large sums of money on housing and it now has the opportunity of setting up separate residential areas, for which the people will be very grateful. The Minister can make history today by accepting this amendment and by laying down the policy in this Act that, in future, Europeans and coloured people will not be allowed to intermingle in the same areas. The Minister says that this can be left to the municipal councils. It is impossible to leave such a serious national matter in the hands of the municipalities, because they have not the power to pass the necessary legislation. As a man who has served on the municipal council for many years, I know how difficult it is for a municipality to put a stop to Europeans and nonEuropeans living next to each other. The municipal council cannot pass the necessary laws. The responsibility in this connection is that of the highest authority in the country. The Government must accept the responsibiliy, and must not try to hand it on to the local authority. It is a matter of vital importance and the Government must take the responsibility. We have an excellent example at Lichtenburg. In one part of the town Europeans and non-Europeans are living cheek by jowl; in the other part they are not allowed to do so, and in that part people are proud of the fact that they are able to live in separate areas. This has been achieved by having servitudes on every deed of transfer. It is a relic of the days when the Afrikaners’ great hero, President Kruger, was in power, and he was the man who saw to it that whenever new land was given out, a servitude was imposed on it to the effect that Europeans and nonEuropeans were not allowed to live next to each other. I repeat that the Minister has an opportunity now of making history for himself. He can lay down the policy in the law so that, in future, provision can be made for separate residential areas, and such a provision will be to the benefit of all races.

It will make no difference.

It will make a difference. It is the less privileged classes who are particularly affected. Let hon. members take a walk in towns like Kimberley and Cape Town—I am very interested in this subject and I have enquired into it carefully—and they will find that it is the less privileged classes who are affected. Their children have to mix and play with the coloured children, and the result is that the sense of separation between European and non-European does not remain as pronounced as it should be. In this connection a serious duty rests on the highest authority in the country, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give up this idea that an injustice has already been done to the coloured people and for that reason he cannot accept this amendment. He should realise that the matter is a serious one. Let him accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member, and if he does so we can lay down the principle that in future no intermingling in residential areas will take place.

I was deeply disappointed with the statement which the Minister made last night, and I am even more disappointed with the statement he made here this evening. If that is the Government’s policy why does it not lay it down by legislation? The Government’s attitude is entirely confused. It looks as if the Government is putting up a smoke-screen to mislead the people. If that is the Minister’s policy, and he does not want to give effect to it, then it certainly gives the impression that he aims at misleading the public. We must be honest and fair to the public. This question is of such national importance that the Minister has no right simply to leave it in the hands of the local authorities. On the contrary, because it is of such national importance, it is the duty of the State to lay down a principle by means of legislation so that we can be certain that it will be carried out and that, in residential areas, the colour line will be clearly maintained. It is not merely the personal duty of the Minister; it is not merely the duty of his group to take such steps; it is the duty of the State. That is becoming the mighty task of the State, if white civilisation is to be preserved—to give effect to this principle, especially in view of the fact that this principle is of the utmost importance now that the housing problem is being tackled on a national scale. I contend that it is the duty of the State to embody this principle in legislation so that the State can be assured that that policy will be carried out in future. I mentioned instances yesterday to show that in Pretoria coloured people had bought land in a European area, and that the Europeans in that particular area had been compelled to sell their properties for next to nothing. In many parts of the country this sort of thing is going on on a large scale because many local authorities do not realise the seriousness of what is happening. They are merely neglectful. I repeat that if that is the Government’s policy, it should not be ambiguous in its attitude. It must have the courage to lay down its policy by means of legislation. If that courage is lacking it means that it is playing a double game and it is deceiving the people. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, in view of the vital import of this question, to take up this principle in the Bill and to accept the amendment.

I have never yet been accused of being hostile to the coloured people. On the contrary I have been charged more than once with being too solicitous of their welfare. I hope the Minister will not conclude, from what I am going to say, that I am hostile to the coloured people. But we are dealing here with a peculiar concatenation of circumstances. On the one hand the Minister has admitted the desirability of separate residential areas. He has admitted—if not as a declaration of policy on the part of the Government, then certainly by way of a statement in connection with these housing schemes—that he approves of these schemes being carried out on the basis of separate residential areas. The principle is therefore admitted, but without saying so in so many words, and I have come to the conclusion that he, personally, is sympathetically disposed to the idea of separate residential areas, but is not prepared to lay if down in the Bill. He gives as a reason for this hesitation to include it in the Bill, that he looks upon it as a blot on the coloured community. I feel that the Minister is confusing the real issue by being too sympathetic towards the coloured community by not providing for it in a separate Bill. The result is the very opposite. This sympathy shown by the European section towards the non-European section would be more effective if it were laid down that there were to be separate residential areas in the future. The question has been raised as to why a definite dividing line in respect of separate residential areas has not been drawn in the past. Of course it is always easy to reproach one another and to blame one another for not having done what should have been done. I can notice even now that relations between Europeans and non-Europeans have deteriorated, which is most unfortunate. The future demands that Europeans and non-Europeans shall live together in South Africa in amity. It is in the interests of both, that the two communities should live in friendship but in separate residential areas. The two sections cannot possibly take part in the development of this country, they cannot possibly co-operate if there is a fear of miscegenation of the two races. It is in the interests of South Africa’s future that the two races shall co-operate in amity, and that friendship cannot be achieved if there is this fear of miscegenation. And the time has come when special provision should be made for the delimitation of separate residential areas. As I have said, I feel that there has undoubtedly been a serious deterioration in the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans. I want the Minister to recognise this, and now is the time to do so. By having separate residential areas, he can give better social service to the coloured people. If the coloured people are in separate residential areas, they will be able to have better provision made for proper social service. The Minister knows it; his Department knows it; the Europeans know it, and the coloured people know it. The use of European funds for the benefit of non-European housing may have a boomerang effect; it may have a detrimental effect on the European community, and also on the coloured community, because, for the purpose of uplifting the coloured people, it is necessary to create pride of citizenship, in order to allow the coloured people to develop within their own sphere. This opportunity to the coloured people to develop in their own sphere will serve as an impetus to the more progressive elements in their community to act as torch-bearers for the rest of them. He has expressed himself in favour of maintaining a colour line, but he has made no definite statement on the subject, and as he has failed to do so, the demand for wiping out this colour line will grow. We now have an opportunity of laying down a policy, and that opportunity is passing. The longer we delay, the more difficult will it be to deal with this matter, but if we take steps now, the position will become much easier as time goes on. If, on the other hand, the colour line is obliterated, this country will be faced with major difficulties. I want to urge the Minister most strongly to avail himself of this opportunity; this is the time to take those steps, and they can be taken now without any reflection on the coloured community, without branding them with the stamp of inferiority; this is the opportunity to incorporate the policy, which the Minister says he stands for, in our legislation. No greater service could be rendered to thé coloured section.

The hon. the Minister has asked me a question to which I wish to reply. He asked me whether I am nervous lest my side of the House might be called upon to form a Government. I’m not a bit nervous, and I am sure the day will come when we shall have to form the Government. I am convinced of it, in fact. I would like to ask the Minister in what way the coloured man or the nonEuropean is being offended. In what way is this an insult to them? He says that the coloured people want it.

Don’t distort.

I contend that they want separate residential areas. I am not talking about compulsory legislation. How can it be an insult if I pass a law to achieve something I want to achieve? I should like to ask the Minister this. He has told us that his side is also in favour of separate residential areas and he has told us that the coloured people prefer separate residential areas. What objection can he have to it being laid down in the law? He says it is an insult to the coloured people. Why? Why wouldn’t it be an equal insult to the Europeans if the law were to provide that Europeans must also have their own areas? There is no insult in it to the Europeans, where then is the insult to the coloured man? The Minister tells us that he is in favour of separate areas, but I can hardly believe it. It is perfectly clear that he is afraid to accept the responsibility for legislation in this direction, and, if he is afraid to introduce legislation, I doubt whether he really holds the view he has indicated he holds. If anyone has definite opinions on a subject he must have the courage to give effect to those opinions. The Government has to provide the money, and if the Government wants separate residential areas …

It is the law of the land at the moment.

I am sorry all this chatter is going on. The hon. member doesn’t know what he is talking about. In the Cape Province the coloured people can live wherever they please. You cannot keep them out.

You are making it attractive for them.

The hon. member is like the Minister. He tries to distort the position. Any coloured man can today buy land in the centre of any town and village, and he can put up a house and live there. The Town Council cannot even refuse to let the Town Hall to a coloured man if he wants to hire it, because the coloured man has a vote, and as such he has the same rights and privileges in the Cape as any white man. All we say is that we do not want to give the coloured people worse housing than we have; we do not want to treat them unjustly. The Minister, however, gets nervous when he has to deal with a problem as serious as this, and all he can say to us is: “Why didn’t you do it 10 years ago?” If that is the Minister’s attitude the country will know that it cannot expect anything of him— it will know that he is nothing but a clown. Now, Mr. Chairman …

I must ask the hon. member not to be personal.

If the Minister laughs at every question he cannot answer and treats everything as a joke, then he is a clown and I am entitled to say it.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I bow to your ruling. The Minister is frivolous. He has never tackled this matter seriously. That is the position. He does not know what seriousness is and what responsibility is.

The hon. member must stop indulging in personalities.

I am entitled to discuss this matter, and if that is the Minister’s attitude, and if the Minister is not prepared to take this matter seriously, and if he is not prepared to accept our amendment, well we may just as well come to a vote on it. During the last election we voted on the war issue, and the Minister knows that if there had been no war his party would not have been returned to power.

I should like the Minister to explain the position to the House. He said that he was in favour of separate residential areas. I want him to explain to the House how we are going to prevent houses put up by the municipalities with Government money from being bought up by Asiatics in Natal, and by Asiatics and coloured people in the Transvaal. Let him tell us how he can prevent it if this Bill is passed. At the moment it is perfectly easy. In the Transvaal there is no law preventing coloured people from, buying any houses.

Absolute nonsense.

I must tell the hon. member, who is interrupting me, that I think nothing of him.

You are a briefless barrister. Tell me of one case in which you have ever appeared in the Transvaal.

Order, order !

There are lawyers on his own side; let him ask them whether there is any law in the Transvaal preventing coloured people from buying any place in Johannesburg.

What about the Municipal by-laws? And the Township Acts?

That applies only where new towns are laid out.

Nylstroom is not a new town.

In Nylstroom you cannot prevent an Asiatic from buying a house or an erf. The hon. member can ask any lawyer on his side whether or not this is the case. There is no law in the Transvaal preventing any house or erf, except urban, in respect of which a servitude has been registered …

What about the Gold Law?

That applies only to the Rand. The Gold Law only prevents coloured people from living on proclaimed land. I am dealing with the general principle and I say that there is no law in the Transvaal which prevents this, except in respect of a small part of proclaimed land. Every lawyer knows that that is so. If money is allotted for sub-economic housing schemes under the control of the Municipality or of a utility company, there is nothing to prevent coloured people in the Transvaal or here in the Cape from buying houses or erven.

You know perfectly well that the municipality has to state what it wants the money for.

I am putting the legal position as it is. There is nothing to prevent a coloured person from buying land there unless it is in a proclaimed area. The hon. member should be less offensive. It ill becomes him.

On the contrary, it becomes him very well.

I would like to express the hope that hon. members on the other side of the House will make an attempt to teach certain of their members manners —members like the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). It seems to me that he is out of place in this House. He should be in those areas.

Why don’t you get up and talk now?

Now he doesn’t know what to say.

I think the Minister should answer these questions. At any rate he should try to. He insults the House by sitting still and not answering these questions.

He treats the House with contempt.

Let him answer the questions. If he refuses to answer, we shall know that he is wrong.

I am still waiting for the hon. member over there (Mr. Tighy) to get up.

He makes a lot of noise.

If he refuses to speak, we shall carry on this discussion until he gets up.

Very well, I shall have my say. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the President—or rather the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) have been making a terrible fuss on the question of the creation of separate residential areas. What I wish to say this evening is this: those hon. members have but one object and that is to insult both the Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africans in this country. Some years ago when they issued their ridiculous pamphlet on the question of mixed marriages in South Africa, they insulted the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections of the community, and today you are out to do the same thing again …

Order, order.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

It is an insult to white South Africa; it is an insult to say that after they have been helped by the Government to build houses, they are going to sell their houses and make a profit out of the Asiatics, the natives or the coloured people. That is what they are saying—they are putting up a smoke screen.

Tell us something about the law which, you say, you know so well.

What the hon. member for Waterberg apparently seems to forget is that any application for a loan has to state very clearly and specifically what the loan is intended for—it has to state whether it is for native areas or for coloured areas or for Asiatic areas. I am speaking in my capacity as a man who has had several years’ experience of this matter.

What is there to prevent them from having mixed residential areas?

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is only concerned about the coloured people. We quite appreciate that, because he has to rely on the coloured vote. Take the Coronation township in Johannesburg—I challenge the hon. member to show me one white man in these coloured areas in Johannesburg. I challenge him to get Kaatjie Kekkelbek from Cape Town to come to Johannesburg and to buy a property there on behalf of myself or any other European. The hon. member for Waterberg tried to create the impression that he was the only man in this House who knew anything about the law. He asked what I knew about the law. Let me tell the hon. member that whatever else I may be, I am certainly not a “briefless barrister”.

What do you know about the law?

Possibly I do not know very much, but, nonetheless, I know a fair amount. I am not a briefless barrister like the hon. member over there. I challenge him to prove that he has ever appeared in any Court case either in the Transvaal or elsewhere.

The Minister looks very much ashamed.

Seeing that the hon. member is such a wonderful lawyer, I would ask him to tell me whether provision has not been made in the Native Acts of 1920 ….

Who has said anything about the natives? We have been talking about coloured people.

Is it not provided in these Acts that the Minister of Native Affairs must give his approval to any land being set aside for natives? I challenge him to prove here and now that the Minister of Native Affairs is not obliged to give his consent in cases of that kind. Hon. member on the Opposition Benches expect their party to come into power. We know that the present Minister will never tolerate the setting up of “mixed areas”. In regard to Asiatics, let me point out that Nylstroom is in the constituency of the hon. member. No, all they do is to put smoke screens, and we are getting very tired of these smoke screens. Like drowning men, they grasp at every straw in attempts to save themselves not only from political bankruptcy, but from complete political ruin.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has raised an issue which I think I should answer at once, because I think it is essential that we should deal with this amendment in its proper perspective. The hon. member for Waterberg has said that there is nothing in the law to prevent a coloured person from purchasing fixed property. He qualified that, as far as the Transvaal was concerned, later by admitting that on proclaimed land coloured persons are not able to purchase land. But the proposition the hon. member puts forward is that a coloured person may purchase land in South Africa other than in the proclaimed areas. Is he suggesting that that should be stopped? Does he suggest that coloured persons should be prohibited from purchasing landed property? If that is his suggestion then I ask him: How does the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) help him in that desire? The amendment of the hon. member is that no loan shall be made unless it is clear that it will not be in respect of a mixed residential scheme. Now supposing that amendment is accepted, how will that prevent any coloured person, who has money to do so, from purchasing any property as heretofore in areas outside an approved scheme? I give that example to show how easy it is, I do not say wittingly on the part of the hon. member for Waterberg, to draw a smoke-screen across the trail or how easy it is to confuse the issue. We have been arguing about matters which are not germane to this Bill at all, and cannot be cured by this Bill. I have said that, in actual practice, in the 271 schemes under the Housing Act no loan has ever been granted in respect of a mixed scheme, and I cannot conceive of any housing authority granting money for a scheme in which two or more racial groups will be allowed to live.

Are you prepared to …

I am perfectly prepared to say that as long as I have any responsibility in this matter, I would not dream of authorising a scheme which would call for two racial groups to live together, I would not allow a scheme which would allow the housing together of Europeans, coloureds, and natives, and these racial groups do not want it. In actual practice it has never been done. So what is all the fuss? We have been arguing for a long time, confused in our thoughts, and getting away from the real matter of the Bill. Now let me repeat that, if the hon. member for Vredefort’s amendment is accepted, it will not deal with the subject matter which has been discussed at length by hon. members. Finally, the hon. member for Waterberg put the point direct to me: Does this Government stand for the principle of separate residential areas? My answer is: This Government does stand for that principle but it does not stand for compulsory segregation. That is the plain fact, that is the clear-cut line of demarcation between the Government and the Opposition.

The Minister has not taken us a step further by what he has just said. It is no use saying that the Government is in favour of separate residential areas unless it is prepared to translate its wishes into legislation. Without legislation we shall never get any further. It is quite useless saying that you are in favour of separate residential areas and then failing to make legislative provision for such separation. What is there to prevent the coloured man from carrying on as he has been doing so far and buying land in the midst of European areas? These loans which the Government will grant municipalities will not be granted merely for certain types of schemes, but they will also be made to individuals, and the money given to individuals is not protected in that sense, because the individual can, once the property has become his sell it to anyone, even if it has been purchased with the aid of a Government loan.

A servitude can be placed on such property.

No, it cannot be done unless legislation is passed to prevent the land from being transferred to coloured persons. How can the Minister place a servitude on my property?

It can be done before transfer is given.

But transfer is not given by the Government—that is the trouble.

We do not give money under this scheme for the purchase of existing houses.

The Government gives money to municipalities and the municipalities lend money to people to build houses. The Government cannot place a servitude on the private individual’s property.

The local authorities can lay down the conditions.

They cannot even do that. They can lay down a condition in regard to the loan, but once the loan has been repaid the man can sell his property to anyone he likes, and no municipality has the right to prevent him from doing so. I go even further and I contend that even as regards the so-called schemes, if the Government does not insert a servitude in the Deed of Transfer, those schemes can eventually be sold to coloured people.

And not only be sold to coloured people but they can live there.

It is no use saying that you are in favour of separate residential areas—you can only carry that out if you have legislation.

Well, we may as well agree to differ.

No, we cannot differ; these are facts. Only the man who gives transfer of a property can impose a servitude and the Government is not the party which is giving transfer and that being so no servitude can be inserted. This position can be remedied only by an Act of Parliament in which it must be definitely laid down that the land is not to be used by coloured people.

Why cannot the municipalities do it?

If the municipality is the party giving transfer it can do so, but the hon. member knows perfectly well that there are thousands of cases where loans are granted to private individuals, and in such cases the municipality cannot impose a servitude. But what would be the use even if it could do so? The Cape Town Municipality would never pass such a servitude. What is the use of misleading the public by saying that it can be done if you are not prepared to do it?

What we have had here this evening may be described as a most extraordinary experience. The Minister tells us that his policy is one of separate residential areas, yet in the same breath he tells us that he is not prepared to lay it down by law. Can one imagine a Government or a party telling the public : “That is our policy but we are not prepared to translate it into law.” If a party accepts a policy, if a Government accepts a policy it automatically proclaims to the public that it is prepared to lay down that policy in law. Yet the Minister says he is not prepared to do so. What a farce!

The Minister says that separate residential areas are what he stands for and that it is the policy which he has carried out up to the present, that he has never allowed a mixed scheme. Why doesn’t he accept our amendment if that is so? No, the amendment goes a great deal further than anything the Minister has dared do in the past, yet the Minister simply laughs at us. He sits there and grimaces (ginnegap).

On a point of order is the hon. member in order in saying that the Minister “ginnegaps”.

These are “broederbond” manners.

I think we are entitled to have the Minister’s attention while we are discussing matters on his Bill. It is no use trying to create the impression that the Government is also in favour of separation. It is not, if it were it would lay it down in this Bill without hesitation. We want to help the Minister; we want to give a stimulus to this great question of separate residential areas, but it must be laid down by legislation. The Minister’s personal assurances may be good enough for him, but we want it laid down by law.

I should like to put this point very clearly : In the housing laws the principle of separate residential areas is not laid down definitely anywhere. If any municipality applies for a loan for a housing scheme, the Government cannot turn down the application on the ground that it does not want coloured people and Europeans to be mixed up in the same scheme.

Why not? The Government can lay down any condition it sees fit.

I challenge the Minister to show me that there is a provision in the Act under which a condition can be laid down that the houses under a scheme are to be only for Europeans or only for coloured people. The Government can refuse to give the municipality a loan but not for that reason. The courts would compel the Government to grant such a loan.

How can a court compel the Government to grant a loan?

The Minister always knows better, but I challenge him to lay on the Table a loan contract in which the conditions are laid down that the loan is to be used only for Europeans or only for coloured people.

I shall be prepared to resign my seat if the hon. member can prove that a court can force the Government to grant a loan.

Lay it on the Table —show the condition in any loan that the money is not to be used for either whites or for coloureds. I know what happened in my town. I know the forms. Of course they have separate schemes for Europeans and separate schemes for coloured people, but it is not a condition laid down by the Government. The Government cannot lay down such conditions because the law doesn’t give it the right to do so. Once the loan has been granted there is no such condition at all and then the Government cannot make that a condition. If the Government gives the municipalities money for the building of houses, the Government can do nothing if coloureds and whites are allowed to live cheek by jowl. The Government can do nothing because the conditions have not been laid down by law. And I go further than that. Once the municipalities have repaid the loans, the houses belong to them and they can do with them what they please. If the Minister feels so strongly in favour of separate residential areas, why then does he not provide for it by law. If he does so he can prevent the municipalities from letting whites and coloureds occupy the same areas and the same streets. No, the Minister is not at all serious on this question, he doesn’t feel very strongly on the subject of separate residential areas. Not only does he take up that attitude, but he refuses to accept an amendment to rectify the position. It is perfectly clear to me that the Minister has never even thought about it. As far as I am concerned personally, I would like to emphasise that I have no wish whatsoever to interfere with the coloured people or to curtail them in their rights, but I do not want to see them intermingle with the Europeans; I do not want them to mix with the Europeans and I do not want whites and coloureds to intermarry. Separate residential areas are the first step. The Minister says that the coloured people themselves want it; well, let it be accepted in principle and if we accept the principle, we shall be laying a foundation stone on which we shall be able to build a white South Africa.

Amendment put and the Committee divided :

Ayes—16 :

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—43 :

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

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.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I wish to propose that this clause be deleted.

That is all the Bill contains and now you want to drop it.

I hate to give my friend a disappointment, particularly as I know that he is rejoicing with me in the passage of the third reading of the Nurses Bill, and we are all feeling very pleased about that. This Clause 9, Sir, as I attempted to explain in the second reading debate, purports to amend Clause 11 of the existing Housing Act. In terms of the existing Clause 11, a local authority may apply to the Minister—it was then the Minister of Public Health, but now the Minister of Welfare—for authority to expropriate land within the areas of its jurisdiction. It has to be an expropriation for the purpose of a housing scheme, and the local authority has to satisfy the Minister, before he can grant permission to expropriate, that the local authority cannot acquire that land on reasonable terms, that no other suitable land is available for the purpose, and that no other suitable land can be purchased on reasonable terms. The Durban Municipality sought to have that power extended to enable it to expropriate land for re-sale and re-planning, not to build on this land to be expropriated, but to re-plan it and then sell it in plots. The Durban Municipality sought to have these additional powers. Consideration was given to that, and then representations came from Durban, from the Natal Indian Congress, and it was suggested to me that the inclusion of that additional power might complicate the issue which is the subject of the settlement in regard to the Indian question in Natal at present. I am informed that, in the Transvaal, there is an Ordinance which empowers the local authorities to do what the Durban Municipality wants to do and, as the Administrator of Natal is now going to deal with housing himself, and set up a Housing Board, there is no reason why he should not introduce an ordinance which will enable the Durban Municipality to do so if it wishes. In those circumstances, and in order not to allow the Housing Bill to be used as a possible battleground for other issues, which of course would be wrong, I informed the Durban Municipality that I was not prepared to legislate in this Bill for the additional powers to enable them to expropriate for those purposes. In the course of discussion with the Administrator, when he intimated that he proposed setting up a Natal Housing Board, it was suggested that I might allow local authorities to apply to the Administrators for expropriation and thereafter have an appeal to the Minister. It was also a suggestion that we might cut out two of the three safeguards contained in Section 11 of the Housing Act, safeguards which the Minister must apply before authorising expropriation. The result was Clause 9 of the present Bill. This clause provides that local authorities must go to the Administrator if they wish to expropriate land for housing. There is an appeal to the Minister. Secondly, Clause 9 cuts out any reference to the Minister having to be satisfied that no other land is available for the “said purpose” and that no other “suitable ground” can be acquired on “suitable terms.” I was interviewed by degelates from the Natal Indian Congress who considered that if there were to be any alteration of Section 11, it would be a breach of the undertaking I gave in respect of the right to expropriate for re-planning and re-laying-out. On examination of the Clause as it stands, I find that it carries the position no further than under the existing Clause 11. It is true that the local authority, under the Bill, has to go to the Administrator for authority to expropriate, but there is an appeal to the Minister. Under the existing Act they go straight to the Minister. So one does not alter the law, in effect, by going back to the present Section 11. As I attempted to explain yesterday, the fears which some local authorities have had that going back to Section 11 will make it more difficult to expropriate, are in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have advised me, groundless. I would put that to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as lawyers.

You should put it to the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) as well.

I know more about it than you do.

The Johannesburg Municipality has in fact bought a large piece of land which might be represented by this sheet of foolscap. They have bought this composite area, with the exception of three small patches.

Pig farms.

Yes, these three pig farms in the middle. Now the Johannesburg Municipality, before it can proceed with its housing scheme, must acquire these three farms. It alleges that it has failed to do so by ordinary negotiation and private treaty, and its only means of doing so is by expropriation, but it fears that it cannot do so under the existing Clause 11.

You could do so under Section 9.

Yes, clearly. But if we drop Section 9 they fear that they cannot do it under Section 11 of the original Act. If I can satisfy the House that Clause 11 will give the Johannesburg Municipality, and other municipalities, similar opportunities to those they have under Clause 9 of this Bill, then there is no harm in dropping it.

But what was the idea of putting in Clause 9 at all?

May I just deal first of all with the contention that Section 11 cannot help. Section 11 says that the Minister has to be satisfied that the land cannot be purchased at a suitable price. No doubt the Johannesburg Municipality will be able to satisfy me on that. Secondly, the Johannesburg Municipality has to satisfy me, or whomever the Minister may be, that no other “suitable land” is available for the “said purpose.” It may be argued that the City Council could acquire land adjacent to that area. It may be able to get land on this or that side. No doubt that will be the contention of the owners of these three farms, and they will go on to urge that as there is this other suitable land, the Minister should not, in the exercise of his discretion, authorise expropriation. Now the Clause specifically says that the Minister must be satisfied that no other “suitable land” is available to the local authority for the “said purpose.” These words “for the said purpose” govern that proviso. Surely, if a local authority has already purchased a large area of land and has a housing scheme for that ground as a whole, then it can hardly be contended that isolated spots outside that area are “suitable for the said purpose.” I would have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Johannesburg Municipality would be within the terms of the existing law in asking me to grant them the right of expropriation for these areas. I want to be frank with the hon. member for Winburg. He has asked me what was the purpose of this clause, and if there was a purpose why I am withdrawing it. In my discussions with the Administrator of Natal, he indicated to me that if two of the provisos to Section 11 were dropped, it would ease the position of local authorities, and I agreed, at the time, that that should be done, at the same time agreeing that the authority to grant expropriation should be given to the Administrator.

How do you give it to the Administrator?

Clause 11 of this Bill alters Clause 11 of the Housing Act. Under the existing Act the local authority must come to the Minister direct. Under Clause 9 of the Bill the local authority must go to the Administrator and, if any party is dissatisfied, he must go to the Minister.

That is why you put in Clause 9 in the first instance.

Yes, to give the right of decision to the Administrator, and then, at a later stage, to change the form of Section 11 to cut out these two safeguards. Now the Natal Indian Congress contends that to amend Clause 11 would not be in keeping with the undertaking I gave them. I do not think they are correct. But, as I am satisfied that Clause 9 will not carry the matter any further, I would much rather retain Clause 11, and if we find in practice that I am incorrect, we can rectify matters at a later stage. I am satisfied, on the advice given to me, that it is not necessary to have Clause 9.

To achieve the purpose of getting rid of certain areas?

If it should be found, in the course of the next six or eight months, that hitches occur in other ways, one can later amend the Act, and I shall then feel free in dealing with this matter, as a matter of housing policy and without any side considerations which may crop up, to make the necessary amendments. As far as I am concerned, I want to make this quite clear—it is merely a question of keeping faith—but not only that, it is a question of not appearing to be guilty of bad faith. It is for that reason that I drop this clause. I would rather not have it suggested that I have gone beyond an undertaking which I gave to the Indian Congress, in view of repercussions which might arise. I would rather keep this Bill free of any controversy. I hope therefore that hon. members will assist me in dropping this Clause 9, so that we can retain Clause 11.

The Minister feels a little uneasy about this matter, because he hasn’t told us very clearly whether this new clause, Clause 9, is in conflict with the undertaking he has given the Indians. We consider it quite wrong to suspend the Pegging Act.

I may tell the hon. member that I gave that undertaking before this Bill was actually drafted.

One reads in the press that the Indians are now crowing. They have succeeded in inducing the Minister to give way. In the “Cape Argus” a few days ago I read a memorandum from the Natal Indian Congress which had been sent to the Minister. It read as follows—

And in the same paper on a back page it says this—

According to this statement in the newspaper it would appear that the Minister wants to do something which is in conflict with his undertaking, and now they announce that they have made the Minister climb down. The Minister’s attitude in withdrawing this Clause is practically an admission of the fact that he has acted in conflict with the promise he has made. He wasn’t very clear whether he regarded the Clause as being in conflict with his promise. I fail to see the difficulty which the Indians have under the amendments as compared with the existing law. It contains the same thing. The Minister— here he becomes the Administrator—has the right of veto. The Minister need not give any reasons. So the Administrator can approve of it if he is convinced that a local body cannot get other land, but after that the Minister can veto it. What is the difference? In the existing law the Minister can only say that he is not prepared to give his approval but here the initiative is handed over to the Administrator. What are the Indians objecting to? What is their difficulty, and where are they treated unjustly? The only thing I can see is that they say that the matter is first of all placed in the hands of the Administrator. Have they so little confidence in the Administrator of Natal, or in the Administrators of the other provinces? In the end the Minister still has the final say. We cannot allow this kind of statement to go out into the country. We cannot allow these people to be given the opportunity of saying that the Government wanted to commit a breach of faith. The Minister says that it might give the impression of a breach of faith, but in the long run the Minister still has the final say, and one gets a little tired of the Indians always accusing the Government of breach of faith even though there is no breach of faith. This action of the Minister in withdrawing the Clause creates the impression that he has done them an injustice, and that he now admits that the Indians’ attitude is the correct one. I contend that they were not right, but the Minister now practically gives them the right to say that the Government wanted to commit a breach of faith. Does the Minister admit that a breach of faith was committed in this matter?

I appreciate what my hon. friend says, and I quite agree with him that it would be unfortunate if any impression were created, true or otherwise, that the Government had broken faith with the Indian community in Natal. For that reason I regret the statements which have appeared in the press. I think it is unfortunate, in the light of what actually took place, that it is unforunate from the point of view of Indian interests, that that particular statement should have appeared. The undertaking to the Indian Congress was in respect of powers which they feared would be given and might be detrimental to them.

How could that be if the Minister ….

Not the power to the Administrator, but they feared there would be a substantive provision in the new clause enabling the local authority to purchase land, not for the purpose of building houses on that land, but re-sale. They had in mind particularly a place called Riverside, where there is a large amount of Indian ownership, and they feared the City Council of Durban was anxious to expropriate that land, to cut it up and to sell the plots to others. That was the fear. The discussions with the Indian community were all based on whether or not I was going to give that power to local authorities, and an intimation was given to the Natal Indian Congress, officially through my office, that I did not intend to do so, and that I did not intend to amend Section 11. It might well be interpreted by the Indian community that, as I am amending this Section 11 in regard to these other matters, that that constitutes a breach of faith. I do not consider it a breach of faith, but I do not wish to be placed in a position where the Indian community may have some colour of ground for saying the Government has broken faith with them. The Government has not broken faith with them, but I do not want them to be even in a position to say that we have broken faith over this clause. The way has been made easier for me in view of the legal advice I had that, by withdrawing this clause, I shall not be making it more difficult for local authorities to carry on with their task. They will still be able to expropriate. They will, in a case such as have illustrated from Johannesburg, be able to satisfy the Minister in regard to the three safeguards in the Bill, and be able to acquire the ground. I have said that I do not want the Housing Bill to be used as a measure in which controversial side issues may be raised. Conversely, I do not propose to allow the Housing Bill to be deprived of provisions which are necessary for the public as a whole, because one or other section has fears about repercussions, and I feel perfectly certain as regards the future. I am satisfied that the withdrawal of Clause 9 is not going to hamper local authorities, but, if it is found that this does not meet the difficulties, I am prepared to deal with it de novo next year, because there could be no question of my being bound by any undertaking.

What powers are there to get hold of those isolated spots you refer to?

I assume there would not be power to expropriate isolated spots if, in fact, the local committee did not hold land adjacent to or surrounding those spots. In the case illustrated by Johannesburg, the City Council held a large area of property in which there were certain islands. If the municipality had owned those islands and not the area outside, it might have been very difficult for them to say no other suitable land was available if they wished to expropriate. Similarly, if the municipality has a large amount of property, and some distance away there are some isolated properties which do not fit into the scheme, it might be difficult to expropriate. But for practical purposes, so far as I am advised, there should be no difficulty as far as the present case is concerned.

I wouldn’t have spoken on this clause but I am very worried about the clause which the Minister now wants to withdraw. First of all I think it would be a practical blunder for the Minister to do so, and I say so for this reason. The Minister’ himself says that he is not satisfied that this existing clause means that he had made an attempt to commit a breach of faith in regard to the undertaking he had given the Indians. But the effect is this—if the Minister now withdraws this clause, the fact of his doing so gives the Indians the right to say that the Minister tried to commit a breach of faith and that this clause was only withdrawn as the result of the representations made by them. To my mind the Minister can only ask this Committee to negative the clause if his legal advisers say that this clause would involve a breach of faith on the part of the Government. Only then should it be withdrawn. But I fail to see how the Minister can ask the House to admit something in conflict with the advice of the legal advisers simply because the Indians have made representations to him. The Minister should know and with all his experience he does know, that by making unnecessary concessions one is apt to spoil a community. By giving in unnecessarily you may create the idea in the minds of these people that the Government had tried to commit a breach of faith. I think the House knows that I am not prejudiced against any section of the community, but I do think that the Indian community should be the Very last to accuse the Government of breach of faith. The sooner that is made clear, the better. I do not know why we should always keep on withdrawing and withdrawing and always be satisfied, and why the Government should always have to conciliate these people and pander to them.

If the hon. member will call on me I shall show him the documents and I shall be able to satisfy him on all these points.

If the Minister tells me that this clause actually constitutes a breach of faith, I shall sit down at once, but as the Minister says that he is not satisfied that it would be a breach of faith, in view of the fact that his legal advisers consider that it would not be a breach of faith, I contend that it would be a blunder to withdraw this clause. If the Minister says that it would be a breach of faith, then I agree with him, but I fail to see why we should make any change simply because the Indians say that if we pass this clause it will be a breach of faith. What have we got our legal advisers for? Let me tell the Minister that he will be making a blunder if he withdraws this clause, because by doing so he will be admitting that he has tried to break faith with the Indians. One day the Indians will tell the country that the Government tried to break faith with them, and that the only reason why they didn’t succeed in doing so, was because they, the Indians, objected and made strong representations. I hope the Minister will not withdraw this clause until such time as he is fully convinced that to pass the clause would mean breaking faith. I think it should be clear to the Indian community, and they should be told that they are going too far when they try to poke their noses into every Bill coming before this House. They simply look at everything from the point of view of the Indians only, and they consistently shut their eyes and their ears to the attitude of the European community. I represent a Transvaal constituency, a constituency which also has an Indian community, but we in the Transvaal, in the Free State and the Cape should not shut our ears to the outcry which has been raised in Durban. The white people in Durban cannot always be wrong; but the Indian community simply adopt the attitude that they are always right and the Europeans are always wrong. This time they have gone too far, and the House should not allow them to carry on like that. If they have a reasonable claim and there are grounds for their contentions, and the Minister’s legal advisers are satisfied that there are good reasons for the withdrawal of the clause, then I am not going to do so just to satisfy their whims. If it is not a question of breach of faith then I am not prepared to agree.

I may say I am fairly well satisfied with what the Minister has said in connection with this old Clause 11, but speaking as one of the Johannesburg members I know what obstacles the Municipality will likely have to get over to get full title to the piece of ground which has been so much before the House. In my opinion the şnag still stands in this way, that it does not matter whether it is that piece of ground or any other similar one. The Minister has got to be satisfied that no other suitable ground is available before expropriation can be recommended. The question of other suitable ground opens up a very wide door. Suitable ground may be obtained five, six, seven or eight miles outside the Municipality, but that ground, although it may be suitable for housing schemes, may not be convenient for the. City of Johannesburg. And, Sir, in my opinion this question of transport over long distances, that we are trying to get over at the present time, is going to be repeated very often in connection with this question. Municipalities have been in existence for many years and ground which is suitable for housing schemes will nearly always present this difficulty of transportation. A piece of ground may be suitable, but on that piece of ground there may be such a thing as a dairy farm or a homestead which a man will not see his way to give up unless he is forced to give up, and then the same difficulty will occur. The Minister has given his assurance as to what he will do after having all the obstacles pointed out to him, but Ministers change, and although the present Minister has told us what he will do, we may have another Minister, when we are dealing with obstacles like this, who may not see eye to eye with the local authority, and will have to be satisfied whether other suitable ground cannot be obtained and he may take a different view to what the present Minister is prepared to take.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of how people dispose of land for the purpose of making townships. I would appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the question of in some way impressing upon the Township Board the necessity of the Municipality being consulted when it is a question of laying out new townships. Most of the municipalities in South Africa find, that in attempting to supply amenities demanded in these new townships, they are quite unable to get on with the consolidation of the areas that have already been built up. In Germiston severe drains have been made upon the rates in the endeavour to meet the evergrowing demand for roads and stormwater drainage and that kind of amenity, and as long as municipalities are refused the right to dictate in what manner they can expand, when that decision is left really in the hands of people who own land without due consideration of the Municipality’s difficulties, those difficulties become acute. I would appeal to the Minister to consider whether it is not wise to indicate to the Township Boards that they must take notice of the Municipality when the question of new townships arises. It is a fact in Germiston that we have a most untidy town, not because the Municipality is not willing to do the things that are necessary to tidy it up, but townships have sprung up and we have not been able to catch up on the job, and the result is that you have half a dozen townships which are not at all developed, but have a few houses here and there. The occupants of those houses want roads and other amenities, and the Council is unable to supply them. As a result there is constant turmoil and strife as between ward and ward as to where money shall be spent. I appeal to the Minister to allow the municipalities to have the last word as to where and how they shall expand.

I am deeply disappointed át the Minister’s attitude on this clause. I regarded this as one of the best clauses in the whole Bill. Surely the municipality is one of the institutions which has to guard the cleanliness of the towns and the relationship which should prevail in the towns. Experience has taught us that the municipality will not abuse these powers. On the contrary it wants to use these powers to the best of its ability. I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this question and to have a clause of this nature in the Bill. It seems to me that immediately the Indian community makes a fuss the Government gives in. We must take up a strong attitude towards the Indian community. No one wants to do an injustice to the Indian, but it is our duty to give the municipalities the power to see that the towns are properly laid out and that good relations prevail in their areas. In that way friction will be avoided. I appeal to the Minister to retain the Clause.

May I support the remarks made by the member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) in regard to new townships. In Port Elizabeth we are in the unhappy position of having new townships created which do not comply with the regulations enforced in townships developed by the Municipality

Order. The clause before the Committee deals with expropriation? Is the hon. member speaking to that question?

Yes.

Then the hon. member must come to the point.

If we had our will in Port Elizabeth we would expropriate certain townships which have been developed in a different manner to that in which we developed townships on our own land. There are townships being developed which are controlled, as the member for Germiston says, by Township Boards, who do not appear to understand the local conditions. When we lay out townships we make roads, guttering and pavements, and when the plots are put up for sale the expenses incurred in making the roads are taken into consideration.

Order, the hon. member is out of order.

In what way, Sir?

The hon. member’s remarks have nothing to do with the clause under consideration.

I am talking about how we wish to develop private townships.

The hon. member will have an opportunity on a later clause to discuss that matter.

Which clause? I am only following up the remark of the hon. member for Germiston.

He led you astray.

I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue that subject.

Oh well, then I had better sit down.

The hon. Minister has moved to delete Clause 9 and I think, in doing so, he is taking a step which is not in the interests of the country and the municipalities concerned. I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that in this matter of expropriation the private owner is sufficiently safeguarded when it is laid down that they must have the consent of the Administrator, in writing, before proceeding to expropriate. That I think is a sufficient safeguard for any private owner. The dropping of this clause is not in the interests of the community nor in the interests of the local authority. It places an embargo upon a municipality embarking on a proper scheme of slum clearance and at the same time laying out a properly developed township for occupation. If it is necessary in the interests, both of Europeans and Indians that land in Natal be expropriated, then I think that power should be granted to the municipality to do so after the Administrator has considered every aspect of the question and given his consent. If the Administrator finds that there is injustice being done to any section of the population, then he will withhold his consent. I think the Minister should reconsider his decision to drop this clause.

I will not detain the House long but I must express my disappointment at the Minister’s decision to withdraw Clause 9. I was looking forward to having this clause in the Bill because it would give the municipalities the right to get hold of certain land for housing. In Lichtenburg and other places too there is difficulty in getting hold of certain land from investment companies which allow those lands to lie idle, and if this clause is not passed the municipalities will not be able to secure that land.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 11,

I move the amendments as printed:

This clause empowers the Commission itself to build houses where necessary, and this proviso has been put in in order to ensure that the needs of town planning are safeguarded and that it will be a necessary prerequisite to such building by the Council that the local town planning authority should be consulted. There is a further amendment on page 10—

That amendment has been put in to make it perfectly clear that the Commission, which will have funds at its disposal, will have to have those funds specially appropriated by Parliament for the purpose. It is put in for the purpose of maintaining Parliamentary control over the expenditure of the Commission.

May I interfere on this Clause? Sub-section (e) of Clause 11 says—

that is the National Housing and Planning Commission—

If you remember, Mr. Chairman, previously my remarks were stopped. In Port Elizabeth we have felt that delays ….

This particular subclause deal with the powers of the Commission, †Mr. McLEAN:: Exactly what I mean. I want the Commission to be able to say to the Townships Board that if a municipality wants a certain procedure to be adopted, a procedure which we in Port Elizabeth consider very successful, and representations are made by the municipality, matters should not be delayed. Quite seriously one of the greatest drawbacks we have found in our housing scheme is this constant delaying of things. Here in Cape Town you have a Council composed partly of technical men ….

Might I suggest to the hon. member that he had better raise this question on the third reading. We are now discussing the details of the Bill and not the principle.

I am sorry, I am a new member and the Lord knows what one must do in this House sometimes.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12, †The MINISTER OF WELFARE AND DEMOBILISATION : I am going to ask the Committee to negative this Clause and substitute the amendment I have on the Order Paper. I move—

This re-draft has been provided in order to maintain that Public Service control which is the practice in all matter of this sort.

Clause 12 put and negatived.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I hope I shall not be ruled out of order this time. I want to move the insertion of the words “with the consent of the local authorities concerned” after the word “consultation.” I move—

I have already spoken on differential renting and if the Minister is quite genuine in his remarks about not wanting to be dictator, if he does not want to force any municipality to adopt this clause, then he will accept my amendment. I have just a little fear that this City of Cape Town may experiment with differential rentals and the Minister may be overcome by the arguments of Cape Town and introduce it in other places. In Port Elizabeth differential renting has not been a success and Port Elizabeth is the only place which has tried it. Let me tell the Minister that rather than carry out this system of differential renting we may delay building houses in Port Elizabeth. We are not prepared to work under such a system and I think that that will apply to practically all the major municipalities. If the platteland wants this system, well they can still have it —any municipality or local authority will still have the power to have differential renting. I hope the Minister will agree to my amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

You don’t look sorry.

I can assure you I am very sorry indeed. I am all the more particularly sorry because I have the happiest recollections of the hospitality extended to me at Port Elizabeth, when the hon. member was Mayor, and if I could repay him I would be only too happy to do so. I have discussed this matter with him, and it is quite clear that the principle of differential renting is fundamental to this Bill. The clause, as now drafted, enables the Minister on a recommendation from the National Housing Commission, which must previously have consulted the local authority, to permit the local authority to institute a system of differential rents. There must be consultation with the local authority before the Commission makes a recommendation, and it is highly unlikely that the Minister would insist on the local authority adopting this system unless there had been consultation and agreement to cooperate. I understand that Cape Town and Johannesburg are prepared to introduce this system, and no attempt will be made to force it on Port Elizabeth, if Port Elizabeth can show that under the existing system it can do its duty. There is a good deal of misunderstanding about what is meant by differential rents. One way of dealing with the system is to have a fixed rent for a number of houses, and then to deal with the matter by a system of rent rebates. It is quite practicable, and I hope my friend will not press his amendment because I think that to do so would hamper the Minister and his officials, stultifying them in their efforts and aim a blow at what is fundamental in the provisions of the Bill.

What are the rent rebates?

Rent rebates, as I understand it, is a deduction from the rent made to a particular tenant, an allowance based on his financial circumstances, possibly the number in his family, the number of his dependants and possibly other circumstances. These are matters which will have to be worked out by the Director of Housing in conjunction with local authorities. I contemplate in the recess the Director of Housing collaborating with representatives of local authorities, and with other Government officials, working out a series of formulae to deal with a series of cases.

When do they come into operation?

Only after the scheme is approved. If my hon. friend’s city council and other city councils wish to build houses, a measure of time will be taken up in the building of the houses, and, when the scheme comes into operation, the system of differential rents can be applied. I can assure the hon. member, and I can assure this House, that there is nothing to fear. We know that the Town Council Of Port Elizabeth has given a great lead to the country in the matter of re-housing its people, and the hon. member should have no fear whatever.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

This Bill makes provision for the establishment of the National Housing and Planning Commission, and it seems perfectly clear that provision has been made to have a fairly representative body, because this is a body which is going to advise the Minister generally with regard to all matters relating to housing. Provision is made that each of the Administrators shall nominate the member, that the Municipal Association shall nominate one, and so on. But it does appear to me there is a little omission. There is a very representative body in the Cape Province, the divisional councils; they operate outside the municipal areas. They carry out practically the same work as the municipality, and they also have a Divisional Council Association. I do think that that body should have a representative on this Board, more particularly when we bear in mind that many of these schemes will have to go beyond the municipal areas and will fall under the scope of the divisional councils. I trust that the Minister will see his way clear to insert a new sub-clause (c). I move—

1. (c) One shall be nominated by the Divisional Council Association of the Cape to represent that Association.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (4) No regulations shall be made under sub-section (3) in regard to allowances payable to members of the council, except after consulation with the Minister of Finance.

I appreciate what the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) has said. It is quite true that in the Cape Province we have the system of divisional councils, which does not exist in the other provinces. I think there is a good deal of force in the hon. member’s contention that, when considering housing as far as it concerns in the Cape Province, we should give representation, not only to the Provincial Municipal Association but also to the Divisional Council Association. I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I wish to move an amendment on page 12 on the same point which I raised the other day in regard to the provision that the Administrator should nominate someone. I move—

I am prepared to accept that.

In regard to the last amendment of the Minister’s he says: “No regulations shall be made under sub-section (3) in regard to allowances payable to members of the Council, except after consultation with the Minister of Finance.” I do not know what the words “after consultation” mean. Would it not be better to say “with the consent of the Minister”? What is the meaning of “after consultation”?

It is a Cabinet matter.

What does “after consultation” mean? Does it mean that one has to go and talk to the Minister, ánd even if he says: “No, I cannot do it” he may yet do it. I should like it to read: “Except with the approval of the Minister of Finance.”

Very well.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining clause and the Title having been agreed to,

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 3rd June.

I should like the Minister to tell the House clearly what his policy is in regard to the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court in respect of their bilingual qualifications. There can be no difference of opinion as to the desirability of the Government’s appointing only judges who are fully bilingual. I deliberately say “fully bilingual” because there are judges who know the one language well, and know the other only slightly, and who, in court, say things which make it clear that they do not understand Afrikaans properly. The cause of justice may suffer seriously as a result. Let me mention one instance which actually occurred in one of our courts. An individual was charged with rape, and the complainant gave her evidence. She was asked in Afrikaans —she was a coloured woman—what her reaction had been when the accused asked her certain questions. She replied that she had said: “I see no opportunity of doing it.” The judge instructed the jury that the fact that she had replied as she had proved that she had been willing, because she said “she saw no opportunity.” In other words, that if there had been an opportunity she would have been willing. The accused was found not guilty on that although that was by no means what the witness had said. Another instance is that of a judge who was trying a case concerning a will. The judge kept on asking: “What about the standing crops?” The barrister replied that there was nothing about standing crops, to which the judge replied that the case dealt with “lewende hawe.” One can mention numerous cases like that but it is absolutely essential for a judge to be as thoroughly bilingual as possible and I want the Minister to give the House the assurance that he will lay it down as his policy that in future only such people will be appointed as judges who are thoroughly bilingual. It is a matter of the utmost importance and a judge who is not bilingual today has no right to sit on the Bench. I am casting no reflections on any judges we have on the Bench today, but the Minister must not appoint any more judges who are not thoroughly bilingual. There is another question I should like to raise, which affects our Higher Courts and that is the question of interpreters. It is getting difficult to get good interpreters for the native languages. We have many good interpreters but it is very difficult to get interpreters who are fully qualified to interpret the native languages in court. It will be necessary for many years to come to get people who are thoroughly conversant with the native languages. If the interpreter doesn’t know the native, if he doesn’t understand the native mode of living and the native idiom, he will often misinterpret the evidencet. I have had experience at circuit courts of farmers in the audience coming to me and saying: “That interpreter has totally misinterpreted the evidence. The native didn’t say anything of the kind.” These farmers knew the native languages thoroughly. We must have good interpreters, and to get good interpreters two things are necessary. First of all the Department must interest itself in the training of interpreters, and secondly, the Department should encourage its officials to learn native languages.

He should be a native.

I quite agree. You often find that the native is a better interpreter than the white man—if you get the right type of native.

In his own language.

To be able to convey what is in the native’s mind or to convey what he says, the interpreter has to know the native well. Some white interpreters are better than, or are just as good as native interpreters, but the Department should interest itself in the training of proper interpreters and I think an extra allowance should be paid to officials who learn the native languages and who qualify in them. Let me tell the Department that more and more difficulty is being experienced in getting the right type of interpreter, and I think the Department should make an attempt to improve the quality.

I want to support what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has said on the question of interpreters and I want to put it more specifically. We have got to have somebody who not only has a theoretical knowledge of the native languages, but who understands the mind of the person whom he is interpreting for. That is the point the hon. member made, and it is a perfectly sound one. I want to put this to the Minister very strongly because I am speaking, not only as one who represents the native people in this House, but one who, like the member for Winburg, has had the experience of dealing with native cases. The only person who really can interpret for the native is a native. I know that, not only from experience in the courts, but from what native people have said to me. Even so far as experience in the court is concerned, any counsel who is putting questions to a witness, either in examination in chief, or in cross-examination, through an interpreter can see perfectly well whether what he is putting is really being translated to the witness, whether the witness really knows what is being put to him. I put it to the Minister seriously that native interpreters should be used in our courts to interpret the native languages. I don’t say anything against European interpreters, many of them have a wide knowledge of the native languages, but so much depends on idiom, and the way in which the questions are put, and the spirit in which the question is put. It may be said that I am appealing for a special job for the people that I represent, but I am not putting this matter in that spirit, but in the interests of the natives and in the interests of the judges. The man who can fulfil the qualification that the hon. member for Winburg so rightly savs should be the qualification of an interpreter, is a native—a man of the witness’ or the accused person’s own race, a man who has grown up speaking the language and not a man who has learnt it at school or has picked it up as a little child from his nurse. That is not the same thing at all. I know the Minister is sympathetic on this point and I know particularly in regard to the magistrate’s court he has been in touch with the University College at Fort Hare which trains interpreters, and I know he has concerned himself about this question. This question applies also to the superior courts, and in a way, more so. I say that from my comparatively short experience, but I am certain I am right about this. Many native people tell me that the proper person to interpret for a native when he is on trial, or when he is a witness, is a person of his own race. As the member for Winburg has said, the interpreter should be somebody who has the spirit of the language. The hon. member for Winburg is an Afrikaner, and we have Afrikaans interpreters in our courts. I am sure the hon. member would resent it if when one of his people was in the witness box, or on trial, some English-speaking person was the interpreter. I do not want to appeal to the Minister that whatever complications may arise in the public service, or whatever academic qualifications may be required, I do appeal to him that when a native is accused in the courts, or when he goes into the witness box to defend himself, he should have one of his own race to interpret for him. I am not concerned with academic qualifications or what the University says, I know from my own experience, that a man of African race can best help an African accused to put his defence before the court and I ask the Minister to give the accused person the benefit of having a man of his own race to interpret for him. I ask this in the interests of justice.

With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) I do think that I have more experience of native court cases than he has. For years I travelled through the Transkei on Circuit Courts. I agree that in certain circumstances it is advisable to have a native interpreter, but I have seen native interpreters who are very inefficient, and the reason for their inefficiency is, that although they have the required knowledge of the language, they have not the necessary mental development to enable them to interpret. The Minister, I am sure, will agree with me that interpreting is a difficult task and that it is particularly difficult to reflect the spirit of a witness’s statement. It is one thing to translate and quite another thing to interpret. In the Eastern Districts Court we had a white interpreter who had grown up among the natives and understood them thoroughly. I do not want it to be laid down as a general rule that the interpreters should only be natives. The main point with which I want to deal concerns the Eastern Districts Court at Grahamstown. I take a particular interest in that court because I was conneced with it for years, first as Judge’s Registrar and afterwards while practising there as a barrister. The Eastern Districts Court at Grahamstown is one of the oldest Divisions in the country, possibly nearly as old as the Cape Town Supreme Court. The Eastern Districts Court is meeting a real need. The Eastern Districts are far away from Cape Town, and it would cost the parties and witnesses in court cases a tremendous lot of money if they had to come all the way from East London, from Queenstown and from other places for their cases to be heard here in Cape Town. So it is an important court and the court’s jurisdiction covers a very wide area. But that is not all. What makes that division of the Supreme Court important is the fact that prominent towns and centres come under the jurisdiction of the court. For instance, there are Port Elizabeth and East London, there are Grahamstown, Queenstown, Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, Kingwilliamstown—all big centres. I think that with the exception of Cape Town there are bigger and more important centres within the jurisdiction of the Eastern Districts Court than there there are within the jurisdiction of the Cape Supreme Court. It is understandable in the circumstances that the Eastern Province people and more particularly the legal practitioners, the advocates and attorneys, are anxious to see the court maintain its status. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the court’s status is to a very great extent determined by the man in charge of the court—I refer to the Judge President. If there was one man, for instance, who maintained the Status of the Eastern Districts Court on a high level, it was the former Judge President, Sir Thomas Graham, the man whose name even today is held in very high respect in the Eastern Province. The point I want to raise is that of the recent appointment of Judge President of the Eastern Districts Court. The information I have is to the effect that there is serious dissatisfaction with the appointment among members of the Bar at Grahamstown, and also members of the Side Bar; and not merely among members of the Side Bar at Grahamstown, but even at places like Port Elizabeth and East London. What is particularly important however, is that, according to my information, representations were addressed to the Minister of Justice several months ago on behalf of both the Bar and the Side Bar. I do not wish to say anything about the qualifications or otherwise of the person who has been appointed. The representations were made to the Minister some considerable time ago, personally as well as by correspondence. Copies of the letter addressed to the Minister were sent to every member of the Cabinet. This letter was written on the 14th March, 1944. It was a long letter but it amounts to this that the Bar as well as the Side Bar expressed themselves very strongly about the forthcoming appointment of a Judge President of the Eastern Districts Court. The letter is signed by a prominent legal practitioner at Grahamstown, as well as by every member of the Bar with two exceptions. It is also signed by every firm of attorneys in Grahamstown. The Minister and members of the Cabinet must have realised that these were serious representations. I realise that the appointment of a Judge is a matter which rests with the Minister and the Cabinet; I do not know to what extent the Cabinet was consulted. I want to point out, however, that we are dealing here with special conditions without precedent in the history of legal practice in South Africa; in that the Bar and the Side Bar in the seat of the Division have made serious representations, first verbally and later in writing to the Minister on the subject of an appointment to the Judiciary. In such special circumstances the Minister should give serious consideration to the representations made to him. One does not like raising a matter of this kind in the House and it may possibly be asked why I have raised it. I have done so in the first place because I am a former practising advocate of that court and I was Registrar of several of the Judges there for a long time. But there is a second reason. Together with the copy of the letter sent to the Cabinet, an accompanying letter was sent to me and that letter shows the reasons why I am raising the matter here. It is a letter from a prominent legal practitioner there and he writes that he has asked certain hon. members of this House to approach the Minister about the matter, but that they had failed to do anything in that respect. That is the reason why I am taking this up, and I feel that the Minister owes an explanation to the members of the Bar and the members of the Side Bar at Grahamstown as to why in this important matter, affecting the whole position of the Eastern Districts Court, no notice has been taken of their representations. It is certainly an unusual occurrence, probably an unprecedented one, for the whole Bar with two exceptions, and the whole Side Bar to make representations to the Government regarding a judicial appointment. I further would like to point out that the Bar asked the Minister to appoint someone from outside, and that they were particularly emphatic in their request for a younger man. They pointed out to the Minister that the average age of the Judges on the Grahamstown Bench was 60 years and 6 months today. They therefore wanted fresh blood and if possible a new man from somewhere else. The Minister has taken no notice of these representations and they are worried about the future of their court. [Time limit.]

I think it advisable to reply to this point at once. I merely wish to say in so far as the last point is concerned that about a year, or a little more than a year ago, representations were made to me about the vacancy which would occur. They were very strong representations, and it was urged that when the vacancy arose it should not be filled by someone from outside. I said that as far as my recommendation was concerned I thought that if the Eastern Districts Bar had a man who was competent enough for the appointment he should be appointed.

Are you talking now of the Judge-President or of an Additional Judge?

I am talking about the vacancy which would be created by the resignation of the Judge-President. Representations were made to me, strong representations, that nobody should be appointed from outside. Afterwards, however, they changed their attitude and this letter was sent. I said that they could make representations to me personally but this circular letter was sent to members of the Cabinet. Representations by the Bar and the Side Bar would of course receive serious consideration, but other people were also consulted. I need not say who were consulted. The Judges and one Judge-President were consulted and I was astonished afterwards to hear that representations had been made that we should rather get in someone from outside. I therefore had conflicting representations; first of all the Judge was not to be brought in from outside, afterwards he was to be brought in from outside. It is undesirable to go too deeply into this question. The representations have been considered and Col. Gardner has been appointed. He has practised there for many years and I believe he has acted as Acting Judge on five occaions; he is a man who is thoroughly bilingual and he complies with all the requirements and I regarded him as a desirable man to appoint, and after consideration he was appointed

As Judge-President?

No as Judge.

I wasn’t speaking about that.

We cannot just take a man from the Bar and appoint him as Judge-President. That is self-evident. A Judge had to be appointed and the first representations we received were in favour of not appointing somebody from outside. Subsequently they changed their tune. But I do not want to go into that any further. The Judge-President who has now been appointed, has repeatedly during the last three years acted as Acting Judge-President, as Judge Lansdowne was appointed on a number of commissions of enquiry. We appointed Col. Gardner as a Judge, and it followed of necessity that Judge Pittman should be appointed as Judge-President. He is an able man and he has been Acting Judge-President for about three years.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter which has struck me of late while on circuit. Last March I was on circuit at Oudtshoorn, and also at Knysna and I found that at each of these courts the ordinary number of members of the jury had been summoned and when they got their jury fees they found that they were short. Their expenses, their travelling expenses and their subsistence were much higher than their fees. At Knysna, for instance, people had come from Wittedrift and Keurbooms River, a distance of 30 and 40 miles. They had to pay the ordinary board and lodging charges in the town, from 12s. to 15s. per day and they were hopelessly short. I notice on this vote that the amount of or fees to jurymen and expenses in connection with the framing of jury lists is £300 less than last year. I don’t know why that should be. It is unfair that these people should have to stand these losses. But there is another aspect of the matter as well. I was appearing in a case where the Crown had summoned a witness from the Uniondale district. He was told to be at Uniondale on a certain day. He had to travel about 20 miles at his own expense, and from Uniondale he was taken to Oudtshoorn. When he arrived there a long case was in progress which lasted about three or four days; the man had to pay his subsistence there and the fee he received did not make up his expenses. These people should not have to stand the racket. There is another point I would like to raise. I notice that Judge Blackwell has also referred to it. One finds that there is only one case to be tried by a jury and that 27 people are subpoenaed for the jury. I know that if the first jury does not agree, the case has to be retried by another jury. We had a case at Knysna recently. It was a murder case, and the jury could not agree. The case was referred back to the Attorney-General because the Judge had already told the other members of the jury to go home. The Minister should give his attention to a matter of this kind, and if there is only one criminal case to go to the jury, only nine people should be summoned.

I think I can shorten the discussion by saying that this matter is already receiving attention and that it will be fully gone into during the recess.

With regard to the Minister’s reply it seems that there is a misunderstanding about the representations made to him. I do not know when the representations were made to the Minister about the appointment of an ordinary judge. It is clear, however, that the Minister was approached as long ago as last September about the appointment of a Judge-President. As far as I know there is no objection to the appointment of Judge Gardner. The whole question at issue is that the Bar and the Side Bar want the status of the Eastern Districts Court to be maintained at a high level, and in order to ensure this they want a strong man to be appointed as Judge-President. Whatever representations may have been made to the Minister in the past, it appears from this letter that both the Bar and the Side Bar have made representations to the Minister about the appointment of the JudgePresident. Whatever previous representations may have been made to the Minister, this letter should have made the Minister realise that something must have happened in the meantime to cause the Bar and the Side Bar to change their attitude. I want to remind the Minister of the recommendations contained in this letter—

This letter continues—but I had better not read it now. It is clear, however, that serious representations were made to the Minister. Whatever representations may have been made in the past it is clear that there has been a change of opinion. The point I want to make is that these important representations cancel out the former representations. That is the point I want to make. I want to point out that two more vacancies will arise in the near future, namely, that of Judge Gane and possibly of Judge Gutsche. The part of the letter which I do not want to read deals with that and the Minister will appreciate why I don’t want to do so. These people writing this letter not only expressed their displeasure about the appointment which has already been made, but they expressed serious concern about future appointments. I want to avail myself of this opportunity of pointing out to the Minister that he has the opportunity now of restoring the status of the Eastern Districts Court to what it was before. The Eastern Districts Court has played a glorious part in the past. The Minister can restore the court to its previous status by making the right appointments in future and I hope he will pay due attention to the representations made by the Bar and the Side Bar.

I do not wish to hold up this vote unduly, but there is a matter I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister, and I would like to get a statement of his general policy in regard to it. It has become the practice in this country to appoint judges of the Supreme Court as chairmen of commissions; whenever a commission is appointed by this House, the House is assured that the chairman of the commission will be a judge. I have had, on various occasions, to express my disagreement with the policy of using civil servants in various capacities for which I do not think they are trained. I wish to take this opportunity to express my conviction in general that judges are not the most suitable persons for the sort of commissions this House appoints. I would like to know whether the Minister is responsible for releasing judges for this purpose, and therefore to that extent responsible for the policy of using judges. I have not the slightest objection to the use of judges on commissions where the function of the commission is of a legal kind, where the business of the chairman of the commission is to see that the scales are held equally in a sifting of the facts in which judicial training and a judicial mind are of the first importance. I am fully persuaded from my own experience and, I may say, my own reasoning, that in investigations of a purely social kind there is not only no specific value in having a judge as chairman, but there are certain disadvantages in having a judge as chairman. I refer to the sort of commission which the Government customarily appoints, that is a commission which is designed to decide what shall be the general lines of the social policy of the country. In that regard I claim that the judge is as ill-qualified to give the sort of decision which will guide the community soundly, as the civil servant is to lay down lines of general policy. I have in mind more particularly, as an example of this sort, the recent Mine Wages Commission.

Hear, hear.

I do not know why the Government decided to appoint a commission in that regard instead of placing the subject at issue in the hands of the Wage Board, which has had the experience necessary to deal with this matter. But on that occasion the possible weaknesses, shall I say, of legal training, in conducting what was in effect a social and industrial investigation, were glaringly apparent, and were challenged in this House quite recently by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). That investigation into the ability or otherwise of the mining industry to pay a living wage to its employees, was in fact conducted like a court of law, with an inevitable bias in favour of those who were best able to organise their evidence on a large scale, that is the representation of big business, with an equal bias against the weaker side. In actual fact, commissions involving questions of policy are not matters for judicial findings as between one party and another. They are a matter in which the decision at issue is the trend of general opinion and the speed with which it is prepared to move. The whole background of such a commission is social and not legal at all, and there are definite dangers, in my opinion, in leaving a decision of that kind to the legal mind, particularly in so far as that legal mind has usually progressed through a protected state in society. I put it this way, the sort of person who achieves eminence on the Bench is a person who has had every advantage of education and opportunity, and whose contact with life, in so far as it has involved the difficulties of the poorer section of the community, has been in the capacity of a person judging the extent to which the poorer person has become involved with the law. It is an entirely different sort of background and training from, that which is necessary to judge the social factors in the case, and it is on that ground I object to the use of lawyers in these cases. On every occasion in recent years when we have been promised a commission in this House, it does not matter what the field of commission is, the Minister says: One thing I shall promise you, we shall have a judge. And the moment he says that my heart sinks; let me make it quite clear, not because I have not the most implicit faith in the judges of this country in the capacity for which they are trained, and in the office they have achieved, but since my own work brings me into contact with the social problems of this country, I know only too well how the experience and the training of the judge normally does not give him the sort of experience that is necessary to judge these social problems. I trust that the Minister will exercise his responsibility in the Government to decide when and where a judge is a socially satisfactory person to lead a commission, and only on those occasions when he is completely satisfied that the range of the commission is within the capacity and training of the judge, will he agree to release a judge for the purposes of the commission. I hope that he will give me an assurance on this matter, that in future we shall draw the chairmen of our commissions not from the Bench with its own tradition in its own sphere, but that we shall draw them with a view to the functions they are called to exercise and the capacity they have to fill.

I want to give the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) the assurance that what she has just said will receive full and due consideration. I must also say that I largely agree with the opinion she has expressed that it is not desirable to have judges on all commissions. That is not the policy of the Government; it is only when there are very special factors and circumstances. I myself always oppose, as much as possible, the appointment of a judge, because it naturally makes it difficult as far as the courts are concerned, and I think in future, as I have said, it will be only in very special circumstances and practically when—I won’t say when it is essential—but when it is very necessary. I want to give the hon. member for Cape Eastern that assurance. As far as concerns the remarks made by the hon. member for Beaufort Wset, I agree that the court should be built up.

Is the Minister annoyed with me or is he sleepy, or why does he ignore the questions I have asked him?

I beg the hon. member’s pardon. It is the Government’s policy if it is at all possible to appoint bilingual judges.

I don’t like the words “if it is at all possible.”

Only in exceptional cases will it not be done. I am prepared to go further than that and to say that if there are competent people who are bilingual they will be appointed because that is the policy.

What had become of that policy when a member of Parliament was recently appointed, or do you regard him as bilingual? ….

Yes, I think he is bilingual.

Is he adequately bilingual? He will not be able to charge a jury in Afrikaans, and it is no use if he can only read Afrikaans.

I think he will be able to do that.

It is essential.

I admit that judges after all these years of Union should be properly bilingual, and it would be very exceptional for us to appoint anyone who is not thoroughly bilingual. I hope hon. members will not press this point any further, because it is our policy to appoint bilingual judges. I think our last appointment was that of a bilingual man. The members of the Bar who were practising before Union are few in number today—that is to say those who can be considered for appointment to the Bench. I think hon. members should be satisfied with my assurance that wherever possible we shall appoint people who are thoroughly bilingual,

I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is in regard to the Supreme Court in Pretoria. I have been asked to urge the Minister to appoint an additional judge. The barristers contend that the Roll is sometimes so overloaded that appeal cases especially sometimes hang on for weeks and weeks before they can be heard. I made a request to the Minister at the beginning of the Session. It is contended that the Roll is overloaded and that it is most unfair to the parties concerned, and that the time has arrived for an additional judge to be appointed. I should like to know whether the Minister has given his attention to these representations and what he is going to do.

Before the Minister replies I would ask him again to reply to my remarks about interpreters. The point I want to make in that connection is that it is not a question of the public service or of what jobs can be found for members of that service, this is a pure question of justice. A native accused knows, from his own experience, that a person of his own race is the best interpreter. I want also to support what the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has said on the question of the chairmanship of commissions. Nobody has a higher regard for the Supreme Court Bench of this country than I have, but I do say it is a mistake to appoint a member of the Bench of the Supreme. Court to preside over a commission concerned with questions of policy and of a controversial nature. The tradition of the Bench is to find facts and to make decisions upon matters that are questions of either fact or law, and not questions of policy of a highly controversial character. For a judge of the Supreme Court Bench to deal with such controversial matters is going to undermine the prestige of the Bench in this country. I am glad to hear the Minister say he will not appoint Supreme Court judges as chairmen of commissions concerned with these controversial matters of a social and political character which are not connected with questions of fact.

As far as interpreters are concerned, I admit that the first essential is perfect ability in interpretation. That should be the chief consideration. The difficulty is that there are many places where this is not a full-time job. We are, however, in touch with Fort Hare, and where it is possible, we are going to appoint people from there. But I don’t want to put it entirely on a racial basis, the first essential is ability to interpret. Due consideration will be given to the remarks which have been made.

*Regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) the matter is being enquired into and the question whether it is necessary to appoint an additional judge is being investigated.

Vote No. 39.—“Superior Courts,” as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 40.—“Magistrates and District Administration,” £819,700, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :