I move—

The effect of this motion being adopted will be that the House will not sit on Ascension Day, Thursday, 10th May. It is in accordance with our custom not to sit on that day and I am sure it will be the general wish of the House not to sit on that day.

I second.

Agreed to.

Suspension of Automatic Adjournment and Saturday Sittings.

I move—

We have now reached the stage of the Session where the question is continually put how long the Session will still last. It is natural that members should ask that question. They want to know what arrangements they should make in regard to their stay in Cape Town and as regards their business elsewhere. I think I have the right to deduce from the opinions expressed by hon. members that in general members of the House are now prepared to sit a little longer than formerly, and for that reason this motion is proposed. It proposes longer sitting hours so as to hasten the end of the Session. The position is that as regards legislation we have perhaps progressed a little further than we had progressed at this period in the former Session. In any case probably less time will be required for dealing with the legislative programme than was the case in the previous Session. But as regards the discussion of the Estimates of Expenditure we are still far behind, and we have not yet started discussing the taxation proposals.

We have not yet touched on the Vote of the Minister of Lands either.

There are other important votes which will of course have fullest attention of the House. This motion consists of two proposals. One, the second one, implies that Saturday will be taken as an additional sitting day. We are of course sorry to have to do it, but if we are prepared to sit longer hours it is essential also to sit on Saturday. Last year we sat on Saturdays from the 29th April. It is now proposed to take Saturdays as from 5th May, and I hope that hon. members will be prepared to make that sacrifice.

The whole of Saturday.

We shall always be prepared to consider adjourning before the usual time if enough work has been done. As regards the other suggestion contained in this motion, that refers to the automatic adjournment at 6.40 p.m. In the past, before the black-out and the curtailment of traffic were introduced, it was usual in the last portion of the Session completely to eliminate the automatic adjournment, and we are thus acting in accordance with the practice of the past, and also doing what we did last year. It often happens that a discussion is practically completed when we come to the automatic time of adjournment at 6.40 p.m., and that it we could sit a few minutes longer the discussion about the matter would be ended. But because the automatic adjournment is there the discussion must be postponed to the following day and then it often takes another few hours or perhaps a full day. It will therefore assist very much in speeding up the work if we can suspend the automatic adjournment. I will give the assurance that the Government will act reasonably in connection with the application of the suggestion. I think it can be accepted that in the large majority of cases we shall adjourn at approximately the same time we adjourn now; in other words, in the large majority of cases we will not sit after 7 o’clock. That will only happen in exceptional cases. If there were co-operation between us and the Opposition, the determination of these exceptional cases can be made after consultation with the Opposition. But in any case I wish to give the assurance that when it appears necessary that it shall be done we will always do our best to inform hon. members as soon as possible through the Whips about our plans. We shall therefore try to regulate this matter as reasonably as possible, taking into consideration the difficulties of hon. members.

I second.

As already indicated, we are not prepared to support this motion. We shall oppose it. In the first place I just want to say that we are faced with the fact that this Session, in my opinion, has already been stretched out longer than we had reason to think in the beginning. A lot of time has been wasted during this Session up to now.

Your fault.

It was wasted by the attitude adopted by the Government in regard to certain matters in connection with which it should no longer be necessary to have discussions in this House. During this Session, just as in previous Sessions, much time was wasted for example in discussions about language rights, equal language rights. Time and again legislation came before the House in connection with which it was necessary for this side of the House to insist on the application of the provisions of the South Africa Act. What was the attitude of the other side in regard to this matter? We had to have long discussions in connection with almost every Bill because the other side simply refused to abide by the provisions of the South Africa Act in letter or in spirit. If these discussions had not taken place, if it were not necessary to have them still at this period, we would have progressed much further with the work of this House. We are faced with another matter namely that in this Session the work has been dealt with more slowly than in other Sessions because there was no proper understanding or co-operation or consultation between the Parties, as there could be between this side and the other side of the House through the medium of the Whips. If there is one thing which can speed up the work of Parliament and make for smooth running, it is that in regard to the procedure which is to be followed, or the time to be taken in connection with various matters, the two sides should agree through the medium of the Whips. During this Session that did not happen, and in all probability it will not happen before the end of the Session. The reason for that was evident already in the beginning of the Session, when we on this side of the House moved a motion which amounted to a motion of no confidence in the Government and was recognised as such by the other side. Then the usual rule, and the right of the Opposition, that it should receive preference over other work, was departed from. A considerable time was used because this side of the House had to fight for its usual Parliamentary rights, and when the Government departed from the usual rules, the consultation between us which had taken place in other Sessions was ceased and the relationship necessary to speed up the work was interrupted. That puts us in the position in which we are today, that we have a more drawn out Session than usual. I can only say that if the same type of thing is repeated by the Government in future Sessions, we will again adopt the same attitude in this House. We are not prepared to abide by a tyrannical action on the part of the majority in the House. Two things are being suggested in this motion. The first is in connection with prolonging the sitting day by suspending the automatic adjournment. As regards that we have now been given the assurance which was also given last year, precisely the same, namely that it will not be misused. Only when a matter under consideration is almost finished and it will evidently require just a few more minutes to complete the matter finally, will use be made of this decision. That was the promise in the previous Session. Was that fulfilled? Time and again we found that instead of applying it in that way the House Sat here until 9 and 10 o’clock and sometimes even later. That was not the intention. It was misused and we do not intend in this matter simply to take the Government at its word. Because it was misused we now raise objection to it. Another proposal here is in connection with the use of Saturdays for Parliamentary work, Government work. I need not say that it means a great sacrifice on the part of members. If members are to sit here in the evening over and above the usual time for adjournment, they are tired and rundown at the end of the week. In any case members on this side of the House do their duty in connection with the activities of Parliament; they work hard and need the week-end. It is a great sacrifice for members to give up their Saturdays, and that can only be expected of us if very good reasons exist. This sacrifice is generally asked of members right at the end of the Session. Therefore the question we have to ask here is whether we have come to the end of the Session? Has the usual time now arrived for utilising Saturdays? Are we near the end of the Session. In order to judge of that it is necessary in the first place that the Government should tell us what work it still wants to complete before the end of the Session. The Acting Prime Minister gave us no information in connection with that matter. If one looks at the Order Paper there is still a mass of work on the Order Paper still to be completed. In connection with quite a number of the measures there is a difference of opinion. The major portion of the Estimates have still to be dealt with. The taxation proposals have not yet been touched. These are all matters which invite quite a lot of discussion. We have had no information of what work must still be dealt with. I think the Government should first inform us on that point. In the beginning of the Session mention was made in the Speech from the Throne of certain measures. It was announced amidst the waving of flags and blaring of trumpets that during this Session steps would be taken for bringing about social securtiy. If we have come near the end of the Session, where are those measures? We have seen neither hide nor hair of the legislation in connection with social security. We must have an explanation and must know what the Government proposes to do in that connection. We shall vote against this motion.

My Party is less concerned about how long Parliament will sit than about the question of what measures the Government still intends introducing during this Session. I therefore immediately wish to associate myself with the question of the Leader of the. Opposition, namely whether this House will adjourn before measures are adopted which were announced in the Speech from the Throne? Has it ever happened before in the history of South Africa that something was announced in the Speech from the Throne but that Parliament rose without saying a word more about it? That is my first question; What does the Government still intend doing before we cease activities? Then my Party definitely intends to demand from the Minister that time should be available for dealing with the promised Miners’ Phthisis Bill. Last year it was insisted upon and solemnly promised, and a dozen members have repeatedly asked what is to happen about that solemn promise that this legislation would be adopted during this Session. That is my second question. The third question my Party wishes to ask is in connection with housing. That is one of the greatest problems and one of the most important items on the programme. Where is the legislation in connection with housing? Must we get it on the last Saturday of the Session or when? We have been told that seeing that the municipalities do not do it, housing will be tackled by the Government itself. Where is the legislation? Will it still be passed this Session or not? Hon. members opposite make a row, but they want to know just as keenly as we do. I will put those questions which are in the interests of the country, and which they also wish to put. My Party is concerned about the matter and we are prepared to sit longer in order to deal with that measure properly.

We too.

Precisely. I blame nobody. But I say that the Government cannot call us together and make us sit for months, while except for two measures which have been adopted, namely in connection with compensation to employees and the registration of unemployed, nothing is done in the way of legislation. We have now sat here for months and months and we have not even finished the Committee of Supply, and I now say that before the Acting Prime Minister tells us that the House intends to adjourn, or will adjourn at this or that time, we must first know what legislation he intends to drive through at the tail end of the Session. We demand it because we do not intend going home and again disappointing the nation because this House went home after sitting here for months and only talking and fencing with each other in the political sphere without doing anything for the nation in the sphere of economics. We therefore insist that the Acting Prime Minister should make a statement regarding what he is prepared to put through during this Session, because apart from the two measures I have mentioned this Session was practically fruitless. We now want to know what the Government intends still to adopt during this Session.

What about the legislation in connection with natives and the Standards Act?

Why do you not put these questions to the Minister of Labour?

Some hon. members attach value to those things, but my party attach more value to matters which are of economic importance to the people of South Africa, and we say that regarded from the point of view, nothing of importance was done by this House, except the two measures of the Minister of Labour. [Laughter and interjections.] There are some members opposite who think they can go to the country and can tell the people what was done apart from these two measures I have mentioned. It will be very interesting to hear that those members who now make so much noise telling the country what their party has done up to now.

Hear, hear.

I fear that the only way out they will have will be to take a few dozen members sitting opposite with them to sing in chorus as they are now doing, or else nothing will remain over of them. Can they point to anything constructive on the Statute Book except for these two measures I have mentioned? No, I say that the Acting Prime Minister should be prepared to prolong this Session if necessary so that something can be placed on the Statute Book which really satisfies the nation. I hope that the Acting Prime Minister will give us a reasonable explanation on., this point.

When one listens at the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and sees how he is being interrupted by his colleagues, one cannot help thinking of the saying: “How beautiful it is when brothers live together”. I fear that they are fast becoming step-brothers. It is also interesting to note that the Parliamentary Leader of the Labour Party throughout referred to “my party”. I thought that it was the party of the Minister of Labour. But I wish to give the hon. member good advice. It is not necessary for him to put all these questions to the Acting Prime Minister. He ought to hold a caucus meeting of his party, and his own leader can tell him what will happen.

It does not help, Charlie.

I admit that it will not help. The Minister of Labour ought to be able to give him all the information of what will still be done during this Session, whether the Miners’ Phthisis Act will be put through and whether they will adopt any legislation in connection with social security. But evidently the Minister of Labour has such a subordinate position in the Cabinet that he simply has to listen to what the big bosses say. The Acting Prime Minister ought to know that it is useless speaking in this House or asking when the Session will end, before the Vote of the Minister of Lands has been dealt with. He will remember that whereas he, as Minister of Finance last year spoke one and three quarter hours about the finances of the whole country, it took the Minister of Lands two and a half hours to speak about a little shop at Kakamas. Everything depends on the Minister of Lands and also on his Vote. When once that has been dealt with we can perhaps see when the Session will end. This condition of uncertainty is due to the fact, as already stated by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that the Government handled the activities of this House so weakly. That is the reason for it, and it becomes weaker year after year. In the first place I wish to refer to what happened here when the motion of censure was moved by this side of the House. There can be no proper progress in the activities of this House unless there is reasonable co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. Now what happened in the beginning of the Session when we moved the motion of censure? For days there were arguments from the opposite side, and chapter and verse were quoted to prove to themselves that it was not a motion of censure. The hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) even tried to prove, as he put it, “that it does not even amount to a motion of censure”. And for that reason that motion could not get preference. But later, when the Prime Minister participated in the debate he said that it was a motion of no confidence, that the Government regards it as a motion of no confidence, and therefore he proposed an amendment which amounted to a motion of confidence in the Government. All those arguments were in vain. The Prime Minister regarded it as a motion of no confidence, but yet he allowed the matter to drag out for a couple of weeks and did not give the Opposition the right they ought to have. It was admitted that, if it were a motion of no confidence, it should have privilege. But in the beginning the argument was that it was not a motion of no confidence, and eventually the Prime Minister admitted that it was a motion of no confidence and that the Government should regard it as such. As a result of that the relationship between the Government and the Opposition became such that the Leader of the Opposition had to announce that all diplomatic relations with the Government had been broken off. But, another reason is the delay of the Government in bringing important legislation before this House. It becomes worse every year. Let me refer to what was said in the Speech from the Throne in connection with the important matter of social security. As early as 20th January the Governor-General said the following in connection with social security—

Already at that stage the Ministers had investigated the matter, but today, after we have sat here for three months, not a single measure has been laid before us in connection with social security, although it is a matter which the Ministers had already investigated thoroughly before 20th January, according to the Speech from the Throne. The other matter is the reconstruction of agriculture. Time and again it is stated in the Speech from the Throne that the Ministers have thoroughly investigated such matters—

Give the Minister of Agriculture the page; he wants to see where it is.

It is on page 3 of the Votes and Proceedings.

He knew nothing about it.

Further on we find this—

But in spite of this continuous and thorough consideration we have been sitting here now for three months without any important legislation in connection with those matters being submitted to us. There is not yet any legislation in connection with these subjects on the Order Paper. There was a Bill in connection with Marriage by Proxy; there was one in connection with the announcement of banns; there was one in connection with divorce for women who married soldiers from overseas; there was one for the suspension of the biennial registration of voters, and a consolidating measure in connection with the Acts about natives in Urban Areas which contained nothing new. Then there was another one proposed, namely that in connection with Dongola, which, as the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) put it, assured social security for baboons, reptiles and other wild animals. That has been the legislation submitted to us. I ask the Minister to point out to me what legislation was proposed or adopted which was of any real interest in the economic reconstruction of the country which was adopted during this Session, or even submitted to us. There is an Expropriation Act, and such things which will come before us. But in connection with the important matters announced in the Speech from the Throne, such as the reconstruction of agriculture and social security, we have had nothing at all submitted to us. I say that the manner in which the Government handles the Order Paper, and its delay in bringing this important legislation before the House timeously, is really something to be severely criticised by us. But now the Acting Prime Minister is beginning to hurry us along; the automatic adojurnment at 7 o’clock in the evening is suspended, and we also have to sit on Saturdays, and all this in spite of the fact that the Government have not yet introduced the most important legislation of the Session. In past years the Government of the day only made the suggestion that there should be longer sitting hours when practically all the most important legislation had been submitted, and when the House had reached the stage that the most important work had been finished. As regards the attitude of the Opposition, the position is that we did our duty to oppose legislation when we thought that it was necessary to do so, and that we discussed legislation when we thought that was necessary. I wish to point to a peculiar phenomenon we came across during this ’ Session. During this Session it was necessary to put several members out of the House because of their attitude towards the Chair. That did not happen to a single member of the Nationalist Party. Those measures did not have to be employed against us. Three members have however been put out of the House—one member of the Labour Party, one member of the Government Party and one member of the Dominion Party, but not a single member of the Nationalist Party.

You were very lucky.

We almost feel hurt at there being discrimination against us. In connection with that I wish to refer to a serious matter. Notice was given of a motion of censure on the chairman of committees, not by a member of the Opposition but by a member who supports the Government. In the past there have also been such motions, and every time the Government allows that to be dealt with first. I do not associate myself in any way with that motion of censure which the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) announced here, but I think that the Government is acting wrongly in not allowing it to be discussed. I am firmly of the opinion that the Chairman of Committees has the right to know whether this House has confidence in him. I think it is a matter which should immediately be dealt with so that the Chairman need not sit here under the cloud that on the Agenda notice was given of a motion which expresses disapproval of his actions. It is not fair towards the Chairman and the Government ought to let the motion be discussed. I again wish to say with emphasis that I do not associate myself with that motion, but I do not wish the Chairman to be placed in a position that he is sitting in the Chair not knowing whether the House has confidence in him or whether it has no confidence in him. He should know whether the House has confidence in him, and if the House has no confidence in him, he should leave the Chair. He cannot sit here with a sword dangling over his head. He does not know what the House thinks of this motion and the Government ought to allow such a motion to be dealt with as soon as possible. I associate myself with the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition that we cannot vote for this motion. We cannot encourage the wrongful acts of the Government in handling the Order Paper so badly. But the greatest reason is that he now wishes to hurry on the House while the important legislation announced in the Speech from the Throne has not yet been submitted. This House should have enough time and a decent opportunity to deal with that very important legislation thoroughly, and we must now start with night sittings and Saturday sittings, when we are tired, which makes it impossible for members to deal with those measures properly.

It seems to me very apparent from the Acting Prime Minister’s motion that he is determined to have an orgy of hasty legislation.

The Minister of Mines is responsible for all this.

I have not the knowledge to confirm or deny that. I merely as an ordinary private member, though a supporter of the Government, remonstrate against the method of our treatment as members. The Minister, without consultation that I know of, introduces a motion into this House to say the 11 o’clock rule is suspended practically for the rest of the Session. What impression does that create in the minds of members of this House? They never know when their labour for the day is to be over. They may come down here and through some perversity inseparable from Parliament we may have a night sitting without our knowing beforehand about it at all. By this motion it is ordained by the Acting Prime Minister that we may have night sittings every night of the week and every week for the remainder of the Session. I cannot congratulate him upon his consideration for members of the House. I am willing to do whatever is necessary in the way of attendance at the House, I always have been but I enter my protest against this unseemly haste in trying to bring this Session to an end when we have ten thousand South Africans, ex-prisoners-of-war, awaiting their return to this country and who may need the help of Parliament w many different ways before they resume their residence in their homes. The sufferings, the losses and the difficulties that these men have yet to overcome are possibly not within the knowledge of the Minister. I may say they are not fully within the knowledge of most of us. But I am certain there is a tremendous volume of trouble in store for this country if the needs of these men who have suffered more than anybody else in this war are not properly met and if they are not met with respect. We are behaving as though those ten thousand men did not matter a jot to us. Present conditions in regard to demobilisation are far from satisfactory.

I think the hon. member is going rather too deeply into this question and the hon. member should come to the motion.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I shall not trespass on that matter any further except to emphasise the state of affairs is not satisfactory in regard to the demobilisation of the soldiers who are already here. We are asked as members of Parliament who are co-workers with the Minister in the task he has undertaken to throw aside every idea we have of doing our duty to the public, excepting the one duty to finish the Session, and to finish it in most unseemly haste, and we all know what the result will be as far as the legislation is concerned, and as far as concerns the attention we ought to be able to give to matters that come before us in this House. We are obliged to work on Select Committees from 9.15 a.m., and must attend in the House till after 11 p.m. whenever necessary; and let me mention one committee alone, the Public Accounts Committee, which this morning is discussing its programme. It has a programme which it would be a, miracle if it could get through in three months. That programme is now crowded in almost as a Saturday afternoon amusement. Heaven only knows when we shall have time to deal with our work. If we meet in the House at 11 a.m. we have this heavy programme to deal with and we have also to study the questions put before us, and yet be ready and willing to take part in discussions that fall within our experience as members of this House. I say the Acting Prime Minister is not giving the individual member a reasonable chance to perform his duty as he should to the country.

Can we rely on your vote?

While I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in what he said here, I wish to pass a few remarks about how’ the activities of this House, in my opinion, perhaps not now, but in the future can be speeded up, made easier and performed in a more thorough manner. I have now been in this House for about 20 years. For 12 years I was also assistant whip or whip, and I got into close touch with the activities of the House. There are a few general remarks I wish to make from my own experience. I sat in this House as a supporter of the Government of the day, as a member of the Opposition and for a short while as an Independent. I therefore had the opportunity to view the activities of the House from all angles, and the first thing I wish to say is that the ordinary member who is a Government supporter comes here with very high ideals and energy, and he leaves here with a feeling of frustration because there is really so little to do for a member of the Government. That is not the case only now, but it has always been like that. If he rises to speak, it is almost against the wishes of the Government and of the whips. He rises almost shamefacedlly, although he perhaps is very well prepared on a certain subject and could have delivered a useful piece of work. The result is that he is inclined to go into the background more and more, and he feels that he often comes here just to vote, and naturally he becomes imbued by the spirit that the sooner the Session ends, the better it is, because in any case he cannot be of much use to his Party and to the country. Hon. members opposite know that what I say is quite true. The work of the House can be speeded up by making more use of members of this House. It can be done in two ways. The first is to make more use of the Select Committees in connection with legislation than is the case now. There can be no doubt about it because it has been proved over and over again, that when a Bill comes back from the Select Committee it is a better Bill than it was before it went to the Select Committee, and that many of the long discussions and points of difference in connection with such a Bill could have been eliminated in the Select Committee, with the result that such a Bill is dealt with by this House much quicker and more efficiently. In that manner such a Bill is drafted more efficiently and better than would otherwise have been the case. The second way in which the activities can be speeded up is that the Government should not regard every Bill submitted here as a Bill to be passed by Parliament without having any appreciable changes made to it. In other words, a Bill which contains no great principles’ of the Government Party is still regarded in this House today as a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government. A Bill is submitted containing no special principle adhered to by the Party, but the view of the Government is that if such a Bill is rejected by the House, it is a manifestation of no confidence in the Government, and the Government must resign. I think it is quite correct that the Government should regard certain matters affecting the tenets of its Party as questions of principle by which it must stand or fall. But many of the Bills submitted, such as for example in connection with the registration of voters, contain no real Party principles, and the Government should send a Bill like that to the Select Committee in order that they might do with it what they like, to improve it or to reject it. We will then get away from the idea that such Bills are party measures, and regard them as measures of this House as a whole, which will render the discussions much briefer and we will have Bills which will really be a reflection of the common knowledge of this House, as a whole, and not only a Bill which is submitted by á single Minister and his Department. If that line of action is adopted by the Government it will contribute not only towards speeding up legislation, but it will also help to render such legislation, which does not affect matters of principle, much better. It would afford an opportunity to make the best use of all the members. I could say much more about the advantages of such a procedure, but I do not wish to do it on this occasion. I however am of opinion that if this principle is followed, the result will be that members will concentrate more and more on certain subjects which come before the House, to be fully informed on those subjects, and in that way they will be more useful members of this House than they are at present. They will then not be what at present they are to a large degree, namely, members who sit here without purpose because they do not participate in the real activities of the House. In connection with the time and the sitting hours of this House, it is my opinion that the morning sittings we have now do not contribute much to the work of this House, and we shall have to revert to something along the lines of the old system—an amendment of the old system we had. Previously we sat at night. The morning sittings have as a result that members have not the opportunity to prepare the work of the day properly. Take for example the Select Committees. It is the accepted principle that Select Committees should not sit while the House sits. That is departed from, but it is regarded as such an important principle that it can only be departed from by a Select Committee by virtue of the special motion of this House. That shows how strictly the rule is regarded that Select Committees should not sit while the House sits. A member comes to the House and wishes to devote his serious attention to the work. He very often has a large private correspondence; he has Select Committees on which he sits; he needs time to prepare himself for the discussions which take place in this House. If he does not have the morning free for himself, it is impossible for him to do all those things. The result is that he must prepare himself for the work in the House, see to his correspondence, and his work on and in connection with the Select Committees must be done to a large extent elsewhere in this building while the House is sitting. That is not conducive to the smooth working of the House, and I think we shall have to revert to afternoon sittings and no morning sittings, in order thereby to enable a member of Parliament to perform the most important part of his work in a better manner than now is the case.

That will happen next Session.

There is another thing. According to this arrangement we now have we sit approximately 30¾ hours per week. Under the old system of three sitting evenings in the week, and sitting at 2.15 p.m., we sat 27¾ hours. After the 51st sitting day we sat 30¾ hours, but the time was made a little earlier, with the result that the sitting hours under the old system, except for the first month, were precisely the same as now, and under this system we sit 3 hours longer in the first month than under the old system. After that the sitting hours are precisely the same. What I suggest is that serious consideration should be given to how we should revert to the old system and what changes should be made to the old system. My own opinion is that to sit until 11 p.m. every night did not help one’s work. If one sits here until 11 o’clock in the evening one generally does not get home before midnight, and if one has to continue one’s work on a Select Committee the following morning one has had too little time in which to rest, and I would suggest that we sit at night but stop a little earlier, at about 10.30 instead of 11 p.m., and that we try to regain that half hour by diminshing the lunch interval, or, as somebody suggested, on Fridays, when we deal with private Bills, we should sit only on Friday morning, and that this Friday morning be then used for private work. One of the members here suggests that we might as well sit on Wednesday mornings also, because there is no meat, but I hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture will be more merciful next year. I think there ought to be an informal discussion between members of the House convened by the Minister of Finance, not to fix the sitting hours, but to exchange ideas about sitting times which we might have in future and in connection with any improvements we can make to the old system, and in any case to improve the system we have now. I feel that if something is done in connection with the suggestions I made today, both as regards hours and making better use of members as regards the preparation of work, we shall be able not only to make better use of the services of members, but much will be done to speed up the activities of the House.

I have long ago forgotten most of my slender classic knowledge, but I do remember one sentence of Horace which being translated amounts to this: “If you will not walk when you are well, you will have to run when you have got the dropsy.” Now I submit that that is our present unfortunate position. We are being invited to gallop during the last month of the present Session, for the reason that we have dallied during the first period; but the reason for the dalliance, the loitering, the dawdling, is no blameworthy thing as regards members of this House. We have dallied and loitered and dawdled simply because the Government has not given us anything worthwhile to do. We have made a similar statement in the years that are past. We are resuming this statement in the present year, but we do not want to make this statement again in the years which are to come. If we were members of a little local farmers’ association, and once a year we were summoned to attend a conference to deal with the affairs of that little group of people, an agenda would reach us two or three weeks beforehand telling us precisely what the business is to which we must devote our wisdom in order to find satisfactory solutions. We should be told what we have to do, but we members of Parliament come here from day to day and do not know, until we read that portion of the “Cape Times”, which is about the only portion of it I do read, stating the business of the Assembly, what we have to do.

And the “Cape Times” is very often wrong.

Yes, that, as stated by my hon. and wise friend, is very often wrong. Now, that should be altered. We come here expecting to talk about a given matter. Something is under discussion and we have not the supporting notes and documents which we otherwise would have had. Of course, the work of the House should be properly managed, and not arranged merely from day to day. But I do not wish unduly to take up the time of the House. Let me make this suggestion before I sit down. It has been made before, but perhaps the hearing of the Acting Prime Minister is better this morning than it has been on preceding mornings. I will suggest that Parliamentary Committees of this House be set up during the recess, so that they may go over the drafts of the Bills for the forthcoming Session, and they may even have the temerity to make suggestions for further Bills. The result would be that—I shall choose my adjectives with discretion, Sir so as not to incur your wrath—we shall not have inadequate Bills produced here like that submitted under the name of the Silicosis Bill. Many of us during this Session have put in days and days of earnest study of that completely worthless document.

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I was not aware that I had gone very far from the point, but I will always accept your kindly guidance, Sir. It may save a lot of trouble. Let me say that I hope that next Session it will not be necessary to come along with the whip and the spur at this stage. If Parliamentary Committees were established and hon. members of this House were taken into the full confidence of the Government before and during the Session, the House would be able to adjourn sooner, and be prorogued earlier in each year.

I should just like to say a few words to the Acting Prime Minister, and that is in connection with a notification which appeared this morning in one of the newspapers that there is a possibility that the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill will not go through this sitting. That notification appeared in “Die Burger”, a paper which is usually well informed in connection with these matters ….

Especially Government matters.

…. and for that reason I feel very perturbed about the notification that the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill will not come before the House this Sitting. I just want to point out that we have no Voters’ Rolls today.

No, it is the intention to go on with it.

In connection with what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has said, I would like to repeat the suggestion which I made previously. I think we have seen during this Sitting of Parliament, perhaps better than ever before, what a Select Committee can do and what a Select Committee may mean to the country. I want to repeat that it is essential that when Parliament is in Session, the members of the Select Committees should be in this House, and that can only be done in one of two ways; either Parliament must not sit while the Select Committees sit, or Parliament must adjourn for fourteen days or three weeks so that the Select Committees can do their work in the meantime, and in that case other members who do not serve on the Select Committees can go back to do other essential work. But it does not pay to go on as we have done. One cannot expect members to serve on a Select Committee while their presence is also required in Parliament in connection with important work. I very strongly favour the idea of parliament adjourning for a few weeks while the Select Committees are examining Bills.

I would like to add my protest against these rushed tactics on the part of the Government in trying to rush through this House a number of Bills at the end of the Session. This happens year after year and the result is that hon. members are unable to give full attention to the measures brought before them. We have some very important legislation pending, and I can see what is going to happen, the same that happened in past years. These Bills will be rushed through and next Session amending Bills will appear and we will have to go through the whole business again. That happens year after year. I want to make this suggestion to the hon. the Acting Prime Minister, that this Session be brought to a close on or about the 15th May, and that a further Session be held later in the year. I also think that that should become a permanent institution, that we should have two Sessions in the year, each shorter than the one we usually have. I wish to make that suggestion seriously to the Acting Prime Minister, and I hope he will accede to this request.

The Acting Prime Minister has not yet given us any indication really as to whether he is going to meet our objections. If the Acting Prime Minister proposes to meet us, it is not necessary for me to say anything else.

I still have to reply to the debate.

He thinks you ought to nod, at any rate.

If the Acting Prime Minister remains quiet I must assume that the reply will not be very favourable. I do not think I can add anything to the sound arguments which were advanced by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in connection with this motion. If the Minister does not want to meet us all the way, I do hope he will meet us partially. I should like to hear from the Acting Prime Minister whether he intends putting other Bills on the Order Paper in the meantime.

Yes.

Our experience in the past has been that new Bills are placed on the Order Paper towards the end of the sitting and are then rushed through the House, and usually the Minister concerned is compelled after a year to bring about amendments. I hope therefore that the Minister will meet us. This is not a case of obstruction. We are as anxious to be home as hon. members on the other side. We are discussing this matter on its merits, and I hope therefore the Minister will meet us. I should like to move the following amendment—

I should like to second this amendment, and I do so because that in itself will give members a little time, including members on the other side, to rest a little after the hard work which they done during the course of the week. It seems to me that hon. members on this side are inclined to be reasonable towards members on the other side. One knows that members of Parliament are people who are accustomed to hard work outside, and if one is accustomed to working hard and one comes here and the only work one has to do is to sit here day after day doing nothing, one deserves the utmost sympathy. I want hon. members on this side to be reasonable towards hon. members on the other side, and I feel therefore that members on the other side, as far as the amendment is concerned, will also agree with us. We witnessed a remarkable phenomenon here this morning. Members on all sides of the House have spoken on this motion which was introduced by the Acting Prime Minister and speaker after speaker expressed his dissatisfaction. There are numbers of the Minister’s own supporters who are more dissatisfied than those who spoke, but they were prevented from speaking. One could sense immediately that they were the people who said by way of interjections: “But what about Saturday morning; are we to sit the whole of Saturday?” The cry which has gone up not to sit on Saturday afternoon came from the other side and not from this side, and I hope hon. members on that side will now support our amendment. But I want to say in all seriousness that our position is becoming untenable. As the hon. members said—and hon. members on the other side of the House know it—when a Bill is referred to a Select Committee and it is examined by the Select Committee in a friendly spirit, it often eliminates points which would have entailed lengthy discussions in this House, and since that is the case and since it is felt that we should more and more avail ourselves of the opportunity to refer legislation to Select Committees, I think it is unreasonable to expect members who serve on Select Committees to have even longer working hours in the House. There are two things which are unreasonable; firstly, that members are expected to serve on Select Committees which sit at the same time as the House. I has happened repeatedly that we are serving on a Select Committee upstairs and all of a sudden one of the members has to come down because his presence is urgently required in the House. The work of the Select Committtee must then be suspended at a moment’s notice until some member or other of the Select Committee is again in a position to devote his attention to the Bill before the Select Committee, and that state of affairs prejudices both the work in this House and the work of the Select Committees. I also want to say to the Acting Prime Minister that I think neither he nor anyone else on the other side has the right to say that we on this side of the House are adopting an obstructive attitude. No, the contrary hold good, and hon. members who serve on Select Committees know that on Select Committees too, the contrary holds good, namely, that we try to bring legislation before this House which will be a credit to the House and a credit to the country. Since that is an indisputable fact, I think the Acting Prime Minister should give greater consideration to members and he should not rush important legislation through the House at this stage. When the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) asked the Acting Prime Minister a moment ago whether there was any new legislation of which we will only learn at some future date, I was surprised to hear the Acting Prime Minister replying in the affirmative.

No, I said I would explain the position in my reply.

Can the Minister tell me now whether there is new legislation or not?

I shall explain in my reply what legislation remains to be dealt with.

He now says that there is new legislation to come, and my attitude is this; it is the greatest absurdity imaginable for the Acting Prime Minister to say to us on the same day on which he asks this House to expedite the business of this House by working longer hours: “There is further legislation of which you do not even know, legislation which I propose to put through during this Session”. In other words, that announcement in an announcement to the country that this Government has legislation up its sleeve which it cannot discuss on its merits; it has to put it through the House by means of rush measures. That is what it amounts to. I do not know whether it has ever happened in the history of previous governments, but if my memory serves me correctly it happened last year that at that stage when the Government came forward with a motion to expedite the business of the House, it still had new legislation up its sleeve which it wanted to put through the House. Why does the Government do that type of thing? Does not the Cabinet meet during the recess? Are they not fully conversant with the needs of the people in the country? Why do they not come along with a comprehensive legislative programme at the beginning of the sitting? Why should we be on the qui vive every morning the sun rises in order to find out what new legislation hatched out /the previous night? Every government worthy of the name will make it its business to be conversant with the needs of the people, and it will know at the beginning of the sitting what legislation it proposes to put through during the sitting. And not only has no such statement been made, but up to the present nothing has been done to put that legislation through the House. I want to conclude by saying that it is the supreme function of this House at least to come forward with legislation which will be a credit to this House and to the advantage of the people of South Africa. Since that is the case, with our legislative programme as it stands at present, with a great deal of that legislation still before Select Committees, with other legislation still up the Minister’s sleeve, legislation of which the House knows nothing, I say the Minister is not justified in expecting us to support this measure of his to rush this legislation through the House, I hope the Minister will give his attention to one further matter. Last year we had this experience, the Prime Minister informed us: “We are now moving the suspension of the 6.40 p.m. rule, but the intention is simply that when any matter is still under discussion at 6.40 p.m. and it can be disposed of shortly after 6.40 p.m., then we propose to extend the time”. The Acting Prime Minister made the same statement this morning, but our experience last year was that the Prime Minister acted contrary to his promise, and I want to warn the Acting Prime Minister and tell him not to do that type of thing. Last year he was in the habit of speculating with the suspension of this rule. He would say to the House: “We can adjourn provided this, that or the other Vote or this, that or the other measure goes through”. In other words, by applying that rule and by means of the extended sitting hours, he wanted to force the Government’s legislation through the House. I hope the Acting Prime Minister will give his attention to this matter, and that he will give us the assurance that he will not use the suspension of this rule as a threat to members that they will be called upon to sit longer hours and to work unduly long hours, in order to put measures through the House; and we want an assurance from him that he will only use it in certain cases where it becomes necessary to dispose of a matter which would not have been disposed of otherwise, but that he will not use it in the form of a threat that unless members allow this, that or the other measure to go through, the House will have to sit later. I hope he will give me a frank reply on this point.

I have never heard a member of this House talk more and less constructively than the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to throw my weight, if I may, on the side of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), who has made a most constructive speech, a speech by one who understands Parliamentary procedure and has had a long career in this House as a very able member of this House. He had told the truth. For the last 20 or 25 years, every Session we have heard this discussion. The hon. Minister of Labour knows it. You, Sir, in the Chair, know it. Every old member knows it. During every Session of this Parliament this discussion has taken place. On one hand the Government wants to cut down the time and on the other hand the Opposition wants more time, and the Opposition is always right. This is one of the instances where the Opposition is always right, and this is one of the cases where the Cabinet is interfering with the vested rights of private members.

Will you vote for it?

I am not going to vote, but I am talking against it as I have done for 25 years. I am against it and I hope hon. members will be against it, because if they do that we will have a proper Parliament. Today we probably have the most able Parliament this country has had since Union, on both sides, and this Parliament is functioning particularly well. If hon. members say that the Government is not producing legislation, that is wrong. Legislation is not everything but if legislation is everything, why do not members on that side of the House bring forward Bills? They do not, but they bring forward very good discussions. The Acting Prime Minister is now trying to stop that discussion and trying to make this Parliament work better. Twenty years ago I asked the Prime Minister why Parliament functioned so badly. He said it is not functioning badly. He said: On the one hand the Prime Minister pours oil into the machine, and on the other hand the Opposition pours in sand, and it goes round and round, but in the end Parliament produces a large number of good laws. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of a law passed by this Parliament which has been repealed? I have seen members of this House for years and years sitting up at night to oppose a Bill, and the whole of the country assumed that it was a terrible Bill. The Opposition press always say so, no matter who the Opposition is, but as soon as the Opposition comes into power they use that law. Have you ever known a law repealed in this House yet? Parliament is functioning particularly well at the present moment. I will tell you what is wrong with Parliament, if I may be allowed to say so.

The trouble is you being here.

Let us talk seriously now. I have seen 700 or 800 men pass through this House. The life of a Parliamentarian is not a long one; it is very short. It is a hard thing to get into Parliament but it is a harder thing to remain in, as some of the younger members will find out. In the old Cape days and in the old Free State days, parliamentarians were paid so much a day, and after a certain period they were not paid any more, and then they went home; but you cannot do that today. I do not want to make it personal, but the position is I am well enough off to sit in Parliament, but large numbers of fine men in this House are not paid enough to enable them to sit in Parliament. The House should pay them £1,000 a year to sit in Parliament.

I do not think the hon. member should go into the question.

I have to go into it; it is our time. Have you ever seen a member who has not left the House a poorer man. Men have come here and become so poor they can hardly live. Parliament should sit longer than it does today, but many members cannot afford the time. One hears a lot of talk about professional politicians, but the more the man is a professional politician the better parliamentarian he probably is, and the time will come, here as in England Parliament will have to keep on sitting. Members get £750 a year ….

You are giving us an extra £50.

…. £700 a year, and nearly all that amount is spent during the Session, and when members go back it is to starvation and poverty. What we will find is that the Minister will have to introduce ….

The old age pension.

…. a pension, as in other parts of the world. Does the Minister think he is going to score by cutting down the Session a month? A number of very able young men here have not been allowed to talk and they will not be allowed. Why? Because Parliament must finish. What the Government should find out is how to make it easier for the member when he comes here, make it easier for him to bring his wife down here and live. The Government should look after him better and look after the Pressmen.

I think the hon. member is wandering very far from the point.

I am coming back to it. I object to the Government interfering with my constitutional rights as a Union national and a member of Parliament. I have come here to talk. This is a talking shop, not a cinema. I have come here to talk on behalf of my constituents, and I say these young members here are giving up their rights and if the Minister asks them to come they will not come. If this resolution goes through this House is not going to function properly, and every word which the hon. member has said is correct. We need to alter our system to a certain extent, something on the lines of the old Republican days, and not allow the Government to dominate members of Parliament on this question. This is not a question of confidence. It has not been discussed by us in our caucus. This Government is doing as all governments do, it is taking away the rights and privileges of members. I for one will not vote for the motion.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just sat down, that we are here taking away the rights and privileges of private members. I think it is undoubtedly the fact that the majority of members are prepared to sit longer hours, and that is all we are suggesting. We are not taking away any rights and privileges. We are simply changing the sitting hours of the House, and I think as a result of what we are doing, what we are proposing here, we shall actually do more though we may talk less during the Session. The acceptance of this motion will lead to greater achievement even though it may lead to less talk.

†*The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) has agreed that up to the present this Sitting has been drawn out longer than previous Sittings. That is quite correct. I do not want to go into the question of who is responsible for it. I just want to mention a few facts. It applies to every Session that a good deal of time is usually devoted at the beginning of the Sitting to the main motion of the Opposition, to the Appropriation Bills and to the Budget debate, and with the exception of the Budget debate, these debates have taken up more time this year than previously. More time has been devoted, particularly to the Appropriation legislation, than in previous years, and as a result of that we have made less progress with our programme than we would have done otherwise. In addition to that there is the fact that up to the present we have devoted much more time to the discussion of the Votes which have been disposed of, than in previous years. It is not a question of the handling of the business of the House; it is simply the result of what took place. It has been impossible to do more legislative work, but I want to point out that so far twenty Bills have already been disposed of by both Houses of Parliament.

But what type of Bill.

It includes important Bills such as the Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Bill, the Standards Bill and the Bill in connection with natives.

But that was a consolidation measure.

Nevertheless there was a great deal of discussion on it.

But that does not take us any further. What new legislation has been passed?

So far approximately 20 Bills have been passed.

Such as the Marriage by Proxy Bill.

That has not been passed yet.

But the majority of these Bills are very insignificant

The hon. Leader of the Opposition also referred to the question of co-operation between the two Parties. Let me give him the assurance that we are prepared at all times to discuss the question of co-operation.

As long as you can have your own way.

We shall always be prepared to arrange for consultation.

After the treatment you meted out to us at the beginning of the Session.

In other words, am I to understand that hon. members are not prepared to co-operate?

At first you pushed us aside.

With regard to the first portion of the motion, I want to say that we did not abuse the rule in regard to the suspension of the automatic adjournment last year. Last year I put the position plainly and explained what the object of the motion was, namely to avoid a discussion being interrupted towards the end of the day when it is nearly finished. I said that in the majority of cases we would not sit later than 7 o’clock, but that in exceptional cases we would sit later and that in that event we would make arrangements beforehand in collaboration with the Opposition. Moreover, that was done, but since there is no co-operation today we shall, as far as possible, notify all Parties in good time when we are likely to sit late.

The trouble is that you are always anxious to co-operate towards the end of the sitting but not at the beginning.

We wanted to co-operate at the beginning and we are still prepared to do so, and if hon. members are prepared to accept our offer, we shall try to come to some arrangement. It has been asked what work remains to be disposed of. I just want to refer to today’s Order Paper. Of course, we must still dispose of the estimates and the ordinary financial measures in connection with those estimates. Then there are the taxation resolutions and the resultant legislation. As far as the Order Paper is concerned, it is the intention, in any event, to dispose of Orders Nos. II to IX, and also XIII, namely the. Sea Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Native Education Finance Bill, the Registration for Employment Bill, the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Bill, the Saldanha Bay Water Supply Bill, the Scientific Research Council Bill, the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill, as well as the Public Servants Military Service (Amendment) Bill. With regard to the Silicosis Bill the Minister of Mines has already indicated that we do not propose to put the Bill through the House this sitting. There will, however, be a discussion on that. With regard to the Work Colonies’ Bill and the Instalment Sales of Land Bill, these are Bills which the Government would like to put through, but if it appears to be impossible, we may not proceed with them. We hope, however, that it will be possible. With regard to the Bills for Monday, namely the Dental Mechanicians Bill and the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, we hope to put through these two measures. Then there are still certain Bills which are before Select Committees, and as far as they are concerned, we must, of course, await the reports of the Select Committee.

What about the Dongola Bill?

That is before the Select Committee. There are certain Bills which still have to be introduced. The Housing Bill will be introduced. The Bill in connection with the Provinces and the Bill in connection with social security will be introduced.

Will they merely be introduced, or will they be passed.

That depends on the House. The Government has already issued a White Paper to indicate how far we want to go. Then there are other less important Bills, inter alia, a Bill to amend the control of wines and spirits, but these less important Bills will probably not occupy a great deal of time. I think that is the information which the House desires. I cannot accept the amendment, but as far as Saturdays are concerned, we shall meet the House as far as possible.

Amendment put and negatived.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—80:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris. J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—35:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart. C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Business suspended at 12.53 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Unfortunately the hon. Minister has not replied to two of the points I raised on a previous occasion.

I have how received the information and I shall reply to them.

I am prepared to sit to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to those points before we continue with the debate.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) asked me two questions in connection with the filling in of the census form by natives and the registration of coloured births. In regard to the first, the arrangements made for natives to be assisted with the completion of the form so as to avoid a native being classified as coloured, the reply is that natives do not fill in the forms themselves; the Census Department does that.

Do they send round officials to the natives?

They send round officials and from the information supplied the officials fill in the form. The question asked by the hon. member about the births is much more difficult. I have taken up the matter with the Registrar of Births here, and we discussed the question. The trouble is that European women come and register a child and probably her husband is a coloured man. That is the difficulty. I do not know how it can be overcome, but in consultation with the Department of the Interior and the Registrar of Births, we will see whether some method cannot be devised to get over the difficulty. They appreciate that there is this difficulty.

Is it admitted that it did happen sometimes?

There is no question about it that it does happen, but the matter is not simple, because if one introduces legislation for the production of the baby, it means that every child born in South Africa will have to be brought before the Registrar of Births. Then there is the point raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in connection with the Bureau of Information. I had all the editors in conference here about six weeks ago and they raised the two points mentioned by the hon. member. I went into the question and wrote to them all. I thought they understood the position. Firstly, with regard to the accident at Standerton, the Bureau of Information had nothing to do with it. In regard to General Poole, in terms of the voluntary censorship which exists with the Press, one of the stipulations is that the movements of senior officers should not be recorded, and the Bureau was simply informing them that General Poole was here, and an inference could be drawn because he happened to be here. The 6th Division were out of the line. It would not have mattered if they had referred to his visit after he came back. That was all. The Bureau of Information is not a censor department. It is a department which was brought into existence to further propaganda on behalf of the war. Only about one-sixth of its work is press work. The rest is propaganda out of the country, and their work has been appreciated by the Press. The point raised by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) is very important. That is a matter which we have not been able to make advances on, but we certainly have to deal with it when the whole question of Indian penetration is dealt with. These agreements made between Indians and the municipalities to buy any house must have legal sanction, because as the hon. member rightly pointed out, the bulk of the Indians and the bulk of the Europeans may come to an agreement, but an individual, whether Indian or European, may break it. I feel that along these lines in Natal—it does not affect the Transvaal—some of the difficulties in regard to the Indians may be settled.

I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that he will give serious consideration to the suggestion I made yesterday, namely that voluntary agreements arrived at between Europeans and Indians in any area should be legalised. The Glencoe Municipality and the Indians did come to an agreement whereby areas would be reserved for Europeans, Indians should have other areas and natives their own areas. I thank the Minister for saying that he will devote his attention to the matter. Less than 10 per cent. of all the Indians we have in Natal are wealthy enough to be interested in buying property for purely investment purposes. The great majority of Indians are poor and interested only in having properties where they can live under reasonable living conditions and they do not wish to live cheek by jowl with the Europeans. Certainly nearly all the Europeans are of the same opinion that they definitely do not wish to live cheek by jowl with the Indians. One of the poorer Indians, just before I came down to Parliament, said to me that he and numbers of his town people felt that a number of the wealthy Indians were using the large number of Indians to exploit same for the wealthy Indians’ personal and selfish gain. I am definitely in favour of the South African Indians being properly housed and having suitable houses in their own zones, and if the Indian leaders, the wealthier Indians, devoted more time to the welfare of the poorer members of their community and spent less time on unrealistic objections to zoning, we would come very much nearer to solving this problem. The latest estimated figures that I have been able to get for Natal are those which relate to January, 1944, and are as follows: Children under the age of 3 years, European, 14,000; Indians, 20,800. Children from 3 to 16 years of age, European 54,000 and Indian 83,900. Men and women over 16 years of age, Europeans 161,000 and Indians 99,500. In percentages these figures work out as follows: The total number of Indians in Natal vs. the total number of Europeans is 47 per cent. In persons over 16 years of age the percentage is 38 per cent., but for those under 16 years the percentage is 60 per cent. I leave these figures for the Minister to draw his own conclusions. We have heard from the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) about the land that has been bought by Indians and Europeans in Natal. Actually I have taken these figures from the report of the Registrar of Deeds. In respect of the total value of land transferred in 1944 by all parties, the Indian interest represented 4 per cent. as to farming property and 18 per cent. as to urban property respectively. Our European farmers in Natal, however, feel they are entitled to similar protection to that which the towns receive. I have recommended to farmers and to farmers’ associations that they can help themselves meantime, by having an anti-Asiatic clause inserted in their title deeds. For the information of farmers; I should like to give these figures: A notarial servitude deed for one person will cost a farmer £8 10s. If five of them join a reciprocal servitude notarial deed will cost them £3 8s. each; if 20 of them join it will cost them £1 10s. each and if 50 join it will cost them £1 4s. each. These figures are in respect of properties that are unbonded. If properties are bonded it will cost them an extra £2 10s. each. In conclusion, I would recommend to the Minister that when the Prime Minister returns from San Francisco and we know more about the international implications of the whole international question than we know at the moment, that he would consult the Prime Minister and that they will find ways and means of solving not only the urban difficulties but also the farmers’ problem long before the same difficulty arises there as has arisen in the towns and villages of Natal.

I am very pleased to learn from the Minister that the census form for natives will be completed by officials of his Department, and that they will see that these forms are filled in correctly so as to avoid the possibility of natives being registered as coloured persons. And now I want to ask him to instruct his officials to apply the definition of native, as laid down in the Act of 1936, namely, that the child of a native by a coloured person or any person other than a native, is a native, and that he will be shown as such in the census form. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the definition of native, as laid down in the Act of 1936, which was passed at a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament will be applied in taking the census. I should like to have the Minister’s assurance that the child of a native by a person other than a native will be registered as a native and not as a coloured.

Would you be prepared to apply the same to the children of Europeans?

I am now dealing with one point, namely, the definition of native as laid down in the Act of 1936. With regard to the registration of birth, I appreciate the fact that the Minister and his Department are aware of the seriousness of the matter. The Minister is so serious that I hope he will carry out his promise, and very soon. I am glad that what we on this side stated has now been found to be correct, namely, that coloured persons register their children as Europeans, and not only that, but unfortunately Europeans too register their children as Europeans although the father of the child is not a European. I want to tell the Minister that he and his Department will be astonished to see the number of cases which do occur. It will be a shock to the country to learn how many cases there are where children are registered as Europeans while they are not Europeans. We cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. The third point I want to raise is in connection with the bye-election in Kimberley (District). The electoral laws give the Minister the right to determine the date of the Election through the Governor-General. He is responsible for it. I am sorry to hear that there is a rumour that the Government proposes to postpone this by-election for a long time. It is not right to postpone a by-election for a long period. I do not know whether it is correct, but I have been informed that as yet he has not even given instructions for the Voters’ Rolls to be put in order. I take it that my information is wrong, but if he has given instructions to put the rolls in order, it should not take unduly long. It is a question of a few weeks, and it takes a fortnight to print the lists. That being so, I cannot understand why the election is being delayed. Perhaps it is the intention of the Minister and his Party to wait until the supplementary registration of May comes into effect. The Minister must take the House into his confidence and tell us whether that is so. The supplmentary registration of May only comes into operation on the 12th July; in other words, if he wants to postpone the by-election on that account, it cannot take place before the 12th July. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he has notified the Governor General that there is a vacancy, because the Act provides that the by-election must take place within a certain period as from the date on which the Governor-General is notified of the vacancy. If the Minister has not notified the Governor-General, why has he not done so? Mr. Speaker notified us of the vacancy.

Why are you hiding it from the Governor-General?

Yes, why this secrecy? Why is the Governor-General not being informed? Unfortunately that is a provision of the Act, but I think the Minister owes an explanation to this House in regard to the Government’s intention in connection with the pending by-election, in which the whole country is interested. It is not right to postpone it unduly, and the Voters’ Rolls cannot be used as an excuse. I admit that there are thirteen supplementary registrations which have to be added, but it should not take more than three or four weeks to put them in order and a fortnight to print the lists. I hope the Minister will give us this information.

I should like to clear up the remarks made by the hon. member in reference to the Kimberley by-election. I anticipated this question would be raised and I made enquiries through the department. This is the information I have. The task of preparing the list for the printer is a formidable one. Only one typist can be employed to re-type the whole of the combined supplementary lists, of which there are ten.

There cannot be ten.

The sorting together in alphabetical order in each voting district of the names on the supplementary lists is a formidable one, and extreme care in checking is essential to ensure accuracy for the purpose of voting. This work is proceeding but has not yet been completed, nor is it possible to tell at this stage when it will be completed.

How can it be ten? You had a list last year.

I am not going to argue. This is the information given me by my responsible officials, and I cannot do or say any more.

But you had a full list in 1943 in the General Election. So far there is only a few supplementary.

I am not going to say whether there are ten or more ….

Why do you not get more typists?

There were two supplementaries in 1943 and three in 1944. [Interruptions.] There were seven supplementaries one can remember, even if one deals with the 1943 list. It goes further back. The last biennial registration was in 1941 and there may be ten.

You had a full list in 1943.

Did it take so long to print the list for Port Elizabeth (Central)?

Or the list for Wakkerstroom?

Then they had three typists.

I can frankly acknowledge I am not so familiar with the printing of these lists as hon. members appear to be. I have responsible officials entrusted with this matter. The officials were given instructions to get these lists ready for the election, and I have given you the information supplied by them.

You are responsible for the statements you make here and not an official.

But it must be based on the information given to me.

But you must check the information given to you.

Has the Governor-General been notified yet?

No, he has not. It is no good notifying the Governor-General until we have the information.

Why treat the Governor-General like that, keeping him in the dark?

The other point I wish to refer to is in connection with the remarks in regard to the 1936 Act. I shall bring to the notice of the officials the point raised. I do not want the hon. member to be under a wrong impression with regard to this registration. What I will do is to appoint a departmental committee to see how we will get over it.

Is the 1936 definition of “native” going to be accepted as a standard definition?

I am drawing the attention of the census officials to the law, and they will carry out the law. But I may mention with regard to the birth registration I shall appoint a departmental committee to see what we can do. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member. I do not say it is a simple matter, but we should try to do something to rectify it.

It is most unfortunate that the Dominion Party should have no press, that we are repeatedly misrepresented by the controlled press, and particularly by the “Cape Times”; they will continue to misrepresent the views of the Dominion Party as stated in this House.

Read the “Union Review.”

When I suggested during last Session and the Session before that the most satisfactory way of dealing with this Indian problem was for us to have an extension of the existing legislation to enable us to afford the opportunity to the Indian community to return to what may be better conditions in India.

To return?

A large number of them could return because they are not strictly speaking Union nationals. But why worry about that. We are faced with a problem, a very serious problem for Natal, and I do appreciate that members from the Cape and the Transvaal are at last beginning to realise this is a Union and not a Natal problem; and if we succeed in inducing the House and the Government to appreciate Natal’s difficulties we will, I think, have done a great service to Natal. It is disgraceful that we are compelled to get up here and bring forward this question in the House, because the Government have not made a statement on this serious problem. For the last 40 years it has been shelved, and we are endeavouring to save South Africa a tremendous amount of trouble by putting up, what I consider at any rate, some solution of a very serious problem. The Prime Minister has said it was the greatest problem in South Africa, and we agree; and if we put up a solution ….

What is it?

If is a solution I have propounded for many years in this House, and it is a voluntary repatriation scheme, back to India. Voluntary. Why will not the Press of South Africa give us credit for stating it must be a voluntary scheme? Instead, whenever this question is raised in the House members state that the Dominion Party want to throw the Indians into the sea or force them back to India. Nothing of the sort. I maintain this is the only true solution to the problem. Make it worth while for a man to live under happy conditions in the country of his ancestry—what is wrong with that? The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) said yesterday in the House that they would not look at it, that they would not entertain a scheme of that kind. I am perfectly certain a large number of the Indian community would be prepared to embrace a scheme of that kind, to welcome the opportunity to return to India, provided their future was safeguarded, and that is the suggestion I have made. No other scheme will, to my mind, bring about a solution of this problem. If the Press would only be fair to us and say we do not want to force a single Indian out of the country against his will, that is all we ask.

What do you suggest doing if they do not wish to go?

It is not a question of them not wishing to go. I am certain that my hon. friend would live at Timbuctoo if it was worth his while to go. The majority of the Indian people in Natal realise this racial discussion takes place. There have always been cases, rightly or wrongly, of penetration into European areas, and their position is not as comfortable in Natal as it ought to be. Moreover, the position will get worse. I feel perfectly certain if we can put up a scheme, a voluntary scheme, whereby large numbers of these people can be repatriated to the country of their ancestry, It would solve the difficulty. As a matter of fact I am told on very good authority that it was stated at the Indian Congress in Durban that it was the most dangerous thing that could have been put up to the Indian people, the most dangerous so far as the speaker was concerned, because he felt sure if the scheme was put into effect hundreds would accept it. I think we should make some attempt to get them to see our point of view and agree to it. Because what have they to lose? There are thousands of Indians in Durban and throughout Natal living with their families in worse conditions than one would imagine. We cannot raise these people, much as we would like to, in the matter of a few years. The Dominion Party say that every man irrespective of his colour and creed should be given decent housing and good food, everything the European is entitled to. What is wrong with that? Why are we called racialists because we advocate that, and because we do make some attempt to find an acceptable solution of this problem, a solution that may be acceptable to all parties. We even allow the Provincial Council to pass Ordinances that are afterwards proved to be ultra vires. What a terrible state affairs. Why was it not possible before the Council had gone so far, and before such indignation was aroused, for the Government to have stepped in and to have said they had looked into the ordinances and if certain clauses were passed they would be ultra vires. The Ordinances were allowed to pass and we do not know where we stand today. We are told the Government intends to pass legislation that will give the Provincial Council power to implement those ordinances. We are not sure of that, and we will be faced with the Pegging Act terminating and having all this trouble again. It is criminal neglect to allow this racialism to develop and extend as it is doing, instead of convincing the Indian population that it is the Europeans who are insisting on segregation and not the Indians, and that we are going to carry it out whether they like it or not. According to the Minister it is only 6 per cent. of them who are giving us all the trouble. Why should we not face up to it and tell them that if this penetration will not stop the Pegging Act will be extended? Only the other day a resident of Durban complained that the property he was residing on and, for which he paid £9 a month rent, had been bought by an Indian who had immediately increased the rent to £12 12s. a month.

Have you a Rent Board?

The Rent Board says he is justified in increasing the rent. When the Press of South Africa accuses the Dominion Party of being racialistic and of wanting to throw the Indians into the sea, and all that rubbish, the fact is we want a solution of this problem, we want it for the European, and we do not want it brought before Parliament year after year in the way it has been done now for 50 or 60 years. We do not want to go on like this for another 50 or 60 years. We believe there is a solution.

Deportation.

There you are, that is what you get from the United Party, who are afraid to face up to the position. There is one solution of the problem; allow the Indians over the borders of Natal into the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, and then we will say no more. But they say: Keep an iron fence round Natal and keep your Indians there. And when we put up the proposition of voluntary retirement of the Indians to the land of their birth, they insist on describing it as deportation. It is not deportation. I am certain the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) would be prepared to go anywhere if it was made worth his while. [Time limit.]

If I have ever listened to anything which is un-Afrikaans, it is the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. He knows as well as I do that what he proposes is impossible. One cannot buy out people who were born in this country and then repatriate them. If he as an English-speaking person has the interests of this country at heart, he will not make a proposal of this kind. He will admit that these people are in the country, that it is our duty to find a solution, and that we must stand together to find a solution. The sooner the better. But these hon. members now come forward with an impossible proposal, and on the other hand we have the native representatives who announce to the world that the natives are not getting fair treatment in South Africa. They dishonour the name of South Africa by adopting such an attitude. There has never been a country which has done as much for its native population as South Africa has done for its natives. In South Africa the natives have been treated better than in any other country. Take Australia for example. What is the position of the aborigines of Australia? Take America, for example. What is the position of the natives of America? What has South Africa done for the natives? We have adopted the attitude that these are people whose home is in this country, and that we must safeguard their homes, without in any way prejudicing the European population. We have given the natives medical services; we give the natives food. We give them land in their own reserves in order to enable them to make a living; we give them education. But what do they want today? Hon. members on those benches want them to receive so much education that they will make the position of the European in South Africa impossible. We on this side would like to give the nativé population education, but not to the disadvantage of the European population.

Order, order! The hon. member is now discussing native affairs.

I should like to deal with it in connection with the Interior Vote. May I just come back to members on the other side? They spoke of the natives in South Africa, and they accused the Minister of the Interior and the Acting Prime Minister of giving preference to the natives. Well, these Ministers are capable enough to defend themselves. But the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) knows very well that we had difficulties in the Transvaal in the urban areas. He knows that very well. When I was in the Transvaal Provincial Council, I proposed that the local authorities should not have the right to grant licences to these people, and the hon. member for Wonderboom was one of those who opposed my proposal. I should like to make an appeal to the Minister of the Interior to take an active interest in the granting of trade licences on the platteland, because at the moment, owing to financial considerations, certain rights are being given to people to the disadvantage not only of the native, but also to the disadvantage of the whole European population in South Africa. Hon. members on the other side know as well as I do that the Transvaal Provincial Council allows local authorities to grant trading licences, and the Minister of the Interior ought to have the right to prevent them from granting those licences without any control, as is the case today. May I say that the greatest possible harm to South Africa is done by those local authorities where the Nationalist Party is in power. They do the greatest harm as far as the European population is concerned. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) is in his seat. He knows very well that the Nationalist Party has the majority in his town council, and he knows very well that trading licences are granted by the local authorities. The people in those areas are responsible for the granting of these licences which, according to them, are harmful to the European population. The Indians are in this country today, and it is no use toying with a matter of this kind. Hon. members are trying to make a political football of this question, and they know as well äs I do that this matter causes great difficulty and that we will have to stand together if we want to solve it. But they want to put the entire blame on this side of the House, and I say that the greatest difficulty in the Transvaal is in the platteland towns, and especially in those towns where the Nationalist Party has the majority and therefore bears the responsibility. [Laughter.] Those hon. members may laugh. They are in the Cape Province and they know nothing about the Transvaal. The Transvaal members know that this is nothing but the truth, and if they want to be honest, they will not try to solve that difficulty by making speeches in this House, but they will be bold enough to solve those problems in their own towns. I want to ask the Minister to see that in the future that great responsibility will not be thrown on the local authorities, because they are unable to bear it.

There is an old adage which says: “Much noise and little wool.”

You know a lot about that.

That is all I have to say about that hon. member’s speech. In the first place I wish to say something to the Minister in regard to his reply in connection with the by-election at Kimberley. One is sometimes inclined to sympathise and feel sorry for the Minister’s ignorance. But when a Minister tries to hide behind his officials, as that hon. Minister did this afternoon, all possible feelings of sympathy disappear. He is the Minister he is responsible for the officials and for what they do. Such an important matter as the fixing of the date of a by-election is a matter which cannot be left to officials. When the Minister comes here today and makes the excuse that there is only one typist to do the work, it reminds me of the excuse he made here yesterday, that it is difficult to lay a document on the Table because it is only in English. It reminds one of the English adage: “Any port is good in a storm.” In the Kimberley district there are approximately 7,000 voters. They will not be represented in Parliament, and that at a time when Parliament is still sitting and in spite of the fact that, according to the statement of the Acting Prime Minister, much important legislation is still to be submitted and that the Session will end in June only. But because the Department cannot afford to release more than one typist for this work, those people must remain unrepresented. The Minister must not think that we will be satisfied with that sort of talk. I believe that there are other reasons, and those reasons are that it will be very difficult for the. Government at the present moment to have an election in a doubtful constituency like Kimberley District. The Government has another plan. It expects that the war will be over soon, and then it wishes to have a victorious election in Kimberley District. For the last time the war must again be exploited for election purposes. The Minister must really bring forward other reasons than those he has given us, and I hope that he will do it during the course of this debate. Now I wish to ask the Minister whether he can reply to the complaints we made here yesterday in connection with the changing of names. He has not replied yet. I specially wish to know whether he approves a change of name being allowed “for business and social reasons”. I wish to know from him whether he will allow it in future or not. Then one of these days a census will be taken. I think it will take place in May of next year. In connection with that I should like to know this from the Minister. In the previous census there were no statistics about religion, denomination and the church of the people concerned. Why that was omitted I do not know. There must be a reason.

I am sure there was a very good reason.

Yes, possibly pressure was exerted. But the church is very interested in this matter and we ask that the Minister should this time see to it that there should be a proper census of religion, faith and church. The Prime Minister said only three days ago that this war is a religious war. If that is so, and if we are fighting for religion and are crusaders of the Cross in this war the Minister must under those circumstances realise that it is absolutely essential at the following census also to have statistics of religion. Then there is a matter in connection with the Bureau of Information, not the same point raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). On page 20, £21,000 is asked for the Information Bureau under item A. Then there is item M, where under the heading of publicity and the Information Bureau an amount of £24.000 is asked for, making altogether approximately £44,000. I now notice that under the same heading reference is made to overseas publicity. I wish to point out to the Minister that there is also another vote, namely the Railway Estimates, where an amount is also asked for publicity, and it seems to me that there is real danger of duplication which will cost much money. Certain work is done by the Publicity Bureau which is also done by the Tourist Publicity Bureau of the railways. There is duplication, and I should like to know from the Minister in view of the approaching end of the war, if after the war there will be an end put to this expenditure in connection with publicity, seeing that there is already expenditure in regard to publicity by the Tourist Bureau of the railways.

I just want to say that I do not believe there is any other member in this House who knows the conditions of Indians living in India better than the member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire), and therefore I cannot understand his suggestion to the hon. Minister with regard to trying to repatriate the Indians by giving them a sum of money big enough only to make it attractive to them to return to India. He knows very well that the poor Indian will never in his life make an attempt to return to India because the conditions of poor Indians in South Africa are far better than those in India. He also knows that the rich Indian will never leave South Africa, and therefore, looking at it from that point of view, I think the hon. member ought to know better than anyone else in the House how futile that suggestion is. The point is therefore that we shall have to try to find a solution in this country, and my suggestion is the policy that I have been preaching year after year, and it is also my reply to the uncalled for attack from the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). He knows very well that we are in favour of good conditions for the Indians, provided we segregate them from the Europeans. That is the policy, and does the hon. member find anything wrong in that? Then why does he disagree with the Labour Party’s policy?

How will you do it?

Don’t you know? The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is interjecting again. Yesterday he made a speech in this House which he should not have made because he stated that the late Sir Abe Bailey 25 years ago made exactly the same speech as I did. I say that is not correct because Sir Abe Bailey never advocated setting aside land in Krugersdorp for Indians. It is a scheme which was evolved by the Town Council of Krugersdorp only in recent years and he knows it. Why does he try to make the House believe that I stand for the policy Sir Abe Bailey stood for? The position is simply this: The Indians must be told that this country will play fair with them but they must stop one thing and that is dictating to the Europeans as to where they want to live. I think that if we as guardians see that good conditions are given to them in areas where they can rule themselves and carry on any type of business amongst themselves but stop them from penetrating into European areas, no reasonable Indian in the country has any reason to be dissatisfied. They ought to welcome it. But I say that the example the Indians have set in the Krugersdorp Council is bad. If all the Indians adopt that attitude matters will become impossible. We set aside land there and they refused it. They want to dictate to us. But the time has arrived for the Government to tell these people that although they believe in their numbers, although they believe that they have a right in this country, the European has a right too, and his right, as far as I am concerned, comes before that of the Indian. And I do not apologise to anyone for saying that. I admit that the Indian has been brought to this country to serve capitalistic interests, but they are here and hundreds of thousands of them were born in this country and they are our responsibility. But my solution is to give them land where they can settle and if they want to grouse we can take action. The Pegging Act would never have been brought into this House if the Indians had adopted a reasonable attitude. But does he?

How can you talk that nonsense?

If the hon. member calls that nonsense he is hurling insinuations at the Prime Minister himself.

How will he live?

Must he live on the white man? Cannot he produce for himself? Cannot he build factories? They have enough money. You cannot say that the Indian must necessarily live on the white man. He can live on his own sweat and toil and from the land, the same as the white man is doing. I do not believe that any section in this country should be allowed to say that he must necessarily be amongst the white man to make a living. They are strong enough today so that they can be segregated and still have everything the white man has, but they must pay for it themselves. That is the policy I advocate. I claim, and I am supported by the Minister, that with my assistance my council was one of the very few, if not the only one in South Africa, which solved this problem. If all the towns in the Union would follow that example, and the Government then came along and put the rubber stamp of the endorsement on that policy, we would have no Indian problem here, and the taxpayer of South Africa would not have to bribe the Indian to get him to go overseas.

One is rather tired of listening to repetition of arguments and the repetition of my view and my Party’s views and my Council’s views, until one is of the opinion that everyone has a policy in regard to the Indians and everyone is correct. The hon. member wants to know what my views are. I will speak as a Natalian, a person born and brought up in Natal.

Did you say an Italian?

Speak in Afrikaans.

If the hon. member for Durban (North) (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) would listen he might Understand my English although I find it very difficult to understand his. This question is approached from the angle as if there is only one Indian problem. There is not. The problem of the Indian in Natal is quite different from the problem of the Indian in the Transvaal. There is no problem in the Free State because they got rid of their Indians many years ago. The problem of the Indian in the Cape Province is fundamentally different again. What is it that the hon. member for Durban (North) suggests? He has two alternatives. One is ransacking the pockets of the present and of the future in order, not voluntarily to repatriate with an attractive scheme, but his suggestion is nothing more or less than deportation, and not even deportation to the country of their birth. The principle he advocates is one which is fundamentally opposed to all ethical and Christian principles. It is fundamentally opposed to every principle we are fighting for in this war and we are rather surprised when a person with the responsibilities that one expects from a member who comes from Durban puts such inane platitudes before the House. Let me say this. The Indian problem in Natal is the combined problem of the Indian who works on the land and who produces profitably on land which no European can produce upon, and the Indian planter and the Indian gardener is the one person who is ousting all small holding settlements from the Europeans. He is the problem which the hon. member for Natal South (Mr. Neate) accepts as an asset to the country. I was brought up in Natal and saw this encroachment going on right throughout the Valley of the Umbilo, and the same problem is now occurring in the valleys outside Durban. There is no European gardener who can work profitably in Natal, due to the Indian taking over his ground. [Interjection.] Let me tell the hon. member for Durban (Central) who comes from Ceylon that he does not know as much as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) would lead us to believe. He was a tea planter in Ceylon and sat on the stoep and watched the tea grow. The Indian problem is the problem of the Indian planter.

No.

The hon. member for South Coast objects to two types of Indians, the trader and the farmer. He says the farmer can stay here because he is an asset.

I did not say so.

You said he was a producer and every producer is an asset; otherwise I do not understand your economics.

You produce Imperialism, which is not an asset.

His colleague from Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) suggests that one method of dealing with this problem— and there are 200,000 Indians; the population is about equal to that of the Europeans, and most of them, if not all of them, quite 75 per cent are born in South Africa, with all the rights ….

They have no rights.

They never did have rights, and that is one of the promises which were entered into at the time of Union. But let us assume for one moment that the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Central) was conceded by this House. One would have an influx of Indians into the Cape Province. All right. I am not opposed to it. When I say I am not opposed to it, assuming that it was permitted, he would come here, but what would his status be in the Cape Province? That of the coloured man? Because the Indian in the Cape Province has the rights and privileges of the coloured man, and the franchise. He can sit in the Provincial Council and can vote for members of the House of Assembly. He is entitled to and does sit in the Municipal Councils. There is one, if not two, sitting in the Municipality of Cape Town today. Let us assume for one moment that the argument of the hon. member was accepted. To which province will they go?

To the Cape, Free State and Transvaal.

One expects a little more intelligence from that hon. member. I did think he was prepared to support his argument. He means that he is not interested in the rights of or uplifting the Indians, in which he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition.

There were two sides to the agreement, and one was not carried out.

Of course there were two sides, but one was purely an invitation to the Indians in Natal to the effect that we feel they are not welcome in Natal. We know that is true, and the Indian deputation which came here, which was led by that distinguished agent, Mr. Shastri, a person whose intellect and culture are outstanding in the world ….

Do not discuss Shastri now.

But here is a man who came as the head of the deputation and discussed this matter with the present Leader of the Opposition and they came to a gentlemen’s agreement which was: There shall be no compulsion and no compulsory deportation of any Indians, but we appreciate that the Indian is not happy or welcome; let us get rid of him if we can, and there was a bonus to be paid to all Indians who would avail themselves of this bonus and return to India by way of voluntary repatriation.

That is an insult. I wanted to give them the bonus.

If such a suggestion was attempted to be forced on any other minority in this country ….

It was a voluntary scheme. There was no forcing.

The hon. member has exposed his hand and his wishes. The only concern he has with the Indians is that Natal should get rid of them, no matter how it is done. That is what is asked for, and that is what he said as plainly as it is possible for him to say anything. Let me tell the hon. member for Durban (Central) arid the hon. member for the Dominion Party and some of the hon. members of the Labour Party, like the hon. member for Durban (North), whose aspect of this question would, I should have thought, be very much wider ….

Sir on a point of order or explanation or both, may I tell the hon. member who has just sat down that up to now I have not said a single word on this vote and I will thank him to withdraw what he has said about me.

I was dealing with the interjection of the hon. member. His interjection is as capable of explaining his point of view as any other means. Some people can say in five words what other people need five hours for.

Which category do you belong to?

I need five years.

Sir, my point of explanation is this, that the only interjection I have made was a defence of the English language as used by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. I considered the interjection coming from that particular bench was an unfair one. I wish very much that I could speak in Afrikaans as well as this hon. member spoke in English. [Interjection.] On another point of explanation: Is the hon. member for Hospital in charge of this House or are you, Sir?

There is a complex here and if I might for a moment or two deal with the argument of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) ….

You had better hurry up, you have only a minute or two left.

I shall probably be able to deal effectively with the hon. member in that time. He claimed that we should now deal with the minorities in our way. He claims that the majority of this country should be empowered to deal with the minorities, and because the Indians are in the minority, therefore the European majority should deal with them. There is only one way to deal with that question and that is on ethical grounds and grounds of real equity and justice, and the grounds of real equity and justice can be found within the terms of the agreement which was entered into with the hon. member who now leads the Opposition and who joins with his Party in an attempt, now that he is out of office, more and more to debase the rights and opportunities given to the Indians in Natal. [Time limit.]

I should not like to take part in the brotherly quarrel which is going on amongst the groups supporting the Government. All I want to say is that it is regrettable to find hon. members in this House acting as the champions of Indians against the interests of their own race, in spite of the provocative attitude which those Indians have adopted in South Africa.

Onward Christian soldiers.

Fighting for the Jews.

We have seen this sad spectacle that the other side of the House has no policy; because of that we find these divergent views which are expressed by various groups on the other side of the House. Even within the ranks of the various groups of the United Party we find a difference of opinion in regard to this major problem of South Africa. Apart from the difference we find amongst the various groups we find the same difference within the ranks of those groups—one cannot say difference of policy because they have no policy—but difference of opinion. We listened a few moments ago to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg). He told us what he advocated. We are not very much interested in the attitude of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. We should prefer to know what is actually the policy of his Party in regard to this matter. At the moment they have no policy because the hon. member for Krugersdorp announces a certain view which is diametrically opposed to the view announced by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Wanless). Even so, these are merely their opinions. What is the opinion of the Minister of Labour, who is actually their leader, in regard to this matter? What is the opinion of the Minister who is in a position to demonstrate whether he also believes in the segregation policy adumbrated by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, and who has shown on every occasion, without exception, whenever he had an opportunity of doing so, that he did not favour the segregation policy, but the policy of equality?

You know that you are not speaking the truth.

But then the hon. member for Krugersdorp asks the Minister of the Interior whether he does not agree with him. No wonder the Minister did not even reply because the Minister did not listen to him. No one in this House pays much attention to what members of the Labour Party say, because we judge them by their deeds. We have seen them wearing out the carpet in walking across the floor of the House to vote with the Government for a policy which they then supposedly support. It would be better for members of the Labour Party to get together and to see whether they cannot put up a better performance in this House by voting for what they preach. I want to come back to the hon. Minister of the Interior on the question of the by-election in Kimberley (District). I can say that we on this side of the House regard the Minister of the Interior as one of the most honest members in this House; that does not mean to say that we always agree with his views, but we know that he is not a man who tries to cover up things, but to our astonishment we learned today that this honest Minister is now shielding behind the view of his Department. We want to examine this matter a little more closely and we want to put a few pertinent questions to the Minister. I asked him by way of interjection why it had not taken so long to hold the by-election of Port Elizabeth (Central). Apparently the hon. Minister could not reply to that, so he sat down. But what is the position? We find that in Port Elizabeth (Central) the previous member died on the 9th December and the present member, Mr. Oosthuizen, was elected on the 7th March, in other words, within three months. Notwithstanding the fact that there were fairly strong influences at work in Port Elizabeth (Central), notwithstanding the fact that even members of the United Party resigned from the party as such, the Minister deemed it advisable to hold the election within three months, so as not to keep the Governor-General uninformed and to notify him of the vacancy in good time.

They had enough typistes then.

The question occurs to me why the Government saw to it at that time the Governor-General was notified of this vacancy timeously. He saw that things were going against his Government in that constituency and for that reason he deemed it advisable to allow the by-election to take place as soon as possible. But let us take another case. We have the case of the byelection in Wakkerstroom. In Wakkerstroom the late Col. Collins died at the beginning of the year, and we had a by-election on the 10th March, in other words within two months. We had the by-election at Wakkerstroom within two months. Again we ask, why was it held so soon on this occasion? On this occasion the Government had certain plans. We know that the hon. Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, was on the point of making certain announcements in connection with the meat scheme, and he was pressed by certain interests to introduce those plans as soon as possible. The Minister could not wait therefore, and for that reason the by-election had to take place as soon as possible. We notice in both these cases, in the case of the by-election at Port Elizabeth (Central) which took place within three months and the by-election of Wakkerstroom which took place within two months that the results were disastrous to the United Party. In Port Elizabeth (Central) where the Government should have got a majority of 2,000 to 3,000, they barely came in with a majority of 500. At Wakkerstroom the by-election was held within a short space of time in the hope of retaining the seat on the strength of the late Minister’s prestige, and there they had this experience that today the Wakkerstroom seat is no longer held by a member of the United Party, but by a Nationalist. Now we come to the late member for Kimberley (District), Mr. Louw Steytler. Mr. Steytler died as far back as the 14th March; almost two months have elapsed and apart from the fact that the Governor-General has not yet been notified of the vacancy, the Minister tells us today that he can only get one typiste to do the work connected with the by-election. That is a story which we cannot believe, and it is a story that we do not want to accept from the Minister of the Interior whom we regard as one of the most honest members of this House. It is a story which his department told him and which he wants to use today as a fig leaf. But that fig leaf is so full of holes that we can see the nakedness of the Government right through it.

And what do we see?

The hon. member asks what we see. What we see is this, that the Minister knows very well that the Government Party is going to lose the Kimberley (District) seat, and it is for that reason that the Government does not want a by-election at this stage. Why not? Because at the time of the Wakkerstroom by-election the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was also out of the country, and it was not very good news to him when he was overseas to hear of the result of the election. We on this side of the House feel that all this talk about the shortage of typistes and of the multiplicity of supplementary registrations, which it is now alleged, must be examined very carefully, notwithstanding all that, the real reason why the Minister of the Interior does not want that election to take place now, is the tact that the Prime Minister is in San Francisco and the Government does not want to embarrass the Prime Minister by placing him in the position of having to receive the sad news that his party has lost Kimberley (District); while he is in the conference hall with the representatives of other countries. [Time limit.]

We have heard a great deal about our having no policy on this side of the House while the opposite side of the House have a policy. Hon. members on the other side are in ignorance of what their policy is. They have never known what their policy comprises. That policy of theirs has continually been changed ever since 1938.

Give us a chance in the Kimberley District.

Now they are interested in the Kimberley (District) by-election and they are interested in the General Election in South West Africa. In South West Africa the people are told that the Nationalist Party is the democratic party while the United Party is the Fascist party. The following appeared in the latest issue of “Die Kruit-horing”—

We are now what you ….

Order, order.

We know what the Opposition has done. I have before me an article “The Abolition of Democracy.”

Where is that from?

I shall read it—

What are you reading from?

It appeared in “Die Republikeinse Orde.”

Who published it?

The Nationalist Party—

That is Dr. Malan’s speech.

Order, order.

When was this?

It was at the Nationalist Party Congress in 1941. The Ossewabrandwag, once the best friends of members on the other side, are described today as people with a foreign ideology.

Will you give us that pamphlet when you have finished with it.

I shall give it to the hon. member. I read further—

Can the hon. member tell me how this matter falls under this vote?

I am mentioning it in reference to the observations made by the other side that we have no policy.

I would like to know to what policy the hon. member refers.

The democratic policy.

But the hon. member cannot discuss that matter under this vote.

I only wish to show that those members who accused us of having no policy have absolutely no policy themselves. They change their policy from day to day.

May I point out to the hon. member that the policy to which the hon. member referred was the policy in regard to Indians.

No, he is accusing us of being absolutely without a policy.

Order, order! I cannot allow a general discussion to take place on the question of policy.

Call again next week.

In the circumstances. I bow to your ruling.

I have been brought to my feet against my will, but I find it necessary to give my position whether it is ethical or unethical as clearly as I can to this House. I am sure that most people in it will judge it after the statement is made and not before it has been made, as has already happened from the Government benches. From my very limited point of view, I have seen the Indian question in this way: I hear members in this House talking about the Indian, the Indian and again the Indian. To me there are two groups of Indian people, a very small group which has done an injury to the community and a very large group against which the community has done a wrong, and I am going to try in a very few words to discriminate between those two groups. In my view we shall never get anywhere until we understand that even in Natal there are two sides to the Indian question, and they require different solutions. You cannot follow the Indian difficulty far without coming into contact—or almost in collision—with its real cause, of which very little or nothing has been said in this debate, and that cause is the deep-rooted selfishness of mankind. We may dislike the consequences of that as much as we like, and we may quarrel and fight over it like tigers, but those results will always come as long as we preserve the cause. It does not make much difference which way the worm wriggles while it is still impaled on the hook. I was a little bit astonished by the speech of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). I dissociate myself entirely from the criticism of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in that he inferred that the hon. member for Cape Eastern had no right specifically to plead for the Indians. She has, of course; and we all have, otherwise the Indians obviously would have as good a right as the natives to their own special representation in this place. But the point that did surprise me in that speech was that the hon. member insisted on the right of unrestricted investment. That, Sir, I do not support. I think many evils follow from unrestricted investment, including war, and I want to reinforce the point made clearly and truly by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) that the vast majority, the great group of the Indians in Natal, are not in any way interested in unrestricted investment. They are like me; they have nothing whatever to invest. Unrestricted investment, or to put it a little more plainly—I hope not offensively to anyone—the greed for profit is what has caused this trouble, and as long as it is allowed, as long as it is tolerated, the trouble will go on not only in Durban but in other places. Various hypothetical questions are asked as one tries to make a speech. One was: “How did it come about that a European ever sold a property to an Indian in a European area?” It came about because of this greed that I have mentioned, this inherent selfishness. The European who first sold a property in a given European area to an Indian did it because he could thereby make more money; but it is equally true that the Indian bought it for the same reason. To me all this talk about culture in this respect is vain. Let me remind this Committee of the House of my own particular district in Durban, Durban North, the pride of the city. That was originally just one huge sugar farm on the other side, the north side, of the Umgeni. There was no reason whatsoever why Indians should not have bought the whole of that if they wished. It lay open for many years. There was no anti-Asiatic clause operating against them. The wealthy Indians, the small group, whom the Minister described as the “better class,” had they wished, could have bought the whole area, and they could have built themselves just as big houses and made themselves just as glorious gardens as are there today. There was nobody stopping them. Well, why did they not? Because the other side of the Umgeni was a bit too remote? It was not too remote for the Europeans. If the Europeans did not find it too remote, too far from the City Hall, why should the Indians? The Indian did not want to buy land like that; he is in the market for old-established European residences; and why? Because he wants profit-plus. If that judgment is not fair, it is at least honest. I believe that to be the ethics, to say in any place what you believe. That is the truth as I know it. There is, of course, a solution, and that is socialism—doing away with private profit altogether. If there had been no property rights and no profit motive in this, would there have been all this hubbub and clamour in the House? I do not think there would. Nor do I expect this capitalistic government to accept the solution I offer, but if they won’t take the cure then it seems to me the suffering will have to continue. I want to say very plainly that I am very little concerned about the wealthy Indian. Like many other super-rich people he accumulated his wealth at the expense of the poor, in some cases by making the poor poorer still. I am no racialist; but I like to be with my own people; and what sort of race is this, that they wish to leave their own and hold a precarious existence on the outskirts of what is to them an alien civilisation? I do not see any reason why the little Indian girl should not live in an Indian quarter, provided she has a decent home and clothing; provided she has decent food, and playmates of her own race. But I do object to seeing a little Indian child weighed down to the ground under a vegetable basket, in the service of money-grabbing, in the service of the great god Mammon. I care little or nothing about the wealthy Indians, but I care a great deal for the mass-wretchedness of the poor Indian, and I agree with the hon. Minister in his strictures on the Durban City Council to that extent. When these indentured Indians came to Durban many years ago, at the expiry of their contracts, houses should have been built for them by the City Council, and they should have been in one area too, and then they would have zoned themselves quite happily and voluntarily and they would have had enough to eat. It was not done then, and therefore I say, whether it is right or wrong, that that great mass of poverty-stricken workers, who cannot defend themselves, should have their own area now. They should have their homes; they should have their social amenities and medical services. They should have transport and roads, and above all they should have education, and I believe that if we gave them that, the spirit would become better on both sides. Perhaps later on we would not mind giving them the vote, for they would vote for us, their friends, if we proved ourselves to be such by helping and uplifting them from this misery, and if we gave them something better than pounds, shillings and pence. If I have spoken too violently or sharply, I am very sorry, but these are my views. I say I am against the little group of over wealthy merchants, and I say I am for the 95 per cent. of the down-and-out hardworking Indians who are good citizens, and who are an asset to Durban, who do bring vegetables into the city and who do help us to feed ourselves in time of war. [Time limit.]

I can well understand why the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) was so shy of telling us what he was reading from, because it was out of the United Party’s newsletter. Since yesterday we have mentioned a considerable number of matters, and the Minister has not yet replied what his attitude is on some of these matters. Take, for instance, the question the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and I touched on yesterday, namely the changing of names. We still require to know in this House what the policy of the Minister is and what the policy of the Government is in connection with this incessant changing of names which ought not to be allowed. Who are the individuals who make a decision on that? Is every application for a change of name submitted to the Minister? Is it he who changed Stein into McLean; is it he who changed Katzenstein to Kaye? Is it he who changed Pretorius into Praetor? We should like to know what the policy is and what procedure is being followed, and I hope the Minister will enlighten us on this. We do not know how the thing is done today. There is the law; the law says the Governor-General must be convinced that there are substantial reasons. The individual gives notice in the Government Gazette that he wishes to change his name. The next thing we see is that he has changed his name. Will the Minister tell us who deals with the applications, who makes the recommendations to the Governor-General? Is it he as Minister or does he leave it to an official? What is the position? Things cannot continue as at present. We should like to know whether the Minister approves the indiscriminate changing of names where it is unnecessary. Does he approve the reasons that the hon. member for Beaufort West read out and and those that I read out? We should like the Minister to enlighten the House on this. Then there is another matter, namely that of the Information Bureau. We have had no satisfactory answer in this connection. The Minister has so far not informed us whether he will see to it that we shall have the report the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) spoke about. Now I want to point out that under this vote money is being voted for the Information Bureau under several items. On page 90 an amount of £21,000 is voted for the director and temporary assistants. But then a small (c) follows after that and the footnote reads—

This is all in addition to what I mentioned just now. What are their salaries? What does it all cost? Then we find on page 91 under “General Expenses” another vote for the Information Bureau, namely £560 for entertainment allowances, £60 more than the previous year; and £80 for rentals outside the Union. Then on page 92 we find under “M,” “Publicity (Bureau of Information)” and £24,000 is voted. I have mentioned an amount of £21,000 and an amount of £24,000, and I should like to know what cost is involved in connection with the great number of officials from other departments mentioned in the footnote. There are fifteen officials of other departments concerned. What is the necessity for the Information Bureau? No department of the public service is in such bad odour as the Information Bureau. You can go to any newspaper of standing in the Union, whether it supports the Government or the Opposition, and not one of them has a good word for the Information Bureau. They all talk in a disparaging manner about it. When I mentioned the matter recently I noticed that the newspapers in all parts of the country said that the Government should go into the matter and close down the bureau. What is the necessity for voting this large sum for the Information Bureau? The time has come to abolish it. It is not worth while. The salary of the Director of the Information Bureau is set down here as £750, but he receives £1,200. That is apparently a personal salary. It is almost £500 more than really should be voted for him. What is the bureau doing? Is it necessary to spend all that money on it? We should like to know what the Minister’s policy is in connection with the matter. Why continue a bureau that merely annoys people? The third matter on which the Minister is silent is the by-election in Kimberley. I do not want to go into the matter again, but I should like the Minister to say what his attitude is. Then still another matter that I mentioned and want to allude to again is the South African Public Library, for which we vote funds. The bilingual principle is not being maintained in that institution, although it has to serve both sections of the community. My time was unfortunately up yesterday when I was enlarging on this matter, and the Minister stated that according to his information everything has been done to appoint bilingual officials and to maintain bilingualism. But this is not the information that I have, and it is not confirmed by a large number of letters appearing in the public press from prominent persons, and that cannot summarily be disposed of. I have a letter written by Dr. E. C. Pienaar, of Stellenbosch, who complains strongly about the position. I have a letter too from Dr. P. J. van der Merwe, of the Stellenbosch University, stating that he has considerable work to do there, and that if you ask for anything in Afrikaans you get the answer, “I am sorry, sir, but I do not speak Afrikaans.” He says—

Then there is a letter from Mr. D. P. de Klerk, of Cape Town, who takes a great interest in libraries, and he says the same thing. In one letter published under a pseudonym “Belange,” the writer states he has to carry out considerable research work in the library; that he is usually attended to in English; and that if you speak Afrikaans you are given to understand in an unmistakable manner they do not understand you. There is Mr. J. du P. Scholtz, a lecturer at the Cape Town University who makes a similar statement. He says—

Then there is Eric Stockenström, a scientific investigator who has been engaged in research work for 35 years, and hé states—

The whole atmosphere is English and you feel you are in London rather than in Van Riebeeck’s city. There are further letters, including one from Dr. F. C. L. Bosman, of Cape Town, confirming this.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) refers to the manner in which they are conducting the Cape Town Library from the point of view of language qualifications of their assistants. As the hon. member is aware, this is an institution that receives Government support in the shape of a payment of £5,700. What he has said I will bring to the notice of the trustees, and there is something in his argument that an institution of that sort that receives Government money should make provision for the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community. The other point raised by both the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and the hon. member for Winburg was the question of the change of names. The procedure is that these names are advertised, and if anyone objects no action is taken.

If no one objects do you merely pass it?

J say that if anyone objects that is sufficient.

Is one objection sufficient to stop a change of name?

Yes.

I am glad to hear it.

Of course, the man who objects must be affected by the change of name. I do not want the hon. member for Beaufort West to object if ….

Could the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) have objected?

Yes that is one I remember.

In which papers must the advertisement appear?

It must be published in the Government Gazette and in a paper circulating in the place where the applicant lives. If he is in Johannesburg it will be in a Johannesburg paper and the Government Gazette.

But the man may live at Worcester.

Then he advertises in the Cape Times or Die Burger, if he is a Worcester man.

But the man whose name he takes may be living at Worcester and he may be advertising in Johannesburg.

That is possible. Social and business reasons are not the only reasons. There are other circumstances. This matter then comes before the Secretary for the Interior, and he brings it to my notice and I take the responsibility for the criticisms you have levelled here. I cannot remember them all, but take the case of Stein. I do happen to know that case. He said it was a Jewish name and there was no Jewish blood in his veins at all. He mentioned certain names, and I said they were objected to. He said he did not care at all about the name as far as he was concerned, but it was on account of his children who were attending a school in Johannesburg, and they complained they were being said to be of Jewish parentage. I made an offer to him. I said: “I am prepared to let you use your wife’s maiden name.” That was how it came about he got the name McLean. I did not know what it was, but I had made the bet and I had to keep to it.

Would it have been the same if it had been Clarkson?

Yes, it happened to be McLean. I agree that we have to be careful to try to see that people when they change their names do not change their race.

This Pretorius nonsense, will you allow that?

I cannot deal with that particular case without having the papers before me.

Are those not the main reasons that you gave us?

Exactly, but in some of these cases there are further reasons.

If a man had to go to the North, would that be a reason?

A man going to the North would probably have been known by that name in his regiment.

He thinks “he might be going to the North.”

I want to know whether you would agree to a man changing his name for social or business reasons?

If it is merely for social or business reasons, no.

There are several cases here.

Yes, but that cannot be all the information. The hon. member discussed the question of the the Bureau of Information and the various amounts paid in connection with that. I told the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) I would have translated this report of the special committee that was appointed, and that I would have it laid on the Table of the House. If any member has occasion to refer to it I shall let him see the copy I possess. That committee went into the question of the Bureau and its future, and the Government is going to act on the report. Briefly the report is this, that the Bureau must be reduced.

That is the only good news we have had today.

I am going to give you some more. The other important point they made is that the Bureau must not in any way interfere with the freedom of the press or the access by reporters to Ministers and officials of departments. That was communicated by me to the editors verbally when I met them a month ago, and I put that on record, but the Committee realises that the Bureau can do very useful work in England, and particularly in America, and the bulk of this money is expended in that direction. I may inform hon. members over £4,000 of this amount are for cables from and to America. The Bureau’s work in South Africa in connection with the press does not represent more than one-sixth or one-seventh of its activities. In South Africa the Bureau has done much work in connection with the radio and films, and as I have said in producing publications. It has had to deal with a newspaper we produce for the troops in the North.

Are you going to reduce the enormous staff?

So far as the staff is concerned, an inspector of the Public Service Commission is going to investigate the recommendations of this report and bring them into effect. The other point mentioned by the hon. member is that the Railways have established their own publicity office though the Bureau is functioning. Their functions are different. The Railway publicity is principally in connection with tourist traffic.

What is the function of the Bureau?

It is to obtain and supply as much information as possible for distribution in South Africa and beyond South Africa about Government activities. The Bureau does a great deal of work for the Agricultural Department, in connection with soil erosion, for instance. They have also been responsible for over 1,000 broadcasts. They do a lot of work in connection with the cinema. They secure propaganda films in connection with the war and supply them to the people controlling the cinemas.

Who pays for Mr. Van Rensburg’s cinema shows about soil erosion.

He is paid by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Is there no duplication?

There is a certain amount of duplication, and efforts are being made to eliminate that. The Bureau has been responsible, however, for most of the information over the wireless, while Mr. Van Rensburg is working practically on his own; there is no conflict there.

Why does the Bureau appear under three heads?

It represents different functions they are carrying out. The total expenditure amounts to about £45,000 today. The last point raised by hon. members was in connection with this Kimberley by-election. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has given dates in connection with the matter. I cannot add any more information to that I have already given. I have seen the ex-chief electoral officer, who happens to be sitting in the House; he has been working in connection with the Electoral Bill, and the information I have given has been supplied by him to me. I will see what I can do to have the matter speeded up. I did not realise it was as long as three months since the death of the late member for Kimberley (Mr. Steytler).

Tempus fugit.

Time does fly. That is the position in connection with it, But when, as I hope we shall, get the new Electoral Bill this will not crop up. We will be able at any time to complete the voters’ roll so that it can be issued to all parties.

How is it you managed it at Port Elizabeth?

There is a nigger in the woodpile there.

I do not know who is the nigger, I may be the woodpile. I do not propose to deal with the comments made in regard to the Indian question. I have stated what the decision is we have arrived at in connection with the matter, and I hope real progress will be made with it, working in cooperation with the Natal Provincial Council and the local authorities of the Transvaal and Natal. It would ease the position enormously and meet the real difficulty if land was set aside for Indians in the Transvaal and Natal for Indians to purchase— as is done at Krugersdorp—as it is very important for local authorities to erect suitable houses for Indians. That is all one can say at the moment.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) said he was pleased that other members than those from Natal realised that the Indian question was not one affecting merely Natal but the whole country. I appreciate that. We have an Indian problem in Pretoria, but I am convinced that his proposed solution of voluntary deportation or repatriation will not answer. I do not know about repatriation for the simple reason that 80 per cent. of the Indians are born in the country, and they could only be repatriated to the spot they are at present. Has the hon. member for Durban (Central) taken the trouble, as I have done, to put his suggestion to the test? That is, if he really means voluntary repatriation or deportation, with a view to finding out how many Indians will avail themselves of it. We have thousands of Indians in Pretoria — admittedly not hundreds of thousands as they have in Natal —but I enlisted the aid of the Indian Congress Association and found that not a single Indian, whether he is born in this country or born in India, is prepared to be repatriated or to leave South Africa.

You are speaking of the trader.

I am not speaking of the trader, but of the rich individual who is living in the heart of Pretoria and not in the Asiatic Bazaar which was given to the Indians by that grand old man, the late President Kruger in the days of the Transvaal Republic. I feel like the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) that although in some towns it has been possible in the earlier days to arrange some sort of segregation, and it is the wish amongst all sections of the community in Pretoria to have some form of segregation, insofar as Indians staying in the centre of Pretoria are concerned, we find it is impossible to do anything on those lines, for the reason that the Indians have taken root, and it would cost the country millions for little Pretoria to have segregation. So as we have this problem concerning Pretoria. I feel we have to try to see that these Indians get fair conditions under which they may live. I myself have been instrumental as a member of the City Council for years in assisting to improve their conditions, and we have not succeeded until this day, except that I understand that negotiations are proceeding with the Minister’s Department, and a solution may be found. From past experience I must say it will take a very long time indeed, and I will appeal to the Minister to use his endeavours with his officials to try and find a solution as soon as possible to the Pretoria problem, because I regard the Asiatic Bazaar as one of the few black spots in Pretoria, and unless something is done soon I am afraid we shall have in the near future to put up with serious consequences.

I would like to say a few words on the policy of the Government in connection with museums. I should like to suggest that the time has arrived for the establishment of an effective Central Museum Board for the purpose of co-ordinating the work of the museums, and to introduce some measure of demarcation of fields for the various museums. The present position is that the museums are doing good work, but there is a large amount of overlapping. We are not getting the best results and the best service for the money we spend and for the time devoted to museums. If each museum is given a certain field in which to specialise, we shall get better results, and what is more, it will facilitate research work. Today the position is that if we want to do research work, we may find that we obtain good results in the case of one museum, but in the case of another museum we find that a large proportion of the exhibits have been stored and rendered useless. If there is proper specialisation it will facilitate this work. With regard to the expansion of museums, we find unfortunately that the space which is now available in the majority of museums is extremely limited. Some of the best material for research work is stored and hidden and is not available to students. I want to mention the museum in Pretoria as an example. Pretoria is an important centre in connection with research into native conditions. In the Transvaal we have a number of native tribes, and on the borders of the Transvaal we have Swaziland and the native territories of Bechuanaland; but the ethnological section in the museum of Pretoria is so poor that the only thing one finds there is the type of thing one would give to children to play with. There is no proper research in this direction, and the result is that extremely important objects are lost; valuable and precious objects are lost to the nation. The Transvaal is one of the most interesting areas as far as antiques are concerned. It is really a paradise as far as antiques are concerned, but nothing is being done. I do not know what is being done by private effort, but I want to make a strong plea to the Minister to give immediate consideration to the appointment of a full-time ethnologist to be attached to the Transvaal museum for the purpose of doing research work, particularly in connection with the native tribes in the Transvaal as well as in Rhodesia, Swaziland and those areas where extremely precious things are being lost today. I should like the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. Just look at the difficulties the experts experienced at Mapangubwe in connection with research. This work had to be discontinued. I believe a start is now being made with it again. It is not right that those things should be lost to research; we should retain them for posterity. I am pleased to see that the Government has decided to buy the collection of moths of Prof. Jansen for £6,000. It may be said that that is a large sum for moths, but when we look at its value for research purposes and the money and sacrifice put into this collection, £6,000 is far too little, and I think £12,000 would not be too much. It is necessary to vote more money for these things which are now being lost, because onte they are lost, they are lost irretrievably. With these few words I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to consider the necessity of appointing an ethnologist to the museum at Pretoria, having regard particularly to the importance of the native tribes in the Transvaal and the adjoining territories.

I want to say that the reply given by the hon. the Minister of the Interior with regard to this very important question of changing of names is a very unsatisfactory one. I do not know whether the Minister realises that this question of the changing of names is one which perturbs not only members on this side of the House, but also members opposite. I think I may go so far as to say that it seriously perturbs the member who has just spoken. The Minister in his reply informed me that there were other reasons besides those given in the reply which he gave to me on the question I put on the order paper. I interjected asking him whether the important reasons were contained in this reply, and he said yes, because if not, it would appear that in the reply to a question I put on the Order Paper I was not given full information. Now the Minister cannot have it both ways. Let us assume then that the Minister actually gave the necessary information to the questions which I put. Amongst other things I asked in what cases names were changed.

May I intervene to give the hon. member the full procedure? These people advertise

I know all about that.

The applications are referred to the magistrates and the police of the district, and they put up their reports and it is on that report and the application form that the matter is considered.

The final decision does not lie with the magistrate. He merely puts up a report. The final decision rests not with the Secretary for the Interior but with the Minister.

Yes, that is correct.

And in deciding on a matter of this kind the Minister is bound by the terms of the Act, and the Act provides that a man shall not be allowed to change his name except for “good and sufficient reason.” The question which arises is whether the reasons which were given to the Minister were good and sufficient reasons or not. That is the whole issue. I am obliged to take the matter up again because I am quite sure that very few people will agree that the following are good and sufficient reasons in terms of the Act. There is the case of Katzenstein who changed his name to Kaye. Does the Minister seriously wish to tell this House that he considers this a good reason, when he says that there was a “possibility” that he would be sent up north and as Katzenstein is a well-known surname in Germany he felt that “his position might be jeopardised” unless he changed his name? Surely the Minister underrates the intelligence of all the members of the House and of the public when he suggests that that is a good reason. If that is a good reason for a man with a German or a Jewish name to change it if he joins the forces, General Eisenhower, of America, would also have to change his name. The name of the Minister of Finance is of German origin and he should then also change his name. I think the Prime Minister’s name is also of German origin. Really, the Minister must not come with such piffling reasons. Take the name of Stein. He says that Stein is a Christian and for that reason he gave permission for his name to be changed to McLean. Every Stein in the country is not Jewish. The Minister says he wants to change his name because he is not a Jew. Is that a good reason? We come to the case of Isaacs. Does the Minister consider it is a good reason that Isaacs wants to change his name because it is the surname of his mother’s first cousin? The thing becomes ridiculous. He wants to change his name to Hollander because it is the name of his mother’s first cousin, Senator Hollander. Is that the type of reason which the Minister contends is “good and sufficient?” There is the case of Sandbach who wants to change his name to Sanbrook. He says that he is of British descent and Sandbach was of German origin and on account of that he is handicapped in business and social life. If that is a good and sufficient reason every person with a German name born in South Africa would be entitled to come to the Minister and ask for permission to change his name. Take the case of Stuczensky. He wants to change his name to Sutton for the puerile reason that he says difficulty is experienced in pronouncing it. He could change it to Stuck. Why does the Minister allow these people not merely to change their names, but also to change their race? That is what we object to. Why does he not take some other name? But if he has a German name, why always take an English name? Why take names which are assumed for one reason only, namely to be a fraud on the public? Because that is what it amounts to. Then there is Solomon. The family desired to perpetuate the maiden name of Solomon’s mother. If everyone wanted to perpetuate the maiden name of his mother, what a situation will arise. And there are several others. Last year there was a distinct improvement, but this year he has gone back to his old habits. He has allowed changes in which the reasons given were social and business reasons, and it is not right to other people who bear that name. As I pointed out yesterday every man who changes his name may in 30 years time have 40 male descendants bearing that name. Take the name of Harris or Lewis. Those names, because they were assumed by jews in the past, have now become known as Jewish names, and there are many Christian Harrises who suffer in consequence. There are also Jews who prefer to retain their own names. There is nothing to be ashamed of in one’s name. I hope that next year there will be an improvement, and that names will only be changed in certain cases where, for example …. I am addressing the Minister and not the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll).

I was not speaking to you but to the Minister.

There are cases where a person with a Jewish name has been allowed to take the name of people who adopted him as an infant. I can understand that, and I appreciate that such a man might want to bear the name of his foster-parents. I do not object to that, but this House, and even the Minister’s own supporters, are strongly objecting to the manner in which people are allowed to hide their identity behind the names of another race.

One has listened once again to this attack of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) on the changing of names and the preference he has for other people retaining names which he dislikes. It is perfectly true that the Government allows a man to change his name if for certain good reasons the Minister allows it. But before that happens there is publication in the Gazette and people can object. I remember when it was alleged in this House that the hon. member for Beaufort West had good and sufficient reasons for changing his name, and without sanction, and the hon. member knows it. I do not blame him for changing his name. If I had a name like that I would change it. But what does the hon. member’s attack mean? It means that he objects to any Jew changing his name. That is what he says. It is perfectly true that he enlarged his argument to German names. If I had a German name and was loyal to the cause for which the country fought, I would do all I could to disassociate myself from a German name in order that I might not mislead my friends into thinking that any of my sympathies were with Germany.

And a Russian name?

The Russians fight for us. But in this country we have a very distinguished family with a Russian name.

Then why should they change it?

There was reason for him to change it to a Russian name. I refer to the man McGregor who went to Russia as a missionary, and when he was in Russia he found that his name was so out of keeping with the general concept of surnames there, that he changed it to Gregorowski. After that he established his family in this country with that name and they are proud of it. Now the hon. member said, if he said anything at all: “I do not so much object to a man changing his name as to one who at the same time changes his race.” What does he mean by that? If I understand him at all he means that he accepts the Jew as a person of a race, of a nation. There are races and nationalities and there are English Jews, Austrian Jews German Jews, French Jews and South African Jews, etc. But it is because of the pernicious antagonism which hon. members are attempting to arouse in this country by their Jew-baiting that people have sought protection in changing their names, and quite apart from that you do not find Jews with the name of Gordon, or any other name which is easily assimilable in our language, changing their names. The Cohens are much more numerous than the Bowens, but they never attempt to change their names.

Oh yes, they do. Last year two Cohens changed it to Cowan.

You are misinformed, as usual.

My name originally was Bowen, and I do not call myself Bowan. The hon. member’s attack is one which I hope the Minister will not take any notice of. His attitude and that of members who support him is just to show their prejudice and their vindictiveness and their antagonism to certain sections of the community. Might I remind this House, as I did five or six years ago, that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) on a famous occasion, when the Nationalist Party met at Malmesbury, had the audacity to put upon the order paper a resolution standing in his name that no coloured man in South Africa should be permitted by law to have an Afrikaans name. Anything more stupid and more calculated to show the deep prejudice which actuates the hon. member and many of his party today against the coloured people could not possibly be experienced. A man is entitled to his name and is entitled to change it if he is suffering prejudice. I hope the hon. Minister will take no notice of what the hon. member for Beaufort West said. But let me say this, that there has been quite a lot of hot air and excitement over the simple matter of whether the Indian in Natal has to get a square deal or not. I will not say any more than that I accept the Minister’s assurance. I hope that as a result of the debate on this subject we will recognise as the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) said that there are two sections of the Indian community in this country, one of real and vital interest, the producer, an asset of which this country can be proud. Like the hon. member for Durban (Central) I suggest that they should not be deported even if there is to be financial consideration paid. They have a right here. It is their home. They are as entitled to stay in this country as the hon. member for Durban (Central) himself, and he was not born here. The hon. member will appreciate the fact that the rights of the Indians are determined by the Province in which they stay. In the Cape Province they have greater rights than in Natal. I hope the Minister will be able to collaborate with his local authorities so that generally throughout the Union there will be an attempt to uplift not only the Indian community but the European community also. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) was agitated by the few thousands of Indians in the Transvaal. What is his criticism? He says that there are Indian bazaars in the centre of Pretoria and that they are rich. Why are they rich?

Because they made money.

Yes, but how? They made money not by selling to the Indians but to the Europeans. If you go in Cape Town to the residential areas occupied by the lower paid sections of our community, where every penny counts, where do they buy? Not in the big bazaars in Adderley Street. No, they go to the Indian where they get better value for the depreciated pound than elsewhere. It may be that the Indian trader is able to sell cheaper than the European because he has a lower standard of living, but let us appreciate the fact as was pointed out by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) that the people who invest money and who are a source of grievance to some of the members of the Dominion Party do not maintain a low standard of living. 25 years ago rich Indians in Natal used to pay 200 guineas for a pair of Arab horses imported from Egypt. [Time limit.]

A lot has been made of the fact that the Indian in Natal is largely a producer. I read an article which says—

Therefore the Indians who were in agriculture then and those who are in agriculture at present are in the proportion of 4 to 1. They are all going into the towns and entering industry. There will be thousands of them who transfer from the country, where they produce, to the towns where they are workers in industry, especially in Durban. The same thing, I suppose, is happening all over Natal. Again—

Now I come to the ultimate goal of Indian agitation—

My authority for these statements is Sir Shafat Amed Khan, lately High Commissioner for India in S.A. He must have investigated this statement before making it. I turn to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) for a moment. I understood him to say he wanted the Indian in Natal to receive the Parliamentary franchise. I wonder if he realises that would increase Natal’s representation in this House from 16 to 30 members, and those additional 14 members will be at the expense of the Cape and the Transvaal and Orange Free State? That will happen if we grant the Parliamentary franchise to the Indians in Natal. The Natal municipal associations have urged the Natal members to see that the Indian legislation is pushed through Parliament during this session, provided— and this is a most important proviso—flats, business premises and the rural areas are brought into the same category as residences. So one can easily see that the proposals of the Minister, so far as housing and that sort of thing is concerned, are not going to satisfy the people of Natal. As a matter of fact they are utterly opposed to the ordinance which has been passed; for one reason, it does not include flats, business premises and rural areas in its provisions. I recently read a book entitled “Indian Information,” which apparently is issued under the aegis of the Government of India, and in it there is a verbatim speech by someone I take to be a Cabinet Minister of the Government of India. In that speech he describes the pressure that has been brought to bear on General Smuts and the Government of South Africa, and also the pressure they have placed upon the South African Government through the channel of the British Government. Talk about interference in our internal affairs! Why, it is absolutely absurd. Then an hon. member said that Indians were fighting alongside the Natal Carbineers. I wonder whether it is news to the House that of the whole Indian population in South Africa only 700 have joined the army?

Some tried to join and could not.

No. What about the pickets placed at the recruiting office in Durban? That is a true story. Those Indians fighting alongside the Natal Carbineers are not Natal Indians and they are not the traders of Natal,*but fighting men from the hills of India, Gurkhas and people like them. These hon. members did not mention that there are three Indian divisions fighting with the Japanese against us and against their countrymen in Burma. They keep all that dark.

Is that correct?

This is authentic information. [Time limit.]

I listened with attention to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Brown). As usual, he has left after having spoken. Whenever he does get up he tries to be insulting. The effrontery he shows in connection with his speeches is such that one really does not want to reply. But of course he is proud of his descent, proud of being English. There are good Englishmen, and some not so good. The hon. member reminds me of an Englishman who was in Scotland and proudly telling his Scottish friends: “I was born an Englishman, I have lived an Englishman and I shall die an Englishman.” An old Scotsman said: “Man, have you no ambition?” I do not want to say anything about the Indian question, except to say that from time to time reports appear of what takes place in the Parliament of India about this question; and it is time the Minister found out whether India considers these people South Africans or Indians. If they are South Africans, India has nothing to say about them and it is purely a South African question to be settled here, and the less they have to do with it the better. One of the Ministers in India said that if India had been an independent country she would have declared war on South Africa. These people try to protect the Indians; when the trouble does come I wonder what they will say then? It is time the Government put its foot down and said what they are going to do and what they are not going to do. If they are going in for separation, and it is a better word as some people object to segregation though it is the same thing, they should tell us about it. I do not care whether you segregate the Europeans or the Indians, so long as you get them to live apart and live as they ought to do. Then I want to say something about the changing of names. I think the time has arrived when the Government ought to consider some alteration of the existing legislation. It ought to put a stop to the changing of names altogether. A man ought to be satisfied with his name, whatever it is. But if the Government does not consider it necessary to amend the Act and stop people taking other people’s names, I want hereby to give the Minister notice if any Jew wants to take my name, I object. I am satisfied with my name. [Laughter.] You laugh, but during the election time when I did not see the newspapers a Jew took the name of Warren. It has been a very good name, and I object to these people taking a name like that.

Why did you not object?

I had no chance. The advertisement was in the Cape Times but it was not in the paper usually read by me, and we were busy at the time. So I give the Minister notice if anybody wants to take that name I object to it. If a man has a rotten name he should try and make it better and not take somebody else’s name. All this is flapdoodle about business reasons and Germans and everything else. Tomorrow or the day after when the Germans are living as decent people again and the war is past and forgotten it probably will not be considered any shame to have a German name.

Why did Schickelgruber change his name?

I do not know that. I feel everybody should have his own name and stick to it. If he makes a mess of that name he should try to improve it. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to consider legislation to take away this right a man has to change his name.

The hon. member cannot advocate an alteration in the law.

I am asking the Minister to say what the Government’s policy is and whether he would consider the advisability of altering the law.

The hon. member must not pursue that subject further.

I bow to your ruling. I have another request to make to the Minister. He knows that some years ago the Government purchased the Drostdy at Swellendam. It is one of the very few old buildings of that type that has been preserved, one of the few Drostyds that has not been destroyed and rebuilt. I think it was the third Drostdy built in this country. It has been very well preserved and the Government has purchased it and made it an historical monument. The people in Swellendam have started collecting old pieces of furniture and other antiques. The Drostdy is situated in an area where a museum of that sort ought to be, and the building has now got sufficient antiques to attract visitors. It possesses pieces of furniture that were used by people a hundred years ago, and it is well worth seeing. Apart from that, the antiques are being restored to the condition they were originally in when in use. I feel that if the Government gives contributions to the maintenance of museums and other places it might also contribute something towards the maintenance of this national monument. It serves a very useful purpose.

I will go into that question.

I will be thankful. I do not want the Minister merely to go into it, I want him to contribute something.

This representatives of the Government of India went on to say that force should be used to compel South Africa to treat its Indians in a way they considered desirable. I am not afraid of that. Not one little bit. India will never declare war on South Africa for the simple reason India would be ablaze from end to end in six months if the British Raj quitted India. The Indian princes would not go under the rule of the Hindus. The hill tribes in the North-West are not going to be subservient to the Hindus in the South. I believe that an Indian officer of a hill regiment on the North-West frontier of India was perfectly correct when he said if the British Raj left India in six months there would not be a rupee in the rest of India. Actually the cause of all the dissension here is the greed of the Indians in battening on the natives and Europeans; the are battening on the natives right up to Kenya. In Kenya they are not doing any work, they are buying the products of the people of the land, buying them at a low rate and selling them at a high price and making exorbitant profits. This trader class is responsible for most of our troubles in South Africa. But in Natal these people are increasing to such an extent that they have become a menace to the Europeans. They will be a menace to our soldiers when they return. They have unsurped the heritage of those people who fought for the country. In the Transvaal the Indian is practically wholly a trader. In Natal there have been agriculturists, but they are fast going into industry; they are leaving the countryside and going into the municipalities and the townships, but there is a crowd leaving the townships and going into the country where they are purchasing farms at fabulous prices. Where the money comes from I do not know. I have heard there is money from India in Durban today to buy up a square mile of the best residential portion of Durban. My authority is a firm of estate agents who have stated quite candidly that is the position. The position in Natal is that the Indian population is increasing to such an extent that ultimately the Europeans will be forced out of Natal and they will have to leave it to the Indians. The best part of the whole of South Africa is rapidly going into Indian possession. If my proposal is accepted then, as the Indian population decreases the number of licences issued to Asiatics should be reduced by ballot; and where it is a case of a trader with large assets he could be given a maximum period of three years to liquidate his estate, and during that period he would be encouraged to sell out to Europeans. There is no other way for it. The justification is the size of the Indian population, other than the trader. The trader was brought here to trade with the Indian in the first place, and most of them entered the country surreptitiously. Those are the people who have to be got out of South Africa and no longer be allowed to batten on the natives and on their incomes. The Municipality of Durban fixed a minimum wage of 5s. a day for their nonEuropean employees. Where does it go? Into the pockets of the Indian traders in Durban, and they are purchasing properties in the European areas out of this money. I place these views before the Minister so that not only he but the Cabinet will consider any plan which will result in a reduction in the size of the Indian population in Natal.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23.—“Public Service Commission”, £33,900 put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 27th April.

I move—

This is the motion usually adopted in this connection.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I. Income Tax (Normal Tax and Super Tax).

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall be paid as from the first day of July, 1945, on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or accrued to or in favour of all persons from any source within, or deemed to be within, the Union—
   1. (a) a tax (to be called the Normal Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1945, shall be—
      1. (i) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for gold, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings;
      2. (ii) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable income, four shillings and sixpence;
      3. (iii) in the case of all other public companies, for each pound of taxable income, four shillings;
      4. (iv) in the case of persons other than those referred to in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), for each pound of taxable income eighteen pence increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings and threepence in every pound: Provided that for a married person the rate for each pound of taxable income shall be fifteen pence increased by one one thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings in every pound: Provided, further, that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub-paragraph (including the first proviso thereto) a sum equal to fifteen per cent. of the net amount arrived at after deducting the rebates provided for in Section 13 of Act No. 31 of 1941 from the amount of the tax so calculated;
      5. (v) in the case of any company or person other than a company who derives any portion of his income from mining in the Union for gold, in respect of each pound of the taxable amount so derived (exclusive of amounts chargeable under sub-paragraph (vi), a percentage determined in accordance with the following formula: in which y represents such percentage and x the ratio, expressed as a percentage, which the taxable income derived from mining for gold bears to the income derived therefrom;
      6. (vi) in the case of any company which derives or has derived any portion of its taxable income from mining in the Union for gold, in respect of each pound of any amount included in its taxable income in respect of excess recoupment of capital expenditure, a sum equivalent to the amount by which the average rate of normal tax paid by the company for the period from the first day of July 1916, to the thirtieth day of June, 1945, exceeds the rate prescribed in sub-paragraph (i):
      Provided that the tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (v) or (vi) shall be payable in addition to any tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); and
   2. (b) a tax (to be called the Super Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1945, shall be—
      For each pound of the income subject to Super Tax two shillings increased by one four-hundreth of a penny for each pound of such income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of seven shillings and sixpence in every pound: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub-paragraph a sum equal to fifteen per cent. of the net amount arrived at after deducting from the amount of the tax so calculated, a rebate of two hundred and ten pounds.
2. (2) That the rates fixed by sub-paragraphs
   1. (a) and (b) of paragraph (1) shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 and sub-section (2) of Section 23 of Act No. 31 of 1941, respectively.

II. Excess Profits Duty.

That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending Act No. 25 of 1940 (as amended) and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts—

1. (1) excess profits duty shall be paid in respect of every pound of excess profit attributable to any wage, salary, fee, bonus or allowance in the nature of remuneration paid or credited to or received by or accrued to or deemed to have been received by or to have accrued to any person in respect of the holding of any office or employment in the course of any trade which is carried on by him as owner, part owner, principal or partner; and
2. (2) the deduction to be allowed in determining the amount of excess profit of any person, in respect of excess profits duty imposed by any country outside the Union, shall be so much of any excess profits duty so imposed as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is satisfied was so imposed in respect of the amount of excess profit upon which, but for the deduction allowed in respect of the excess profits duty so imposed, excess profits duty would be payable for the period of assessment concerned.

III. Fixed Property Profits Tax.

That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending Act No. 40 of 1942 (as amended) and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in such Acts., fixed property profits tax shall be paid at the rate of thirteen shillings and four pence upon each pound of so much of any amount which accrues, on or after the first day of March, 1945, to or in favour of any intermediary in respect of the alienation of any immovable property, as exceeds 5 per cent. of the consideration for the immovable property concerned.

IV. Personal and Savings Fund Levy.

That, subject to the provisions of an Actto be passed during the present session ofParliament amending Act No. 40 of 1942(as amended) and subject to such defini-tions, conditions, exceptions and exemtions as may be provided in the said Acts, the tax shall be paid by every person otherthan a company who derived or is deemedto have derived a chargeable incomeduring the basic year, at the followingrates:

1. (a) a basic tax of five pounds if thechargeable income of the taxpayer forany basic year subsequent to the yearended on the thirtieth day of June,1943, amounted to two hundred andfifty pounds or more: Provided thatin the case of a taxpayer who is amarried person and whose chargeableincome for any such subsequent basicyear did not exceed three hundredpounds, the basic tax payable by himshall be three pounds; and
2. (b) a surtax of twenty per cent. on everycompleted pound of the normal taxpayable by the taxpayer in respect ofthe basic year; and
3. (c) a surtax of ten per cent. on everycompleted pound of the super tax payable by the taxpayer in respect ofthe basic year.

V. Stamp Duties.

That, subject to the provisions of theStamp Duties and Fees Act, 1911 (as amen-ded and of an Act to be passed during thepresent session of Parliament amendingthat Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions asmay be provided in the said Acts, theStamp Duties set out in the annexedschedule shall be charegable on all instruments detailed therein which are executedwithin the Union on or after the first dayof June, 1945, or which, having beenexecuted outside the Union, are broughtwithin the Union on or after that date.

If that additional employment does not arise out of the course of his employment, does it still come in?

No, only if it arises out of the course of the practice of his profession. Then the second item in Paragraph II deals with the position of the taxpayer in the matter of excess profit duty in respect of excess profit duty paid in other countries. Under the present law we allow as a deduction the amount so paid as excess profit duty in other countries in order to avoid double taxation. The present law, however, is by no means clear as to the method of calculating the deduction which should be allowed for, and the purpose of this resolution is to clear up the position in this regard. The terms used in the present law are vague and may be interpreted in various ways, and we want to make this quite clear. What we propose is that the amount of profits, the foreign excess profits duty on which is allowed for deduction purposes, shall be calculated on the basis provided for in our own Act for the determination of excess profit duty without, however, deducting the foreign excess profit duty itself. That seems to me to be a fair way of arriving at it in order to protect the taxpayer from double excess profit duty. Then the third sub-resolution raises a point in connection with the fixed property profits tax. It deals with that tax in so far as it applies to intermediaries. At the present moment the tax is payable on any amount over 5 per cent. accruing to intermediaries when the property sold was acquired on or after the 1st October, 1939. That has opened the door to evasion. It has made it possible to divert a large part of the profits on the sale of property to what purports to be agency commission, but is really profit accruing to the so-called intermediary. Let me explain. A person would in the normal course of events have bought a property acquired before the 1st October, 1939 with a view to resale. He then resells that and he is liable to tax under the present law, but in order to avoid that tax, what happens now is that he enters into an agreement with the owner of that property whereby he becomes his agent for the sale of that property. He then acts as intermediary although he is really the purchaser, and in that way he evades the tax. I think that is a loophole that ought to be closed up.

The tax ought to be closed up.

The tax is serving a very useful purpose. Then the fourth resolution gives effect to one of the Budget proposals specifically mentioned in my Budget speech, i.e. in regard to the Personal and Savings Fund Levy. It is now proposed, as I indicated there, as far as the basic tax is concerned, that is not the portion of the tax based on income tax, but as far as the basic tax is concerned, to reduce the total amount payable from £7 10s. to £5 and from £5 tot £3. The £5 rate now to be reduced to £3 of course applies to the married man with an income between £250 and £300 per annum. The £7 10s. now to be reduced to £5, applies to other cases. The whole amount so collected will then be paid into Revenue and no longer be regarded as compulsory savings. That matter was fully dealt with in the Budget speech. It was debated and afterwards I replied to the points which were raised in the Budget debate. I do not think I need add anything to what I said on that occasion. Then I come to sub-paragraph V which deals with stamp duty. There the main item was specifically dealt with in the Budget speech i.e. Item No. II in sub-paragrap V. That deals with the proposal to double the rates of broker’s notes on marketable securities. There again that matter has been dealt with fully and I do not propose to add at this stage to what I have said previously. I want to refer rather to the other items which, except in general terms, were not foreshadowed in the Budget speech. There it Item I in the schedule. That provides for the imposition of stamp duty on the substitution of a fresh debtor for an original debtor in the mortgage bond. The Deeds Registry Act provides for such substitutions, and hitherto such substitutions have been free from duty. I do not think it is quite reasonable that they should be free from duty, and it is therefore proposed to make them dutiable on rates lower than those which apply in the case of original bonds, but at the same rates as applicable in the case of cessions. Substitution is virtually a cession and it seems appropriate therefore that it should be dutiable at the same rate as cessions. I have referred to Item II. Then Item II deals again with stamp duty on marketable securities. That stamp duty is imposed in respect of the registration of transfer, and what we wish to do here is to discourage undue delay in the registration of such transfers. We therefore propose to increase the rates of duty where there has been a delay of more than 12 months in the registration of transfer.

Why make it 12 months?

My hon. friend suggests a shorter period. I think 12 months is quite enough as a first step, but I shall go into the hon. member’s suggestion. In the remaining paragraphs IV and V there are proposed certain minor changes in stamp duty on insurance policies. Paragraph IV deals with accident and similar policies. It is proposed there to make the duty chargeable according to the number of persons insured where there is group insurance, and paragraph V proposes to make it possible to collect duty on certificates of insurance or renewals executed in other countries, and then brought into the Union. That, I think, deals with sub-paragraph V. Then sub-paragraph VI again gives effect to a proposal specifically dealt with in the Budget speech, a proposed change in the excise duty on beer and stout. I pointed out that the present basis of calculating the duty on beer and stout enables the brewer to reduce the specific gravity and so increase the amount of beer brewed while the amount of tax payable remains the same.

What is “worts”?

“Wort” is something used in the making of beer. I may point out that the word is spelt with an “o” and not an “a”. Finally there are two proposals in regard to customs duty. The first of these proposals deals with dumping duties. Last year in consolidating the customs law we dealt with this question of dumping duty simply by continuing the existing position whereby the total dumping duty, except in the case of exchange and freight dumping duties may not exceed 50 per cent. of the value of the goods for duty purposes. After the enactment of that law steps were taken by me in consultation with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Development, to appoint an interdepartmental committee, to go into the question of anti-dumping legislation, and one of its recommendations was that we should change this particular provision in the existing law. It was pointed out that that limitation to 50 per cent. might have the effect that the object of the dumping duty is missed. There may be cases where the goods are supplied at unusually low prices, and when a dumping duty of 50 per cent. might not afford sufficient protection, and in order therefore to enable us to deal with each case on its merits and to provide the protection as may be required in the circumstances of each case, it is proposed to remove that limit and to empower the Minister to limit the amount of dumping duty either on the basis of a percentage of the value of a specific rate per unit of quantity, value or weight That will enable us to deal with each case on its merits, and to give such protection as may be necessary in each case. The second proposal is really one of administrative convenience. It provides that for the calculation of the value of goods for duty we should take the nearest pound as the basis provided the amount is more than £10. That would simplify the calculations very considerably. The proposal has been submitted to the Federated Chamber of Industries, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and I think has met with general approval. Well, Sir, I have tried to give hon. members as clear an idea as I have been able to do of the effect of these sub-resolutions. I shall naturally be prepared to give such further information as is required in the course of the debate. May I with the leave of the House refer to the fact that in paragraph V, stamp duties, it was indicated that the new rate should come into effect on or after the last day of May. I am not a sufficient optimist to believe that this resolution and the necessary legislation will be passed before the first day of May. With the leave of the House, I therefore ask permission to amend “the 1st day of May” to read “the 1st day of June”.

I second.

I should like to move an amendment which reads as follows—

I consider my amendment interprets prevailing public opinion not only in the House but amongst the general public. There is incorporated in that amendment the preponderating public opinion of the country. For the last five years the Minister has been piling up fresh taxes every year, and he has been doing that without asking himself what effect they will have on South Africa’s economy. The outside public have often felt they will do harm and that they will damage our national economy. But the majority of the people were in favour of the war; they have felt that having supported the war they should be prepared to pay for it, and consequently they have endured the piling up of new taxation every year. I believe I am justified in telling the Minister that time is past; though the people were prepared during the last five years to bear these taxes they are no longer prepared to do so. What they have endured for five years they are not prepared to endure any longer, and public opinion right through the country demands that the Minister, before the end of this Session, should redeem the promises he has made so many years ago. I have in my hand a speech the Minister delivered when he introduced the Budget last year. That was on the 24th February, 1944. The Minister then used these words—

This year the Minister rose to his feet and told us in his Budget speech that we are now experiencing the transition period to which he had referred—

He said further—

We ask the Minister that he should carry into effect the conversion that he held out in prospect a year ago, the necessity for which he realised at that time. We know that we are experiencing the transition period from war to peace. The Minister in his reply to the debate admittetd that that nation which would be the quickest to come on to a sound peace economy would be able to survive the storms of the post-war period. He admitted that.

That is not what I said.

We know that. Right through the world that is felt. The whole world is engaged in switching over from a war to a peace-economy. I have before me the first report of the committtee that was appointed by the United States Congress in connecion with this matter, and what was their first recommendation? They also investigated the question of the conversion from a war to a peace-economy and what steps should be taken immediately in America; and what was one of the most important recommendations of that committee? It appears on page 292 of the “Summary of Congressional Proceedings”—

Have they done this?

We will come to that. I should like to recall here the words of Dr. Van der Bijl. I think it is desirable I should again call his words to mind. These are the words that he used—

When did he say this—last year or the year before last?

The year before last. He gave a warning as far back as that. I can read out to you what Sir John Anderson said last year in the British Lower House. It is not only the testimony of our own people in South Africa. No one can deny that Dr. Van der Bill speaks with authority on this question. No one can hold that he is unsympathetic towards the Government, that he wants to harm the Government. He speaks as a friend of the Government, but also as a friend of South Africa. This is what Sir John Anderson said, inter alia—

What is the contribution that the Minister proposes to make this year towards the great task of reconsruction? I have before me the speech he made last year. The Minister concedes the whole matter. He says it must come, but then he adds—

Then he goes on to say—

The standpoint that this side of the House takes up is this. We have not the slightest objection—we think it is a good thing—to the Minister having consultations with organised commerce and industry. We are glad that he is doing this, but we would like to say this to the Minister. This cannot be an excuse for lack of action on his part, for doing the right thing at the right time. The Government’s responsibility is to govern, and we do not wish that any negotiations that it conducts, whoever they may be with, should be used as a pretext to evade its responsibility. The Minister told us a year ago that we will have a review of our taxation system when we encounter the transition period from war to peace. We are experiencing that today, and in the interests of the country it has become necessary that we should so revise our taxation system that it would no longer do irrevocable harm to our national economy. For all practical purposes as far as South Africa is concerned, the war is over. We have to switch over to a peace economy, and the sooner we switch over the better.

If you had helped the war would already have been over.

I only want to say this to the Minister, that as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, our attitude is as follows: Today there are too many taxes and taxation is too involved. We want to have fewer taxes. A few substantial taxes ought to provide the Minister with all the revenue he requires. I can only say that I studied with exceptional interest the latest report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. I find that although our taxable income has grown our taxable income has grown most speedily in the case of people with a big income. Our taxable income in South Africa in the year 1937-’38 was £127,000,000.

Is this the normal tax on individuals, or also on companies?

NO, it is the normal tax including companies. In the year 1939-’40 the taxable income rose to £147,000,000, and in the year 1941-’42 it rose to over £200,000,000, but in the year 1942-’43 it again began to fall. The total taxable income was then £183,000,000. The Minister of Finance has told us that the excess profits duty and the trade profits special levy were deducted from the income for the purposes of normal tax. To gain a true idea of the position I have added the excess profits duty and the trade profits special levy, and when we do this for the various years we discover that the amount of £127,000.000 has risen to £147,000,000, and even though we take into account the excess profit and the trade profits special levy the figure for 1942-’43 is still £199,000,000, which represents a reduction compared with the previous year.

HOw much of that is in respect of the mines?

Yes, in the case of the mines there was also a drop. When we compare the figure for the year 1942-’43 with the year 1937-’38 we find there was an increase of 56 per cent. in the total taxable income if we add the excess profits duty and the trade profits special levy. If we take the increase of taxable income we find that it is in the case of people with an income of more than £5,000 that there has been the greatest increase. Now I shall give the figures for individuals only. I have carefully excluded the companies. In the year 1937-’38 there were 667 persons with a taxable income of more than £5,000, and their combined income was £6,148,000. In the year 1942-’43 the number rose to 1,361, more than double.

The taxation was changed in 1941.

Yes, but this alters the whole taxable income. The taxable income rose during that period to £12,000,000 for this class of person with a taxable income of over £5,000. That was also doubled.

These are people under what amount?

No, people over £5,000. On this £12,000,000 the sum of £1,583,000 was paid in normal income tax. I then referred to the super tax, and I found that the total taxable income of people with an income of more than £5,000 was £22,000,000 and the super tax on that amount was £3,697,000. If we add that to the total income tax that group paid £5,200,000 in normal and super tax. There was deducted the excess profits duty and the trade profits special levy. This brings to the Minister £20,000,000. One can readily understand now how much of our taxable income is in the hands of this small group of people who have an income of more than £5,000 a year.

This is just in respect of individuals.

Yes, this only refers to individuals. I have omitted all the companies. We can see what a tremendous part of the taxable income and of the national income is in the hands of this small group of people in South Africa. Those people have grown richer in this period of war, and the feeling is increasing in our country that the State should take more from these people with an income of £5,000 and over. My personal standpoint is that I do not think a person needs an income of more than £5,000 for his personal use. When the Minister prepares a new income tax he will gain much support from this side of the House should he decide to take more from these people with an income of over £5,000. We now turn to the inequalities that we should like to eliminate from the taxation system. The Minister here too admits that there are inequalities. In 1944 he said—

The Minister thus admits that anomalies and inequalities do exist.

Just as in every taxation system in the world.

But not to such a tantalising degree as in our case. With every year that passes this injustice is carried deeper and deeper. The Minister seeks to excuse these inequalities and anomalies on the ground that it is a case of having to obtain war revenue. In many instances it is not a case of war revenue, and yet these inequalities exist. We know that there are people in South Africa with an income of £2,500 who pay just as much in taxation as persons with an income of £5,000. The Minister cannot deny that. There are persons with the same income who pay different amounts. I have already given the figure to the House, but I think it would be as well if I repeated these figures briefly to the House. Take the man with an income of £2,500 in the form of a salary. He pays £292 before the surcharges take effect. The professional man, for instance the doctor, pays £803.

It depends on his pre-war standard.

These are all persons with no pre-war standard. They are all on an equal footing. The man who draws a salary pays £292, the professional man £803. A one man business that is not a company pays £661. A company in which the shares belong to one person pays £1,087. A public company with one shareholder pays £1,200. The people were disposed to endure that for five years but this injustice has now been carried to such lengths that the people are not inclined to endure it any longer. The Minister owes it to the country to put a stop to this. In regard to the question of taxes that hamper production, I do not need to enlarge. It is a fact that the Minister himself has admitted. In the same Budget speech he said—

Does he wish to continue with this taxation that impedes production? The Minister made the further admission—

We say that the war is now coming to an end. We must lay the foundations of peace. We should build up employment in South Africa so as to be able to provide work not only for the man at the front but for the workers in the war factories. The country will have to absorb 150,000 people, and how is the Minister going to do this unless we expand our primary and secondary industries in South Africa? We have three industries in South Africa; agriculture, mining and secondary industries, to provide work for the people. The Minister naw proposes to meet the gold mines by making provision for the development of deep levels. This is going to be an expensive business, and the Minister proposes to allow them to place their expenditure in that connection against revenue.

No, I have stated we are considering that.

We feel, although we should first like to have the Minister’s exact proposals in front of us, that if such a proposal is designed to provide further avenues of employment in the country in the post-war period, it will be a good thing. But now I should like to put this question to the Minister: Why in the case of the agricultural industry last year, seeing the farmers were improving their farms in order to enlarge production, did a proposal come up not to allow these farmers to deduct expenses in improving their farms with a view to increasing production? The Minister made the alteration that we were allowed 30 per cent. though during all these years we were allowed up to 100 per cent. Whether it is secondary industries, mining or agriculture it should be the policy of the Government to encourage production and not to hamper production, and when the Minister comes with anything designed to encourage or to heighten production he can count on the sympathy and support of this side of the House. In connection with the special proposals brought forward by the Minister, I do not want to go into the particulars, but I should like to say this. As the Minister has discovered in the course of the year that there are tax evasions, that there is a loophole or a leakage, and as he wants to close this up we shall not oppose him. We believe that the time has arrived when the excess profits duty should be considerably altered, but so long as the excess profits duty is there the tax must be paid according to law. We do not desire that only the honest man should be penalised, and that the rogue should dodge it. From that standpoint we are disposed to support II and III. In regard to IV “Personal and Savings Fund Levy” I would like to inform the Minister that we are entirely opposed to that. We think the Minister is doing something quite unjustified in abolishing the savings fund levy and proposing the other to counterbalance it. Why did he not follow altogether the course taken in Canada? They had a tax just like ours. They abolished the savings fund part of it, but they did a good piece of work and abolished it entirely without increasing the burden on the lower income group. We find that the Minister in respect of his taxation proposals imitates things that happen in other countries, but he is a bad imitator. He always comes and imitates a year after the other country has taken action, and then he only does it by halves. We find it unjust that this tax should be imposed on the lower income group, and the Minister should exclude that section. We feel that when the decision was made to abolish the savings fund levy the Minister ought to have been satisfied with that, and he ought not to have increased the tax on the lower income groups from £2 10s. to £3. We do not consider that just. I can tell the Minister this, that people with an income of £400 and £500 a year find it very difficult to make ends meet. They fall into debt. Owing to the increased cost of living they cannot come out. It is not everyone who gets a cost of living allowance. Some of these people are living on their savings. They do not get interest on their money nor do they get a cost of living allowance. And now the Minister comes along and he increases the tax from £2 10s. to £3. The Minister should reconsider this matter because we feel he went too far and he will meet with relentless opposition from this side of the House.

I second. I wonder whether in view of the fact that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has made such a short speech the Minister will not now accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate. I fear I shall talk at somewhat greater length than the hon. member for George, and I shall be in the middle of my speech when the adjournment comes. I am prepared to continue, but I wonder whether the Minister will not accept the adjournment.

I said that if it was only a matter of 10 minutes I would be prepared to adjourn, but it is rather a long time. Let us go on till half-past-six, and I shall then be prepared to accept the adjournment.

Before I come to the generai points in connection with the Bill we are now discussing I should like to say something in connection with the question of the contract in regard to the sale of gold in India that we had for a couple of months. Last year on pressure from this side of the House there was a debate on this matter, and as a result of that our Government made an agreement with the Bank of England that the Bank of England would sell gold in India on our behalf representing the amount of our imports from India. That agreement, as the Minister recently told the House, remained in force till about September of last year. It was then terminated. The amount that South Africa benefited by as a result of that agreement was about £2,000,000, according to what we learned from the Minister. We are thankful that South Africa derived that benefit, but we are somewhat perturbed that the potential advantage for the future was quietly surrendered; and we should like to know what steps have been taken with a view to the continuance of this agreement or with a view to a similar agreement that would have a corresponding effect for South Africa. According to the Minister’s statement that agreement was apparently terminated a considerable period before the close of the Session. But we heard nothing about that until incidentally a question was placed on the Order Paper, and in answer to that question the Minister stated that the agreement had been terminated. There was a measure of secrecy in connection with the whole matter. You would have thought that where there was such an important change to the detriment of South Africa the Minister would have taken us into his confidence. We should like to know why that contract was cancelled. The Minister has stated it was cancelled because the Bank of England could not sell gold any longer on the Bombay gold market. If that is the case, that the Bank of England is no longer selling gold on the Bombay market, it is apparently because the Bank of England and the English Government considered that it is more advantageous for them to use the gold in another manner than selling it on the Bombay market at a price of 280s. per fine ounce. If they have a better use for the gold is it not possible they will allow us, if we find it is good use for our gold—we know that it is very useful, because our imports from India are still mounting and according to the latest figures they are about £11,000,000 a year—if we can derive the advantage from the enhanced price of gold in respect of these imports., are they not prepared to allow us to sell gold in India up to that amount? We know that there is always a higher price prevailing for gold in India. The latest quotation on the Bombay gold market was 72 rupees per fine ounce. That works out to at least 260s. per fine ounce. We should like to know from the Minister whether steps have been taken in that direction, and if an agreement cannot be arrived at enabling us to sell gold, at any rate, to the extent of Our imports from India. I understand the Minister says that the Government of India is prepared to allow us to sell gold there. Perhaps the Minister can inform us whether the Government of India has refused to allow us to sell gold there.

I do not say they have refused, but I have said that they will refuse.

But why then do they not refuse to send exports to South Africa? If they export to South Africa then they of course expect that we shall pay for them, and we can offer them no better method of payment than gold. We have a relatively small export trade to India and this means that when we want to pay for our imports from India, the Indian Government cannot take it amiss if we do this with gold. Why should it refuse gold? But suppose they do refuse for one reason or another. It cannot be for an economic reason if they do not stop their exports to South Africa. But if they do refuse I would suggest we try to approach the Bank of England to sell gold on our account on the Bombay gold market to the amount of our imports from India.

Can the hon. member explain to me how he connects the matter he is now discussing with the taxation proposals?

I think the connection strikes one. If we continue to derive these profits from our sale of gold in India it may have a very marked effect on our taxation proposals. It may then perhaps not be necessary to introduce all these taxation proposals again. May I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that last year you allowed us to discuss this matter on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means proposals, but you did not allow us to discuss them in Committee of Ways and Means.

The hon. member will remember that last year there were special circumstances which gave rise to that. There was a subsidy for the mines last year. The hon. member may continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that if the Government of India refuses to allow us to sell our gold in Bombay, we should try to make an arrangement with the Bank of England for it to sell gold for us in Bombay so that we may gain the advantage from that. It will do no harm, because under the agreement with the Bank of England the Government is entitled to hold back all the gold we require for our own use. It is not obliged to consign it all to the Bank of England. We can retain what is needed for our own use. Instead of letting our stocks of gold pile up here we could make a portion of our gold available for the payment of our imports from India, which could be of great benefit to the country. From April to September—a period of six months—we were £2,000,000 to the good as the result of that agreement. I should like to know now what effort the Minister made to ensure an equally favourable result for South Africa in the future. We should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to allow us to examine the efforts he has made since September. Will he allow us to peruse the papers on the negotiations he conducted after he had been informed that the other agreement would be terminated? Did he make any efforts, and is he prepared to let us see the papers? What efforts were made in one way or another to preserve the tremendous advantage to South Africa? As I have said, Britain’s policy is to peg the exchange on the rupee at 1s. 6d. which it always has been. We know that it is not at all that value today and that is the reason why gold fetches such a high price in India. If it is the policy of Great Britain to peg the rupee at its present notch will we not be able to obtain the right, if Great Britain does not want to take advantage of the benefits, to sell our gold on the Bombay exchange? Can Great Britain not be asked to make its services available as a good friend, and have a part of our gold sold in Bombay on South Africa’s account, so that we may be able to pay for our imports in this manner. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 27th April.