I move—

Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, last year I introduced the Children’s Guardianship Bill. That Bill went to a Select Committee after the first reading. The Bill which I am introducing to the House today is that drafted by this Select Committee. It is frankly, in my view not so good a Bill as that of last year, but I have adopted it because I do feel that it nevertheless represents a considerable advance on the present position. For that reason, firstly then, and secondly because if it does nothing else it does clarify a section of our law which is very badly in need of clarification, I am moving this Bill to deal for a moment with the present position, let me remind the House that in relation to the children of a marriage the father is the sole guardian of his children. He is the only one who has any rights over the children, as to their custody and their education, and while both parents, both the father and the mother, are obliged to maintain them, the mother equally with the father, the mother too, if necessary, having to go out to work for the support of the children, the fact remains that in the eyes of the law the father has the sole say and has the sole right of guardianship even if, from the mother’s point of view, his actions are not in the best interests of the children, and even if the mother feels sure that he is acting unwisely, and even if in the latter case she attempts to invoke the upper guardianship of the Supreme Court she will be me with the reply according to an Appellate Division case, that short of any action on the part of the father which is deleterious to the health and morals of the children, the court will not interfere save in matrimonial proceedings. Well, that is a very undesirable state of affairs and this Bill represents an improvement on that position because it does give the mother the right to invoke the aid of the courts at any time on any matter affecting the guardianship or the custody or the maintenance of the children, whether in the course of matrimonial proceedings or not. To that extent there is a considerable advance. Further it does lay down also a principle which should be enshrined in our law, as it is in the laws of most civilised countries, namely that when the powers of the courts are invoked by either the father or the mother, then the court shall adopt only one principle and only one test in dealing with the position; and that test should be not whether the father has the better right, or whether the mother has the better right, but simply what is the best interests of the children. That is the sound principle which this Bill lays down, and to that extent, too, it is a very great advance on the present position. I know that I shall be met by the lawyers, with the remark But that is the present position. Well, Sir, my answer to that is that it is not always the present position. At the moment there are three lines of thought which prevail in the courts in all matters affecting children. There is firstly the father’s prior right of guardianship. That is laid down in the Appellate Division case of Calitz vs. Calitz, (1939 A.D.), a case where even though the child was a litle girl of 2½ years, nevertheless because the mother had lost her case, the Appeal Court felt that the father’s prior right of guardianship should be considered father than the best interests of the child and so reversed the decision of the Lower Court and took the child from the mother. That is one line of thought. Another line of decisions is that which follows the Appellate Division case of Cook vs. Cook, which lays down that where in a divorce one party is innocent the court shall rather favour the innocent party when it comes to awarding the custody of the child to one spouse. That is another line of thought, and finally the third line of thought is that the courts should consider what is in the best interests of the children. Now, Sir, I am not content that there should be three clear lines of decision on a topic of such importance as this. It seems to me that in the interests of the future generation, in the interests of the citizens to be, this House, as the Supreme Court of the land, should lay down once and for all that our courts, when considering any matter affecting children should disregard who is right and disregard who is guilty. The courts should disregard whether the question of the children arises out of a matrimonial dispute or whether it does not. The courts should clearly lay down that whenever the aid of the courts is invoked the interests of the children should be the first and paramount consideration. And that is the great advantage of this Bill, that it does lay that down clearly and unequivocally. It does not say that it should be the sole consideration but it does say that it should be the first consideration, and I cannot believe that there will be any members of this House who will cavil at a principle of that nature. Now, that is the one advance which it makes, but it does go on also to say and to lay down also another important principle. As the law stands at present the father’s sole right of guardianship goes so far that even if he has been deprived of the custody of the children by the courts and even if he has left his wife and children, he alone has the right to appoint a guardian over these children by his will. And so far does our law go on that particular point that I have myself had a case, which I quoted to the House last year, but which is worth quoting again because it goes to show the lengths to which our law still goes. It is a case in which the father, who had left his wife by whom he had three legitimate children, and was living with another woman, nevertheless by his will appointed his mistress as the guardian of his children. To such lengths does our common law allow the father to go. I for one am extremely doubtful whether if that case had been tried in a full court, the court would have given the mother the guardianship of the child that had been taken away from her by the father. And those who doubt that the father’s sole right to appoint a guardian is still our law, I would refer to a case that was recently heard in our Transvaal Court, so recently as not yet to appear in the law reports. In that case the father had, by his will, appointed someone else not the mother as guardian of his child, and the courts held that the father had the right to do so. There is another case which goes further; here our courts have ruled that where the mother has been given the custody of the child by the Supreme Court—the mother having divorced the father—even in a case like that where the father has not been found a suitable person to have the custody of the children, the mother has no right to make a will and appoint another person as guardian of the children. Our law being in that state then that the father is always appointed the guardian by will and that the mother is never entitled, even if a competent court has given her the custody to appoint a guardian, my view is that it is time the law was altered. The Select Committee having considered that, has also inserted into the Bill a clause where under if one of the parents dies the surviving parent becomes automatically the guardian of the children, provided that that parent has not lost the guardianship by the decision of a competent court. The Bill goes on to say that the mother no less than the father may appoint a guardian of her children under a will. The House will observe then that there is nothing very revolutionary about the Bill. It does not, as my former Bill did, give complete equality between father and mother over the children, which is what I would have preferred, but it does nevertheless mean a considerable advance on the present impossible and anomalous position. It is a clarifying Bill more than a revolutionary Bill, and I hope that this House will accept it with the minimum of opposition. It is a very small measure of social justice that the women of this country ask for, that they should have some control, some rights over the children they have brought into the world. It is a Bill, I may say, and I say it with confidence, behind which stands every woman in this country, Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking alike. To the Select Committee and to members of the House telegrams came and letters came from all sections of the community, and from every women’s organisation, supporting this Bill. The women in this country feel very strongly about it. They feel that the time is ripe indeed, overripe, that they should have some say over their children and I feel the House will be doing no more than the right and just thing if they accept this Bill as it stands.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has just told the House that last year, when the matter was before the Select Committee, letters supporting this Bill were received from all parts of the country, especially from women’s associations. I was a member of that Select Committee and what struck me was that the women of South Africa were not interested in this measure, with the exception of the National Council of Women.

That is not true.

The National Council of Women and one or two other minor women’s associations supported it, but the large Afrikaans movements, like the Vroue Landbou Vereeniging, which busies itself with social activities in this country, especially in the Cape, and also the A.C.V.V., the Oranje Vroue Vereeniging, the Natalse Vroue Federasie ….

Tell us about the Broederbond.

From none of these associations did we ascertain that this Bill was regarded as so very important. This matter was before the Select Committee last year and after the Select Commitee had thoroughly investigated the matter, the Select Committee whittled it down to practically nil, except in this one respect that the husband would have the exclusive right to determine by way of testamentary act who. Would be the guardian of his children. That is the only portion that remained standing in this Bill as it is now being submitted, but all the other provisions of this Bill are already contained in our common law. If one studies Clauses 2, 3 and 4, one will find that it is in fact part of our existing legal system. It is very difficult to alter the common law of a country especially in cases where certain rules have been laid down over the years by decisions of the Supreme Court in connection with such an important matter, a matter which is brought before the courts daily; and the hon. member for Jeppes knows just as well as I do that never in the history of our courts were the courts loath, as the upper guardian of the child, to listen to the mother when the courts considered that the father exercised his guardianship over the children in an undesirable manner. Never have our courts refused to do this. The hon. member for Jeppes pretends that that case of Calitz Vs. Calitz in fact does not meet the circumstances, that it is not far-reaching enough. She says that it only deals with life and health, but there is one important thing which she forgot to stress, namely that the moral sphere is also included. In that case the judge reviewed the decisions arrived at through the years in our courts. He reviewed the law from its origins and showed its development from the time of Grotius until today, and the legal position was clarified in the case of Cook vs. Cook by Judge Van der Heever, who is now a judge in the Free State, and this is how the headnote reads in the case of Calitz vs. Caltiz—

This is a very important decision and that is what the hon. member did not stress. In the case of Cook vs. Cook, decided in 1937, the mother, who was the guilty party, wanted the guardianship of her children, and she said that she could look after the children much better than the father, because her father was a wealthy man residing in Pretoria with a beautiful home and large playgrounds, and that she could look after the children better. The husband, however, who occupied a minor post but nevertheless had an income large enough to enable him to make proper provision for the children and to give them a proper education, satisfied the judge that he could give the children the usual upbringing, that he could exercise the usual supervision over the children, and the court decided that he should retain the guardianship of the children. It is only under exceptional circumstances, under very exceptional circumstances, when a father or mother applies for the maintenance of the children, that the court will not agree to that, but generally the court awards the custody and the maintenance of the children to one parent, with reasonable access to the other. I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppes and all those who may support her to prove to me that the provisions contained in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are not part of our common law, and that the matter has not been decided time and again in our courts; and I am of opinion that it is unnecessary for the House to concern itself further about this matter. I now come to Clause 5 of this Bill. Clause 5 of this Bill deals with this matter to which the hon. member drew the attention of the House in connection with the case where the husband, having been divorced from the wife, and custody having been granted to the wife, can nevertheless, by way of a testamentary act, determine who the guardian should be. That is what she said. Then she wants the Administration of Estates Act to be amended. What is contained in the Administration of Estates Act? The hon. member wants Clause 71 amended. Clause 71 of Act No. 24 of 1913 reads as follows—

Here I want to draw the attention of the House to the contents of Sub-clause (c)—

As soon as the court awards the custody to the mother, the mother can by way of testamentary act determine who shall be her successor, who shall be the guardian. That is a provision of this Bill. It is not stipulated in this Bill that this right will revert to the father. May I read the English text to the House.—

The right is given to her—

She then has the right to determine by her Will who her successor shall be, and the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) will remember that this was the only trouble we had when we considered this matter last year. We felt that when the father died the mother should be the guardian. That is also in accordance with our law. If the father does not determine by Will beforehand who the guardian shall be, then the mother is the guardian if he dies, and the hon. member for Jeppes cannot deny that fact. In my opinion this whole Bill is unnecessary. The hon. member says that it clarifies the position. It is not worth-while considering this Bill because adequate provision has already been made in our common law in connection with the matter and because there is absolute clarity, especially after the decision in the case of Cook vs. Cook and the case of Calitz vs. Calitz. And may I remind the House again of the passage I quoted last year from the case of Calitz vs. Calitz, on page 64—

Those “exceptional cases” are then mentioned—amongst other matters morals are referred to. Whenever the mother or anyone interested in this child comes to the conclusion that the guardianship over the child is not being carried out satisfactorily, they can go to the court and ask the court to alter the order, and the hon. member for Jeppes knows that when the custody and maintenance are awarded by the court to the mother or to the father, the court always includes in its Order—“Provided that on reasonable causes being shown they can return to court for an amendment of that Order.” That is the general practice and I cannot understand why we should waste all the time of the House in order to pass this Bill. A promise has however been made to a certain body and the hon. member for Jeppes intends to satisfy that body. If she wants to be honest she must admit that the legal position has already been covered; the father is the guardian and in case the father does not by his testamentary act determine who the guardian shall be after his decease, then the mother is the guardian, and if the court has decided that the mother will be the guardian in any particular case, then the mother has the right to determine by way of testamentary act who shall be the guardian; and any mother who under these circumstances comes to the conclusion that the guardianship over her children is being improperly excercised, or that the children are being subject to wrong influences, has the right to come to court and apply for an amendment of the Order, which is a general provision in any decree of divorce. The exceptions are mentioned here—

For these reasons I think it is unnecessary to proceed with this Bill. Sufficient provision has already been made in our common law. If this Bill is placed on our Statute Book there will be further litigation in order to clear up certain points and in order to ascertain in how far this Bill fits in with the common law or differs from the common law, and I am of opinion that this course will lead to all kinds of trouble. The relationship between the husband and the wife as regards guardianship has been stabilised over many years, and I may say that South Africa is not the only exception in having such a law. Scotland has such a law. In 1931 they had such a law; and even in England the laws were amended to give greater effect to the guardianship of the husband than had been the case in the past. Even there a process of equalisation as between husband and wife existed, but a change was made recently to restore the status of the head of the family to what it had been in the past, and for those reasons I think the House should not pass this Bill.

As the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has already said, this is in effect a new Bill. It is not even built on the foundations of the old Bill. I would be inclined to go further and say it does not even embody the principle of the old Bill. The principle of the Bill which was introduced last Session, Mr. Speaker, was expressed very shortly in the second clause. It was to the effect that wives should stand on the same footing as husbands with respect to the guardianship, custody and so forth of their children; that clause does not appear in the present Bill. No similar clause has taken its place, so that the principle it embodied has to all intents and purposes disappeared. As I see the present Bill a new principle has taken its place. The new principle, as I understand it, is this, that whenever a matter of custody or guardianship comes before the courts, the courts may, in fact shall, put the rights of the father, and for that matter the rights of the mother, in the second place and shall put the interests and the welfare of the children in the first place. That seems to me to be the governing principle of the present Bill. It is perfectly true that the main object of the Bill which was introduced last Session was to protect the interests of the children, but that object was sought to be achieved in the last Bill by the method of placing men and women on the same footing. This Bill has the same object, but it seeks to achieve it without going nearly so far. The principle of this Bill, as I read it, is not nearly so advanced as the principle of the last one. In particular, I want to emphasise that it leaves the rights of fathers absolutely untouched. This Bill is not an attack on the rights of fathers as the natural guardians of their children. It leaves those rights absolutely untouched save in circumstances in which to pay attention to those rights might be harmful to the interests of the children. It does no more than that. So such members of this House as may have felt that one should not unduly tamper with principles long established in our common law, will I hope reflect that the tampering in this case is of a very modest character. We are scarcely touching the principle at all. In all ordinary circumstances the rights of fathers remain as they were. It is only in rare cases where a conflict arises between the interests of the child and the rights of the father, that this Bill will come into operation. Surely that is a very desirable principle to adopt. In fact, so desirable is that principle, that I feel one need waste no time in seeking to persuade the House about it. I do not believe that argument against the Bill comes from that quarter. It comes rather, if one may judge from the remarks of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) from the quarter that we do not need this Bill, that it is an unnecessary Bill. That seems to be the argument that the promoter has to meet. It is said that as our common law stands at present, it is quite unnecessary to modify in any way the rule that has come down to us from Roman times, namely, the right of guardianship of thé children resting with the father. I want to address myself to that argument, and to try and persaude the House that although, as the hon. member for Jeppes said, the change is not going to be a revolutionary one or a very radical one, it none the less is a change, and a desirable change, in the right direction ; and if the House is satisfied that a change is desirable. I imagine that we shall not hesitate to interfere with rules or precedent, no matter how long established. One quite recognises that one does not want to introduce unnecessary Bills, to introduce unnecessary legislation, or to tamper with the common law, more than is required. But if I may just make this observation about the common law. Broadly speaking, developing as it does by virtue of precedent, it moves with the times. Broadly speaking it adjusts itself to changed circumstances from generation to generation. But every now and then the common law, reposing as it does on precedent, is hidebound, necessarily and unavoidably hidebound by precedent, and it is at this stage that the Legislature’s proper function is to intervene. If this Bill is passed it will not be the first occasion upon which the Legislature has intervened in order to bring the common law up to date, and that is precisely what, in my submission, the Bill will do; it will bring the common law up to date. One is challenged with this proposition, that the common law, as it stands today, is perfectly satisfactory, that the important clauses of the Bill are to all intents and purposes incorporated in the common law. It will probably be wearisome for the House if the hon. member for Gordonia and myself were to embark on a legal argument. I can only say I do not agree with the hon. member for Gordonia as to what the present position is, for, as I see it,—I shall put it as briefly as I can—the present position of the common law is this: When a matter of guardianship or custody comes before the court, the court seeks to apply what are in effect, two conflicting principles. The first principle is the principle of the father’s rights, an old principle dating back to Roman times. The second principle, the one which the hon. member emphasises, is the principle that the courts are the upper guardians of children and can in all circumstances see to it that children’s rights and their welfare are preserved. Now, Mr. Speaker, I quite concede that in the great majority of cases those two principles do not come into conflict. Numerous cases come before the court where it is perfectly easy to reconcile and harmonise those two principles, but that they are conflicting principles is perfectly plain. It is perfectly clear that they will always conflict whenever the rights of the father, if granted to him, will operate in a way contrary to the welfare of the child. These cases are rare. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has however drawn attention to one or two cases where it has happened, so that the conflict persists, and that conflict contains dangers within it. There is no escape from the proposition that there is conflict when you have two equal principles, principles of equal weight and authority, operating one against the other, and until you resolve that conflict you will aways have the danger. The hon. member says that the courts have in the past had no difficulty in resolving this conflict. He cites a case or two to establish it. Mr. Speaker, we can go on citing cases for a long time. As I remarked when I had the privilege of supporting the Bill during the last Session, the decided cases are very conflicting, and you find passages in one case which you have the greatest difficulty in reconciling with passages in another. But let me at all events give the hon. member one quotation which does not support his contention, a passage from the same case to which he referred, Cook vs. Cook. This was a statement of the law which was adopted by the Appellate Division—

There straight away you have the conflict. You have to weigh two imponderable factors, the interests of the children and the interests of the parents. In that case the rights of the mother to the custody of the children were in question. But the principle was the same, so I Will suggest that if we are going to remove that conflict and make it perfectly clear for the future that in all cases of this sort the interest of the children are to predominate, we must pass this Bill. There is one other aspect of the matter. This conflict of principle to which I have referred has in the past given a great deal of difficulty to the courts. It has obliged the courts not only to weigh up these difficult and imponderable factors against one another, but it has also involved the courts in a good deal of research into ancient authorities, they have had to ascertain, according to these ancient authorities, what are the rights of the father and what are the rights of the mother, and finally, they have to bring into the picture the interests of the children. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) last Session said that the Bill which was then introduced would be a paradise for the lawyers. I believe on the contrary that the common law as it is today is a paradise for the lawyer. One has only to plod through, as I have endeavoured to plod through, and as probably the hon. member has done himself, the innumerable cases which were decided in these matters to realise that if a paradise for lawyers is a sphere of law in which lengthy and expensive litigation can take place, the common law, as it at present stands, is such a paradise for lawyers. Moreover, although it may be a paradise for lawyers, it is not so for the judges. For them it is a jungle full of old wood, which should be cut out in order that we may see clearly where the path through that jungle lies. And that is the very thing which this Bill seeks to do. Mr. Speaker, one other point was made by the hon. member for Gordonia. He says that the women of South Africa, the Afrikaans-speaking women of South Africa, have said nothing in favour of this Bill. Does he wish us to infer that they are against it? He has produced nothing to indicate that whatsoever. One has no reason whatever to suppose that the Afrikaans-speaking women’s associations are against this Bill. If they were, presumably they would have taken the same active interest in it that the other women’s associations did.

Were they consulted?

No, I understand that they have done nothing during this Session, at any rate, to indicate that they oppose the Bill. They know, the same as anyone else knows that it is being put forward. I have been trying Sir to meet the one argument which seems to me to have any validity whatever in regard to this Bill, but the hon. member for Gordonia has said nothing against this Bill, in fact, except that it is unnecessary ; so I can only say that if he does what I have done and studies the common law as it is today, and wanders through that jungle, and finds how unsatisfactory it is, he will agree with me that it is time to give the courts a clear direction and to put them on the right path for the future, and so make sure that under all circumstances the welfare of the children will take first place.

I have listened with great attention to the last speaker. I am not a barrister, as he is, and cannot give such a clear exposition of the law, but I wish to say that I will always be sympathetic where a fight is put up for the rights of women. I have reared daughters myself and I do not want to make the position of women more difficult. Nevertheless I wish to say that I am sorry that this Bill has been introduced during this Session, because there are two things in the Bill which are just as difficult to understand as the law existing today. They are the two only things of real importance in the Bill. In the case of us Afrikaans-speaking people the position has always been that the husband is to all intents and purposes the guardian, but the wife was always his master, although by virtue of nothing else but love. My wife never discussed with me which schools she wanted the children to attend, but I was satisfied because I knew that she could look after the children. It is not necessary to pass laws for people who, as they ought to do, live amicably with each other, in order to say who the guardian should be. As the Bill before us is now, neither the father nor the mother can appoint a guardian. They must agree between each other as to who should be the guardian. That is what is proposed in Clause 5, which for example states—

Supposing that they cannot agree with each other as to whom they will appoint. If the parents live together affectionately, and if they really have the interests of the children at heart, there will be no difficulty about that. They will discuss the matter with each other and arrive at mutual agreement as the Afrikaners have always done. But now all sorts of new things are introduced which are not improvements. The fact that the father has the right to appoint a guardian did not suddenly emerge; it did not just happen; it is the result of centuries and centuries of experience. The hon. member over there has just said that the law today is like a jungle; there is much rotten wood which must be chopped out, in order that the position can be clear. But I want to ask him this question. If the court has to decide what really is in the ultimate interest of the child, can he assure me that the judges will all do precisely the same thing? Let us take a case where there is disagreement about the nomination of a guardian. One parent wants to appoint a wealthy relative because he thinks that the children will inherit money. The other wants to appoint the surviving spouse, and then the court has to decide what is in the best interests of the child. One judge, who perhaps wants to chop out the dry wood, will look to the monetary interests and will want to appoint the rich relative if he thinks that the children have a chance of inheriting money. But the judge who really understands the matter will rather grant the guardianship to the surviving parent who loves the children and who will bring the children up properly. Who of the two is right? If this Bill had clarified the matter and had really given the wife rights which she needed, I would have been the first person to vote for it. I am of opinion that, wherever possible, both should have the same rights. They must both help to raise the children and they will both wish to do what is best in the interests of the child. Exceptional cases of course arise. I can mention a case with which I am now busy. The father beaueathed his estate to his son. The wife got the usufruct but it was provided that on her remarriage she would receive £1,000 and the rest of the estate would go to the child. The wife remarried. She received the thousand pounds and the farm belongs to the son. But as the natural guardian of the son she is now using all the income of the farm and the child has nothing until he reaches the age of 21 years. I cannot approach Parliament and ask it to pass a law to deal with an exceptional case. Legislation will then never be completed. In the usual course of events there will be no trouble where the spouses really love each other. The trouble arises when people are not what they should be, and the hon. member now wishes to pass legislation for exceptional cases. This Bill does nothing to improve the status of the wife. On the contrary it just causes trouble, more trouble than existed before. It is true that one judge decides a matter one way and the other judge differently. But the position is still that the court wishes to do its best for the children. The last speaker did not argue about Clauses, 1, 2, 3 and 4, and it is clear that the wife, by’ virtue of those clauses, will receive no more privileges than she possesses today. As regards Clause 5, the difficulties are just increased. At present the husband has the right to say who will be the guardian and if he does not do so the wife becomes the guardian. But the proviso to the relevant clause in the existing law clearly states that if a wife has an estate which she bequeaths to her children she can appoint someone as curator over that estate during the period of the minority or mental incapacity of those children, and such curator will then be the nominated curator. If this Bill is passed, however, that wife will not have this right, even if she has an estate. She and her husband will have to nominate the curator together. If there is a difference between them they will have to go to court. Why must that right be taken from the wife? In other words, in this respect the rights of the wife are curtailed. If the wife has her own estate she has the right to nominate a curator in respect of that estate, and that right is now taken from her. If she has her own estate it should not be necessary for her to appoint a curator together with her husband in a joint Will. I have as yet had no clarification of these points. I have listened to the speeches of the three members who spoke on the other side of the House, and if the position is improved, I shall have no objection to voting for the Bill. That, however, has not happened and the position is being rendered more difficult. This Bill will not rectify the matter because the court will still have to decide where the interests of the children lie. The judge who is the father of children, and familiar with the care of children’ will appoint the surviving spouse as the guardian, all things being equal, and there being nothing wrong. Of that I am absolutely convinced. He will not look to monetary considerations. I want to be quite honest. I am the last one to stand in the way of the woman, when she seeks to improve her status in society. I will do everything in my power to enhance her rights, because I have daughters and also sons. I like to see them enjoying the same rights. But I do not wish to vote for a Bill which will make the position still more difficult. I fear that the result will be that people will always have to go to court in a case of disagreement between them. Now the position is that the husband can decide when there is a difference of opinion. In future he will not be able to do so. If there is a difference of opinion they will have to go to court and the husband will have to pay the costs. If the hon. member wishes to suggest that the wife should be the trustee in preference to the husband, it is a different matter. But we cannot give two people the same right of decision, because that will lead to quarrels and difficulties. If the right people are together there will be no disagreement because the husband and the wife will consult each other. But as soon as no agreement can be reached there will be trouble. The father may want to send the son to Bishops and the mother to the Jan van Riebeeck. In that case they will have to go to court and the husband will have to pay the costs. If there were anything in the Bill which improves the position of the wife or which makes the matter clearer than it was before, if there were anything in the Bill which will improve family life, I would have voted for it with both hands, but I cannot see it and for those reasons I wish to propose the following amendment—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think it is inevitable that when a preponderantly male body such as Parliament is asked to legislate for the disagreements arising between husband and wife, the natural reaction would be to take refuge in an ultra conservatism and to say in hushed tones: “but you are tampering with the Common Law,” I do not condemn conservatism, it means very often a desirable permanence, but if circumstances demand a change I do not regard that as a very terrible thing. It has been said, here that the common law, which has served us for so long, should not be altered. But after all is said and done, what is the common law? It is man-made traditional custom, crystallised through use, coming down the ages, and I should be sorry to think that in matters of importance, matters as important as this particular one undoubtedly is, if we are satisfied that there is a need for the law to changed, we should be afraid to change it. We cannot however lose sight of the force of the psychological fact that many people hesitate to legislate on a matter which is covered by the common law. One is asked why one tampers with the common law, as if it was something sacrosanct which cannot be changed. I sincerely hope that the House will not take that view. Speaking as a member of the Select Committee which dealt with this matter, a committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, I think I can say that the members approached the subject with a certain amount of conservatism, but that they did what they considered should be done; and although I do not suggest for a moment that on the question of the principle of the Bill the committee were unanimous, I will say this, that once the question of the principle of the Bill had been disposed of the committee approached the new Bill with the greatest of care; and that every phrase and every word in the Bill was considered very carefully. Mr. Speaker, as an indication of our desire not to do too much violence to the opinion of those people who hold the common law sacred, I will again remark on the fact that the original Clause 2 of the Bill which provided for a joint guardianship on exactly equal lines for the father and for the mother was rejected. We felt, and I feel today, that to include this measure in the statutes of this country would be to create a very battle-ground for disharmony; and for that reason alone, I think we were right in rejecting the suggestion that there should be such a provision giving the father and mother equal rights over the child. Instead of doing that we have preserved the common law to all intents and purposes, except in special cases for which we have provided. I am not going to deal in detail with the law. That has already been done by my hon. friend the member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) and by other speakers. Listening to them it seems quite obvious that there is no unanimity in regard to what the real position is today. It seems quite clear from the quotations cited from one case and another that there is no unanimity in the courts about what the law is which should be applied. One hon. member said that there is no need for this law; it merely states the common law. That seems to me to dispose of the opposition, because if this Bill states what the common law is, what objection can he have to this Bill being placed in the statute book of this country? That is the attitude I adopt and I sincerely hope that members will adopt the same attitude. There are two aspects of this matter in regard to the father’s rights. One aspect applies during the life of both parents. That has been fully dealt with, and in that regard we simply ask that the House should clarify the position leaving no doubt for the future as to the lines to be taken by the courts. The other aspect of the matter is the one which arises after the death of the father. As I understand the law, the testamentary position of the father in relation to the children is paramount. He can appoint by Will a complete stranger to look after the children, to the exclusion of the mother. I do not think anyone will doubt that that is the effect of the law today; and if that is the common law, which I aver it is, I think it is a terrible situation that the woman who bore the child and who saw this child through the early stages of its life could be deprived of the guardianship of her child by the testamentary act of the father. That is an aspect of the matter which should be sufficiently appreciated. If, as was suggested by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) there are certain aspects of the matter which are affected by the provisions of. Administration of Estates Act, it seems to me that that matter can be dealt wih adequately in Committee. I should be sorry to see this House fail to come to a decision merely because of the effect of that part of the Bill which is contained in the proposed amendment of Section 71 of the Administration of Estates Act. My hon. friend the member for Gordonia suggested that the women of this country are not in favour of this Bill. I think he is labouring under a misapprehension. I speak from memory but I think it correctly, when I say that the Select Committee received a telegram from the Suid-Afrikaanse Vroue Federasie stating their support of the Bill, the N.C.W. and W.T.U. definitely support the measure. I think we may regard these societies as a good cross-section of the women of South Africa and their actions clearly indicate that they at least feel that the time has come when a change should be made. Sir, I would particularly ask this House in dealing with this matter to realise, as we must realise that changes have taken place in the last 50 years. We are no longer living in the early Victorian days when women were the property of men and took no part in the life of the country. Women have today shown themselves to be fit for any position. They can hold their own in the field of science, literature and business. They can do a man’s work in their women’s way; in a very thorough way, even during a world war, and they have earned the admiration of men for the part they have played. Are we going to refuse to these women, the mothers of our children, the mothers of our young South Africans, this small thing they ask? It is nothing very big, but it means a great deal to them, and I think it will mean a great deal to this country as a whole. I sincerely hope that this amendment to read the Bill in six months time will not appeal to the House. The Bill has been considered thoroughly and with the greatst care, and I say without hesitation that the women of South Africa are waiting for a decision to be given now in this House, and in no uncertain way.

I had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill, and I am sorry I have to differ from the two hon. members next to me. The position is that in the past only the husband could be the guardian of the children and, by will, he could even appoint a guardian for his children after his death, without taking his wife into consideration. As far as the principle is concerned, this Bill differs, a good deal from the Bill which was before the House last year. In the Bill of last year the hon. member who introduced this Bill, wanted to give the husband and wife the joint guardianship of their children, and I felt that if joint guardianship were given, it might lead to great difficulties in the home. The husband and wife in that case would have had equal rights with regard to the control of the children, and it might have led to continual difficulties, but as the Bill reads today, it differs altogether from the original Bill. The father still retains the sole guardianship of the children but if the mother feels that the father is not a suitable person to exercise the guardianship—if, for example, the father is of weak character and not a suitable person to have the guardianship of the children—the wife, under this Bill, can go to Court and ask that another guardian be appointed over her children. The question arises whether she did not have that right in the past. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) says she had that right. If that is the case, she is getting no more than that right in this Bill but it is being clearly laid down she has the right to go to court and ask for the appointment of another guardian over her children. I am the last person who would want any trouble to arise in the home, but when it is felt that the father is not a suitable person to have the control of his children, I cannot see what is wrong in allowing the mother to apply to court for the appointment of another guardian. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said that when two people get on well and are fond of each other, it is not necessary for them to go to court. One might say that if everyone were honest, it would not be necessary to pass laws to make theft a punishable offence. If all the people got on well with one another, legislation of this nature would not be necessary. But unfortunately legislation is necessary so that the court may decide in those cases where difficulties do arise. One of the hon. members said that the status of the wife was not being improved. Her status is undoubtedly being improved by this Bill. In the past we had this position that where the father died, he could appoint the guardian of his children in his Will, without consulting his wife. Take the case of a husband who does not like his wife or of a wife who does not like her husband. After all, the wife is the mother of the children, and if there is nothing wrong with the character of the mother, if she is a good mother, why should she be humiliated by providing that when the husband dies, another woman may be appointed as the guardian of her children? Is that fair? I would be the last person to approve of all these modern innovations, but is it reasonable to deprive the wife of the right to be the guardian of her children? My wife and I jointly reared our children. That being so, why should I have the right to determine by will that my wife shall not be allowed to exercise the powers of guardianship over my children? The hon. member for Gordonia says this Bill is not necessary because the wife has the right to go to court. He then quoted certain cases. If the wife has that right, why is the hon. member objecting if this Bill is merely calculated to clarify the position, so that there will be no doubt in the future? The hon. membet for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) abandoned the principle which was contained in the original Bill, and thereafter we unanimously accepted this Bill. I do not know whether the hon. member for Gordonia is not aware of it, but we felt that we should look at this matter from the point of view of the interests of the child. If it is not in the interests of the child that the father should exercise the powers of guardianship, the wife should have the right to go to court and ask for the appointment of another guardian over the children. The court, constituted of impartial judges, can then decide what is in the interests of the children. Not one iota of the right of the father to exercise guardianship is being taken away, provided he is a good father and is able to exercise the functions of a guardian properly. He remains the guardian until such time as his wife goes to court and applies for the appointment of another guardian. In the past the mother was placed in a degrading position in that another person could be appointed as guardian over her children and she had no say in the matter. In the Select Committee I supported the Bill which is now before us, and I shall support it now.

As a member of the Select Committee that was appointed to go into this Bill, and I think the only lay member of that committee, I want to make an appeal as a lay member, to this House. It is a fact that from the beginning of time reformers have had great difficulty at the hands of lawyers, and I was hoping that the original Bill would have been acceptable to the Select Committee, and would have been ultimately presented to this House, because the original Bill made a direct assault on the privileged position of males as against the females. Much has been said this afteroon about the common law and the reluctance that should be felt about altering the common law. I want to say this as a layman : If the common law does not conform to our modem conception of commonsense, then commonsense should override the common law and we should see to it that the common law is altered to come into line with commonsense. That is what was attempted to be done in the introduction of the original Bill. What has been done is that some little progress has been made in the assault on that privileged position, and I should hate to think that in these days of so-called progress this House would listen to the kind of argument that has been put up as to the unnecessary character of the Act. We are tired of listening to people who plead in opposition to people who seek relief, that the relief we seek to give them is unnecessary, and when they say that in the interests of the people themselves this kind of relief will do them harm, and that this kind of relief will not be in their best interests. It will be in the best interests of families and of relationships between men and women, if we agree at any time in this House to a step forward in the line of progress, and I feel this Bill is just that. It is not all that we hoped it to be, but it is some; thing that will raise things to a somewhat higher plane than they were on before. We are not so much in awe of the law as laymen, but we are fearful of the tortuous methods by which the law is applied and by which redress or punishment comes. That is what makes the ordinary person alarmed at the prospect of being involved in litigation, and that is why I do make this contention that our commonsense must ultimately dictate what shall be our law. Our concern should be not so much in differences about the pronunciation or the meaning of words, but in really desiring to face up to the facts of human relationships, whether between women and women, men and men, or men and women, and it is only as we face up to human relationships in an intelligent way and as we see the need for this kind of Bill, that we shall prove ourselves to be the servants of the people in deed and in truth. I hope, Sir, that this House will pass the Bill with the greatest possible majority in order to place on the Statute Book something that will be on a little higher plane than before.

The Bill that has been brought before the House today is radically different from the Bill that was placed before the House last Session. I supported the Bill last time, and I am prepared to support this Bill, though I must confess to some feeling of disappointment at the radical alterations the Select Committee has made in the Bill; because I looked on the measure last time as an attempt by women to remove one of those irritating inferiorities the law imposes on them. It is admitted that a great deal of what is contended for is contained in the existing law, and while judicial decisions have carried out many of the principles—not all of them—the women are contending for, this is one of those things in the fight for equal rights for women. One clause, Clause 2, of the last Bill contained an emphaic, a clear exposition of that view. Unfortunately, that has been left out. At the same time, Sir, half a loaf is better than no bread. I am sorry that was left out. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) made a very fair statement on the present Bill from his point of view. He would not have agreed to the Bill if that clause had not been left out. But I take a different view with regard to the Bill. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) opposed the Bill strongly last time on two grounds; the one ground was that it was unnecessary, and the other was that some clauses in it were revolutionary. I pointed out then that the two grounds were not quite consistent, but I suppose that the hon. member would say now that the revolutionary matter has been taken out of the Bill, namely Clause 2. The hon. member for Swéllendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) professed great sympathy with the women, and said that if anybody could show him that the women suffered a definite disadvantage under the existing law and that they wanted to remedy it, he would vote for it, and he then proceeded to show his sympathy by moving that the Bill be read this day six months. It rather reminds one of the old adage—

I agree with what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said, that when things are going well in the household there is no question of law, there is no question of anything revolutionary. When there is a happy atmosphere in the home the question of guardianship is not discussed in the house; if there is discussion, the parents always arrive at an agreement. But you have to deal with situations where there is shipwreck, and no human amity and love, and then you have to lay down a plan whereby the matter can be resolved. The present Bill is shorter than the other Bill, but apart from Clause 2, which I referred to, it seems to me that in leaving out Clauses 5. 6 and 7 of the old Bill the Select Committee—I do not know what animated them—probably thought that questions regarding maintenance and so forth are all parts of the existing law. So why put it in the Bill? I do not know whether that is the reason why they omitted the paragraphs. But the vital thing they altered and cut out was Clause 2. The law is not so absolutely clear, as has already been pointed out by previous speakers. There are reasons for clarifying the law. I do not think there is anybody who says that if you are altering the common law you are doing a revolutionary thing. It is very old, it goes back to the old Roman times and this is an attempt to bring the common law in some respects up to date. The hon. member for Swellendam said: “You provide here for a joint Will, but supposing the husband and wife do not agree; what happens then?” Well, then it does not come into the joint Will and the courts will have to decide, at the proper time, who will be the guardian. It prevents one person, the father alone, deciding the matter. If they do not agree the court will be there at the proper time to decide who the guardian will be. The court will give the wife an equal opportunity of having something to do with the decision. As the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said, that particular thing is a very fair proposition. After all, we have not got so very far from the existing law, the Act of 1913, which is amended. The difference is that the rights of the mother were not then recognised unless her husband was dead. They have now provided that the question should be decided in a joint Will while the parents are both alive. It seems to me so far from causing friction in the family as suggested by the hon. member for Swellendam, the fact that both have a voice in the matter will make for harmony rather than friction. The hon. member for Swellendam quoting the proviso, said that although these words had been inserted in Clause 5, the proviso in the Act of 1913 remains. The proviso goes far beyond that. It goes far beyond husband and wife, father and mother, because it provides that any person who bequeaths any property can impose certain conditions, one of them in regard to the curatorship, while the child is under age. Surely that is fair enough. When a person is giving something under a will, he wants to add that while the minor is under age so-and-so should be curator. I do not regard that as in conflict to what we are putting in this particular Bill. It is not in conflict. It makes provision for a much wider range of cases than we are dealing with at the present time. There is no doubt, Sir, that this Act will in some respects be a guide. It may not go much further than the existing law, but apart from that it will be a guide that the women’s point of view must be heard; and therefore I think the Committee were right in saying that the locus standi in judicio gives the mother a particular status. It gives her a definite status to go into court and, as mother, to be heard in regard to the guardianship, and that she has not got clearly in the law today. She can appeal to the court and the court, in the last resort, considers what is in the best interests of the children. But here in Clause 2 she is given a locus standi. That, I think, is important, and a clarification of the position of the mother at the present time. Then nobody can take exception to the principles enunciated in Clause 4. This is very much as it was in the other Bill. The administration is in the interests of the child, and that has always been and always will be of paramount consideration. I do not want to hold up this Bill. I should like to see it passed. I will content myself, therefore, with saying that I hope it will be carried and I trust it will be carried by a substantial majority, although I would like to see a comprehensive measure dealing with social questions, particularly with women’s questions. There are a number of anomalies that have to be cleared up. This is only one of them. Still we have to do it piecemeal. One little thing at a time is enough for a private member to tackle in this House. It is very difficult even then to get an alteration in the existing law. But as has been pointed out, a clarification has been sought for, and as women need this additional Bill that has been put before the House, I hope it will be carried and that the amendment to read it this day six months will be lost.

I think it will be as well if I stated the attitude of the Government on this Bill, but I intend to be very brief. I know that the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), who stated her case, if I may be allowed to say so very eloquently and very fairly, will not take it as in any way discourteous, but I want to assure her I want to give her all the time possible in this matter. As far as the Government is concerned we think this is a Bill that should be left to the free vote of the House. I said before the House last time the Government has nothing in principle against the Bill, and I want to repeat that. I sincerely trust that that will not be taken as an incentive for a plethora of Bills to amend the position of women in this country. In tampering with the common law, especially in a matter of this kind which has stood the test of time, we must go very carefully. But that is not to say there are not quite a number of improvements which should be made. As was stated by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) the common law should be brought un to date. There is another objection in doing this piecemeal, and that is that this matter, which the women are very anxious to reform, have called attention to the disabilities of the women. Now many of these “disabilities” are no disabilities at all. They were really introduced for the protection of the women, and they have acted as such for a very long time. We must also remember that the position of women has changed very much from what it was in those days, and undoubtedly women are playing a very different part than they did at the time these rules were evolved and finalised. From that point of view alone it would be necessary to bring about amendments, and the way to do that, to my mind, would be by having a thorough investigation that would have the support of women as a whole. I think that if the women, as a whole, demanded any reform, it would be a very bold government who would say them nay. In making these remarks I do not want in any way to qualify what I said at the start, that we have no objection in principle to this Bill. I think the hon. member who introduced the Bill deserves the gratitude of the women in the country and I think, if I may use a vernacular term, the Select Committee have done ah excellent job of work. I say that this is a matter I leave entirely to the House. Reforms are, of course, required, and this is one of them which needs very careful consideration. I think the hon. member for Jeppes has made out a very good case in this particular instance.

Of the two hon. members who have so far opposed this Bill, I did not have the pleasure of listening to the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment. But I did hear the hon. member fpr Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). And he approached the matter this afternoon, as he did last Session when he also opposed the original Bill, much, I thought, in the spirit of the native litigant in Natal who in a matrimonial dispute reminded the Native Commissioner that the native still had the right to chastise his wife. That native was apparently like the hon. member wedded to the common law. When the hon. member for Gordonia opposed the Bill last Session I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that he argued what was then at least an arguable case. I was then in favour of the original Bill, but having had the advantage of sitting on the Select Committee, and having been made aware of the many serious pitfalls and of the anomalous positions which could and might arise if the principle embodied in Section 2 of the old Act became law, I feel obliged to entertain a doubt as to its soundness; and if that Bill were before the House today I should have grave doubts as to whether I could find it possible to give my entire support to that Bill. I therefore felt that the hon. member was to some extent on a playable wicket when he opposed the Bill last Session. The hon. gentleman also had the advantage of sitting on the Select Committee where we had the benefit of the guidance of one of the law advisers. I think it may fairly be said then that the hon. gentleman who offered opposition to this Bill has said all that can be really said against it. Precisely what has he said? Merely that the Bill is unnecessary. That reflects the sum total of his opposition. If the common law were so palpably clear that it would be really a case of placing readily ascertainable law upon the Statute Book by passing this Bill, I would be with the hon. member. But it must be apparent that some doubt exists as to what the position really is at present under the common law of South Africa. That being so, the argument that the Bill is unnecessary loses its force. The Minister said this question was part of a wider issue and that the better way would be to have an investigation into all of what women choose to regard as their disabilities. There I am at one with the Minister. There has been at least an appeal if not a demand to the Government for several years to have a commission appointed to investigate every aspect of the problem touching the rights and the liabilities of women, but there is no indication that the Government will give way to that demand. In the face of that I say that we are obliged to deal with the problem piecemeal. For my part I would much prefer to see this part of a comprehensive investigation into the status of women. It is for instance closely linked up with another Bill that will come before the House shortly. I thought it as well that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) drew attention to the fact that the underlying principle of last Session’s Bill is omitted in this Bill, so that it is true to say that this is not only virtually but in point of fact an entirely different Bill. And I say that particularly because the Bill of last Session found favour amongst a good many members because of the demand among the women of South Africa that this matter should be tackled, and it would be unfortunate if the women of South Africa were to feel that it is that same demand which has resulted in this Bill going on the Statute Book, because I think that the women of South Africa ought to appreciate that the principle ineherent in the other Bill, namely equality in respect of guardianship for husband and wife, is a principle which would have lead to a chaotic situation.

Why did you not say that on the Select Committee?

I said on the Select Committee precisely what I am saying today. Mr. Speaker you cannot have two captains on the same ship. The point has been made this afternoon that no problem arises where you have a marriage which on the whole is not seriously unsuccessful. As I understand the law, there is not much of a problem where the parties are either divorced or judically separated. The problem arises where husband and wife are at arms length but are still cohabiting; and what this Bill does is to enable an aggrieved mother who has a casey to approach the courts. It confers therefore not rights upon a mother but jurisdiction upon the courts. It still rests with the court to determine whether the mother has established her claim. The present position is that even in a proper case the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. What this Bill is doing then is to enable the court in a proper case to afford, relief to an injured spouse. You know, Sir, only too well how difficult it is to move the courts successfully unless one has a good case. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said that apart from the fact that this Bill was unnecessary it only did one thing; it dealt with the position of a mother in the case of a testamentary disposition relating to the guardianship of the testator’s children. Even if that is all the Bill did, it would warrant the passing of the Bill. I say finally that to oblige the mother of children to have to approach, be it the master of the Supreme Court or be it the Courts, to determine that she has established a claim on merit for the guardianship of her children, is against a right inherent in the father, who may by comparison have been an unworthy father, a gross reflection upon the womanhood of South Africa.

The speech of the hon. Minister of Justice has convinced me more than ever that we ought not to pass this measure today. The Minister did say that in principle his Government had no objection to this measure, but very wisely he said that we should be very careful, and he repeatedly spoke of a thorough investigation into this matter. He also said that this measure should not be dealt with piecemeal. In other words, to use an English phrase, he followed the policy of damning the Bill with faint praise. He did not say that the Government supported it. He stated frankly that he left it to the House to decide as it pleased. But in my opinion the hon. Minister did give a lead to the House in that he made us realise that we could not lightly dispose of this matter by means of a private Bill, privately introduced without proper investigation. The Minister spoke of a thorough investigation. I maintain that there has been no thorough investigation into this matter. I have here the report of the Select Committee which examined the Bill. The Committee did hold a few sittings, but no evidence was heard, notwithstanding the fact that the terms of reference authorised the Committee to take evidence. But the Committee neither invited nor heard evidence, and I am inclined to think that the Committee did not comply with the requirements which we in this House have the right to put; namely that it should hear authoritative evidence. Could the Committee not have sought the views of our judges? I am convinced that if we had referred this matter to a number of our judges and if we had got judgments or recommendations on which this House would have been able to rely, the result might possibly have been that this Bill would have suffered shipwreck in the House. I cannot believe that our judges would welcome a measure of this kind, and although I do not want to say that judges should tell this House what to do, nevertheless, since this is a matter which largely affects the Bench in that a new onus is being thrown on the Bench, I am of opinion that the views of our judges should have been sought in regard to this matter which they will be called upon to decide in their courts from day to day. For that reason I support the amendment of the hon; member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) because I am of opinion that this matter which is not at all of an urgent nature, which can easily wait another year or two, should not be disposed of at this stage, and that the Minister of Justice, through his legal advisers, should obtain the opinion of our judges in regard to this matter so that the House may become acquainted with they views as to how this measure, in their opinion, will operate in practice when matrimonial cases come before the court. We should not lightly depart from the principles of our common law. We have built up a common law which has withstood the test of the centuries. I do not want to say that everything in our common law must necessarily be right, but usually there are very good reasons for the various provisions and traditions of our common law, and we should not lightly depart from those provisions unless there are good reasons for doing so and until such time as we have obtained the best advice; and I say that as far as this Bill is concerned we have not obtained the best advice. I do not want to cast any reflection on hon. members who served on the Select Committee on this Bill. I do not want to cast any doubt on their capabilities. But only a number of members in this House have dealt with the Bill, and no effort was made to obtain the necessary advice from qualified people who are called upon to deal with the legal position from day to day, and in these circumstances I would not be prepared to vote for the Bill. I can imagine that if this Bill were to go through, the number of disputes between husband and wife in regard to the guardianship of children would increase and possibly flood our courts with cases of that nature. We all know that if there is one matter which causes pain and sorrow, which brings about entrangement and difficulties, it is the question of the guardianship of children; and whereas up to the present there have been certain fixed rules in our common law, the court will now have to come to a decision without any precedent, except the vague interests of the children, and the effect may be—and in my opinion it will be—that in the future the courts will be flooded with this type of dispute. May I be allowed to refer to a few points in this Bill. In Clause 3, for example, full discretion is now being given to the court in connection with this matter. I have here a judgment in a similar case in regard to which I want to say a few words. This is a case which was heard before the Orange Free State Supreme Court last year—the case of Landman vs. Minnie—where this question was also dealt with. The judge dealt with the point that certain commentators on the common law had said that the judge had full discretion in the matter. He rejected that in the light of what he regarded as the law, but he used these significant words—

That is what Mr. Justice van den Heever said. In connection with this case I do also want to refer to Clause 5 (ii) (c) where it is provided that in the case of divorce, the parent to whom the guardianship of the children has been given by a competent court, has the right to appoint a guardian over his or her children by will. In other words, A and B divorce. A is the husband; B is the wife and the custody of the children was given to B. As a result of this provision B will obtain the full right to appoint a guardian over the children by Will. In this case the following happened. The husband and wife were divorced. In the divorce proceedings the young minor children, including a girl of 17 years, were placed in the custody of the wife. She made a Will in which she appointed the foreman on her farm, a bachelor, as guardian of the children, and not only that, but she imposed the condition that the children were to stay with him in the house. In this case there was evidence to show that there was nothing wrong with the father. He was not a man of weak character. But at the time of divorce, an agreement was drawn up giving the custody of the children to the wife. She now comes along and takes the children away from her husband and provides in her Will that after her death the children are to live in the house of the foreman on her farm. Just imagine! A girl of 17 years is expected to live in the house of the foreman, a bachelor. Is that right? Can we allow anything of that kind? And in this Bill the hon. member now provides that the wife shall have that right. Mr. Justice van den Heever decided that that was not permissible; it was contrary to law; it was contra bonos mores, that the court could not allow the lives and property of the children to be endangered by placing them under the guardianship of the wife’s servant and by requiring the children to live with him in the house. If this Bill is passed, that state of affairs will be legalised. Now I want to ask the Minister of Finance and hon. members of this House whether they want to allow that sort of thing; are they in favour of it. We know that frequently there are divorce cases in which there is no fault to be found with either the husband or the wife, in this sense that neither of them is of weak moral character. They seek a divorce on the ground of incompatibility, and for the sake of a convenient arrangement between the two of them, the guardianship is given to the husband or the wife in terms of an agreement. According to this Bill the husband or the wife now has the right totally to eliminate the other spouse in his or her will. Take the case of a faithful wife with whom there is no fault to be found, but who deserts her husband because of incompatibility. They divorce; the children are placed in the custody of the husband. The husband now comes along and provides in his will that the guardianship of the children shall be given to someone who is totally unsuitable, as in the case I have mentioned. Assuming the husband were to stipulate that the children are to live in Rhodesia or in the northern part of the Transvaal with an unknown person, would that be fair towards his wife? No, it is not. I want to protest strongly on behalf of the husband and the wife against this provision. Here it is clearly laid down that no one shall have the right in his or her will to dispose of the guardianship of the child except where the child has been placed under the guardianship by order of a competent court. I could never vote for such a measure. I think it is absolutely wrong and that it will create a dangerous precedent to pass a measure of this kind in the House; and I should like to hear the views of our judges in regard to this matter, especially in a case such as that I mentioned a moment ago. It is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs, and now the hon. member wants to legalise it. In spite of the attention which the Select Committee gave to this Bill, we still find such a cruel, immoral clause in it. I say it is nothing but cruel and immoral to allow it. I have shown that cases of this nature actually occur. This shows that with the best intentions in the world, the Committee did not go into this matter thoroughly, nor did it get the opinion of qualified people, and for that reason I feel that we should not accept the Bill. There is no reason for haste. I take it the hon. member for Jeppes wants to put through a Bill which will be as good as possible and that she does not want to leave any opening for abuses. Very well, if that is the case, let her postpone this matter and let the Minister submit it to our judges, through the law advisers of the Government, for their views. Let us have a sound Bill at a later date. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. member and the Minister of Justice not to allow this Bill to pass. The case which I have mentioned clearly shows that this measure is dangerous. I have pointed out only one serious case. Other cases may come to light after a thorough investigation on the part of lawyers, and after consultation with judges. Let this matter be investigated thoroughly. If we want to do anything for our South African women, we should do something worth while, not something like this which may harm them a great deal. I hope the House will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam, not necessarily with a view to rejecting the whole Bill in principle, but in order to give us an opportunity of having this matter investigated thoroughly.

The legal aspect of this question has just been dealt with. I hope the House will now listen to a layman who has no legal knowledge but who has and who claims a modicum of common sense. I must confess I am a little disappointed in this measure. What the women of South Africa want is this, that when a child is born, the guardianship of that child shall be vested equally in the mother and the father, that one should have the right over and above the other. This Bill simply makes it possible for the courts to give the mother that guardianship which she should have as an inherent right and I am hoping that before very long that inherent right will be given to the women of South Africa. I am not alone in supporting this Bill, and what I hope will become a better Bill. The Natal South Coast Voters’ Association, a non-party association, embracing a large percentage of the voters in my constituency, at a meeting on the 12th January, passed what is really a resolution supporting this Bill. I heartily support the Bill and I hope that it is going to pass into law.

There are only one or two points that I want to make in reply: As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that there was no indication by the Afrikaans-speaking women of this country that they were behind this Bill. If the hon. member will look at his Select Committee report on page 10, he will find that the Suid-Afrikaanse Vroue Federasie, a very important body, sent a telegram to the chairman who read it to the Select Committee, in which they intimated their support of my original Children’s Guardianship Bill. My original Bill, as you will remember, went very much further than this one, so I have no doubt that they would support this Bill too. In addition, I might remind the hon. member that the National Council of Women who have something like 100 affiliated societies behind them, support this Bill, as well as the League of Women Voters and the Christian Temperance Union. The hon. member made a great deal of fuss and said that this Bill was unnecessary because it was already our law. If it is indeed our law already, I would like to know what these numerous decisions of our law courts mean. The very fact that we have dozens and dozens of reports of various cases, all on conflicting lines, shows that the law on this point is not clear; and if this Bill does nothing else it serves one useful purpose, and that is to clarify the existing law. The hon. member has called upon me to admit—if I am honest, as he put it—that Section 4 of my Bill is already the law. In return I would like him to admit, if he is honest, that, in fact, there are hundreds of conflicting decisions, and that being so, it is high time that we had one clear principle laid down on which the courts can work. Of course, individual judges would see things in different ways; that is to be expected; but where the courts have only one guiding principle instead of three, we will at least get one clear line of decisions instead of three. There is also the old hoary point that we must not interfere with the common law. I would like to remind hon. members who have spoken against the Bill—and here I may say that I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) who was a member of the Select Committee, and who went into the matter very thoroughly—I would like to point out to those who have spoken in opposition to this Bill and who have based their opposition on the so-called undesirability of interfering with the ancient fabric of our common law, that the ancient fabric of our common law has been altered throughout the years in every department to meet the changing conditions of the times, save and except in one department, and that is the department that deals with the status of women and this guardianship of our children. Yet there is no department of our life, no department of our law, in which the position of people have so changed as has the status of the women in the last three hundred years. Three hundred years ago it might well have been true that women were no more than chattels. Today in every department of our public life, in every department of our commercial and legal life and industrial life, in every department of our army, and even may I say it in all civility in this Chamber, women are taking a part; and that being so it is high time that we bring the ancient fabric of our common law, which the hon. member regards with such respect, a little more up to date, with regard to the guardianship of our children. I would like to remind those who are so nervous about giving the women some right of guardianship over their children that unmarried women have always had the sole right of guardianship over their illegitimate children, and it is one of the injustices, one of the anomalies of the present law—that the mother of illegitimate children has a greater right in this respect than the married mother. This Bill goes some way to meet that reproach, and I am hoping that this House realising the justice of the case which has been made out and realising too that it is high time that some measure of social justice was awarded to women, will vote the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) down.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—84:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. 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.

Bowkér, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

McLean, J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steyn, G. P.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans. J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—32 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J, H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I object.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 9th February.

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in this connection. Under the first item, “Salaries, Wages and Allowances,” an additional amount of £40,000 is being asked for. I know that during the recess, i.e. since the last estimates were framed, the Minister has increased the salaries of foresters and other officials in the Department of Forestry.

All this relates to the cost-of-living allowance.

It represents the entire increase.

I just want to ask the Minister whether he has increased the salaries of foresters and other officials in his Department during the recess.

That does not fall under this item.

That still does not reply to my question. Has the Minister increased the salaries of those people since the last Session of Parliament?

Yes, but it does not fall under this Vote.

It had no effect on this Vote.

The salaries of the officials of the Forestry Department have been increased since the main estimates were framed, and I think I am right in asking whether that increase forms part of this £40,000.

No, this sum relates exclusively to the cost-of-living allowance.

In that case I accept the assurance of the Minister.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 23.—“Transport”, £15,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 24.—“Interior”, £9,077;

Up to the present practically all the Votes had been criticised by this side of the House. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to urge the Government to carry on with what I notice under Vote 24, namely the award of bigger allowances for museums, zoological gardens, etc.

The hon. member cannot discuss that question now.

Not under this Vote?

The hon. member will have an opportunity of doing so at a later stage. He can only discuss the reasons for the increase in the Vote.

May I put the question to the Minister in this way? There is an increase in this Vote. Is the object of that increase to grant bigger allowances to museums and zoological gardens, or what is the object?

These increases have merely been granted on the cost-of-living. It has nothing to do with the museums themselves. The staffs of the museums applied and asked to be put into line with the other Government Departments. This only represents the increased cost-of-living.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25.—“Public Service Commission”, £2,000,

I do not want to detain the committee, but I would like the Minister to indicate to us what the increase is under the heading of “Salaries, Wages and Allowances.” A commission is sitting to investigate the position in regard to the cost of living allowances paid to public servants. That will apply to this as well. Will the Minister inform us whether any reports received from the Standing Committee will be available to the House.

I have already informed the House that when the interim report is translated and printed it will be laid on the Table of the House. This particular item here is related to the additional cost of living and has nothing to do with anything else.

Is it possible for the Minister to give us any indication as to when that report will be before us or will be considered by the House.

I wish I were in a position to do so, but we are very backward in our translations. We are in great difficulty with the Bureau of Translators.

Will we ever get the Kakamas report?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 28,—“Public Works”, £110,000,

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the item of an ex gratia payment made to a contractor on a certain building service. This seems to me a very curious request. It was an unforeseen expenditure. What was it? Did the contractor tender too low? We generally know in this House that when the estimates are passed expenditures are made and afterwards we have to vote more money on the subject, but here is an ex gratia payment in connection with unforeseen expenditure. We should like to know who the contractor is and where the building is.

I expected that this Question would be asked in connection with this particular item. The position is this, that the contractor tendered and under normal conditions he had to complete the work whether he made a low tender or otherwise, but in this contract, owing to the exigencies of the war and interference by the Controller of Man Power with the man power available, this contractor was delayed in completing his job through circumstances over which he had no control, and during that period of delay increased cost of living and increased wages were brought into existence. He made application to the Department and it was referred to the Treasury. The amount he claimed was considerably in excess of the amount paid, but taking all the circumstances into account we felt that this man, due to the action of the Government, should get some consideration, and this is the amount we gave him.

The others would like it also.

You must not take it as a precedent.

It is difficult not to.

I assure you it will not be. We made very careful investigations and we felt that in common justice something should be done for this man because he was the victim of circumstances over which he had no control. He was delayed and in the meantime the cost of labour and of everything else rose.

It is a very dangerous precedent.

It may be, but we do not intend to deal with it as a precedent.

Which building was it?

I think it was in Pretoria.

Tell us which building it was.

It is the Pretoria Central Government offices, the big building in Vermeulen Street.

Who built it?

I do not know. I am informed that it is Mr. Newlands.

It is a new man.

I think it is altogether a wrong precedent which is being created here, namely, to grant an ex gratia payment tp a contractor after he has entered into a contract. I know of contractors who have entered into contracts in the past on which they have suffered a loss, and the Government refused to give them relief. This is altogether a wrong principle; because this is not the first time that a contractor has suffered a loss in carrying out a Government contract. I do not know what the particular war difficulties were. The Minister says it was due to the action of the Government. Contractors frequently enter into contracts; the price of galvanised iron and other material goes up and the contractor loses. I personally have been concerned in such a contract, and we could not get any relief. I definitely object to this payment.

I just want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he thinks this is the right procedure to follow? Ordinarily when anything of this nature takes place the Auditor-General goes into the matter and submits a report to Parliament. His report is then dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The officials appear before us, and all the facts and details in connection with the case are submitted to us. Here we are not given the details. The Select Committee on Public Accounts goes into such a case thoroughly and decides whether or not a precedent is being created. Thereafter it makes a recommendation to this House, either with regard to unforeseen expenditure or with regard to unauthorised expenditure. That is the normal procedure. I think the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) as a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts will agree with me that that is the usual procedure which has been followed in the past. Why is that procedure now being departed from? I should like to hear the Minister of Finance in regard to that aspect of the matter.

I do not think there is anything extraordinary in the procedure which is being followed here. The procedure laid down by the Select Committee on Public Accounts is that where a remittance or concession of this nature of an amount exceeding £500 is made, the money has to be voted by Parliament. In this case therefore the procedure which was laid down by the Select Committee on Public Accounts is being followed.

Should there not be a prior recommendation by the Select Committee?

No, such an amount has to be voted by Parliament. If the Select Committee on Public Accounts is of opinion that in the future we should follow a different procedure, it is for the Committee to tell us so. But in this case we have not departed from the existing procedure. Only yesterday or the day before yesterday we voted a certain amount in connection with the remittance of taxation, My hon. friend will recollect that. That took place on exactly the same basis, because it exceeded £500. That is the procedure which the Select Committee on Public Accounts laid down, and if the Committee feels that we should adopt a different procedure in the future, I shall be glad if the Committee will inform us of that fact, and we shall then have to consider whether we are able to do it.

In that case the Minister concerned should submit to us all the details in connection with the matter, and if the Minister is not in a position to do it at present, I hope the House will agree to give him an opportunity to collect the facts so that he can submit them to Parliament.

This contract was for the Central Government offices and cost £94,000. The site was handed over on 18th February, 1942, and was to be completed on 17th September, 1942. During that period the cost-of-living for artisans increased and the contractor sought relief for the increased cost occasioned thereby. In addition to that he had difficulty in obtaining labour. Under the controlled conditions for contractors artisans were only allowed to work for 44 hours a week, but if they worked for the military they could work 51½ hours a week, and the military got all the artisans.

The Controller of Manpower took them all away.

How did he take them away? Was it because conditions in the army were better?

No, it was for military buildings, and it was something that we, as the Government, did which prevented this man from completing his contract in a reasonable time. As a matter of fact, there was a delay of 298 days. We were anxious to get delivery. He wanted considerably more than we gave him, but when representations were made to me I felt that it was a special case where an ex gratia payment should be made.

Did he lose on the contract?

Yes, he lost and he proved his loss. We felt that this was a fair reward for his loss. All the facts were represented to the Treasury and the Treasury agreed. But the amount has to be voted by Parliament.

May I just explain why that was done?

The deputy-Minister has the floor again!

I am replying as Minister of Finance because the Treasury is concerned in the matter, and I want to explain why the Treasury agreed to this. This person entered into contract. We then took away some of his men under the emergency regulations, through the Controller of Manpower, with the object of completing and expediting other essential work. As a result of the fact that those people were taken away, the completion of this building was delayed, and the contractor incurred additional expense, especially as a result of increased allowances which he had to pay to his employees during the extended period. For that reason the Treasury felt that since this man was involved in additional expense as a result of the action of the Government under the emergency regulations, it was only fair to compensate him for it.

I notice under Vote A that an amount of £54,000 is being voted for salaries, wages and allowances. This amount is considerably greater than in practically all other cases, and I think there must have been new appointments. If that is the case, may I ask the hon. Minister whether the persons so appointed complied with the requirements in regard to bilingualism, as is required of civil servants? We know from experience, especially in the case of persons who are appointed by the, Minister as controllers—building controllers and others—that he has appointed people who did not know Afrikaans at all, with the result that we have to approach them hat in hand, using a foreign language. I should like to know whether any persons have been appointed under this item.

I will give the hon. member the information that he asks for. The £54,000 is made up as follows: Regraded and new posts, £17,000; Officers released or discharged from military services, £1,944; Cost of living allowance, £15,000; increased rates of pay to cleaners, etc. £10,880; Professional and technical fees payable outside, £5,000; Overtime payments to technical staff, £2,981; and special war allowances, £1,600. These are people who are in the employ of the Public Works Department and not of the Controller of Buildings.

Arising out of the reply of the hon. Minister may I ascertain from him in respect of the £17,000 for new appointments and regrading—and we take it that there were quite a number of new appointments—whether the newly appointed officials complied with the requirements of bilingualism; and may we also know who they are?

All these payments were made by the Pub lie Service Commission or the payment is made by the Secretary for Public Works, and I am quite confident that the people you are referring to here all comply with the Public Service regulations.

No, we want to know a bit more than that. The Minister of Public Works has a suave way of flying over his difficulties. We realise that his difficulties are great. We realise that, but we realise also that our difficulties with him are even greater especially in regard to this matter of bilingualism. He himself could not qualify for a post in the Civil Service unless he were appointed in his own Department, so that his references to bilingualism must be enquired into. We have experience in the past, not only in the remote past, but in the immediate past, of people being appointed to the Civil Service and to temporary posts who are totally unable to speak both languages. I am referring to officials who are in contact with the public daily, and the Minister cannot get over it in this light and airy manner in which he is trying to get over it this afternoon. We want information on that point, because we are getting very suspicious of the Public Works Department, and I may say of a number of other departments. We want to know whether these people who have been appointed were bilingual, not only those appointed by the Public Service Commission but those appointed by the Secretary for Public Works, and I presume that the Minister of Public Works has knowledge of who these people are. What I want to know is whether the Minister is maintaining bilingualism in the appointments that are made through his secretary. We do not want an airy answer but a very definite answer. We hope that as in the case of Mr. Newlands, the Minister anticipated the question and will have the information available.

I am not in a position to give a categorical answer, but the policy of the department is as enunciated by you.

My enunciation of the policy of your department was that they paid no attention whatsoever to bilingualism.

Your contention is that these appointments should be bilingual appointments.

That they should be bilingual appointments, but the policy of your department is not that.

I disagree with you.

I know you disagree with me, you don’t want them to be bilingual.

That is where you are making a mistake.

Order. The hon. Minister must address the Chair.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the policy of the Public Works Department, as it is the policy of all the departments I control, is that the applicants have to be bilingual. But if the hon. member asks me for details here on the floor of the House I am not in a position to say.

You can say whether your policy is being carried out or not.

The policy is being carried out.

Why cannot you say whether they are bilingual or not?

They are bilingual.

But you said you did not know.

When you ask for details I cannot give the details at once, but the policy of the Public Works Department as is the policy of the Post Office, is a bilingual policy.

That is news.

If the hon. Minister says that he cannot give us definite information as to whether these people are bilingual, but he says the policy of his department is that these people should be bilingual, if the policy of his department was being carried out, he could give us a catagorical answer. But he evidently has doubts of his own department.

He does not know whether his department is carrying out his policy, or whether it is carrying out their policy, or whether it is carrying out a combined policy. He seems to have it all muddled up. It is his policy, but he cannot say whether it is being carried out. Will the Minister inform us whether he has tried in the past to see that his department carry out this bilingual policy.

“Tried.” It should be carried out.

Well, if he tries it is something. We do not want to shoot him as long as he is doing his best, but he has to get a move on and do his best. We want that assurance. I will tell you what we will do, Mr. Chairman. At the next reading of the Bill we will put that question again to the Minister, and I hope he will be able to tell us how many officials have been appointed, who they are and whether they conform to the demands of the public service regulations.

I do not want anybody on the other side to have any doubts as to the policy and how it is being carried out. I will try and get the information you are asking for; the names of the people; and you cap judge for yourselves.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“Public Health”, £3,040 put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded”, £100,750,

I notice under this Vote that under almost every sub-section additional amounts are being asked for for supplies and services. We do not know what those services are. But what I want to ask is why so much additional money is required for supplies for all these institutions. One is inclined to ask whether proper control is being exercised over the supplies of the various institutions. I should hesitate to furnish data of which I personally am aware, but I know of persons who are in receipt of a salary of £30 or £40 a month and who live in great luxury in luxurious homes, and who travel about in luxurious motor cars such as perhaps no member of this House owns. The Minister will appreciate, of course, that a small fee on the large quantities which are ordered may mean quite a good deal. I do not want to cast any reflection on the institutions which are mentioned here, because the institutions which I have in mind particularly do not appear under this Vote, but I should like to know whether proper control is being exercised.

I can assure the hon. member that my department is doing everything to maintain an adequate control of those stores. I may add that in the course of the last year I have had a new system instituted under which there is centralised control, and I hope it will prove adequate. I can assure the hon. gentleman if he has any specific instances of abuse and if he will draw my attention to them I will go into the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 38.—“Justice”, £9,500,

I should like to have a little information in regard to this matter, i.e. “Expenses in connection with Repatriation by the Exchange of Union and German Nationals.” What system is being adopted by the Government in connection with the exchange of Germans? What type of German is being sent out of the country? Is the length of his residence in South Africa, his disposition, his age, taken into consideration? What is the system? Secondly, I want to ask whether Germans whose wives were Union citizens before the war, are being told to leave the country. In that case are the wives compelled to go with their husbands?

The position is that it happens entirely on a voluntary basis. An agreement was arrived at to exchange German Nationals for Union Nationals, and the rule is that we are repatriating people who ask to be repatriated. The only condition we lay down is that once the man has asked to be repatriated, we do not allow him to withdraw the request, because if we did it would make our position untenable.

Is no pressure brought to bear on them?

There is no compulsion. It is on a voluntary basis, but we insist that once a person has asked to be repatriated, he cannot change his mind because otherwise our negotiations in that connection would be entirely upset. We must know in advance who is going to leave.

The Minister is not altogether clear on this point. Are we to understand that only people who applied for repatriation are being repatriated?

Yes.

Take the case of a man who signified his desire to return to Grermany and who is married to a South African woman who was born in our country. Has she also got the choice of saying whether or not she wants to go?

There is no compulsion; she is not forced to go.

With reference to the Minister’s reply that once anyone has applied he is not allowed to alter his plans, I want to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that some of these people were in internment camps and the only way of getting out of the camp was to ask to be exchanged with Union Nationals? In the meantime some of these people have been released, and they now prefer to remain here. Would they still have to leave in that event?

I just want to put a further question. Is any pressure brought to bear on the women, whether they be German or Afrikaans or English-speaking?

No, no pressure is brought to bear on women. I merely explained that once a man has applied we do not allow him to withdraw his application.

With regard to the voluntary aspect of repatriation, I just want to put a question to the Minister of the Interior. On the 25th October last a letter was addressed to a person who had been a Union subject for 9½ years, to the effect that the Minister had decided to withdraw his naturalisation certificate and calling upon him to sign the application form for repatriation. There was no question of voluntary repatriation. He was called upon to complete the form. Now I want to ask the Minister what the position of that person is.

Was he interned?

He was interned but was released and all restrictions which applied to him were lifted. Apparently therefore he behaved himself very well. That was more than a year ago. Now all of a sudden, possibly at the insistence of the Sons of England or the Sons of Judah, there comes a notification out of the blue that his naturalisation has been cancelled. I should like to have the assuarnce of the Minister that cases of this nature will again be investigated by a court before further action is taken.

Will this man be repatriated?

He was notified that his naturalisation had been cancelled and that he would be repatriated. That is not on a voluntary basis.

Is he being repatriated under the system of exchange?

Yes, the Minister of the Interior has withdrawn his certificate.

Does that not fall under the Minister of the Interior? If so, it cannot be discussed under this Vote.

It is a question of the policy of the Minister of the Interior, but the money for the repatriation falls under the Minister of Justice. I should like to have the assurance that any person who has been so denaturalised and become a Reich German will not be repartriated except for good reason and that the matter will be subject to appeal. This person is willing to put his case before the court. He will then be satisfied. This is a person who is married to my sister and his wife is related to the Prime Minister. I mention it here in order to bring this matter to light.

It concerns a person who was interned and denaturalised. That is why I told the hon. member that it does not fall under my Department, but under the Department of the Minister of the Interior. I do not think, however, hat this person was notified that he would be deported.

A form was sent to him for repatriation, but he refused to complete it.

I should also like to bring to the notice of the House the case of a German who signed the application form for repatriation. A form was also sent to his wife for signature, but she was not willing to go, because they have two grown-up daughters who were born in this country and she and the children are not prepared to leave this country. In the meantime the German has been relased, but his difficulty is that he asked to be repatriated, while the children refused to be repatriated.

The wife and children will not be forced.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Prisons and Gaols”, £55,000,

Under B.1, “Salaries, Wages and Allowances” the appreciable sum of £40,000 additional is being asked for, and it would also seem to cover new appointments. If that is the case, I should like to know from the Minister whether these persons for whom we are asked to vote these salaries, are people whose services are used in the prisons to guard political prisoners who are sometimes imprisoned for six or nine months without any charge being brought against them. It was recently brought to our notice in the press that there were such cases.

This is due to the increased cost of living allowance. As far as I know it has nothing to do with people who were placed in charge of political prisoners.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Native Affairs”, £135,000,

I should like to ask for what purpose the amount of £80,000 is being granted to the Native Trust Fund. It is a very large sum. Then there is an amount of £10,000 for “Grants to needy ex-members of the Native Military Corps and to needy natives who rendered service with the Union Military Forces during the Great War, 1914-1920.” We are entitled to more details in that connection. This would seem to be a vote which goes further in the direction of placing. Europeans and non-Europeans on a basis of equality. The Oudstryders have been asking for a slight increase in their pensions for a number of years, but the Minister of Finance says he has no funds.

The hon. member is out of order. The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for the increase in this Vote.

I want to object to the £10,000, because it is wrong to make such a grant to the natives.

In reference to the £80,000, as hon. members are aware, an amount of £279,750 was voted in the original estimates last year as a grant to the Native Trust to cover portion of the cost of living allowances of teachers. It had to be paid through the Trust, but the Trust had not sufficient funds in hand and consequently Parliament made an amount available for native education. After the estimate for 1944-’45 had been prepared the cost of living rose, and allowances were increased, and this amount of £80,000 is needed to cover the increased allowances in accordance with the general scale. Then as regards the £10,000, on the original estimates a sum of £8,000 was made available to pay allowance to needy ex-servicemen. Seeing that under Chapter 7 of the War Pensions Act provision is made for allowances to volunteers who have served in this war, and seeing that no provision was made in respect of natives who served in the last war and who found themselves in needy circumstances, this amount was voted.

Did you let the natives fight in the last war?

Many of them were sent overseas as members of the Labour Corps.

They were labourers, they did not fight.

There are also many Europeans who did not fight but were still soldiers. In the circumstances the Government agreed to make funds available for allowances to such needy natives. Pensions are only paid to people oyer 60 years of age unless they are in bad health. The list contains at the moment about 3,700 of such cases, and an additional amount is necessary for the purpose.

I should like to know whether all the natives who served in the 1914-1918 war in the Labour Corps received such a pension.

It is only men who are over 60 years of age, or are in bad health and unable to work who come into consideration. A list has been drawn up and the number is about 3,700.

Can they all get that?

There is a means test which is applied. The man must be in straightened circumstances. The amount that he can receive is £18 a year, and his income must not be higher than £39, consequently it is only special cases.

I want to raise an objection to this amount of £10,000. We have repeatedly been told that no natives fought in the last war, that they did not do military service. Now the Minister comes along and asks for this big amount for natives who actually had service. How is that possible?

The hon. member’s objection apparently is that they were soldiers although they did not fight. It is true that they took no part in actual fighting, but our natives carried hundreds of our lads out of the fighting line, lads who were wounded, and many of them received awards for their bravery. Many of them were wounded, and I feel that in the case of a man who is in need, if he was in the line even if he did not fight, it is nothing but right that he should be assisted. When you remember that fifteen of them were decorated for bravery—and they were not men who were armed, they were men who rescued young Afrikaners in the fighting line when they were wounded—then it is only reasonable to make these grants.

One must really register a protest against the conduct of the hon. Minister. When one brings facts and asks the Minister why more money is required, then he stands up and tries to stir up feeling and to say that the natives should get this money because they carried wounded Afrikaner lads out of the fighting line. The Minister always endeavours to introduce a war spirit into the debate, when we are simply trying to find out why this sum of money should be voted. That argument of the Minister’s fails every time. I want to ask the Minister why there should be such a big increase under this item. There is an increase of more than 100 per cent. The original amount was £8,000, and now there is £10 000 more than what the Minister originally estimated. What is he reason for the big increase? I trust that the Minister will emerge from the war atmosphere and give us the facts.

Mr. Chairman, for the information of members of the public who may come across cases of indigent natives, will the Minister tell us how this fund is to be administered and to whom application should be made. I am glad to see that a fund is being provided for these cases, which are fairly numerous. One would like to have the information for the public, information as to the source from which this fund is going to be administered.

I would suggest that the hon. member advises people to go to the nearest Commissioner who will be able to give the information. I cannot tell members exactly who administers it, but I can find it out in a few minutes.

†*With reference to the point made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) I want to give him the assurance that I have not tried to drag sentiment in here. The point that was touched on is that they were not soldiers.

What is the reason for the increase?

The increased number.

My original estimate was £8,000, but there was not enough money for the increased number, and for that reason we have now to increase it. The estimate was for £8,000 and we now find that £18,000 is necessary. The largest amount that a man may receive if he is living in a town is £18 a year.

I still fail to understand the position. An amount is asked here for destitute natives who served in the Defence Force in the last Great War.

And also for natilves in the Native Military Corps in this war. It covers both sections.

The grants are for needy ex-servicemen of the 1914-1920 war.

No, it is both. Read the whole thing.

“Grants to needy ex-members of the Native Military Corps and needy natives who rendered service with the Union military forces during the Great War, 1914-1920.”

Those are the two sections.

I now want to deal with the other aspect of the matter. The Minister has not told us that these needy natives who he now desires to assist are in necessitous circumstances as a result of the fact that they took part in the war. If they were wounded and for that reason fell into needy circumstances, or if they became ill as a result of their part in the war, then there is the War Pensions Act. This is evidently an ex gratia grant.

May I point out to the hon. member that this grant is the sequel to an Act. The hon. member may not now discuss the merits of that Act.

What Act?

Act No. 44 of 1942.

Does that lay down that the natives who fought in the last war may now receive an ex gratia grant?

Yes, this £10,000 is just the increase. The original sum under this Act is £8,000.

I should like to understand the position thoroughly. The reason is that when the sum was voted last year the Government or the Minister did not know what the amount was going to be.

The increase is really in connection with soldiers who have had service in this war. We underestimated there. The amount covers both classes, and the increase is in respect of the class connected with this war.

Why are the others mentioned then?

Because the Vote covers both. We here employ the title of the Vote as it appears in the main estimates.

I would like to have information from the Minister on the item J. This is a grant to the South African Native Trust Fund. Can the Minister tell me whether it is intended to develop the land?

It is only for native teachers.

It is simply a question of the extra living allowance cost for native teachers and nothing else.

Will the Minister tell us whether any portion of the additional £18,000 is likely to be devoted for completing the purchase of land which was due and approved of by the Native Affairs Commission some years ago in Natal.

I tried to make it clear in both official languages and on several occasions that this refers to the cost of living allowance of native teachers only.

I should just like to put a question to the Minister of Native Affairs. This amount is for needy natives who have not yet received pensions. They are under the age limit for pensions. Apparently they have not suffered wounds. They are now poor but people do not always remain poor. Should they now find employment, will the amount be reduced, or what is the Minister going to do?

I have tried to make it clear that the amount is intended for needy men who are unable to find work, who cannot get employment. The man who can get work will not receive this.

And if work is offered to them?

If employment is offered to them and they can work, the grant will be taken away. I have endeavoured to make it clear to the House that it is only for needy men who cannot work. If they are under the age of 60 years the grant can only be made if they are too ill to work.

I cannot say that I am satisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Finance. He states that this covers cases which were provided for in a certain Act. What Act is it that makes provision for grants to people who were not wounded, or who are not in any way entitled to pensions?

It is the normal provision in connection with exservicemen in genral.

Ex-servicemen?

Yes, the War Veterans Act also applies to this war. It applies to all the wars.

For black and white?

Yes.

Is there an age limit for veterans?

Yes.

And what is the age limit?

Sixty years.

Have you taken into service natives who were 60 years of age?

The limit is 60 years, but in cases where they are not yet 60 but are unable to work on grounds of health they may also be taken into consideration. That applies to all sections, to people who are 60 years of age or medically unfit. There are cases of persons who are medically unfit to work, but who cannot draw the ordinary war pension, and they come under consideration for these grants.

It seems a rather funny business to me. Here we have an increase of £10,000. The impression has been created that it is to help needy natives of the last Great War.

Both sections.

Now the Minister of Finance comes and says that it also has reference to those who have joined the army in this war.

He has stated that it is mainly this war.

He has definitely stated it is principally in connection with this war. He has said it is in connection with the present war that they estimated wrongly. They could not have estimated wrongly as regards the 1914 war. It must be this war. The men have not been wounded, because if they had been wounded in the war they would not fall under this; then they would fall under the ordinary pension laws. So I must take it that in most cases it refers to broken-down natives. Now I ask this: Must we take it that seeing that young strong natives were attested principally to serve as labourers, the Government in this war took into the service a number of old natives who have already to be granted old age pensions. I am not satisfied with this explanation. The thing appears to me as Englishmen put it, “a little fishy.”

There is a considerable number of all classes of these persons who have not turned 60 but who having left the army are now unable to work but cannot ascribe their ill-health directly to the war. There are also a considerable number of Europeans in the same position.

We know that you enlisted in the army many white men of advanced age.

There are soldiers, relatively young fellows, who receive this verteran’s pension, and this is the position. The war veteran’s pension applies to all wars, and it applies to all people who are not yet 60, and who are medically unfit and unable to work, but whose ill-health is not the direct result of war service.

I should like to know how much money the Government has paid out to these natives in the last ten years.

I do not think it would be very much.

I should like to have some information from the Minister of Native Affairs in reference to the grant to the South African Native Trust Fund. I had thought that the Native Trust Fund would be augmented from pass monies and fines and rentals if it was necessary to get an increase under this Vote. This deficit appears curious to me. Has money now to be taken from the Treasury to support this fund? If the amount is inadequate is the Minister not able to assist the fund by increasing rentals and pass fees? The natives receive very considerable privileges in the native reserves, and it seems to me peculiar that £80,000 must now be added to the original amount of £279,750 to stregthen the Native Trust Fund, a fund which is devoted exclusively to native affairs. This should be done out of the Native Trust Fund, and if the money is not sufficient the fund can be increased by increasing the rentals. If there is a deficit, should the Minister not rather increase the pass fees or rentals and augment the fund in that way?

As I have just made clear, there is not enough money in the Trust Fund to cover this amount. We demand a rental which in our opinion is reasonable, but when something of this sort occurs where it is necessary to obtain further funds to balance the two accounts, it would be unfair to expect that I should impose further taxation on the natives.

We voted money last year.

The money was voted last year, so I hope that that point has now been clarified.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 44.—“Commerce and Industries”, £70,700,

I should like to offer a few observations in connection with A.5, “Expenses of investigations into industries by Costs Accountant on behalf of the Board of Trade and Indutries.” From the position as it is represented to us here, I presume that this amount is required for accountants who have been engaged from outside the Department of Trade and Indutries. The hon. the Minister will recall that during the previous year on the discussion for the extension of the Act, it was then pointed out that it would be necessary for the Board of Trade and Industries itself to obtain accountants. In this connection I should like to know whether accountants have already been appointed by the Board of Trade and Indutries, and whether these accountants have been appointed outside the Minister’s department in connection with this investigation. Then in reference to the investigation, I should like to know whether he can inform us how far the investigation has proceeded. It is clearly in pursuance of the instruction which a little more than a year ago was given to the Board of Trade and Industries to make a detailed survey of the existing industries in connection with the possibility of extending industry. I shall be glad if the Minister can give us information on this matter. If it is the case, then I have two requests to make. Can the Minister give us an indication when preliminary or interim reports will be issued in reference to the investigation in this connection. I know from experience that these reports of cost accountants contain a great deal of information which may be of value, apart from the Board. In the past these reports of the accountants have not been available except for the members of the Board of Trade and Indutries. Now I would like to put this question to the Minister. In view of the fact that we are about to encounter such an important period of development when we expect that everyone who has an interest in the matter will help to promote this development, can he give us the assurance that these reports will be available for members of this House, or at any rate for members who are interested in the matter. I believe that in the past they were only available to members of the Board of Trade and Indutries, but the reports are very valuable, and I think members of this House would be interested to receive copies of those reports. They are not secret, and I do not think that anyone would be detrimentally affected thereby, including the industries themselves. It cannot be to their detriment. I shall be very glad if we could have the assurance that members who are interested in these reports will be able to obtain them for the purposes of study. Then in reference to K. (Administration of war measures), the Minister will remember that on Monday I put a question to the Minister of Public Works in reference to the restrictions on building material. I assume that this is one of the things that is controlled under the war measure. If it is not then I am out of order. But I shall be glad to know whether it is really one of the matters which is controlled under the war measures. If I am right in assuming that the control of building material and the increase of supplies is a function of the Minister of Public Works, and that it falls under this Vote, then I should like to put the question that I put on Monday to the Minister of Public Works: When can the public expect some relief in connection with the strict control of building material, so that private individuals may have the opportunity to build. There are tens of thousands of people, or hundreds of thousands of people if we include all sections, who today would like to make a start on private residences for their own use—that includes Government officials—but as a result of the strict limitation of building material through the Minister concerned, they are unable to start on the work. Many people complain and feel that they have been unjustly treated. I shall be glad if the Minister of Economic Development can give me an answer to that question, or if he can hold out any prospect when the restrictions will be somewhat relaxed, so that private contractors and private individuals will have an opportunity to build dwellings for private purposes. Then under O. I see that an additional amount is required for the subsidy on the production and importation of salt by the Director-General of Supplies. That has been approved in principle. I presumed in previous years during the debate, that this is as the result of seasonal circumstances, but those circumstances have been reversed today. No longer is there too much rain to make salt. There is now too little rain for the requirements of the country. I should like to know whether this stands in connec tion with seasonal requirements; is it in connection with some special use? I shall be glad if the Minister can give us some information on this.

Mr. Chairman, provision is made for £8,000 increase on the subsidy for the production and importation of salt. I would ask the Minister to see that it is made impossible to get permits to import salt in the future as has been the custom in the past. Firms of old standing have had their applications for permits to import salt turned down, whereas new firms have had permits granted two days after the other firm’s application for a permit had been turned down, with the result that they imported unknown brands of bad quality salt with the ultimate increase of price to the consumer. There was a big waste through pad packing. The usual exporters of salt to this country have almost been shut out of the market. Whether this was intentional or not I cannot say but they have not got a chance. Where they have supplied the market for the last thirty to forty years they can hardly supply one bag now.

The hon. member is out of Order. He can only discuss the increase in the Vote and not the increase in the price of salt.

With all deference to you, Sir, I should think that it affects the price of salt.

I am sorry but the hon. member is out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I take it that we are being asked to vote this amount in regard to the importation production of salt because there has been a failure to realise at what price salt could be manufactured or imported. That, I think, is the point being made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) and it is certainly a point which I wish to make myself. It is within my knowledge that the quality of salt which has been bought and which we now have to pay for is exceedingly bad. Even the natives refuse to take it, and yet people applying for a permit are compelled to take this salt whether they like it or not.

The hon. member is out of order. The same remarks which I made to the hon. member for Kensington apply to the hon. member for Pinetown.

May I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that we are being asked to pay for salt that is not saleable because of the circumstances I have mentioned, the bad quality of the salt.

£13,000 is being asked for for cost accountants. These are not members of the Department. As members know, the Board of Trade has been engaged for the last twelve months on a number of important investigations and the Board has not got a cost accountant to carry out the work. It is hoped to establish our own cost accounting department to work for the department and for the Board of Trade, but we have not got them yet, and so we have employed a panel of accountants for the purposes of this investi gation. We have done our best to keep expenses down as far as we could by choosing our accountants to do the work in such a manner that they do not have to do too much travelling and so that they may get through the work as quickly as possible. An hon. member also asked me how far the enquiry had got. I am unable to give him a date when we may expect the report but I understand that the Board of Trade has in fact completed its general report and it is now in the process of final drafting so that we may expect to have it in the course of this Session, and of course it will be put on the Table available for all members and the public generally. The hon. member asked the question about building materials, and he also linked it up with a question which he has on the Order Paper and about which I am Still obtaining information, but the position in regard to building materials generally is that they remain in very short supply. We have during the past twelve months been able to release from control a good many of the articles required in building but as far as building materials generally are concerned they do not remain in short supply. I do not think it is really relevant in this Vote but I mention it.

Will the cost accountant’s reports be made available to Parliament?

I cannot say that. The hon. member has been a member of the Board of Trade himself and knows that these reports are very confidential. They cannot be published, but a summarised form, the accumulated knowledge gained from the report will be made available. As far as salt is concerned this amount is simply an underestimate of what was put to the vote last year in connection with the salt which we had to import from Cape Cross owing to the extreme shortage of supplies during the early part of last year. We have had to get in 25,000 tons of salt from South West Africa and 6,000 tons from the Red Sea, and we estimated that the loss incurred would be about £35,000. The price of salt was controlled by the Price Controller and we had to sell the salt at a fixed price for sale generally and we estimated that that would be the loss, but actually it turned out to be £43,000.

I should like to ask the Minister how it is that a loss was actually incurred in connection with the salt. Was it imported through ordinary trade channels or was it imported by the Government and disposed of through Government channels? The cost is something like £43,000 for the importation of salt. I feel sure that if the Government would only use trade channels for this salt trade and utilise the people who are accustomed to handling it and disposing of it, we would not be faced with such an amount. It is evidently a dead loss on the Government importation. May I ask the Minister whether the loss was incurred as a result of the salt not being imported through ordinary trade channels.

If the hon. member had taken the slightest interest in the problem of obtaining salt during the last few months, he would have known that the only place where we could get it was from where it was lying in the desert 100 miles north of Swakopmund. We had had to go and fetch it. The matter was extremely urgent. We mined this salt north of Swakopmund and then we railed it to Johannesburg, where it was crushed and distributed to the consumers.

The Minister has replied to this question of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) regarding the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. As the Minister has told us in the past, and as we hope, this report will be the result of a very general investigation into the industrial position in South Africa at present; it should be of considerable value to this House in determining the future policy that the Government will adopt regarding the protection of industries in this country. In the past we have found it is practically impossible for members of the public, and in fact for members of this House to get hold of copies of these reports of the Board of Trade and Industries. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that such an important report as this will be made available to individual members of this House, and to the public, in as short a time as possible. The second point I should like to raise under “Salaries and Allowances” (A.1) is whether the additional amount asked of £15,700 represents allowances, purely and simply. If it includes any salaries, I should like to know why, in view of the fact that the Department of Commerce and Industries is practically doing nothing more in connection with the administration of war measures; that has all been taken over by the Director of War Supplies. What is the reason for such an increase? With regard to “General—K—Administration of War Measures”—this is under the Vote of the Department of Commerce and Industries. Does that mean the Department of Commerce and Industries is still spending such enormous sums of money on war measures, of does this mean that the money is being spent by the Directorate of War Supplies?

I appreciate the reply of the Minister, and I think it is just as well that some of these matters should be ventilated, because the outside public do not get this information, and I think they will appreciate it. I should like to ask the Minister, too, whether a certain amount of the loss that was reported to have been dumped in Durban Harbour, when a large number of skin-curers and similar people could have made good use of this imported salt, but were denied it; and it was said in Durban this salt had been dumped into the bay while they were crying out for it. If that is so I think it would clear the air if the Minister could explain. It was never explained to the people of Durban why this salt was dumped in the bay when it could have been used for skin-curing. What was the reason for that, and does it represent part of this loss.?

That had nothing whatever to do with this salt. That was another story altogether. In regard to the enquiry made by the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel), I can assure the hon. member that the report of the Board of Trade and Industries will be made available to every member of Parliament, and in due course he will find a copy of it in his locker. He asked a question about the increase in wages. It is not altogether the department as such, but there are a number of other appointments which were made during the year. Prof. Sutton is carrying out the investigation in regard to post-war factories, and there are some extra members of the Board of Trade. As far as the war measures are concerned, about half the amount is due to increased cost of living allowance, but the balance is made up by extra people who had to be appointed under the Price Controller and the Petrol Controller, plus the appointment of a Price Controller and Petrol Controller. Prior to last year the Price Controller had not been paid, and the Petrol Controller was secretary of the department. That makes up the extra amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Directorate of Demobilisation”, £219,000,

The Government is handling the matter of the demobilisation of soldiers as purely a party question so that we on this side of the House feel a little nervous about endeavouring to obtain information in connection with it, but if we feel that something wrong is being done anywhere then it is our duty to try to enquire into and to gain all possible information. I should like to put one or two questions to the hon. Minister in connection with a certain matter. Last year when the Government required soldiers for the Sixth Division it launched a big recruiting campaign. In Cape Town a considerable number of people reported in response and they were examined by the doctor and found medically fit. They were passed and attested as soldiers. They were then told that they were full members of the Defence Forces. They were instructed to be at the station on a certain evening in order that they might be sent to Potchefstroom. When they were thus informed, they of course broke up the home. In some cases they resigned from their jobs, and I also know of cases where they gave up their employment against the wish of their employers. They sold their furniture and endeavoured to have their families looked after by relatives, and then they went to Potchefstroom. After they had been there 40 days they had to undergo a further medical examination—this time not to see whether they were bodily fit, but to ascertain whether their nerves were strong enough for the tank section. My information is—and I am putting questions to the Minister to ascertain whether my information is accurate—that those who failed to pass the second medical examination were not sent to the demobilisation depôts so that an endeavour might be made to find work for them. No effort was made to assist them to get their homes together again, or to put them in a position to pick up the threads of their home life again. Not a word of thanks was given to them. They were simply told. We do not want you any longer, we do not need you. I know of one man who left Potchefstroom with £1 10s. in his pocket. He has no longer had his employment, and he had to try to get his home together again. I should like to know from the Minister whether the facts are as they have been represented to me. I would like to know whose fault it is and who is responsible. It is not the fault of these men. They listened to the appeal to the Prime Minister; they came forward and reported; they were found medically fit and they were accepted as soldiers. For a considerable period they were trained as soldiers. And then there was a second examination which they did not pass. Why were not those requirements included in the first examination? Why did the Government allow these men to break up their homes all for nothing? I believe that the responsibility rests on the military authorities.

Should the hon. member not rather bring up the matter under the Defence Vote?

They were not sent to the depots from the camp. We are here dealing with the discharge of soldiers. They were accepted as soldiers, and after they were 40 days in the training camp they were simply told: We do not want you any longer.

At the moment I cannot see what this has to do with the increase on this Vote.

In any case I have put the question, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister answers it.

The hon. member is out of order. The functions of the Directorate of Demobilisation only commenced when the military authorities informed the director that they no longer required the services of a given volunteer. When that happens the directorate is informed that that volunteer will be sent to a dispersal depot, and when he is sent to that dispersal depôt the directorate is responsible.

Why were you not informed about the demobilisation of these people?

That is a matter for Defence. But I want to say at once that I shall be only too glad if the hon. member will give me details, to have the matter looked into. But prima facie it is a matter for investigation. He must not, however, saddle on to this Vote a matter which is germane to the Department of Defence. On the facts he has given the Directorate would have no knowledge of this particular incident.

In connection with the question that was put by my hon. friend opposite, I think that the matter falls under Demobilisation, namely, under Item E which we find here—grants’ that may be given to ex-soldiers. The question is whether the Minister of Demobilisation will think it fitting to make plans under which the class of man who has been mentioned will receive consideration. If he will make enquiries he will find that the case mentioned by my hon. friend opposite is not the only case of this sort. I agree with him that where the military authorities have made a mistake in connection with soldiers, or in connection with any man whom they have taken into their service, although it is merely temporary, it is still a mistake of the Government Department, and for that reason that man has a certain call on demobilisation. I know that under demobilisation the attitude is taken up that a man must have been three months in the army before he can be taken into consideration, but seeing that these grants are given to soldiers, I think that that class of man should be taken into consideration. I should like to put a question to the Minister in connection with Item A under this Vote, and I want to know whether that amount includes the clerical staff in the Demobilisation Committees in the district. The work of those committees is at the moment gravely impeded because there are only part-time officials, and because clerical staff cannot be appointed. On that account the whole scheme has been seriously embarrassed. I should also like to know whether this amount for salaries is designed to give remuneration to those people to a certain extent. Then I have received a telegram from my district that the work of the Demobilisation Committee will be confronted with difficulty if an additional petrol allowance or additional transport is not made available. This has reference to Item B. They say that transport and petrol are scarce and that the people cannot continue with the work. Moreover, they have no office. I should like to know from the Minister whether this limited sum is intended to assist those committees to a certain extent.

I should like to refer to an unsatisfactory aspect of these additional estimates. That is the following: My remarks apply to every Vote, but they apply in particular to this Vote, where such a large additional sum is asked. Under the Standing Orders of this House hon. members are only permitted to discuss the reasons for increases on the additional estimates. It may be a matter of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the Chairman asked the members to vote on that immediately. We do not know what the reasons for the increase are. The members must first stand up, put questions, and even transgress the rules of the House in order to induce the Minister to make an announcement on the Vote, so that they would know what they were voting for. The Minister of Finance, in his speech asking the House to go into Committee, did not explain the reasons for this increase.

Yes, in the case of this Vote I did so on introducing the motion.

Yes, but not in the pase of the other Votes. Take the £10,000 in the case of the Native Affairs Vote. The Minister did not stand up to give an explanation why the additional amount was necessary. Hon. members have to resort to all sorts of means to discover reasons, and eventually the Minister stands up and he then gives the information in a reluctant manner. I want to make the request that as soon as a Vote comes up, the Minister concerned should immediately rise in his place and give the House the reasons for the increase, and then we would know what we are talking about.

At the risk of again being pulled up for being out of order, I would like to ask for some information about the Essential Services Protection Corps—

Order, order, I am sorry I have to rule the hon. member out of order.

I should now like to put another question to the Minister of Demobilisation. The demobilisation scheme was introduced on the 3rd January. Before that date women members of the Defence Forces could make application to the Department of Socital Welfare in Cape Town for the civilian clothing grant which they were entitled to on their discharge from the army. They received a fixed amount of £15, and then they could get a warrant for the purchase of civilian clothes up to an amount of £30. But on the 3rd January, when the scheme came into effect they could no longer go to the Social Welfare Department for such a warrant. They called on the Demobilisation office but that office had no authority to issue such a warrant to the women. I understand that this morning they are standing in a queue—both men and women—at the Demobilisation Office, and these people are terribly perplexed. Was the Minister there this morning and did he see how the men and women were standing there? It has been stated that that office has no authority at the moment to give the warrants to these women. It is being given to the men, although I understand that today it has also been stopped in their case. If the Government is going to work in this way, it does not require this additional money. I should like the Minister to inform us how it is this confusion has arisen? The women in Cape Town are tremendously dissatisfied, and I am anxious that the Minister should explain to us how such a state of affairs has arisen.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to Vote 45 (E)—“Grants to ex-volunteers in connection with readjustment in civil life not provided on any other vote.” This is not clear to me. I know of certain occasions at the beginning of the war, and even somewhat later where persons have simply remained in their, civil posts—I cannot explain this and very few people can explain it—but they nevertheless have their shoulders ornamented with stars and crowns, and those stars and crowns continue to multiply. They remain in exactly the same positions and they are still in them. All that has happened is that the stars have multiplied. It has come to my knowledge that they have appealed for assistance under this scheme, and I should like to know from the Minister whether this is the case. Then there is a serious matter in this connection. It has come to my knowledge that people from the platteland have been placed in positions of a purely civilian character, for which they were totally unfitted. In some cases this has happened with the influence of members of this House. Those people have been absolutely unfitted for the work, and junior officials had to do their work for them. One of these people—it is a notorious case—appealed for assistance under this head, and apparently he is going to receive that help under this Vote. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us more information on this matter, because I cannot understand how a person has to readjust himself to civil life if he never was out of civil life.

I should like to put a further question to the Minister. It has reference to the appointment of demobilisation committees, and it is a grievance which is felt by all these demobilisation committees. No matter how important these committees are, whether it is a big committee in a centre such as Cape Town, or smaller committees, but every request even for £1 cannot be approved by them, and must first be referred to the head office in Pretoria, with the result that no business is done. Such matters are left for months in Pretoria, because under these circumstances, the requests in Pretoria must accumulate. The attention of the head committee in Pretoria is occupied with the most trivial requests of the different demobilisation committees, instead of that committee being in a position to devote its attention to the big matters. Instead of it doing that, it has to consider requests of £1 or £10 because they all have to be sent, in the first instance, to the head office in Pretoria. My information is that these requests are accumulating, and the people no longer know what to do. If things go on in this way the Minister is going to wreck the whole of his organisation. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not consider it desirable and whether he cannot trust the local demobilisation committees and empower them to approve the smaller amounts without referring them to Pretoria. Grants may be made of up to £250, and I do not suggest that a decision on such amounts should be left to the local committees—nor on applications for amounts of £200. But if the Minister takes the standpoint that all these applications must be referred to Pretoria, then the whole organisation can be involved in difficulties and they will have the most terrible muddle in the world. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot allow applications for up to £25, or perhaps up to £50 to be handled by the local committees without having to refer these applications to Pretoria in the first instance.

The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) has asked me to give him some information in regard to Item E, “Grants to ex-volunteers”. I took the opportunity during the last session of Parliament to give the House full details in regard to this matter, and I have had subsequent opportunities of elaborating this particular scheme. It is part of the financial assistance scheme, under which grants up to a maximum of £250 or loans up to a maximum of £1,250 are made where the circumstances justify it, to ex-volunteers, if by the giving of such a grant it is hoped that the ex-volunteer will be reinstated into civilian life. It will be for the demobilisation committees themselves to consider each particular case and to decide whether the circumstances justify them in making a recommendation. These committees consist of persons who have the welfare of ex-servicemen at heart, and they can be relied upon to deal with matters sympathetically. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) has asked for details regarding the Vote, more particularly whether the Vote contemplates granting assistance to demobilisation committees. The answer is yes. All demobilisation committees have been asked to submit to the Directorate their requirements regarding clerical assistance, office accommodation and so on, and it is anticipated that at certain centres it will be necessary to employ full-time clerical assistants. At other places full-time clerical assistance may be unnecessary and it may be sufficient to emplay a part-time assistant, or part-time assistants. But I do want to emphasise this, Mr. Chairman, that these demobilisation committees have begun to operate only as from the 3rd January. We are bringing into operation a new system, and I would ask hon. members, and I would also ask the public to have a little patience. We are giving the fullest authority to these committees in most matters, and it is for them to put their own house in order.

Was I correct about the ladies?

I will come to that. They were asked what their requirements would be. But they must be reasonable about their requirements. If a Demobilisation Committee in a small country place asked for an office and for a full-time secretary they would not get it. Remember this, that the persons who are doing this work are persons who have asked to leave civilian life and to help in the army, They helped to recruit people. The Government now wants to help them. We expect, and we know that we will get, a great measure of voluntary service from ’ these people, but in a great many cases they will have to be paid, particularly in the larger centres. As far as petrol is concerned, I understand from the Director-General that the committees have been asked to put in their requirements there. It may be that a voluntary member of the committee has to make a journey in order to investigate a matter. But it will not be free petrol; coupons only will be made available, and the committees will be asked to pay for the petrol themselves. I understand that is the position at present. If it is felt in any given case that this leads to hardship, the local committee may put up its case. As far as the clothing grant is concerned, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) does not apparently completely appreciate the position as it was and as it is now. Prior to the financial assistance scheme coming into operation, on 3rd January, before what is known as the £50 scheme administered by the Department of Social Welfare, the initial purpose of the scheme was to’ enable artisans to purchase tools which they might require for their work. Gradually the rule was extended to enable the Department of Social Welfare to supply other items also, such as clothing for persons who could not do their work otherwise. A bank clerk might return to find that he has only one suit, and he is given a £50 clothing allowance, but he might need to buy some extra clothes and he might then be given only an additional £30. From 3rd January the £50 scheme goes, and merges into the general £250 scheme, but there may still be persons who require £30 or £40 in order to enable them to make a fresh start. These persons will now go to the local demobilisation committee, and that committee will decide whether the application is justified. Persons in disposal depôts will be dealt with in those dépôts by a depôt committee; and that committee has been given authority to make grants under the £250 scheme up to £50. Authority has been given by the Treasury to enable these local disposal depôt committees to authorise grants up to £50. That authority has not been extended to the demobilisation committees themselves. The demobilisation committees will deal at this stage with persons who are already demobilised. Persons about to be demobilised will be dealt with in the camps.

I think it will be better if the Hon. Minister confines himself to the reason for the increase and does not deal with the scheme as a whole.

I was asked the question whether the committees appointed to deal with grants under “E” will have authority to make grants. I agree with the hon. member that the point is one for consideration. It has in fact been under consideration and a decision will no doubt be arrived at in a short time.

Why the difference between the two classes, the man about to be demobilised and the one already demobilised?

May I appeal to the Minister that if he does agree to allow additional petrol, not to allow these people to draw that petrol, because we do not wish to have people on the Demobilisation Committee to come and serve there with this one object in mind, namely that they will get extra petrol or additional tyres. I tell the Minister this, that those of us who were prepared to serve voluntarily in the beginning of the war will serve to the end of the war. We will see that every soldier will bé looked after On the platteland. I think that if the Minister agrees to give these people extra petrol and tyres he will be on dangerous ground.

Your contention is the principle adopted. We ask for voluntary assistance, and we will make available petrol where it is necessary.

I want to go a step further and appeal to the Minister not to give these additional coupons. Be very, very careful before you do that. Let the Demobilisation Committee advise you on the point, because I can tell you that there are many people anxious to serve on the committee for an ulterior motive, not because they want to serve the soldier but in order to obtain gain for themselves.

Order. I must ask the hon. member not to pursue that aspect any further. We are only dealing with the reasons for the increase.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I do wish to say that that should not be done.

The hon. member must not continue in that strain.

Well, I hope we will not use that increased money to pay for such committees.

The hon. Minister told us that under the demobilisation scheme the £15 grant is also included to give exservicemen an opportunity to buy tools.

They still get the £15. But it is now included in the £50 scheme.

I have seen cases myself where the £15 has been granted, and an hour after the tools were bought they have been disposed of at the pawnbrokers and the money has gone in drink.

The hon. member cannot deal with that point now.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Funds:

Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, £201,605, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E.—“Irrigation”, £3,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F.—“Local Works and Loans”, £100,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H.—“Forestry”, £135,000,

I cannot quite understand why an amount for cost of living allowance should appear on the loan vote. Does it not always come out of current expenditure?

There are certain works which are financed from loan funds, and the persons working on them draw their salaries and consequently also the cost of living allowances, from loan funds.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Commerce and Industries”, £10,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote P.—“South African Mint”, £21,500,

An amount appears here for the purchase of plant and equipment for installation in the South African Mint. Is that for war production?

This is in connection with the Mint Department. It has nothing to do with the war production section.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote R.—“Governor-General’s National War Fund”, £172,303, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote T.—“Transport”, £115,500,

Will the Minister inform us what the increase signifies?

I can explain in a few words the reason for this increase. Members will remember that two years ago we established a pool for motorcars, so that we could have cars available for the country’s essential services. Last year we had an opportunity of buying something like 250 cars from overseas. The first cars in the pool were purchased locally but last year we had this opportunity of buying 250, and so the House voted £100,000 for that purpose. We have found that the actual purchase price of these cars was a little more, £15,500 more. £15,500 of this extra amount now being asked for is accounted for by that, the increase in the cost of the cars since the House decided to buy last year. We have recently had an opportunity of buying 90 cars which were sent to the Argentine by the United States, and which were held up at Monte Video. We made an offer for them and got them. This £100,000 is the cost of those cars. £100,000 is an additional amount because we found that from time to time we have an opportunity of purchasing cars in small numbers.

£100,000 for 90 cars! Expensive cars!

Are motor-cars priority No. 1 in imports?

The cars cost approximately £600 each. They are fairly big cars.

Will these cars be made available to the public?

I will explain what we have done with the cars. Through this pool we have purchased locally 165 cars. We purchased the 250 I have told you about, 215 of which have so far arrived, and we have now purchased the other 90. That gives a total of 505 cars. 156 cars have so far been released, chiefly to the police, the Government Garage and the Post Office, leaving a balance of 349. That balance is being held and will only be released for essential work. That is the whole stock of cars we have today.

Will it not be made available to the public?

It will be, provided any member of the oublie needs it for essential work, as a doctor in the country for instance who must have transport for his work.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Deputy-Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill.