I move—

To a large extent the proposals contained in this Bill have already been approved of by the House after discussion in Committee of Ways and Means or were foreshadowed in my Budget Speech and explained there. There is therefore not very much in this Bill which is entirely new to the House, and on that account I can be brief in introducing the Bill. We deal in this Bill, as we have dealt in special taxation Bills in previous years, with three taxes—excess profits duty (Clauses 1 and 2 have reference to that), personal and savings fund levy (Clauses 3 to 6 have reference to that) and the fixed property profits tax to which Clauses 7 to. 15 have reference. I shall deal separately with the three parts of the Bill. As far as the excess profits duty is concerned for the most part the Bill serves to give effect to two resolutions adopted after consideration in Committee of Ways and Means and explained by me in the speech in which I moved that we should go into Committee. The first of these resolutions dealt with the deduction from excess profits duty in respect of similar duty paid in other countries. The amendment, as hon. members will recall, was submitted with a view to clarification of the present position, and is contained in Clause 1 (1) (a) of this Bill. The second of the Committee of Ways and Means resolutions dealing with excess profits duty covered the question of the inclusion both in the pre-war standard and in the taxable income of certain payments received on the basis of lump sum payments accruing in the course of trade, and that is dealt with in Clause 2 (1) (a) of this Bill. Then there is a new proposal in this part of the Bill which is contained in Clause 1 (1) (b) and Clause 2 (1) (b); the two paragraphs are complementary to each other. What we contemplate here is a concession on similar lines to one which is also embodied in the Income Tax Bill. Under the law as it now stands if the period of assessment for a particular taxpayer is less than a full year then any abatementthat there may be is reduced proportionately. Now that leads to hardship in certain cases.

For instance, where a taxpayer dies during the year such hardship arises where the income is not spread proportionately over the year. The income may, for instance in the case of a farmer, come in in the first three months of the year; virtually the whole income might come in in the first three months of the year; and the taxpayer might die at the end of that first three-months period. If the abatement is then allowed for proportionately, there will be an obvious unfairness in respect of the remaining period of the year. A hardship of that kind might arise either in respect of the estate in regard to the part of the year during which the taxpayer is still alive, or it might arise as far as the widow is concerned in respect of the rest of the year. And so it is clear that there should, in fairness, be some means of dealing with these cases by being able to deviate from the rule for the proportionate allocation of the abatement. That is what we set out to do in Clause 1 (1) (b) of this Bill. The same kind of hardship also arises as far as the excess profits duty is concerned, insofar as similar circumstances to do with the pre-war standard has to be apportioned on a proportional basis. That, too, may lead to hardship, and it is proposed to meet that by the provisions of Clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill. The next part of the Bill deals with the personal and savings fund levy. There, hon. members will be aware, I proposed in the Budget Speech, and this was subsequently confirmed after discussion in Committee of Ways and Means, that there should be new rates of basic tax, that while the position should remain unaltered in so far as the percentage in respect of normal income tax and supertax is concerned, the basic tax should be reduced from £7 10s. and £5 to £5 and £3, and the whole of it being regarded as tax. The £3 applies, or would apply, as the £5 has hitherto applied, i.e. in the case of married men between £250 and £300. This proposal was accepted in Committee of Ways and Means without discussion, but I have given further thought to the question, and I am prepared to propose when we come into Committee a further concession in this regard. We have reduced the £7 10s. to £5; and what I intend to propose is to reduce the £5 rate by £2 10s., which would bring it down to £2 10s. instead of £5 as at present. That is provided for, except of course that the amendment will have to be submitted in Committee. In Clause 3 (1) (b) of this Bill. In this connection I would refer to Clause 6 of the Bill, which gives effect to what I stated in the Budget speech there said that we proposed that the income taxpayer shall no longer have the right to withdraw the amount of his savings levy after six months. At the present moment any levy is withdrawable after six months; that was originally inserted from the point of view of the small taxpayer. Now that it is only the income taxpayer who will be liable for payment of levy it is proposed that he should no longer have that right to withdraw after six months. That is given effect to in paragraph 6 of the Bill, but only in regard to the future. The position in regard to the savings levy certificates now current will, of course, remain unchanged. Then in this part of the Bill there is also another new provision.

Six years is to long.

That is the period we have had hitherto, and I do not think that as far as the income taxpayer is concerned there need be any ground for qualms in that respect. The new provision is contained in Clause 3 (1) (a), to which Clauses 4 and 5 might be regarded as consequential. These clauses will deal with the position in regard to personal and savings fund levy as far as trusts and estates are concerned, and their effect will be to make it clear that trusts and estates are liable for the tax portion of this impost, but not for the levy portion of the impost. Then the remaining part of the Bill deals with the fixed property profits tax. The first clause, Clause 7, has been inserted in view of certain provisions inserted in the Instalment Sales of Land Act, but as that Bill is not being proceeded with this Session it will be necessary for me, in Committee, to move the deletion of Clause 7 of this Bill. Then the following clauses, 8 to 12 deal with the proposal already adopted as a result of the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means in regard to the taxation of the amounts payable to intermediaries or agents in excess of 5 per cent. I explained that it was necessary to make the changes here proposed in order to check a means of evasion of tax, and the provision is therefore made here; but it has in the consideration of these particular proposals emerged that the limitation in the present law to 5 per cent. of the tax-free portion of the agent’s commission may bear hardly in certain cases, especially in the case of an agent for the sale of a township in lots, who may have a good deal of expense which the ordinary broker does not have. That point was raised here, I think, while the taxation proposals were being considered in Committee of Ways and Means, and I promised to go into it. It was also’ discussed with me by a deputation from the Institute of Estate Agents and Auctioneers, who submitted a useful memorandum in this connection; and, as a result, I intend in Committee to propose in all such cases, that is cases where there is liability under the present law, and in cases where there will be liability under this Bill, there shall be added to the 5 per cent., which is tax-free, the reasonable expenses incurred by the agent in carrying out his duties as intermediary.

Does that apply only to the case of a township?

It will apply to any agent who incurs expenses, but it mainly arises in connection with townships. Section 14 of the Bill gives effect to a concession I referred to in the Budget speech in respect of purchases of land for housing purposes by a local authority, a uitility company or the Housing Commission. That leaves only one clause in this part of the Bill which is new, Clause 13, which purports to amend Section 34 of the Special Taxation Act, 1942. It substitutes for the existinng sub-ection (2) two new sub-sections. Of these sub-clauses, as here printed, (2) is really new, whereas (3) is the old subsection (2) with consequential amendments; and the object of the new sub-clause is to check evasion of the fixed property profits tax by the device of assigning an inflated value to some other obligation which is undertaken at the same time in the alienation of the property in order to reduce the price of the property itself. This is ’one of the devices that have been resorted to and this clause will give us a means of checking it. Most of the proposals contained in this Bill have been before the House in one form or another on a previous occasion. The new proposals are those in regard to the appointment of the abatement or the pre-war standard in regard to the excess profits duty, in regard to the personal and savings fund levy payable by trusts and estates, and in regard to the form of evasion of fixed property profits tax which is referred to in Clause 13 of the Bill. For the rest, as I have said, the matters dealt with have already been before the House, and I have therefore not gone into them in any great detail.

Those taxpayers in the Union who are particularly affected by the taxes for which this Bill makes provision have anxiously been awaiting the statement which the Minister was to make this morning in the expectation that since the war ended sooner than the Minister expected when he introduced his estimates, he might be prepared to make certain concessions today. The people who cherished those hopes will be bitterly disappointed this morning with the few words the Minister has uttered. All these taxes are war-time taxes which have been imposed for the purposes of the war. To all intents and purposes the war is over as far as South Africa is concerned, and although nobody expected all the war taxes to be lifted immediately—I say that nobody would expect the Minister to stand up here and say that ‘ all these taxes, would be lifted—there was at least the expectation that in view of the fact that the war came to an end so soon after the commencement of his financial year and that his expenditure would be affected by it, he would at least have been in a position to make a few concessions. We expected at least three concessions. In the first place, we expected an indication from the Minister that he was going to follow the example of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, that is, to allow industry to deduct the expenses which they now have to bear in connection with research from the taxable income. When the Minister of Finance made his Budget speech he held out the prospect of something of the kind. He said, inter alia—

Then the Minister added—

That Bill has been adopted.

But the Board of Research has not yet been appointed.

The Minister has had an opportunity of consulting the person who has the greatest interest in the matter. It would have had a stimulating effect at this moment when South Africa needs such a stimulating measure. In this respect we get nothing from the Minister. We did not expect him to lift all the taxes but we did expect him at least to indicate a measure of relief today and to have been able to announce to the House that in view of the speedy termination of the war the greatest burdens would at least be removed this year. But not a single word about that. I think what the country could have expected from the Minister was that he could have given some indication today as to his future intentions in regard to these war taxes. What prospect can the Minister hold out and how long are we still to have these war taxes? But not a word do we hear from him. The attitude adopted by the Minister is the attitude he adopted when he made his Budget speech—he is still taking up an expectant attitude. Does the Minister not realise that if he takes up an expectant attitude, industry must also take up an expectant attitude; and now supposing that industry does follow his example and takes up an expectant attitude and that they too, are afraid of doing anything in view of the uncertain conditions, would that not be the greatest disservice that can be done to South Africa? What we need today is a gesture of goodwill from the Minister to show that now that the worst is past he is prepared to offer temporary assistance here and there. But no, he takes up an expectant attitude. It is a contageous disease, and to my mind it is the greatest disservice we can today show South Africa. If industry were to follow the example of the Minister we have not the least hope of securing a condition of full employment for the citizens of South Africa in the years that lie ahead. I deplore the bad example which the Minister is setting the industries of South Africa in that respect. In view of the importance of the matter—we feel that the future of South Africa largely depends on the attitude the Minister takes up—I would like to go into this matter a little deeper. I am quoting from the speech of the Minister of Economic Development before the Federated Chamber of Indutries last year when he said—

It is being realised that the rôle the taxation policy of the Minister plays can either encourage industrial development or discourage it, and we get nothing at all from the Minister. In view of that I would like to say explicitly how this side of the House feels about the matter. We realise that the Minister cannot immediately lift all the war taxes. The war is at an end but the soldiers have yet to return to South Africa and they have to be taken up in civilian life.

That is going to cost money. The country needs houses and we expect the Government to do something tangible in this respect during the next twelve months. At the same time the country expects that there will not be a repetition of what happened after the last war when the bottom collapsed from everything and thousands of people roamed about the streets of our country without employment. They are asking the Government to take timely steps to ensure a certain measure of social security for South Africa during the post-war period. We consider that the three great tasks in connection with the reconstruction upon which the Government should embark are: The establishment of the returned soldier in civilian life; the provision of houses; and thirdly, timely steps to ensure a large measure of social security to the citizens of the country during the post-war period. We realise it is going to cost money and we on this side are prepared to vote funds for that purpose. But at the same time I would say to the Minister—and I say so with all emphasis—that this side of the House declines to pass the war taxes in their present form this year. If the Minister is not prepared to remove the most pressing burdens, those provisions in his policy of taxation which really have a retarding effect on industrial development and expansion in South Africa, we take upon ourselves the responsibility of voting against the war taxes he is proposing here. If the Minister tells us that he has not had time to effect the necessary improvements to his excess profits tax and his other war taxes, then we say that there is still time to do so this year. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) has offered the suggestion that it might be possible to have a special Session of Parliament in September. If the Minister refuses to do so, if he refuses to give the assurance that he will improve the war-time taxes during this year with a view to removing the most pressing burdens, the most restrictive provisions, then we are not prepared to vote for the ’ war taxes today. In Committee of Ways and Means we clearly indicated in what respects the Minister could improve upon his war taxes. I would just like to summarise the attitude of this side of the House. In the first place, as regards the personal and savings fund levy the Minister has decided to abolish the savings fund part of the basic levy. Had the Minister been satisfied with that he would have done something worth while but it seems to me the Minister cannot do something worth while with the one hand without badly pinching the taxpayer with the other hand, with the result that what he takes away with the one hand he adds with the other and so we find that the Minister drops the savings fund part but he increases the taxation part of the levy, in one case from £2 10s. to £3, and in the other case from £3 15s. to £5. That does not merely apply to the taxpayer in the higher group but also to the taxpayer in the lower group.

I will allow the increase to £3 to drop.

It seems to me that at last there is a little crumb. I would just like to tell the Minister that he should do what Canada has done. Canada had exactly the same tax as the one the Minister still has and there the Minister of Finance decided to give relief. He abolished the savings fund part without increasing the taxation part. This side of the House is most certainly not going to be jointly responsible for the extra tax which is to be imposed on the lower income groups. As regards the excess profits tax—and that is the tax which is particularly noxious at this stage—unless the Minister improves on it, we suggested two respects in which the Minister should improve on the tax this year. I should like to repeat them. The first is that the Minister should decide to raise the standards: (a) the pre-war standard, (b) the minimum standard and (c) the basic percentage. We expected the Minister at least to raise the standards this year. We have very good reasons to ask that of the Minister; to mention two: the fixing of the standards and the fact that it was not on an adjusting scale, resulted in the Minister making no provision whatsoever for the natural increase in the income of a person or business firm. If a doctor or a dentist or an attorney is worth his salt his income is bound to increase as a result of his increased knowledge and experience. The Minister does not consider that in any way. In the second case, since the standards are fixed and inflexible, no account is taken of the increase in the costs of living which has taken place in this country. We know there has been an increase in the cost of living. A cost of living ‘allowance is allowed to every person in the country but the man who is subject to excess profits tax receives nothing, and to my mind that is an unfairness throughout the whole system of taxation. Take the salaried man. He need not pay excess profits tax. He receives cost of living allowances of 25 per cent. up to 30 per cent. The businessman, however, has to pay excess profits tax on everything above his standard. Not only is 15s. in the £ taken from that but the remaining 5s. is also taxed. I think we can safely assume that in South Africa the tax which the Minister is imposing on that part of a person’s income above his standard is not 15s. but at least 17s. to 17s. 6d. The Minister is shaking his head. I think we can assume that in South Africa a man pays very much more than 15s. on that part of his income which is in excess of his standard. He pays at least 17s. In South Africa he is allowed only 2s. 6d. in the £ on that score. The Minister takes almost everything above the standard and below that standard no account is taken of the natural expansion of a man’s business or his greater earning capacity. No account is taken of the increase in the cost of living. He alone, the man with the initiative in South Africa, is affected in this way. That is the first condition we imposed. Since we have had the debate in Committee of Supply I have received letters from all parts in South Africa to give us moral support in our struggle to persuade the Minister to improve his system of taxation. I would like to give just a few typical examples. I have here a letter from a Government supporter in Durban, Natal. I should just like to quote what he said—

The Minister advanced that as a reason why excess profits duty is being collected. But this person goes on to say—

And then he continues—

And then he concludes with these words—

Then he gives me his financial position during the war as follows. He says he has compared his assessment for 1938 with that of 1944, and then he says—

And he goes on to say—

That also applies to me as a salaried man. I also have much less remaining to me.

This man says that in 1938 he had to surrender 7.6 per cent. of his income to the State, leaving him 92 per cent.; today he hands over 45 per cent. to the State and keeps 55 per cent. That the Minister cannot say as a salaried man. Then he writes to say—I cannot vouch for the correctness—that he believes that in England they allow doctors £1,000 over and above their pre-war income. We in South Africa allow only £500. In conclusion he says that he was prepared to sacrifice during the war but now that the war is over “I have to start thinking of myself, my family and the future”. We want to say to the Minister that he should immediately raise his standards. Secondly, we made another suggestion in Committee of Supply, and that is that the Minister should allow industries to establish a 20 per cent. machinery fund so as to allow them not only to pay for new machinery from that fund, as the Minister wants them to do during the two years he mentioned in his Budget Speech, but also to enable them to write off machinery which many of them bought during the past few years, that is, during the war. They paid very high prices for the machinery. The Minister knows how expensive machinery was. In order to carry on certain industries—the public required their products—they bought machinery at very high prices but not good machinery. They simply bought the machinery to keep their factories running. As soon as the war is over new machinery will have to be substituted for the old machinery. No provision is made in the Minister’s system of taxation to assist the write-off of obsolete machinery. High prices were paid for this machinery. A machinery fund should be established, a fund of 20 per cent. which should not only apply to new machinery purchased during the two years mentioned by the Minister but also in the case of old machinery purchased during the war to keep the factories going for the time being. These people are asking for this concession to enable them to write off at least 50 per cent. of the costly machinery and to be in a position to buy new machinery so as to modernise their factories after the war. It is very important. If we are to take a stand against the strong competition we are going to get after the war we shall have to modernise our factories. The best new machinery procurable will have to be acquired and the Minister’s proposal as regards the two years does not go far enough. Here is a letter I received from a very well-known firm in Johannesburg from which I can quote. I should prefer not to mention the name. This is what they write—

It seems to me that it would be necessary to investigate whether the £20,000,000 is nominal or issued and paid-up capital. I know of cases where a nominal capital of £100,000 has been registered, only a few thousand being issued and paid up in consequence of the business not being in a position to expand until such time as an opportunity presents itself to import machinery and because no offer for further capital will be made until such time as the assurance is given that new machinery could be imported.

Then again we have the case, especially as regards South African undertakings, where large capital has been registered with the shares issued on payment of 10 per cent. and the balance subject to further calls.

It is generally felt by the public that the fig-leaf the Minister is trying on in regard to the £20,000,000 capital which has been registered is not a convincing argument and not sufficient reason for the Minister’s contention. Then he goes on to say—

This is a battery business in Johannesburg. He had to buy the machinery to be of assistance to the country. He has rendered South Africa a service. He admits that the machinery he bought for £450 has become obsolete and that he cannot go on with it after the war. The Minister is not giving him an opportunity to write off the £450 or half of it so that when the time arrives he could import machinery from outside and modernise his factory. Then I should like to read to the Minister an extract from the “Daily News” of Natal. I think it is of importance and I should like to read it because it reflects our attitude fairly clearly—

There may be some political objection to widening the benefits to industry in this country this year. There can be none for any other reason. If industrial progress is stultified by restrictive measures, the blame must lie with the State. Given opportunity private enterprise will do its job.

It is a great responsibility for the Minister to bear. Here you have a Government supporter who says that if our industries suffer a set-back after the war the Government will have to bear the blame and the responsibility for it. He says—

I hope the hon. Minister will make a statement today still. I have clearly indicated what we want the Minister to do. It is not much. It is a small amount, a mere drop in the ocean, and the Minister knows as well as I do that he always leaves a margin in his estimates large enough to make concessions without being the loser at the end of the year. The Minister is well aware of it and he always leaves a large margin in his estimates. Let us take last year’s figures. We know the Minister is inclined to underestimate his revenue. What was the position last year? That he under-estimated his revenue by approximately £4,000,000; under two revenue heads, both war-time taxes, viz., excess profits duty and the special duty on trading profits; on these two alone he under-estimated his revenue by more than £3,000,000. Thus he had a margin of £4,000,000 on his revenue alone. We also know that he over-estimates his expenditure. I am almost inclined to say that it has become a firm habit of his to over-estimate his expenditure. What was the position last year? Although the Minister came with two additional estimates after his main estimates amounting to approximately £3,400,000, he was nevertheless able to save £2,712,000 on expenditure. If we combine the underestimate on his revenue and the over-estimate on his expenditure he had a margin of £6,000,000; that is to say, on his revised estimates, and for the year 1943-’44 we found that even his revised estimates were out by £2,000,000. It might easily happen again this year that, as was the case last year, he had a margin of £8,000,000. If the Minister were to allow the industry these concessions, if the Minister were to offer industry a gesture of goodwill and he says: “Proceed; you have a benevolent Government to help you through the post-war years”, what price would the Minister then have to pay? Much less than the margin the Minister has kept for himself, and the Minister knows that in the year to come his revenue is also very buoyant. I think customs has again been underestimated. Leakages in the tax are stopped; leakages are being stopped which are going to ensure to him more revenue. There are still arrear levies which the Minister can recover. Last year the Minister told us there were arrear levies amounting to £2,000,000. Therefore we know we have the revenue. And the expenditure? The Minister is perfectly aware of the fact that he adjusted his expenditure this year to the top notch. He estimated his Defence expenditure at £82,500,000. He was expecting the war to continue but the war is over now. Surely that must mean something. Even if the Minister were to spend more on demobilisation and housing and other things, the saving on Defence expenditure is going to be greater than the additional expenditure he is going to have under other heads. Hence there is a margin. If only the Minister has the will to say to the industrialist during these times: “Proceed; you have our support”, it would have a magnificent effect on South Africa. We on this side of the House stand for one thing for the post-war period; we stand for greater production and the encouragement of industries. We want the gold mines to produce to full capacity and the Minister would do well to try to encourage the exploitation of the new goldmines in the Free State. We want secondary industries to be encouraged to produce 100 per cent., and the same applies to agriculture. I feel that the Minister should not take up an expectant attitude at this stage. It is fatal to initiative in South Africa. Today you want a Government to say to every producer in the country: “Continue with production; you have the Government behind you”, and then we would be creating conditions in South Africa which will ensure to us a new and brave South Africa. But what attitude is the Minister adopting? The attitude he is adopting is this: I am satisfied, I have my revenue. What I have I hold. It is a lazy way of governing South Africa. If everybody in South Africa were to be as lazy as the Minister as regards his taxation policy I wonder what is to become of the country. The Government dare not take up the attitude that it is too much trouble to revise the system of taxation. South Africa today requires an example. The Minister wants industrialists and producers to have courage and confidence in the future. Let him show that he has courage and confidence in the future. The Minister has everything in his favour; he can do it, and we say that if the Minister refuses to exert himself in the least to stimulate our primary and secondary industries during these times and to set an example and to offer encouragement, then we are prepared to accept the responsibility of voting against the Bill.

The speech delivered by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) may in some respects be quite thoughtprovoking, but from the point of view of the Minister of Finance I do not think he has helped him very much. After all, we had the fight on the Budget debate and with regard to the present taxation system the House has agreed to its continuance. I think the hon. member for George will agree it will be quite impossible for the Minister to make alterations, such as he indicated, in his financial machinery. I am perfectly sure if he were in the Minister’s place he would be the first to admit that was so. We have carried over our war taxation machine into this interim period, and, much as some of us regret this is so, the position has to be met. I think therefore even the hon. member for George will agree that the suggestions he makes, that the proposals he has outlined, are ’ quite impracticable at this stage. On the other hand, I hope it will sink into the minds of all the members of this hon. House that in South Africa we are in a very anomalous position, and a position we must face with a good deal of misgiving and perhaps anxiety. The war machine taxation has done good work. It has delivered the goods. In other words, you had the whole attention of the nation on taxation proposals concentrated on the war effort, and the results have been extremely satisfactory. But we have decided to carry on this war taxation system; the Minister did a couple of months ago, although actually the estimates themselves have actually not been passed. From the time the Budget speech was made until now the war in Europe has finished, and certainly none of us can realise or even predict what is likely to be the immediate result. In some ways the end of the war has come so suddenly that you might say the world is staggering at the surprise, particularly the collapse of the enemy and the completeness of it all. If it were possible for us through our taxation machine to focus our attention on post-war planning that would be ideal. I do not say that in the circumstances it was possible, but I am sure the Minister must realise the difficult position the country is in in retaining this war taxation machine for another year after the end of the war in Europe. We may perhaps in a much shorter period than some of us realise find also that the war with Japan has also collapsed with equal suddenness and completeness. In these circumstances a complete change in the whole economic state of the world takes place almost overnight. That is where misgivings on our position must arise, and I am sure the Minister, as well as all of us in this House, realises that is the position. The question has arisen whether this Parliament should meet again in September. That will be, of course, for the Government to decide. But I hope sincerely that Parliament will again meet in September, because just as we were faced suddenly in 1939 with a war situation so we are faced in 1945 almost as suddenly with a peace situation, a situation that will perhaps demand more from us even than the war effort, and that also in respect of our resources. I myself believe that in order to get the happier South Africa we believe we have been fighting for, it is going to cost us much more in money than the war itself has cost us. In these circumstances I sympathise with the Minister of Finance. We have been sitting here for months and every single appeal made to the Minister of Finance has had one or two implications. The first implication has always been: Spend more money, find us more money. We say: We want this scheme, we want that scheme and we want the other scheme. If anyone in this House had taken a note of it all and set down in terms of cash cost what was being demanded from the Minister of Finance we would be shocked. That is the position. Then we have the hon. member for George saying: Reduce taxation! Reduce taxation! How can it be done? Let us take this problem of demobilisation. What is that going to cost the country? I would like to have an estimate of that, and on generous terms. Then we have this question of housing. People will say that is a question of capital cost. They talk about £50,000,000 or £100,000,000 required and setting it down to capital cost. That money has to be found, presumably through loans. The question arises how much money have we got that we can put into houses, as loan money, when at the same time we consider the position of investments required say for industrial development. Is there a sufficient amount of capital available for all these things we are asking to be done? The Minister unfortunately gets no help from us on this question, in regard to the capital cost of housing for example. But I think most people today are worried about the high cost we have to pay for houses. You give a man a house that was worth £1,000 before the war, and today it costs £2,000. I think it was my hon. friend the member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) who suggested yesterday that loans for housing schemes should not cost the people more than 1 per cent.

National houses.

For national houses. The hon. member suggests they should be given to them at 1 per cent. That again means more taxation.

No.

Well, if I lend my money to the country at 3 per cent. and the Government takes that money and gives it to somebody else at 1 per cent., who pays the difference? The taxpayers will have to pay the difference. All I should like to say is this, that the Bill before us now is screwing up the taxation machine, but it is the old war tax machine and it is a pity to have to make adjustments to it at this late stage. But I suppose the Minister is justified in doing so.

Some of these provisions are concessions.

Some of them may be concessions, but I am sure the Minister will not say that on balance there is a credit to the taxpayer.

On the balance we are giving more than we are getting in this Bill.

Oh no.

Well, the Minister gives us that assurance, and we accept it. If he is not through this measure trying to get more money, I am surprised. During this Session of Parliament, even the Minister has agreed to certain extra expenditure on his original estimates so I suppose he hopes to finance that expenditure from the surplus on his Budget. Otherwise I do not know where he is going to get his money from. He has been budgeting for another surplus, and before he can get that surplus the House has committed him to spend a very large amount of it. I think it is time that responsible members of this House should give some help to the Minister. If we could tell him that next year so much will be necessary for housing, so much on revenue account, and so much for other new services, and so much on loan in terms of our ability to finance things, that would help very considerably indeed, not now for this year it is how too late but for the year after this. The Minister today must be in a complete dilemma when he hears all the things that are asked for, and all the things that are expected from him. In the circumstances the only thing he can do is what my hon. friend suggests he is doing, hold on to what he has got and get a bit more if he can. I do not know whether this Session of Parliament will be held in September, but if it is I would suggest we do not bother about ordinary legislation at all but concentrate on a post-war scheme of development in terms of the country’s resources and needs. If we could give that lead my hon. friend has pleaded so eloquently for today to the industries of the country, if industry knew we have not so to say signed and sealed the fate of the country until next year, sometime in March or April, if the enterprising elements in our country could feel they will not have to wait until then and then perhaps get nothing, they will feel happier about things. I said earlier that these enterprising elements in our country expected this year they would get pointers but the Minister has seen fit not to give them that lead. Now they have to sit tight and wait another year; will they have another disappointment? Let us tell the country that we are coming back in September and we will deal with these matters. My hon. friend says that private enterprise will do the job. But is that the Opposition policy? It may be the policy of the hon. member for George.

I was reading that quotation.

But you must have endorsed it, surely.

I believe in private enterprise.

But does your Party believe in it?

Of course they do.

The position of the Government is this, we have to decide this matter.

Does your Party believe in it?

That is what I would like to know. That is one of the things we might decide in September. Because there is just that side of it; since the Government is not giving this encouragement to industry does it mean the Government wants to do the development itself? That is a question that might fairly be asked. Meanwhile we might do something new in South Africa, something certainly new in the politics of South Africa, if we could meet in September as Parliamentarians, in that spirit, not as Party men, to thrash out the post-war economic policy for the country. When I talk about economic policy I naturally include social services, and the maximum being done under our demobilisation scheme for our returned soldiers. I mean things like the solution of our housing problem, public health, and so on. If we were to consider these things in a special Session of Parliament and apply ourselves to these things, I think this country would get new hope. The mere fact of a decision of this kind being taken would in itself give an impetus to enterprise.

Hear, hear.

I am glad I am being supported. I want to impress upon the Minister that the country wants that lead. He cannot now alter his Budget or do those things in this Budget that the hon. member for George says he should.

I suggested a Session in September.

The hon. member also suggests a September Session. I did not think he was so specific. I will be satisfied if he tells us that we are merely dotting his i’s and crossing his t’s, as long as we get that Session. In these circumstances I should like to ask the Minister very seriously to consider this point, and give the country the satisfaction and give us the satisfaction of knowing that in September we shall come together and deal with nothing but these post-war economic problems; no other legislation should be allowed. If that decision is made we shall have a memorable Session of Parliament. In the circumstances we must do something unusual, we must do something extraordinary. This country cannot afford to let Parliament rise on Saturday week, and members to disperse, with these things left in the air. The situation in South Africa is far too serious and far too changing for us to go away and be silent and unheard for 12 months. In the circumstances I make that appeal to the Minister, that we should be called together in September to see what we can do jointly as Parliamentarians, unmindful of Party gain, to arrive at decisions on our post-war problems.

The idea expressed by the member who has just sat down of a Session in September dealing exclusively with post-war problems and industrial development, is of course an excellent idea, although it does not go quite as far as the suggestion of the Labour Party. We have felt all along that Parliament should be in Session all the year round. If the suggestion to have a Session in September is carried out, it may direct the attention of members in one course and keep it in that direction without continual interruptions. Perhaps it is a most excellent suggestion. Perhaps we will not have this type of Session again, which we have just had—a Session one could compare with a bazaar; when the bazaar is over we find that nobody has bought anything. One finds that one has only stood around and achieved absolutely nothing.

Will the hon. member return to the Bill?

I am merely replying to what the hon. member has said.

The hon. member has done that now and I trust he will not enlarge on it.

I do hope that I am entitled to say that the September Session will be an undiluted Session and not a Session like the one which is now nearing completion.

The hon. member has now made his point and he can therefore return to the Bill.

But ….

Order, order. The hon. member must not attempt to evade my ruling.

I am surely the last person who would evade your ruling. But I do think that I am entitled to say that when such a Session is held it will be a Session which will work beautifully and not a Session such as this one. I do not want to evade your ruling, not in the least. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) held forth here and it seems to me as if the Party opposite, as well as the Opposition, are not quite sure as to where they actually stand. I am not going to cross-question them. But what we are entitled to say is this: Where it is a question of private initiative or of State enterprise, and the Government’s laws or system of taxation is such that the position is made impossible for the private person with initiative, then it is the duty of the State to do something, to open another door. But we have not got that. More and more the door is being shut and it is becoming more and more difficult for the person with initiative to get anywhere. If the Government is closing the door to the private investor, then it should introduce State enterprise. But we are not getting that. The State does not do anything either. South Africa has reached a state of stagnation at the present moment. It does not move forward, neither does it move backward. It does not encourage private initiative, neither does it accept a policy of State enterprise. Is it surprising, therefore, that one of the most loyal and able members of the Government Party is saying that the time has arrived when we should at least know where we stand. What are we going to do? Are we going to destroy private enterprise altogether or are we going to adopt a policy of State enterprise? I agree with the hon. member that the time has arrived when we should know where we stand.

What do you suggest?

I suggest that the Government should state clearly whether it intends building up the country on the basis of private initiative or by means of State enterprise. But even the most enlightened member on that side of the House is just as much in the dark as I am.

Is there no middle course?

There is a middle course and I think that the middle course has often been pointed out, but are we following a middle course? The two courses which were open for us to follow, the one to the left and the other to the right, are now both closed. Now there is a middle course. [Laughter.] Judging from the attitude of some members in the House, I can only say that I feel sorry for South Africa if the development and the progress we are going to make depend upon those members. I have already told the Minister of Finance on various occasions that South Africa can and will never develop, along whichever course it may be, if we cannot obtain that primary means which every country must have for its development, namely machinery, on a reasonable and fair basis. The door is being shut for our people as a result of the system of taxation, in spite of the pleas we have so often made from this side of the House that the Government should facilitate the importation of machinery by reducing the high duties on the importation of machinery. It is not always the wealthy people who have to import machinery. In many instances it is the poor man who requires a machine of a few hundred pounds. That man works on a small scale: he is the capitalist and the labourer all in one. He needs a machine of a few hundred pounds or a few thousand pounds and the import duty is just enough to break his back and to destroy the whole undertaking. If we wish to break it, let us do so then. But I have so often asked the Minister in discussions of this nature when he intends removing or reducing that burden on small enterprise by reducing or removing the high import duties. You will remember that when the House was discussing another Bill last week, quite a few members spoke with great optimism on this question, because they said that scientific research would open up great possibilities to the country. But what could we undertake in South Africa for which we do not need machinery? The article is still in the laboratory when we are already in need of machinery. Every single discovery made requires machinery as soon as it is tested or used for some or other enterprise. South Africa’s policy has always been: penny wise, pound foolish. For the sake of a small sum of money, we are smothering the very spirit of enterprise. I am once more appealing to the Minister to remove or to reduce the duty on the importation of machinery and implements. Members opposite, such as the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) say we must have the money. We know that the Government needs money, but there are other ways of obtaining the money and it is not necessary to do it in a manner which must necessarily destroy such enterprise in South Africa. I am asking the Minister in all seriousness, if he intends building up this country, to proceed to either reducing or removing this duty. If he intends forcing South Africa to remain a poor country and to destroying all initiative, then he should not remove these duties. But if he wants South Africa to develop and to stand on its own legs, then the first thing he should do is to see’ to it that we get our machinery as inexpensively and as easily as possible. I say that a tax such as this import duty on machinery utterly destroys any initiative. Unless we want to adopt the policy in South Africa that the country should remain poor and that commodities should always be imported in spite of the fact that those commodities could just as well be manufactured here, I cannot see how the country can continue with this policy.

There is no such policy.

The trouble is that there is no policy. Our country today finds itself in this position that we simply have to face these facts. As a result of the war we find that the position is that young men whose talents were not hidden but kept in the dark were discovered and in order to utilise those talents that were discovered in South Africa for the development of the country, in order to develop initiative in South Africa, we should afford those young men the opportunity of making a small beginning with the machinery required by them, so that later on they may develop their enterprises into something bigger and open the eyes to the South African nation as to how it may develop gradually and manufacture all those things which in the past were imported at high cost. Along those lines South Africa may develop and I would like to see who could give me another method by which our country could develop into a strong nation. There is no other method. If hon. members wish to suggest that there is any other method, I would be very glad to listen to them. We on this side of the House are very much concerned with what the position is going to be after the war. Without having to incur very large losses the Minister of Finance is now in the position of giving South Africa an opportunity. That is the appeal I am making to the Minister of Finance today. As the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has said, he should provide an opportunitiy to initiative in South Africa. There is one further point I wish to raise. That is the question of the compulsory savings levy. I think the time has arrived for that levy to be abolished. It is more or less an unnecessary tax out of which the Minister does not derive a very large amount. His Department will tell him that it is one of the taxes which is not really worth while. It causes more annoyance than the revenue is really worth, and I think that the time has arrived for the Minister to remove that annoying tax. While the war was still on, we were prepared to tolerate anything, but the time has come when that is no longer the case. The Minister was fortunate enough to be in a position, when he delivered his Budget speech this year, to say that it would probably be his last war-time Budget speech. We congratulate all humanity and the Minister on the fact that his prediction proved to be correct. But he should now prove to the country that he is no longer suffering from that pessimistic war outlook and expecting the people to tolerate everything. Here he has an opportunity now of showing the country that he intends reducing the war taxes and to transfer them to other spheres from which he may derive the necessary funds for reconstruction in South Africa. We are in favour of getting the necessary money for reconstruction work in South Africa. The people will gladly pay taxes if they know that such taxes are necessary for the prosperity and economic advancement of South Africa and that it is not intended to be wasted on war. South Africa will gladly pay higher taxation if it has the prospect of economic progress.

In connection with the anticipated revision of taxation to meet post-war conditions and the abolition of the special war taxes I want to make this suggestion to the hon. Minister, that he should arrange for a special committee of members of this House who during the recess should investigate the whole matter. Taxation is unquestionably a most complex matter today. It is most difficult to understand the laws as they are drafted and the language used, and unfortunately when these particular Bills come before the House year after year they are rushed through, by force of circumstances at the very end of the Session, when the House is in a mood to rush things, and there is little time between the different stages of the Bills, and things generally proceed helter-skelter. It makes it in those circumstances extremely difficult to give to taxation the consideration which that subject calls for and merits, and it is in that light that I make this suggestion to the Minister that a committee of this House should investigate this matter during the forthcoming recess. We are now entering into a period where changes will be rapid and of great magnitude, and this recess would be an appropriate time for the sitting of such a committee. During the recess the committee will be able to deal with only the one problem, whereas members here are faced with many problems and are still sitting on Select Committees. We have now sat on the Public Accounts Committee for the 51st time this year, and all in all there is very little time. The Minister may say that he has a committee advising him, the one which he invited last year to consider taxation. But that committee is composed of persons other than members of this House. I am not aware that any member of this House sits on that Committee. I do not think there is one. As it is this House which has to pass the legislation and to deal with the intricacies of the problem, I think it is only right and proper that the members of this House should be given a full opportunity of going thoroughly into this whole problem and helping in a large measure to frame the post-war policy of the taxation for South Africa. If we were running back into a pre-war period we could expect to see the special war taxes expunged from the Statute Book and their complete elimination and repeal, but we are not going into those conditions. We are facing a period when it is quite obvious to everyone in this country that expenditure will be maintained at a high level, but no one knows just how high that level is going to be. No one appears to have any idea of that yet. We are busy travelling quite blindly into the future without anything being known as to what the policy of this country is going to be to meet those problems of the postwar years, the extent of its ability to pay and the effect of taxation on the post-war progress. In these circumstances I strongly feel that before this House meets next year to discuss the Budget for 1946, this matter should receive on the part of members of this House the most careful and earnest consideration. It is only in that way, when we meet in 1946, that we will be able to tackle this problem in a different light, in the light of what we are facing in the future and bring about a solution for the post-war years, which will be acceptable to this country, a solution which will help to eliminate from the present taxation a large number of anomalies and the extreme discriminations which exist, and so produce a system which is fair, which is simple and which is equitable in so far as it is possible for taxation to be. These are the factors which should guide us in future.

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

I had before the luncheon adjournment put forward the suggestion for the consideration of the Minister that during the recess a special committee of members of this House should sit to investigate the post-war position. I dealt with several of the problems members have been faced with in this House very late in the Session. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) some little while back mooted the idea of a separate Session of Parliament in September; the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) alluded to it later; and the hon. member for Vasco has again brought it up today. I think it would be an excellent idea for the House to meet and have a special financial Session, a Session divorced from the large number of legislative measures that confront us, and when the financial aspect can be considered in all its implications.

I hope the hon. member is not going to go too fully into that.

I really only want to add support. I would now like first of all to deal with Clause 2 (1) (a). We have a memorandum in explanation of this Bill, a White Paper, in which it is explained this amendment is intended to widen the scope of the present definition of “trade” so as to include within its terms certain forms of income, which it was originally intended should be included but which have been held to be outside the scope of the Act as at present defined. The position does not appear to be at all clear and this memorandum does not help us much further in so far as giving the House an idea of just what income is intended to be included and was found to fall outside the scope of the Act. Generally speaking, there is excluded from excess profits duty any emoluments arising from the holding of any office or employment. Apparently this new clause is intended to enlarge the scope of the definition of “trade”, and to bring within the incidence of excess profits duty a wider range of income, income that has formerly been excluded. The point that occurs to me is that this Act was brought into force in 1940, and it seems extraordinary that the amendment should only come before the House in 1945, at a time when we could more fittingly be engaged in easing this type of taxation than in creating further impositions. I understand that the medical men are very apprehensive, lest emoluments from semi-honorary positions should fall within the scope of excess profits duty. As I read it, it will appear that if a doctor is giving part-time service to a clinic or a university or some similar institution and he receives an honorarium of 100 guineas a year that would fall wtihin the scope of the amendment. I am not quite sure whether it is intended that directors’ fees and similar types of emoluments which up to now have been excluded should be included in future in terms of this amendment. I think that position ought to be made clear to the House, because I feel in principle a tax of this nature should never be levied upon the earnings of the individual. Originally excess profits duty was unquestionably a tax designed to tax at a very high rate profits from trade. I think the levying of excess profits duty in the first place on any services of individuals was a mistake, and that any increase now in the scope of this tax in that direction is also a mistake. It is wrong to tax earnings from services, whether those earnings be in the form of salaries or fees. I am sorry that the Minister at this late stage in the world war sees fit to bring an amendment before the House to add to the scope of the definition of “trade”. I should like to have seen the reverse process at work, whereunder earnings arising from any services would be excluded altogether. This is a very heavy tax. It is supposed to be 15s. in the £ but with various other taxes on the remaining 5s., and this means that this tax has risen in at least one case I know of to 18s. 4d. in the £.

It must have been a very good income.

I am not arguing whether it is a very big income, but that it is not a tax of 15s in the £. It can vary from 15s. to 18s. 4d.

You can be happy that it never gets to 21s.

I have never seen it reach 21s. To tax services in this manner is, I submit, quite wrong, and to seek to increase the scope of the definition of “trade” in order to bring further income from services into the ambit of this Act is also wrong. It would have been advisable to leave this out entirely in this Bill. There is one further matter I am sorry the Minister has not been able to embody in this Bill. I think it was in 1943 he envisaged allowances for the depreciation of fixed assets such as buildings. Two years have elapsed and the Minister has not evolved anything in that connection. It is a pity, because in the Income Tax Act no provision is made for the depreciation of buildings, buildings are specifically excluded. We all know that under war conditions there must inevitably be a substantial amount of depreciation of buildings which will affect industry in the post-war years. Many buildings erected for war purposes will be useless in the post-war period and will represent a substantial loss. In some cases probably their only value will be the break-up value, and in view of these circumstances I am sorry the Minister has not developed the thought he had in 1943. It would be a help. We do welcome here the suggestion of the increased depreciation allowance for purchases of machinery, etc., and in the same measure that that is allowed in the normal tax I take it it will also be allowed under the excess profits duty, but that depreciation is in respect of movable assets only. The point I am pressing is that there should also be a depreciation allowance in respect of fixed assets like a building. I think that if the Minister even at this late stage can evolve some clause for insertion in the Bill it will be welcomed in the country by industry as an earnest of the Minister’s endeavours to meet industry in the difficult period we are likely to face. There will be a difficult period although in the immediate post-war years conditions may be buoyant, but that buoyancy cannot be expected to last for ever, and it is time for something more concrete than the words uttered by the Minister in 1943. Apart from that I think this Bill is a good one. As the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) said, we are not out of the war yet. We must support this measure, but we only ask this, that in the forthcoming recess serious consideration will be given to this question with a view to a far-reaching reform of taxation in the coming year.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat proposed the appointment of a committee of this House to investigate the whole question of taxation during the recess. In that regard I merely want to say that it appears to me that there is an increasing tendency to shift the responsibility of the Government on to committees of this House. A matter such as a review of taxation is not a matter for a committee of this House but is a matter which rests with the Government which has to assume the responsibility. I am aware that a precedent was created last year when a committee of this House was appointed in connection with the question of social security, a committee which conducted investigations after a departmental committee had been engaged on the matter. I consider that it was a wrong step and if we are going to do as the hon. member has proposed then we can expect him to come forward with a proposal —and perhaps it would be a wise proposal in the circumstances—that a committee of the House should be appointed for drafting the estimates for the Minister.

That will be the next step.

I am pleased to find that the Minister agrees. It is a matter in which the Government has to assume responsibility and if necessary the blame for the cause of his action. But it is not a question in which cover should be sought behind a committee of this House. As far as the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) is concerned, I want to say that I have much sympathy with that hon. member. He finds himself in a difficult position. Economically he is nationally minded but politically he is a Sap. The result is that he has a continuous inward struggle. He has a double personality—Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Which one is Mr. Hyde?

The Sap. The national part is the good part. He has delivered a speech today which it is somewhat difficult for us to understand. On the one hand he states: Yes, that is right; the Minister has drafted estimates; that is finished and there is no other alternative. He criticises the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that he is not fair, because the Minister still finds himself in the position that there is a war. He stated that the Minister has acted correctly. But immediately after that he continued with remarks that the enterprising element who as far back as February of the current year expected an alteration and also in respect of taxation and were much disappointed. I take it that he agrees with that enterprising element otherwise he would not have referred to it as enterprising.

He is one of them.

I assume that he is one of them. He anticipated that the Minister would have done it in February but now he justifies it that the Minister did not so act in May. The Minister of Finance must appreciate that we on this side do not expect the impossible and the unfair. We do not desire to adopt an attitude that we are not prepared to vote funds and to make available means for payment in respect of demoblisation, housing and also social security. We have no objection to that, but at the same time we desire that if funds are appropriated due regard must be paid to the needs of the production machine of the country. Provision must be made that funds should be provided in future for those matters also and that we must not allow the geese laying the golden eggs to bleed to death. We must give them an opportunity to grow up so that they may lay bigger eggs in future. That is our complaint and our objection to the attitude adopted by the Minister. It is exceptional to expect the Minister of Finance to avail himself of an opportunity such as this to hold a miniature Budget Speech. But circumstances are very special. On 28th February when he delivered his Budget Speech he based his estimates on the basis of a War Budget because we were engaged in a war. But what has happened during the three months which have passed since 28th February? If one bears in mind all the conditions which have altered one would have thought that the Minister would have availed himself of this opportunity with the knowledge of the additional three months, to say to us in what respects his expectations have altered in the light of the experience of three months. He should have stated that he was prepared to take the country into his confidence and that he was going to do certain things. We know that he cannot now tear up his whole Budget and throw them into the waste paper basket; but we did have a reasonable and fair expectation, and I am sure that the country also had this expectation, that the Minister of Finance would rise in this House and say to us that he realised that the position had changed considerably since then and that he was now in a position to give some measure of relief and that he would give that relief where it was most needed. He did one thing. He has reduced the amount of £3 in the case of the lowest income group to £2 10s. We are grateful for that. It is a small concession but it is a concession which means much to the people who have to pay that tax. Three months ago we pleaded for that and we are glad that the Minister has given in. But why did he not carry that good work a little further and why did he not also in other respects, in the light of the changed position, show his willingness to afford relief? We submitted suggestions for his consideration when he moved for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means. We stated: We do not desire a vast change; we ask for the removal of inequalities; that creases be ironed out somewhat so that the production machine could function more smoothly. What has happened in other countries? In America we found that immediately after the cessation of hostilities President Truman announced that relief in respect of taxation would be effected. That was the immediate reaction. In England Sir John Anderson stated that he appreciated that the position would have to alter. He delivered his budget speech a month ago, but he stated clearly, where he did not have time to review the estimates, that the budget had to be regarded as provisional and that he undertook to submit a revised Budget to the House of Commons in September. But here three months have elapsed, big changes have taken place, changes which are bound to have an effect on the Budget of the Minister introduced on 28th February; nevertheless the Minister is doing nothing he does not even make a statement. That is the reason for our dissatisfaction. These special war taxes involve an amount of approximately £25 millions taken out of the pockets of the taxpayer. War expenditure according to the Budget of three months back has been reduced from £102 millions to £82i millions. The portion of the war expenditure financed from revenue account has been reduced according to his estimate of three months back from £51,250,000 to £45,375,000. That means that the amount taken from revenue account for war purposes has been reduced by almost £6 millions according to the information of three months back. In spite of the fact that £6 millions less are asked for for war purposes on revenue account war taxation remains unchanged. We would still have been satisfied with that if the Minister could have pointed to all the other activities and services for which additional provision is now made. If he could have shown us what he intended doing with that money we would still have been in a position to accept it. But the Minister himself gave us to understand that the additional provision for social services would amount to approximately £2 millions.

No, there is other additional expenditure as well.

But the Minister gave a list of social services.

Yes, of social services.

Then we know that £2 millions more are devoted to social services. But now we notice that it is the social legislation which will drop this Session. The House does not agree with that. Let us turn to some other matters which the Minister yesterday indicated as measures which will not pass. We then notice that the little measure of social security, reduced by the Departmental Committee and subsequently further reduced by the Select Committee and again reduced further by the Minister—we notice that little of that goes into practice. The small measure for which prospects were held out, what happens to that? Here we have the Old Age Pensions Amendment Bill, the Disability Grants Bill, the Unemployment Insurance Bill; all those measures which possibly could have provided social services are measures which will drop this Session. If the funds collected from war taxation had been devoted to social services, for example, to carry out the report of the National Health Services Commission one could still be satisfied. But there is in fact nothing additional and yet the taxation remains the same. The points referred to by the hon. member for George and which we have brought to the notice of the Minister continuously; nothing becomes of them. The Minister is bound to reply that the hon. member for George wanted to alter the whole Budget and that that was impossible. That is not so. That is not what we desire. Just as the Minister himself was able to effect the change of reducing one tax from £3 to £2 10s. it was possible for him to effect a small change in the excess profits duty. I want to remind him of the fact that in Ireland the margin of profit has been raised from 9 per cent. to 10½ per cent. Here it remains at 8 per cent. That is another direction in which he could have made provision without leaving too much money to be spent in the country. The Minister is bound to say that we are pleading for reduction of taxation and that we will be complaining about inflation in the country tomorrow. It was not necessary for the Minister to return a single penny to be immediately spent. We proposed that 20 per cent. of the excess profits duty should be set aside as compulsory savings so that an amount would be available to be used by those businesses during the post-war years when there was most need for it. I know that the Minister will now say that it has been done in England but that we do have taxation of 20s. in the £ as is the case there. In England they have in that way set aside a reserve fund of £250 millions for their industries. What is the reserve fund for our industries? In the first case they paid 15s. in the £. But they also pay on the other 5s. The hon. member for Houghton has pointed out that the taxation in some cases amounts to 18s. 4d. in the £. They thus had left 1s. 8d. In England we have against that 4s. in the £ set aside as a nest egg for the future. However, we are dealing here with the principle, viz., that a reserve must be created in such times for our industries with a view to the future when they will need it most. This is the last opportunity for the Minister to do something like that. Let him still do it this year and then a fund may still be established during this year of approximately from £2 to £3 millions for our industries. It is to be regretted that that was not done years ago. But the Minister still has the chance this year to set aside 20 per cent. on £15,000,000 as a nest egg. That will be social security and it will be proof to this House and to the world outside that the Minister really made his statement seriously that he would like to see a new South Africa after the war. If we want to increase the national income the Minister must take these practical steps. That is our complaint against the Minister that where he had the opportunity of doing these things he took no action. We on our side are much more constructive than behoves an Opposition. We make proposals and we afford the Minister an opportunity of doing such things. It is not a function of the Opposition to do so. The function of an Opposition is that of a doctor who does not give a prescription for a remedy until he is called in. We feel that we have at present come to an important turning point in our industrial development and that we have to take extraordinary steps, that we have to come forward with constructive proposals so that the Minister may in any case have the benefit of what we think about the matter. But we do so without any success. Nothing is made of those proposals. The dripping of water has worn away a small corner of the rock but the rock remains as headstrong as ever. We are fighting unsuccessfuly to obtain this important proof that the Minister takes a serious view of the development of our country and of the people in the post-war world that we are going to meet. We do not ask for anything which is unfair. We do not ask for a change of the Minister’s whole Budget and the House has to realise precisely what we are asking for at this stage. What we ask is not impossible and impracticable. It can be done. À11 that is missing is goodwill. The Minister declines to help. We want the Minister to get the vision of what these things may mean for the industrial development of the country. There are a few other points which I want to touch upon. The first point relates to Section 2 (1). As I gathered from the Minister the effect thereof will be to increase the pre-war standard. Take in the first instance the position of a barrister who acted as lecturer and was paid a salary for his services. Has he to pay on that additional amount?

No, the educational work is not part of that.

But supposing that the other work is not educational work?

If it is part of his profession then he has to pay on it.

I do not have a specific instance in mind. He has to pay on the amount which forms part of his income. That means that the pre-war standard is increased by the same amount. But what is the position of somebody who at that time enjoyed that income and who has lost it in the meantime.

He would be better off.

It would then be to the advantage of that person? I wanted to be clear about that. Then we come to the savings fund. We have stated here in the past that the savings fund is a farce to a large extent because people are permitted to exchange their certificates within six months. Now the Minister is going to the other extreme. We considered previously that the people were being compelled to save and that they should not exchange their certificates before the war had come to an end when they would need the money. But what does the Minister propose now? For four years of war he makes it six months, and during the first year of peace he goes to the other extreme and he makes it six years. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me. If he had done that four years ago I would not have objected. It is the intention that that fund should be available to the people when they need it most. The question now is whether they would need those funds more after six years than after two years. If the Minister four years ago had made it six years then it would have been available to them two years after the war. I really think that the Minister is going too far in making it six years. I think I followed the Minister correctly in that they cannot now exchange those certificates till after six years.

Yes.

That is precisely my point. We are at present in the first peace year. If compulsory saving is necessary now why should a period of six years be fixed. Would it not be more reasonable to say that interest would accrue for six years but that the money could be called for after two years? That would mean that this fund might perhaps be available to the people when they need it most. I do not want to devote more time to that. I merely want to repeat that what he hon. member for George has asked for is reasonable, fair and practicable and if the Minister is not prepared to effect those reasonable, fair and practicable amendments then we are not prepared to agree to his taxation. He can’t have it both ways. If he shows no indulgence to meet us in connection with the points raised by us then we are not able to assist him. What we desire from the Minister at this stage and that is all we ask, and it is something which not only we ask from him but also the industralists outside, as well as all people who are concerned with production in this country, that he will show proof of goodwill and sincerity. I do not think that we are asking too much. We say to him that he should today give a guarantee to prove his sincerity when he says that he is deeply interested in the development of industryin South Africa and in building up the rational income. Those are small modifications for which we have been pleading in this House for a long time.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has to a large extent moderated the language and the demands of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), and in effect he tells us now in a moderate way that all he wants is to see that in respect of industry some provision should be made for the development of reserve funds for industry. Now the hon. member himself has answered that point by pointing out, in dealing with the excess profits duty, that while in Great Britain provision is made by which portion of the duty is set aside in order to have a reserve for the development or reconstruction of industry after the war, the excess profits duty there is 20s. in the £, and only portion of it is set aside.

Yes, but I answered that point also.

No, you only think you did.

And you only think you know Afrikaans.

The position is that, in effect, he comes along at this late stage and asks the Minister to alter his taxation arrangements. After all, we have had the Budget accepted in this House. We have had a discussion of these details in the Committee of Ways and Means, and the Bill which is now before the House is merely, in accordance with the rules of the House, giving effect to proposals already accepted by the House.

But the Minister is going to make an amendment.

A very small one only.

Then he can make this one also.

In those circumstances it is unfair to suggest to the Minister to make any substantial alteration in his financial proposals. But I go further. The hon. member very rightly said that we will have a great deal of expenditure on demobilisation and housing, and he complains, as I also do, that very little has been done on the subject of social security. In fact, at present with the exception of a few small matters, like old-age pensions, the social security scheme and programme that the country has visualised has so far not been given effect to. But that very argument indicates that at the present time the Minister would be very unwise to reduce taxation along the lines suggested by the hon. member. We do not know how much money will be required for demobilisation or for social security or how much more money than has been estimated under the various headings, like the establishment of health centres, the Government will have to spend. We do not know how much money will be required, and to come along and suggest there should be a reduction in taxation might result in the Minister finding himself in the position of not havng adequate means to meet demands in connection with demobilisation, housing and to some extent, at least, implementing the ideals of social security. That is quite apart from the general constitutional position. What would be the attitude of our friends opposite and of the country, if the Minister and the Government came along and said: On account of our having reduced taxation the money required for these very essential services and for demobilisation is not available. Regarded from that angle the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) cannot be considered as reasonable or given effect to. The hon. member for George gave the impression that if his Party were in power they would embark on a policy of reduced taxation. He sought to convey to the public that the Nationalist Party would tax them less than the Government is doing at present. The country will have to realise firstly that we are at present in a state of transition from war expenditure to peace expenditure, that we must be prepared to find, the substantial sums of money that are required, that there can be no question at present of reduction in taxation, "and that before any alteration in taxation can be made the Minister will have to consider the question of what modifications he will introduce which while simplifying the incidence of taxation will have the effect of producng the funds necessary for peace reconstruction and peace requirements. For my part I think it fair to the public in South Africa not to keep on telling them we will require less or that we shall be able to tax them less. What we should tell them in fairness is that just as it was necessary to soak many of them to find the money to carry on the war, so it is necessary to have the funds to finance our demobilisation scheme to the fullest extent, to carry out our housing programme and to promote the cause of social security; and that far from reduction of taxation, taxation might even be heavier. For anyone to create an impression that we are over-taxed, or that reduced taxation can be anticipated is to do a disservice to the country. I say this without hesitation, because I think every member in this House will agree with me that now that the winning of the war, the destruction of Nazism, the elimination of the danger of domination has been accomplished, it must be followed by the winning of the peace, the elimination of poverty and slumdom and a state of society under which the privileged shall no longer exploit the underprivileged. You cannot do that without a considerable amount of taxation, and we should imbue the well-to-do and the privileged with the idea that they will have to make great sacrifices in future, possibly as great as during the war. From that angle I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the fact that he has not accepted the heavy responsibility involved in his task of revising taxation without a full analysis of the expenditure we will be involved in in our post-war reconstruction and that he will not revise taxation until he has the fullest information. Just as the Minister has already set up a committee to revise mining taxation I have no doubt he will give his fullest attention now to a revision of the taxation that will have to be applied to deal with our peace problems. I have no doubt that we shall abolish excess profits duty; that is a war measure. But even then we shall have to be prepared for a modification of our income tax proposals. We shall probably have a steeply graduated income tax and taxation should not be a question so much of what you pay but of what you are left with, and those in a better position may have to pay much more than at present. That is the position in which we are placed; and I am sure the Minister is giving consideration to these requirements and that his financial policy, when introduced, will be the result of full consideration. I pass to another point. The hon. member for George and the hon. member for Fauresmith are standing up in this House as the protagonists of private enterprise. All they are concerned with is the development of private enterprise. The hon. member for George goes to the length of saying that private enterprise will do the job. Give it the confidence, he says, and it will do the job. Although I stand for the principle that private enterprise should be given an opportunity where it is prepared to do the work of the community at a reasonable remuneration, I say that experience in this country and in the older countries has shown that private enterprise does not necessarily always do the job; that with private enterprise having profit as its motive power there are occasions when private enterprise does no do the job, and private enterprise will have to be supplemented by national enterprise and public utility corporations.

You are becoming a fascist.

That is a foolish remark. When you think of doing anything towards economic democracy you are immediately faced with the cry of Fascism. I want my hon. friend, the member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) to tell me whether he thinks our friends opposite are going to be the protagonists of private enterprise as he visualises it. I should like to know whether their idea of private enterprise is that visualised by the hon. member for Houghton, or whether in reality it is based on a policy of racial discrimination.

Have you been cured of your Socialism?

I am pursuing the same lines. The ex-member for Fordsburg only recently made a speech on the Witwatersrand in which he said that when they got into power they would get rid of “these foreign British political ideas”, and the executive would be all powerful ….

I am afraid the hon. member is getting right away from the subject.

I am replying to interjections.

Order, order. The hon. member must not allow himself to be diverted by interruptions.

I am only human. Only a few weeks ago an estate agency association was formed under the leadership of Mr. Ben Schoeman, the leader of the Nationalist Party on the Witwatersrand, and it is on an entirely racial basis. I refer to that point because I think the hon. member for Houghton and people outside must realise when they hear pleas advanced by our friends opposite that taxation should be arranged to encourage private enterprise, that it is necessary to understand what those hon. members’ conception of private enterprise is. I think we are entitled to know whether hon. members opposite mean normal private enterprise or Nationalist private enterprise. I am sure the Minister would be the last to suggest that he is a heaven-sent Minister of Finance, I think there has never been a heaven-sent Minister of Finance—Gladstone and all the others had their difficulties and were subject to criticism—but I say, without any hesitation, that he has brought our country through the war period so far as financial arrangements are concerned, and if he gets the opportunity of considering his financial policy in respect of the reconstruction period and the transition period, in the light of the needs in regard to demobilisation, housing and social security, he will definitely bring forward proposals which will enable the Government and the country to give effect to those policies to which we stand committed, although some of our friends are perhaps rather hesitant as to the extent to which those commitments should be given effect to. I welcome the suggestion about a committee being set up, a committee that will advise on what the financial policy should be. But I think I am correct in saying that the Minister has got such a committee. I think that Mr. Justice Blackwell was a member of a committee of that kind when he was a member of this House. I think all that would be needed is to have more Parliamentary representation on it than was the case in the past. This committee would be advisory and make suggestions. I also want to support the proposal that we should have a second Session of Parliament, not merely as a special Session, but I think we could definitely handle the work of the House better if it were divided into two Sessions, if we had a Session dealing with finance and a Session dealing with economic problems, especially social security. I agree we should consider the desirability of having a Session in September, or some date near to that, in order to deal fully with problems of social security with which this country is going to be faced.

What opposition there is to the Bill seems to be more because of what is left out than what it contains. That is significant. What has been left out is a provision that would deprive the Government of revenue it stands sorely in need of. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) suggested the Government’s attitude was that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but it must be very apparent he was rather unwise in the use of the figure, because the Nationalist Party, to my mind, are definitely and totally Mr. Hyde; but one does at least see in the Government the suggestion of Dr. Jekyll. We also had a very portentous declaration by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He spoke to the House in very portentous tones arguing that it was inadvisable to tax industry in view of the necessity for industrial expansion, and said that if we did the responsibility for the stultifying of development of industry would lie with the State. It struck me that the opposite was also true. If people who are normally in the habit of paying taxes seek by every means they can find to evade this taxation the responsibility for stiultifying the necessary programme of public work lies at the door of those individuals. It is of course not true that the Minister of Finance has set out to stiultify industrial development. The suggestion that he has so set out is based on the ground that he refuses to include in this Bill the excision of the excess profits duty. If that was done the Minister of Finance would be faced with a serious loss of revenue. Is it not true that the very reason for the existence of the tax is a promise given by the Prime Minister, in the early days of the war to the people of this country; that as far as he was able to ensure it no one should make excessive profit out of the conduct of the war. We know, as reasonable people, that a promise of this sort is very difficult to implement in a positive way. So the next best way was sought and the excess profits duty was brought into being. Having to face the position that in spite of the promise those profits were being made the Minister of Finance proceeded to ensure that as the profits had been made the State would ask those who made them to pay them back. There is nothing unjust about that at all. Not only is that not unjust but as long as excess profits are made, surely those excess profits are subject to the same principle in time of peace as in time of war, particularly as we are all agreed that the peace emergency is at least equal to the war emergency. Some people reason that the excess profits duty should be taken off because in the period following the war free competition in the fields where excess is now obtained would reduce profits to normal levels, meaning apparently that in any case the revenue will eventually be lost. We cannot have our cake and eat it. Do we really mean it when we say that we want money to do the job? If we want the money how can we get it except by taking it from those people who have it? When the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) tells us in all seriousness that he believes the peace emergency will cost us more than the wartime emergency I cannot subscribe to that view myself. Without wanting to give false hope to the people of the country, I still believe it need not cost as much; but the hon. member for Vasco believes that it will cost more. What is his contribution towards means for meeting the extra cost that will be involved. When the little argument develops between himself and the Minister of Finance I do not believe he is seeking to embarrass the Minister of Finance, but really wants to help him, and if he would indicate to us what he means I should be very pleased to hear his axplanation, not only of what is wrong with the Minister’s method of levying taxation at the present time but what alternatives he has in mind. The Minister’s job is, we are all agreed, going to be more difficult in peace-time than it was during the war. We have indicated from these bences what we believe is the tight approach, but we have in the circumstances no means of implementing our ideas. We have to accept the fact that we are in coalition with people who do not see our point of view; and who say they do not share it. They were challenged very effectively by the hon. member for Berea yesterday afternoon when he suggested a Reserve Bank credit issued at administrative cost only as an alternative means by which we might get the money needed. The hon. member for Vasco suggested that if he lent money to the Government at 3 per cent. the Minister could not afford to lend out money at 1 per cent. We do not suggest nor did the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) suggest that we should go to the hon. member for Vasco for money. The hon. member for Vasco’s suggestion is bound up with the idea that always anybody who does anything either for winning the war or furthering the interests of peace should derive some private gain. Why should some people make a profit on money because that money is wanted for the good of the community? When we are meeting the emergency by national schemes there is still ample scope, as the hon. member for Berea said, for people who want to do so to earn money in the orthodox channels. There are means of obtaining what some call legitimate income by making profit and they will not be cut off from the means to do so. Reference has been made to a special Session in September. I also think it would be a good idea to get down to what we should do in that Session. We all profess to agree that the job has to be done and the money has to be found, and no person paying taxes at present should therefore expect that at this time he will pay less. If he does then his professions are lip service. It is not consistent to talk of blank cheques in order that a Minister may tackle a heavy task and do a good job of work and then proceed to cramp his style and limit him by all sorts of suggestions to the effect that he is asking people to pay too much. Let us be fair and agree that the Minister’s job if hard enough. I sympathise with him in his job. He has a very hard job indeed, but he said he could do it, and of course he will have to do it. I want’ him to hold what he has and stand firm against any suggestion that people who can afford to pay taxes shall be enabled by some devious method of reasoning to be excused from paying a certain portion of them in future. If in addition to that the Minister feels he must call upon all the people to pay in proportion something in direct taxation he will have my support in doing so. I realise as well as most the poverty of most of the people in this country, but I realise too their sense of fitness of things, and I say without fear of contradiction that the poor people of this country—or of any country—are prepared and more than prepared to pay for anything they get. If the arguments one hears in this House are to be taken at their face value it is true to say that they are more prepared to pay than the people who can be termed well off. I am sure the Minister will tackle his job with courage, and I want to strengthen his spirit and his determination, so that having put his hand to the plough he will not turn back and through his efforts we shall be assisted towards realising the picture of South Africa’s future that we have envisaged.

This debate has developed into a general debate on taxation and I trust that I shall be excused if I say that the speeches made here today were mostly a repetition of speeches made earlier in the Session. What was probably not realised by all members, was that the passing of this Bill would not lead to an increase but to a reduction of the burdens borne by taxpayers in South Africa. The provision in this Bill which will have the greatest financial effect is the provision in Clause 3 relating to the savings fund levy as a result of which an amount of £800,000 less will be collected during the current year from taxpayers, than was the case previously. As regards the further provisions contained in this Bill, some are by way of concession and some by way of tigtening up legislation, but most of the provisions will not have a comprehensive effect. One provision which will indeed have a vital effect, is the one to which I have referred. Therefore the passing of this Bill will lead not to an increase, but to a reduction of the burdens borne by taxpayers in general.

The savings fund was so small that it is of no assistance to maintain it.

I do not know whether hon. members who threatened to vote against the Bill realise that they will thereby do something which will not be to the benefit of taxpayers.

You forget the reason why we want to vote against it and that is that it does not go far enough.

I merely desire to point out that in general this Bill is something which is to the benefit of taxpayers and not to their disadvantage.

What about 2 (a)?

2 (a) will not have a very comprehensive effect, it is not comparable to the effect that 3 will have. A plea was made here that because the war in Europe has been concluded further concessions should be granted. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said that the war was over for all practical purposes; the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that the position had changed since the presentation of the Budget. Yes, in a large measure that is correct. The war in Europe is indeed past but the expenditure connected with the war is not yet past. The hon. member for George said that the position has changed, but has the position in regard to the financial aspect thereof really altered so much? You see it is true that the war has come to an end but not quite sooner than we anticipated when we drafted the estimates. It is true that we made provision in the estimates for a decrease of approximately £20,000,000 in respect of our Defence expenditure. If there is indeed a possibility of a saving in respect of the direct war expenditure it will cause an increase in the expenditure in connection with demobilisation. To that must be added the fact that it appears that our expenditure in connection with repatriation of our troops will probably be higher than was originally anticipated. It would be wrong to expect that because the war is over we will see a larger decrease in our war expenditure on the basis on which we submitted our Budget. The hon. member for George says: “Yes, but there is a margin.” I can only say to him that I have not yet drafted my Budget in the expectation that there would be a margin. It is quite correct that during the past few years more revenue was collected than we anticipated as a result of the resiliency of the position in, the country but there will also be a change in that respect. There are now certain factors which will necessitate matters not running so smoothly as in the past and to that must be added the fact that since the presentation of the Budget, we have submitted supplementary estimates entailing expenditure of £3,500,000. £1,500,000 of that amount has in fact been provided in the estimates but that means that we already have an expenditure of £2,000,000 more to bear in mind than we expected when the Budget was drafted. Thus if the position has changed in one direction it has also changed in the other direction. If a saving did in fact result in respect of our war expenses account exceeding the additional amounts which we would have to find on other votes as a result of the termination of the war where must we account for that saving? You see our war expense account is financed from two sources, revenue account and loan account. If we did save a few million pounds on that sum of £82,000,000 which we have voted, which account must we credit with that £2,000,000? I would like to ascertain that from the hon. member for George. He has always advised us not to allow our debt to reach too high a figure. If there is a saving then it would be our duty to account for that saving in loan account. If that is the case what remains? There is some inconsistency in the attitude of the hon. members on the other side. On the one hand they say that we must not increase our debt, that we must keep our debt as low as possible ….

Within reasonable limits.

My hon. friend now qualifies it. They tell us that we have allowed our debt to increase considerably during the past years. Of course, the debt rose considerably, and we should do everything in our power to restrain the increase. If savings are effected in our war expenses account then it would be our duty to effect the savings on loan account. My hon. friends cannot in one breath accuse us of our loan account being too high and in the same breath tell us that the saving effected by us on Defence should be placed to revenue account to be utilised towards reduction of taxation and for building up a reserve fund. That would simply mean that you build up a reserve fund at the expense of your loan account.

That is an argument against any reduction of taxation as long as you have a national debt.

No, not in the least—as long as the national debt rises at a fast rate, undoubtedly, and our national debt is rising at a fast pace. My hon. friend says: “Create a reserve fund: sacrifice a part of your taxation and create a reserve fund.” That would simply mean that we would have to borrow more money for that reserve fund in the interests of industry. We do assist industry by means of loan account, through the industrial corporation for example, but the further proposal of the hon. member simply amounts to this, that we have to find additional funds for the promotion of our industries at the expense of our loan account. My hon. friend opposite correctly pointed out that we would have to spend a large amount on housing. We have made provision for £5,000,000. He would like to see us spend more in that regard. It is quite probable that we shall: if we develop the housing programme quickly enough we would quite probably have to find more funds. Would it not be a good thing to utilise it for that, if we effect savings on war expenses account? The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) and other hon. members emphasised the fact that the general rate of expenditure and therefore that of revenue would after the war be more or less the same as today. If that is so— and here I repeat what was said by the hon. member for Vasco—would it then be sound financial policy to reduce taxation if you would probably have to increase it the following year? The question is its own answer. The financial policy advocated here by my hon. friends is of course not sound. Then we heard quite a lot about the effect of our taxation system upon industry. My hon. friend for George said that industry was afraid to do anything. Well, that is not borne out by the figures. I have repeatedly given figures in that regard. My hon. friend is not satisfied with the figures furnished by me in connection with the registration of companies. He says that all that capital has not been paid up. But that was always the case in the past. The figures given by me were comparative figures and the purpose was to prove that there is no change in regard to the willingness of the public to contribute funds.

Not to contribute but to promise.

To contribute and to promise.

What about investments?

My hon. friend now wants to deal with it on the basis of investment. He is aware that in every issue of shares at the present time much more money is available than is required. People are not afraid to put up money. I say again, as I have often said, the handicapping factor in connection with industrial development during the past few years has not been taxation, it was the difficulty experienced in respect of manpower and material, and I want to add that also in respect of the current year, acceptance of proposals as my hon. friend wants to put forward in connection with our taxation system will have no appreciable effect upon industrial development in South Africa. The other factor will prove much more powerful.

Say that to the industrialists.

They know that that is true and the facts are against them. Facts prove that the public has ready money and that the public is prepared to put up the required funds. It has been said to me that they wanted a gesture. I do not know what the gesture must be. I thought that the undertaking given by me in connection with new machinery would be considered a gesture, but apart from that I have on numerous occasions stated that I will review the whole taxation system, war taxation as well as normal taxation, and will then deal with the different difficulties in connection therewith, and also that I shall consult commerce and industry with regard to that question. What more do they desire as a gesture? They do not want a gesture: they want a reduction of a few million pounds in taxation. Gestures they have enough, if not from me then from the hon. member for George. I referred a few moments ago to the concession which we have promised in respect of machinery. I do not know whether the hon. member for Krugersdorp. (Mr. Van den Berg) is aware of this concession. I announced it in my Budget Speech.

I refer to the taxation on imported machinery.

We undertook to give a rebate for taxation purposes on new machinery.

But import duties on new machinery which is imported remains the same.

We are not now dealing with indirect taxation. A concession has been made by us. The hon. member for George read something comparing our proposals with those of Great Britain. He said that in Great Britain a concession of 20 per cent. has been promised. We only allow 15 per cent.: but in Great Britain, he stated, an allowance of 9 per cent. is added, which in some cases rises to 24 per cent. in connection with obsoleteness—depreciation—but the same is applicable here. We also make that allowance and the 15 per cent. which we are granting now is in addition to that allowance which we always grant in connection with obsoleteness. In our case it sometimes rises as high as 25 per cent. That is the only difference between the United Kingdom and us, viz. that the special allowance in their case is 20 per cent. and in ours 15 per cent. But if one takes into account the disruption of industry in England as a result of the war then it can be appreciated that they receive an allowance of 5 per cent. more.

Is it also allowed them on agricultural machinery?

Yes, I have already said so. Then there are a few specific points to which my hon. friend has referred; in the first place as regards the savings fund. I want to explain again that in so far as our proposals entail increased payment of taxation it will now, in view of the amendment which I intend moving, be wholly at the expense of the income taxpayer and the net amount payable by a person who is not an income taxpayer will remain unaltered. Therefore this alteration will be at the expense of the income taxpayer. My hon. friend has pleaded for the raising of standards in connection with excess profits duty. He even asked for a cost of living allowance for the person paying excess profits duty. I can imagine the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) who has made such an interesting speech welcoming anything like that, that we should now provide the person paying excess profits with a cost of living allowance. In the light of the remarks made by the hon. member for Germiston that is going too far. My hon. friend referred to a doctor in Durban who now has less left although he is earning more. Why not? That applies to many people. It applies in the case of the ordinary man earning a salary because the taxes are higher and it should be like that in wartime. My hon. friends often referred to inflation, but increased taxation is one of the means for combating inflation, and if that taxation is properly applied then you must expect in war-time that people who earn more will have less over. That argument therefore does not impress me much and I am as little impressed by the argument that because the war is over his friend should not pay excess profits. May I point out that the excess profits which he will have to pay during the current year will be payable on excess profits he has made during the war? It is a tax upon the income derived during the war. The hon. member for Fauresmith, following on that, has stated that as far as the revenue account is concerned there is a reduction of £6,000,000 on Defence. He asked: Why then not reduce taxation? He has stated that there was only an increase of £2,000,000 provided for social services. Let me assure him that that amount of £2,000 000 has nothing to do with the Bills introduced a few weeks ago. The social security legislation has been introduced for the future. And it is clear that our first duty is bringing the war to an end and our second duty is demobilisation and after that follow measures for social security. The fact that we are not proceeding with those measures during the current Session does not mean a delay in connection with that duty and it does not mean a saving of money. My hon. friend says there is a reduction of £6,000,000 on the Defence Vote, £2,000,000 more is set aside for social services and he wants to know whether the Government is not in a position to do something in connection with reduction of taxation. He has probably forgotten that an amount of £3,500,000 appears on revenue account for demobilisation. As soon as you reduce your Defence expenditure there results necessarily in the first instance an increase of the expenditure in respect of demobilisation. My hon. friend will also notice that there is provision for approximately £2,000,000 more for the provinces. Therefore that amount of £6,000,000 has long since disappeared.

Naturally, otherwise there would have been a surplus on the Budget.

My hon. friend asks why we are not able to reduce taxation. That is because the funds were required for other purposes. He put a question in connection with Clause 6, i.e., the provision that the amounts at present being paid into the savings fund will not be repayable within six months. Let me just explain the position to him. We have always put it like this: where anybody pays more than £20 into the savings fund then that amount is only repayable after six years. Only amounts under £20 are repayable after six months. As regards the person who does not pay income tax the savings fund part falls away. We considered that it would be best to treat all income taxpayers alike and to treat them on the same basis.

†Then I think there are just a few more points to refer to. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) and other hon. members referred to the question of holding a Session of this House in September. The question of whether this House is to be called together again this year is obviously not one on which any statement can be made at this stage. It is a matter in regard to which consultation will have to take place with the Prime Minister after his return and that decision will largely have to be determined in the light of world conditions and not merely in relation to the financial problems of South Africa. It is possible that as a result of world conferences, there may be work essential for us to do during what remains of this year.

You do not consider the financial problems of the members.

I think perhaps I have given some thought to that matter.

You mean half a thought.

Perhaps I should say that if there is a Session in September, or at any time before the end of the year, in the nature of things it would not be possible to limit it to discussions of finance, and it would hardly be passible to lay down a new basis of taxation as part of the Budget proposals which would be submitted next year. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) supplemented that suggestion still further by proposing the establishment of a subcommittee of members of Parliament to advise me in regard to taxation questions. I cannot help feeling that there is an increasing tendency to ask the Government to transfer its responsibilities to committees and to let committees take over the duties. of Ministers. They may do the job very much better than we do, but anyhow that is not the position contemplated in our Constitution. Our Constitution separates the legislative from the executive branch. Under that Constitution Ministers have certain responsibilities for which they can be brought to account. It is not correct therefore that those responsibilities should be transferred from Ministers to committees. In this case we have sought the advice of commerce and industry.

That is just the point. You seek advice from anywhere bar the House.

We get lots of advice here; there is no lack of advice here, we get advice here for six months. We have sought the advice of commerce and industry. Naturally the last word must lie with the Government but we are consulting with them and will continue to do so. There is of course no reason why the commercial and industrial organisations should not have invited members of this House who speak for them here to be members of that committee. That is their business. But I do not think it would be reasonable to duplicate that committee by appointing another committee from members of this House. Then the hon. member for Houghton also raised a point in regard to Section 2 (i) (a). He asked why, seeing that the Act came into force in 1940, the amendment was only made in 1945. I can only say that my Department always read this Act when made in 1940 in the terms in which it is now proposed to amend it. We always thought that it had the effect that where a professional man compounds his fees for a lump sum, that is part of the taxable income and part of his pre-war standard. We always assumed that, until a decision of the court cast doubt upon it, and in bringing about this amendment we are simply giving effect to what was our intention when we introduced this Act. The only other point that remains to be dealt with is one which was also raised by the hon. member for Houghton, namely the question of an allowance for the depreciation of buildings. I cannot recall any specific promise I made. Perhaps the hon. member can refresh my memory, but this point has been raised by the joint committee representing commerce and industry and it will be discussed with that committee as we proceed with the general examination of the taxation proposal.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 1st June.

I move—

In my Budget Speech, I dealt fully with the Government’s proposals in connection with the proposed amendment of the financial relations between the Union and the provinces. This Bill is giving effect to those proposals. As, however, the original Financial Relations Act was passed as long ago as 1913, and has since been amended no less than thirteen times, it has appeared to be desirable not to tamper with the existing Act any longer by means of amendments, but to introduce an entirely new Act. This Bill is, therefore, to a large extent, a consolidating measure. It is for the most part a repetition of the provisions of the existing law. This Bill, is, therefore, very, much less formidable than it appears to be. I propose, therefore, in my introductory speech merely to draw attention to those sections of the Bill in which something new is proposed. I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to those clauses in the Bill which purely serve to embody the provisions of the existing legislation. The first section contains a few new definitions, but they are dependent upon ensuing sections and it is not necessary for me to dwell on them now. We really come to the first new section in this Bill when we come to Section 6 and that is one of the most important sections in the Bill. It provides for a new basis of subsidising the provinces. I have already dealt fairly comprehensively with this aspect of the matter in my Budget Speech and what I am going to say now will, to a large extent, be a repetition of what I said on that occasion. The existing system of financial relations between the Union and the provinces goes back to 1925. Although several amendments have been made since that time, the principle is still exactly the same as it was then. It amounts to this, that the provinces have three sources of revenue available. In the first place, there are the proceeds from the taxes imposed by them and in respect of which they have to act within the powers laid down by this Bill. In the second place, there are those sources of revenue allocated to them, in respect of which they do not pass the taxation laws themselves, but in respect of which they receive the proceeds from sources of taxation created by Union legislation or by legislation of the old Colonies. In this respect, we have items such as transfer duty, licence fees and native registration fees. The third source of provincial revenue is the subsidies which they receive from us and which are voted by this Parliament. The basis of this subsidy from the Union to the provinces is a per capita grant since 1925. This is the basis adopted after consideration of the so-called Baxter Report. The provinces receive their subsidy from us on the basis of a per capita grant which is calculated according to school attendance and according to the number of children of different groups attending the provincial schools. To that, in the course of time, were added, apart from special provision for national roads and native education, no less than seven types of special subsidies. The provinces accordingly receive their subsidy in the form of the par capita calculation in respect of school attendance and in addition to that they receive seven special subsidies, which appeared on different votes in our estimates. That system apparently had several defects. In the first place, it became more and more complicated particularly as a result of the addition of the special subsidy. We departed more and more from the fairly straightforward system recommended by the Baxter Commission. In the second place, there is, in connection with the present system, a danger from the point of view of the provinces, in that whereas the Union Government is granting these special subsidies, the Union Government will lay claim to the right of interfering in provincial matters. The third defect is perhaps the most important. That is, the lack of flexibility of the present system. The provinces have to deal with expanding services. Roads, hospitals, health services and education are continually expanding; but their sources of subsidy are not expanding. The subsidy comprises considerably more than half of the provincial revenue, but the subsidies do not expand in proportion to the needs. Take the Free State, for instance. There we have had in recent times, a decrease in the number of schoolgoing children. According to the system of 1925, therefore, there should have been a reduction of the subsidy payable to the Free State. Parliament realised that this would cause a lot of difficulty and a minimum subsidy over a number of years was therefore guaranteed to the Free State. That still means that the subsidy to the Free State remains unchanged whereas the requirements of the Free State do not remain the same. The fact that it has lost a few thousand schoolchildren has not resulted in an adjustment of the expenditure on education. Nor was that expected. The needs with regard to the other departments of the provincial system have steadily increased. Also, as far as the other provinces are concerned, the increase of the subsidy as a result of the expansion of school attendance, has not been in any proportion whatsoever to the expansion of the needs of those provinces with regard to the services they have to provide. These are the weaknesses of the present system. It has therefore been decided after consultation with the executive committee of the provinces to propose a new basis of financial relations, the purpose of which is, firstly, to simplify the present system. Secondly, we aim at an improvement of the financial position of the provinces especially with a view to the expansion of their services in the future. The proposal with regard to this new basis for subsidy amounts to this. In the first instance, the Union Government remains responsible for the provision for native education, including the school feeding system, and also for national roads, as well as for the subsidies under the Public Health Act. Secondly, the allocated sources of revenue for the provinces will fall away as well as all the other subsidies received by them at present, the special subsidies as well as the per capita subsidies under the 1925 Act. A new basis of subsidy will be introduced, namely, on 50 per cent, of the expenditure of the provinces in respect of their ordinary services. When we speak of the expenditure of the provinces, we include the expenditure of the Divisional Councils in the Cape Province, as well as similar bodies in the other provinces. This payment of a 50 per cent. subsidy is subject to the restriction that, whenever the provincial expenditure in any year exceeds that of the previous year by more than 5 per cent., then the subsidy on the amount of the excess, although only for that year, will not be a half, but only one-third. Then there is also the provision that, apart from the general subsidy, a special subsidy is granted to certain provinces. Firstly, £300,000 is granted to the Free State in view of the general position of that province with regard to sources of revenue. It will be clear to all concerned that the Free State is to a much larger extent than the other provinces, an agricultural province and that it has not to the same extent as the other provinces, large concentrations of urban populations for taxation purposes. We go further and we pay a special subsidy of £150,000 to the Cape Province in view of the fact that there is a large and, on the whole, poor coloured population. It is a special feature of this province, in comparison with other provinces; and this coloured population causes certain educational problems. I am glad to see that the Cape Province is finding it possible to take steps in the direction of compulsory education for coloured children. It is only a first step in that direction but they are finding it possible to make a beginning.

As far as accommodation allows.

Yes. What we are proposing here in connection with the special subsidy, will assist them in that connection. We further propose a special payment of £100,000 in the case of Natal, again in view of the composition of the population in that province. These amounts will be granted, if the proposal is agreed to, for a period of three years, after which they will be taken into review in the light of prevailing circumstances. The financial effect of these proposals will be as follows. According to the old basis, the provinces would have received, in the form of subsidies, on the Provincial Administrations’ Vote, an amount of £7,190,000. The subsidies on other votes would have amounted to £724,000. In addition to that, the allocated sources of revenue would have been approximately £3,000,000; altogether an amount of £10,940,000. According to the new basis, they will receive, as appears from the estimates, an amount of £12,800,000. That means an increase in the grant of £1,860,000. That is a large amount, but in view of the importance of the provincial services, it is not unreasonable to make that provision. As I have said before, the provision for the new basis of subsidy is made in Section 6. We now come to the taxation powers of the provinces and as far as that is concerned, we have to refer to Sections 8 to 10 of the Bill and also to the first schedule. In the first schedule, the sources from which the provincial councils may raise revenue are laid down. In the main these sections and schedules are confined to the existing position and I shall, therefore, merely refer to the changes proposed. The first is in relation to additional taxation powers. In view of the expansion of hospital services which the provinces are expected to provide in the direction of entirely free hospitilisation, it is proposed to empower them to collect a hospital contribution also from the natives, who will benefit from those services. It is further proposed that where the provinces have the power to impose an income tax in relation to the income tax payable to the Union Government, they will in addition, have the power to levy an income tax on natives, on the same basis. Provision for that is made in Section 10 (2). The hospital contribution is limited to 2s. 6d. per annum and it is proposed to collect it together with the native poll-tax. There is in addition, another new provision in the Bill in its present form, which appears in the first part of the schedule, namely, item 12, which provides for a levy or tax on advertisements. It does not mean, as I have read, that Parliament, in passing this Bill, will levy a tax on advertisements. It merely means that the provinces will be given the poweï to consider the levying of such a tax. The provinces have asked for that right and we have declared ourselves to be prepared as far as we are concerned, to relinquish that taxation power and to regard it as something which will belong to the provinces and for that reason this provision has been incorporated in the Bill. As a result, however, of further discussions on this matter, it has appeared that, from an administrative point of view, it would be very difficult to levy such a tax unless it was levied on the same basis in all the provinces. It would be very difficult if it were to be applied in one or two provinces only and it would also give rise to all sorts of difficulties if it was not applied in the same manner in all the provinces. For that reason, it has become clear that if this tax had to be levied, special Union legislation would have to be introduced. I have, therefore, decided to move at the Committee stage, that this item be omitted.

Has that anything to do with the telegrams?

The telegrams to which my honourable friend refers bore evidence that, in the majority of cases, they were not spontaneous. And when we have to deal with an agitation which is not spontaneous, we never attach much value to it. I propose to discuss this matter further with the provinces and to consult them as to the possibility of finding a general basis which will be available to all the provinces. If it appears that something of that nature is possible, then this Parliament will have to pass special legislation in that connection.

It will not be this year.

No, certainly not this year.

A tax on advertisements is enough to kill any Government.

Parliament will then have to consider it and the validity thereof will be subject to its special application by all the provinces, either by way of ordinances or by way of resolutions for which they will bear full responsibility. As far as this Bill is concerned, we do not propose proceeding with that particular provision of the schedule.

That only applies to item 12.

The other item in the schedule are powers they already possess. This is the only new one which now falls away. It is further proposed in Section 8, although it comprises in the main the present taxation powers of the provinces, to make certain amendments in order to remove the difficulties existing at present. In Section 8 (5), it is proposed to remove certain anomalies from the existing legislation with regard to the provincial tax on companies, in so far as it concerns companies operating in more than one province. Under the prevailing system the province is allowed to levy the minimum tax on companies which in certain cases is more than the income derived by the company concerned in that, province. A company may for the sake of convenience have an office in a certain province while its business may be carried on in another province. It is possible for the province to make it pay more than it actually collects in that province. This proposal is designed to change that. At the present moment a position exists which is rather anomalous in so far as it appears that although the provinces do have unrestricted powers in respect of the levying of provincial income tax, it is nevertheless calculated on 80 per cent. of the Union income tax. That means that the provinces are assessing a higher percentage than they would have, done if it had not been calculated on that basis. That is an anomaly and we propose to remove it. Full responsibility has been placed on the provinces and they will have to determine what they need.

That will be the position as it existed prior to 1942?

That will mean that in order to collect the same amount the provinces will have to accept a lower tariff. If they say that they are taking 20 per cent. on 80 per cent., and instead of calculating it on 80 per cent. they were to calculate it on 100 per cent. of the Union income tax, then it would not be 20 per cent. but only 16 per cent. in order to produce the same amount. Then there is another amendment in Section 8 (8), in connection with financial companies designed to bring the provincial taxation powers in this connection into line with the amendment of the definition of financial companies which took place since they received these powers in the first instance and also to restrict the provincial powers with regard to private companies the income of which is allotted to the shareholders and which is taxed as being in their possession. Then there is nothing new until we come to Section 28 in which a small amendment is proposed with a view to remedying administrative difficulties in the Cape Province. Sections 29 to 33 are all consequential upon the proposed removal of the allocated sources of taxation at present at the disposal of the provinces. There is one other new provision in the Bill, namely, at the end of the second schedule, the new item 10. The second schedule comprises matters in respect of which provincial legislation may be passed in terms of a proclemation by the Governor-General. The Natal Provincial Council last year passed an ordinance in connection with water schemes for local authorities. The opinion was expressed at the time that they did not have the power to do that. It is purely a local matter. It is desirable to take action in that direction and it is a matter which has often been raised in this House. It is desirable that the province should be able to take action in connection with a case of this nature where it means that a common water scheme will be provided for the benefit for a few small municipalities, each of whom is not in a position to undertake such a scheme on its own. In order to empower the provincial council definitely to be able to do that type of work, it is proposed to introduce this change. Those are the only new provisions in this Bill. Important changes, as I have mentioned, are proposed with regard to the subsidy. There are also small amendments relative to the taxation powers of the provinces. But on the whole, this is consolidating legislation. As far as the new system of subsidy is concerned, I have already dealt with that in my Budget speech. It has been accepted by the provinces, and I think that, having regard to all the circumstances, although it will cost us rather more, it will result in a considerable improvement in the relations between ourselves and the provinces and also as far as the carrying out of their functions by the provincial councils is concerned.

This is a most important piece of legislation. This Bill defines the services to be entrusted to the provinces and how money for those services will be found. The services include education and health.

No amendment is made in the constitution.

These are the two most important services which must be carried out in the country, and this House would like to conduct a very thorough discussion on the matter. For that reason I am sorry that the Minister has so suddenly decided to give this Bill priority on the agenda.

No.

In any case it fell under Income Tax and other important legislation, but suddenly the Minister has placed it high up on the Order Paper.

If you are prepared to proceed with other business, then I can move the adjournment until tomorrow.

Good, then with the Minister’s consent, I will move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 1st June.

I think that it was proved yesterday over and over again that the Minister has introduced a piece of legislation in the House which does not embody any plan. I will not go into that aspect of the matter again, although one feels that the country has every right to expect that the Minister should have introduced in the House, during this sitting, a well thought out Bill and should at least have tried to fulfil some of the promises which he has made from time to time in connection with housing. The Minister has failed to do this. He paid no heed when he was warned time and time again that a serious position existed in the country as regards housing. But all of a sudden, in the last few days of the sitting, the Minister has introduced an emergency measure. I think that it was one of the greatest disappointments to the nation to learn at this stage that yet another emergency measure was to be applied. If there is one thing to which the nation has looked forward and for which everybody in the country has yearned, it is the repeal of the emergency measures and an endeavour to return to normal times as soon as possible. To me it is clear that by accepting this legislation and granting these powers to the Minister, we are doing nothing else but assuring the country that for a further three years we will still be governed by emergency measures. What does this entail? It means that private initiative, that people on the platteland who have waited all these years for a building permit, will be told that they will have to wait at least another year or two before they can obtain a permit. We receive all these complaints from our constituencies. Even yesterday afternoon I found complaints about the controllers in my post box. And now the Minister comes along, and with these powers which he asks for, he gives us the assurance that for another three years he will retain a controller in connection with building. For another three years we will have to live under a controller. If the Minister had done his duty towards the country, if he had endeavoured to fulfil his promises, it would not have been necessary for him, proverbially speaking, to run away from himself. I do not say that the Minister is running away from himself, but he is running away from the cracking framework of the Party to which he belongs. He has been forced to do something. What are the motives? Is there an election in the offing? Is the Minister afraid that if there is an election one of these days, he will not be able to go to the country because houses have not been built?

He cannot go with this Bill.

Possibly he wants to hold this up as a framework. But how far does it really go? Is this what has been promised to the people? Not at all. The soldiers are returning and there has not yet been any provision made for them. Now they are beginning to get panicky and the public will have to suffer as a result. There are thousands and thousands of outstanding applications from people who are waiting to build and who cannot obtain a permit. The Minister will now come and say that he is going to build and that he is seizing all available material. Old outstanding cases which must of necessity be built, will have to wait and remain in abeyance. I accept what the Minister says that certain municipalities have not done their duty, but I also know of a municipality which applied for permits for 29 houses and only eight were granted. Those who were prepared to build were hampered because they could not obtain the necessary permits. The controller would not issue them with permits. We must take all these things into account. I as such am completely in favour of a big national housing scheme. It is one of the necessary things. But if the Minister had worked out his plan and introduced it in time, then he could have made provision in the normal way and it would not have been necessary at this stage to force yet another emergency measure on to the country. If the Minister were to go into the country, he would find, as we have found, that the public are tired of emergency measures and control. They expect an end to come to these things, that they will be repealed and that business and proceedings will take their normal course. Because this is so, and the Minister has come along and taken these powers, he must also realise fully that without these powers he could have said that he was not empowered to do this or that, but now where he is taking these far-reaching powers, he will also have to accept full responsibility. Tomorrow or the day after he will not be able to advance the excuse that he did not possess the powers to do this or that. Now the country will expect it of him that houses are built. I would like the Minister to give me a little more information. He is now getting the powers. Plans will be made to build. Does he intend to apply them chiefly only to urban areas? Is he going to extend them to the platteland? Is he going to extend them even to the farms on the platteland? Does he intend to extend them to the native population? Is he going to make provision on the platteland in order to enable the farmers to make use of them? I want to know what the policy of the Minister is going to be and how far he wants to apply this scheme. It is a national scheme, and when one refers to a national scheme, it is understood to be a scheme not only applying to certain districts or areas, but to be of general application. In his opinion what is it going to cost the country if this scheme is extended on such a scale?

The hon. Minister has, to use his own words, asked Parliament in this Bill for a “blank cheque”. The general impression I have gained from certain members and from Press reports is that members of Parliament welcome this emergency Bill. I wonder if that is true. On reflection I think it can be said members welcome the fact that something, at last, is to be done on the housing problem. But none of us, I am sure, welcomes the fact that it has to be done by way of delegating to the Minister in such a sweeping way our sovereign legislative rights. Very unwillingly we do it because we are faced here with rather desparate circumstances. But surely there are none amongst us so-called democrats here who would not have prof erred, had the exigencies of the occasion allowed, to have the whole matter dealt with in the proper Parliamentary way. Of course it is constitutional to do what we are doing. Parliament can delegate away its law-making powers. We can give the Minister power to do these things, but I do hope he realises, and that the Government realises that we do so with great reluctance, driven on by the urgent necessity that forces us. I do not think any of us want to be members of a body that passes laws in general principle and leaves the executive to fill in the legislative details. I hope all of us are resolved, here and now, to see this is not made a precedent. I hope we shall not be faced again (a) with such an emergency that has arisen; and (b) such a method of dealing with that emergency. We are conferring upon the Minister what are practically dictatorial powers. I think it remains the duty of us as Parliamentarians to see that in this Act there are sufficient safeguards against the possible abuse of those powers. Have we got in this Bill, which gives these powers, machinery to give the necessary Parliamentary safeguards? My conclusion is we have not. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) saw this danger and pointed it out to the House, and he made certain suggestions for a remedy. I gathered from what he said he would like the Minister ….

[Inaudible.]

I will accept the fact as the member says that they were tentative, but they were nevertheless suggestions, and if I can I shall outline the reasons now why even though they were tentative they should be discarded. He suggested setting up a recess sessional committee to scrutinise regulations and to act as a control over the Minister. They were tentative suggestions; he was vague, perhaps dangerously vague, as to how they would function. I take it he is aware of the fact that his suggestion was something which runs counter to our very democratic Constitution.

So is the Bill.

No, Sir! We are entitled at any time to delegate our powers. That is our constitutional right as you should know. What I am arguing is that we should introduce “safeguarding” machinery to see that our delegated powers are not abused. [Interruptions.] The hon. member for Fordsburg has suggested some sort of machinery, and I am endeavouring to prove his machinery is bad and unconstitutional. Does he not see such a committee should not and could not function during recess? Does he not realise that a Parliamentary committee functions under Parliament and under the Speaker of this House? Does he suggest this committee will ever have a right of veto over the Minister? He seemed to suggest this committee would act as some sort of control or brake on Ministerial regulation-making. He mentioned the very word “scrutinising”. I maintain that the thought of a Parliamentary committee acting out of the Session gives a dangerous impression both outside and inside the House. Such a committee could not as he seems to think be vested with any executive power. It could not have any power over the Minister, who is responsible to Parliament as a whole.

What about a Select Committee?

A Select Committee sits while the House is in Session. But this committee would sit while the House is not in Session. The Minister is responsible to this House which is the very basis of our democratic system. Even any scrutinising committee set up during the Session would merely have the power to call the attention of this House to anything in any regulation which the House should deal with; not to express an opinion but to act as scrutiniser for the convenience of this House. It could take no definite line on any of the regulations that might be passed. It seemed to me the hon. member was suggesting some new form of bureaucratic control and some new method of delegation. He was suggesting that we should delegate our powers to a “committee” which would not be directly responsible, constitutionally, to this House. For those reasons I think the establishment of a scrutinising recess committee would be impossible and should not be used. I hope I am not wronging the member in saying that these are ideas our impressions created by his speech, when he seemed to indicate that his committee would be one way of controlling the executive. I am here concerned with the necessity of controlling if possible, the legislative-making powers granted to the Minister in this Bill. I notice he has introduced in Clause 2 (4) and (5) machinery to control regulation-making. In Clause 2 (4) it states—

That, of course, is a reiteration of clauses in many previous Acts.

[Inaudible.]

I am trying to do something which the hon. member has failed to do; that is to deal with the delegation of powers concisely and in logical order. I am now dealing with safeguards the existence of which the hon. member for Fordsburg is apparently unconscious. Those regulations, sub-section (5) goes on to say, shall lapse if a resolution is passed “by either House of Parliament” disapproving of such regulations. It is one of the four ways which can be used, but it is not strong enough in this case. My suggestion to the Minister is this: that the essence of Parliamentary safeguard is that it should be easily invoked and automatic. Neither of these two essentials apply to the safeguarding clauses in the Bill. What chance have we got at Parliamentarians of bringing motions before this House in terms of these two clauses? The usual Parliamentary opportunities are totally inadequate. I do not propose to reiterate what I said before on a previous motion I moved before the House. I think it is quite definite we have not here got the necessary safeguards we need. Would the Government give us time to discuss these regulations on the floor of the House? I maintain in terms of this subsection we would find it very difficult to discuss any regulations. I think we could alter this paragraph in such a way as to force Parliament to consider these regulations. Would the Government agree to alter the clause to make it more positive; to decree that the regulations “shall lapse if not affirmed in a specified time”. In that case, if a regulation has to be affirmed, then it must become the subject of the business of this House and an opportunity must be given to us to debate it. I would like to have the Minister’s answer to this suggestion, that this clause should be altered in such a way as to cause any regulations to lapse if they are not confirmed in a specified time. I notice what is evidently a fault in the wording of sub-section (5). I am sure it is not the Government’s intention, but it says: “If a resolution is passed by ‘either’ House of Parliament disapproving of any such regulation ….” According to the wording of this clause it seems to me that even though this House might approve of a regulation, if in the Other Place, it was disapproved, then it could not become law.

The wording is quite right.

I think what is meant is “both” Houses. The Government surely means that the regulation must be approved by both Houses. This, I think is an error in wording; I think it is unintentional.

The position is if one limb of Parliament disapproves of a regulation that makes it lapse at once.

I had not presumed that was the intention of the Act. To the best of my knowledge all regulations are not usually subject to a clause like this. If that is so in this case I am very pleased. I was merely calling attention to what I thought was a mistake. The Government intends, it appears, that the Senate may veto something that this House approves.

The clause has been deliberately drafted in this way.

I shall now deal with the second part of the statement of the hon. member for Fordsburg. The Minister said the Bill was giving expression to his conviction that the housing problem constituted a national emergency, and the Government was prepared to accept full responsibility for attempting to solve the problem. I hope the public does not imagine that Government supporters have only just realised, now, that housing is a national emergency. Many of us have been saying that for over a year. We know, and have known for some time, it is a national emergency, and we are tackling it on that basis. We are prepared to give the Minister, reluctantly as Parliamentarians, arbitrary powers to deal with this situation. But I should like, if I may, to make a suggestion endorsing, strangely enough, in some respects the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fordsburg, that this extraordinary situation should be met by novel methods. I think, although we are entrusting the Minister with what he calls a “blank cheque”, it is a blank cheque that is drawn on our account. It is a blank cheque drawn on the United Party members of this House.

Are you afraid of it?

I am very glad to note the Opposition is going to help honour this cheque which then is endorsed by every single member of this House. I want to suggest, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has suggested, that, some extra unofficial Parliamentary assistance might be given to the Minister, in a purely advisory capacity in this period between Session and Session. I take it he will be given the necessary technical advice by his Housing Commission. He will have very important administrative decisions to make. The Cabinet, at the end of the war, will also have very important decisions to make, and they will be very busy with their own business and may not be able to help him as much as usual. I feel that as these extraordinary powers have been given, as we have been so reluctant to give them, and as all of us have a personal responsibility to see this “blank cheque” is honoured, we might claim some right to assist the Minister as far as we possibly can in the period between the Sessions. The Minister will at that time be deprived of the usual advice he gets during the Session from his Party, the help from his caucus, and the by-no-means-to-be-despised helping criticism from the Opposition benches. My suggestion is that in this time of emergency a team, or if I must use more conventional language, a committee, of all Parties if necessary, should sit permanently in Pretoria during the recess to assist and advise the Minister. I want to make it quite clear that he would be constitutionally under no obligation to take the advice of the committee. This committee would be unofficial and in no sense a “select” committee. It would not be a committee of this House, and the members would be unpaid. This committee might be chosen from members normally resident in the Transvaal and chosen from those who would find it convenient to attend regularly.

I have already appointed an advisory committee, and I am going to extend the offer to the Opposition as well.

I was unconscious of the fact that the Minister had decided that. Which brings me to another point that the Minister, although asking for very revolutionary powers, told us very little about what his plans are or what he has decided.

The Minister must have appointed the committee since his speech yesterday. [Interruptions.]

From the cross talk it would appear the Minister has agreed in principle to the suggestion I am throwing out now.

He will be glad to accept anything to get out of the trouble.

I think the Minister is quite right in this emergency to have asked for these powers. But I do wish that in asking for a “blank cheque” he had not presented us with a “blank plan”. I do not think he should ask us for practically dictatorial powers without telling us how he is going to use these powers. Perhaps my language, in talking of a “blank plan” is a little too strong and I will modify it by saying I am sure the Minister has plans, and by asking him to let us know these plans when he makes his reply to this House. I am sure that he visualised, perhaps in detail, the use he will make of the powers we are asked to confer upon him, but I think he has erred in not telling the House sooner, what his plans are. I am sure that before his commission came to him they said to him: “We cannot function efficiently; we cannot carry out the task of national housing unless we have emergency powers,” and they must have told the Minister what they would do if they possessed these powers. I am sure they knew and the Minister will tell us of it presently, that intense fact-finding, research and planning should have preceded this request for such powers. I presume they know, for example, what sort of houses are wanted; what prices people can afford, and what rents; how these houses should be divided between the different income groups and colour groups; how priorities shall be given; how many houses are unoccupied—and I hope they know about the six unoccupied houses belonging to Princess Labia; how many evacuees will move away; how many returned soldiers will need houses; what land is available for all this in town and country; what property is under the Custodian of Enemy Property and what will be done with it. I am sure the Minister and his commission,, before they told him they wanted powers, had all these details at their fingertips, and I am sure that the Minister will be in a position to tell us exactly what these details are. This whole House approves, perhaps somewhat unwillingly, of his desire and intention to expropriate land, for here, I think, a serious democratic principle is involved. We approve of his intention to cut through the red tape of control, of his intention to keep the price of materials down. We approve of his ideas for increasing the labour force and to provide employment for ex-soldiers of all colours. We approve of and appreciate the attitude of labour in co-operating as they have done, to train more artisans, to take on more apprentices and to cut down the period of training of apprentices. I hope agreement will be reached with the labour force employed to lay more than 400 bricks a day. That, I believe, is considered quite the average today, but 800 is quite within their reach, and if they do so it will double our output of houses. I am thankful to labour and to the Minister for deciding to let non Europeans build their own houses and for coming to the conclusion to dilute labour.

[Inaudible.]

But I do not like my speech being “diluted” by interjections by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). I notice that profits will be limited and we are thankful to the Government for giving guarantees of employment to the trade unions and to labour, because they are giving up many advantages for which they fought for many hard years. There is much in the intention of this Bill that all of us approve of. It is possible that the experiment and the experience we will gain by it, if successfully carried out, will have permanent beneficial results in showing just how capital and labour, private enterprise and State enterprise, can work together in harness for the good of this land in what I might call an immense partnership. There is nothing this country wants more, at the moment, than strong leadership. It wants, applied to the problems of winning the victories of peace, the same optimistic, confident and above all co-operative effort from the whole nation that was needed to win the war. We have the opportunity—but please, Mr. Minister, will you tell us what your plans are, so that we can all join in and put our shoulders to the wheel to help in solving this national problem of national housing?

It is just about a year ago that the Minister concerned made a speech in this House about housing. He made a long speech which is on record and to which I shall refer in a few moments. I just want to say this: If the Government on the other side possesses any self-respect, it should get rid of that Minister as soon as possible. Last year he came here and made a long speech which had been written out. It was all properly documented. He wanted to make the House believe what he was going to do and also what had been done already. He held out the prospect of a wonderful organisation, an organisation which he, with the assistance of his young friend, the Minister of Economic Development, was going to set up. I maintain that if any other government had been sitting on the other side, it would have got rid of this Minister, in view of the fact that he failed so completely to carry out his duties. No government with any self-esteem would carry on for a single moment with such a Minister, if he had made such a failure of housing as that Minister made of it. Last year, in consequence of a motion and as a result of a feeling which arose in the country, he read out a statement in this House. Yesterday he read out another statement and I maintain that those statements were written out for him. He has not yet made a study of the difficulties in regard to housing. He allows himself to be guided by his Department. Here in the House he went so far as to give a testimonial to Dr. Hamlin. He gave him a glowing testimonial and afterwards he repudiated him.

Dr. Hamlin repudiated the Minister first.

We can read in his speech what he said last year about Dr. Hamlin and within twelve months he repudiated him. That goes to show that we can have no confidence in the people appointed by the Minister. Is that the work of a man to whom we can entrust legislation of this nature which will give him such extensive powers that Parliament will no longer have any control in the matter? Last year the Minister told us how many houses would be built, but those houses have not been built. From the Minister’s speech I will show that although he came here today and stated that we had a state of emergency, last year he already knew what the position was in regard to housing. This Session he wants to make us believe here that we suddenly find ourselves in a state of emergency, whereas last year he and we already knew what the position was. The Minister then told us what he was going to do and I say that he failed hopelessly with his whole scheme. One of the Bills which he would have liked to pass here is the Bill on Instalment Sales of Land. That is one of the most important Bills, because its purpose is to enable people to obtain land in a cheaper way. We now find that that Bill has been pushed in the background. I maintain that it was a part of the whole scheme. The Minister quite possibly would have come with another Bill too. He suddenly finds that all his promises have vanished into thin air and he now wants to have this Bill because ostensibly a state of emergency exists. Let us read what the Minister said a year ago.

You want to make propaganda now.

It is the truth but it hurts the hon. members over there. They have failed in their duty. They held a congress at Bloemfontein during which they gave a charter to the people of South Africa. Houses would be built and provision would be made for social security, but they have produced nothing of the sort. Last year the Minister said the following—

The Minister will remember that at that time they appointed a committee which afterwards submitted a report. He also said—

That was just over a year ago. Then he went on to say in connection with the report—

There the Minister had the whole housing question before him. Last year a state of emergency already existed. He had 14 months in which to draw up a Bill and to consider the matter in its entirety, and he failed to do so. I ask the Minister where he gets the idea that now all of a sudden a state of emergency has arisen which entitles him to come here with such a Bill in which he asks the House to give him full powers? He announced that a wonderful committee had been appointed which would go into the whole housing problem. Last year during the second reading of the Housing Amendment Bill he said as follows—

He introduced that Bill, but never made use of it. As we noticed here he said that machinery would be created to provide in all our requirements. He said that the machinery which he had created would be sufficient in regard to the serious position in which the country found itself and also in regard to the future. In his speech he announced that he had appointed a committee. He also said that £7,931,000 had already been allotted to local authorities in regard to sub-economic housing and he said that the whole amount would run into £23,000,000. He maintained that the amount in regard to sub-economic housing had been increased continually in spite of the extent of pre-war obligations, until it reached the figure of £23,000,000. Then the Minister went on and gave us a whole series of figures of how much had been spent or allocated to various towns and cities. He gave amounts in regard to Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Germiston, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Springs and Bloemfontein. Hon. members on the other side will remember how they were beside themselves with joy over the speech of the Minister. They referred to what had already been done and they said that they had a Minister who was going to tackle the problem. But he did not do so. If the reason is that they overload the Minister with work, then it is the Minister’s duty to turn round and say that he cannot fulfil his obligations and that they should relieve him of his obligations. He cannot continue trying to carry those obligations if he is not capable of fulfilling them. He is trifling with the future of the country as far as housing is concerned and by this time he should already be convinced that he cannot fulfil his obligations. Furthermore he said in his speech—

He was going to tackle the housing problem and in his speech he announced that he had appointed Dr. Hamlin to the post of Director of Housing.

I also said how many houses had been built during the war period Read that out to the House.

The Minister said as follows—

That is what the Minister himself said. I know that hon. members on the other side become fidgety when they hear this because they want to defend a Minister who failed to do his duty. Furthermore he gave a description of how the schemes would be proceeded with. He said that an architect and other experts would be appointed. Thereafter he referred to the fact that the Government had obtained the services of Dr. Hamlin, the City Engineer of Johannesburg. To him the Minister referred as follows—

When we read this speech it really looks as if the Minister has bitten off more than he can chew. Now we have to come here and receive from him a Bill which is an emergency measure in which the Minister takes unto himself extraordinary powers under which he wants to do as he likes. We are a democratic country and the Minister always waxed so eloquent in regard thereto This Bill is the exact opposite of that. But I want to go further. The Minister also waxed eloquent about Dr. Hamlin. Dr. Hamlin was the deus ex machina of the Minister who had to put everything in order. He would effect all the miracles. What does that same Dr. Hamlin say now?—

The Minister held out the prospect of many thousands of houses which would be built and here we have what the previous Director of Housing has to say about it. He went on—

Where are you quoting from?

I am quoting from the report in “The Friend” of Bloemfontein of the 16th May. He is the person who received the very best testimonial from the Minister last year. He went on and said that there was still the question of land. If they wanted to carry out a housing scheme successfully, land would have to be available on cheaper terms and not only for State undertakings but also for the individual. In this Bill coming from the Government provision is also made for loans to individuals. It applies to the person, who was mentioned here yesterday by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), to the man who draws a salary of between £25 and £30 a month. Those people cannot obtain land in the immediate vicinity of the cities to build houses, for that land has been completely bought up by large companies, which then sell it by way of plots at a very high price. That was the reason why we on this side agreed in principle on the Bill in regard to sale of land on instalments. Dr. Hamlin went still further and said—

That is the position in which we find ourselves today. The other side of the House is quite satisfied with the Minister. But we and the country know that he failed in his duties towards the country and as the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) said, the same Minister now comes along and asks us to give him a blank cheque. In his speech the Minister said that he could not proceed with the legislation which he had in mind “because there were mechanical difficulties”. I do not understand what he means by that. Does it refer to the supply of materials or to the artisans? Quite possibly that is one of the difficulties he had. It is possible that we cannot provide the requirements because all the materials cannot be manufactured here. We should like to have more particulars from the Minister in regard thereto. We are now faced with this problem, that we have a Minister to whom we must grant these full powers. We all realise the necessity for the building of houses. Year after year the problem becomes bigger and bigger. There is, however, one thing which we ask ourselves particularly and that is whether we are not perhaps again going to build slum houses, as happened after the last war. At that time we built houses which very soon became slums. We should like to know from the Minister whether we are not again going to build houses, one row after another, all the same and all unaesthetic. We want to know whether there will be proper planning for the areas in which those houses will be built, and whether those houses will not be built in such a way that after ten or fifteen years they will be nothing but slums. If we are once more going to follow the procedure which was followed after the last war, then we will soon see rows upon rows of houses which ultimately are going to deteriorate so much that no decent people will want to live in them. Is the Minister simply going to proceed with the building of houses right and left, or is he going to confine himself to this wonderfully planned scheme which he mentioned in his speech last year. We should like to know very much. Then there is still another matter, namely the artisans who will be required for the building of these houses. Scores of people will have to be taken on in the building trade to build these houses. In this interview Dr. Hamlin stated that 75,000 building artisans will be required to build the houses. We have only 26,000 available. I want to hear from the Minister how he is going to make good that shortage. This is a matter about which this side of the House feels very concerned. The Minister says that 5,000 of them are in the army. That is all right, and we do not find fault with it. But we also should like to know whether the same facilities will be made available for the men and boys who are now in the country and who have not yet had any training, so that they may be included for training under the scheme in order to become registered artisans. That is the question which I should like to put to the Minister. 75,000 labourers, trained artisans, are required. According to Dr. Hamlin we only have 26,000 available. The Minister now tells us that there will be 5,000 returned soldiers. We demand that the same facilities for training will be given to others, who then will also be able to receive a proper training and to be absorbed in the building industry as artisans. That is what we have in view. Today there are large numbers of temporary lessees who have to leave their holdings, who in many cases with their families have to migrate to the towns, and many of them will have to obtain houses in the towns. There are a large number of them who will now have to come to the towns and their children will have to find some means of existence. If the Minister will tell us that they may quite possibly find work in the building industry, then we know that the sufferings of those people will not be so terrible, for today there are thousands who have to leave their houses where they have been living for years and years. Then there is another matter which I want to discuss and that is the question of the control of building materials. Is the Minister going to create a pool of all the building materials in the country and in how far is he going to allow the small building contractors to get their rightful share? Wherever one goes in the country one finds that the small building contractors have a serious grievance. During these war years they have done very little work. They cannot give the security in order to obtain large Government contracts and they find that they cannot make a proper living. The permit system is of such a nature that the large building contractors obtain all the permits. They are nearest to the fire and they get all the warmth. The small building contractors want to know in how far they will be given relief. This housing problem is not limited to the towns and villages; one also finds it in the rural areas. In how far will the rural areas receive consideration under the scheme? Will the farmers who require houses for themselves and for their labourers be able to obtain assistance under this scheme? Finally I want to come to the Bill itself. As far as this Bill is concerned I agree to a great extent with the hon. member for Wood-stock. The powers given to the Minister here are tremendously wide powers, and I wonder whether the local authorities will be satisfied with Clause 2 (1) (1) and (m) under which the following conditions will be prescribed to the local authorities—

1. (l) The provision of prescribed services by a local authority in any area in which dwellings have been constructed, and the charges to be made for such services.
2. (m) The powers (including the restriction of existing powers) of local authorities to impose rates or other charges (including differential rates or charges) in respect of land or dwellings owned by the commission or acquired from the commission or acquired or constructed out of monies advanced by an administrator or the commission.

Did the hon. Minister consult the municipalities or the executives of the municipalities of this country in regard to this question? I notice that in sub-paragraphs (k) (i) and (ii) provision is made for subsidies to individuals. How is that going to work? That is something we should like to know. Where will they have to apply for loans or subsidies. Then there is something which makes me somewhat suspicious, namely paragraph (o). That looks to me very much like billeting. Does the Minister want to have the power to billet people upon families? Does he want to have that power? The paragraph reads—

The hon. Minister has in the past already referred to billeting.

He threatened us with it.

When did I speak of billeting?

If the Minister did not speak about it, then the threat has been used by other Ministers. I think the Minister himself spoke about it. We on this side want to know whether he wants to obtain the power to billet people. I want to tell the Minister that if he should proceed to the billeting of strangers upon private families there will be a rebellion like there never was before. He will uproot our entire family life. Then I want to refer to Clause 2 (2) (b). There you get regulation after regulation. You notice there that the hon. Minister will have the power to make regulations and he can also delegate to certain bodies the power to make regulations. There will be two sets of regulations. How are we going to keep control by this House over such regulations which are made by other bodies? The other regulations will have to be laid on the Table of the House. Here, however, I read—

1. (b) Different regulations may be made under the said sub-section in respect of the commission and any housing board established under Section (4) or in respect of different housing boards so established, local authorities, companies or other bodies, areas or schemes, or in respect of different classes of local authorities, companies or other bodies, areas, schemes, dwellings, contracts, contractors, employers, artisans, learners, apprentices, employers, materials or equipment.

All the regulations must be tabled.

Even the regulations made by these bodies?

Where does the Bill say so? The Bill says that the Governor-General can make regulations in connection with the body.

In any case it is clear that we will not have regulations by the Minister only but that there will be other regulations too.

Made by the Governor-General and all of them have to be tabled.

I shall be glad if we can keep the control.

The House will have the control.

However that may be, it is not at all a sound state of affairs. Afterwards you will be so hemmed in by regulations that you will not know where to tum. I also agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Woodstock in regard to sub-section 5. Will the Minister give time to the House to criticise these regulations? As it stands here no provision is made as to how the regulations will be brought to the notice of the House for discussion. The regulations will be laid upon the Table, but how is the Minister going to make provision for the approval or disapproval thereof.

Any member who objects against the regulations can propose a motion to that effect.

And when does that motion come up for discussion? Most likely after the Session is over.

It can in any case be discussed under my vote.

First of all we are faced with the difficulty that we realise the urgent need for houses and then we are faced with the other difficulty that we have a Minister who asked for legislation to build houses last year; we gave him that; he knew how many houses had to be built and he did nothing. What assurance do we have that when we give him these powers he will make use of them and that the use will be efficient in so far that we will get the houses. Furthermore we are faced with the serious problem that the House has to delegate its powers to a Minister and one does not know in how far the Minister will make proper use of those powers. I did not expect that in this year 1945 we would still get a Bill of this kind in this House. As far as I know there has been no other country which has ever delegated such powers in normal times. What is the tendency in England today? Today the tendency in England is to revert to the normal conditions under which Parliament is supreme where Parliament has the final say. They repeal their emergency regulations, but we here are saddled with a Government which told us during the past six years that they were fighting against a dictatorship, but here they are creating a greater dictatorship than we have ever known. We are sorry to cede those rights but we want to have proper control and the Minister should as far as possible meet the objections raised by the hon. member for Woodstock and myself in regard to Clause 2 (5), by properly amending that clause and I hope that we shall soon have an opportunity to discuss the regulations promulgated by him.

As the hon. Minister proposes to take the question of housing into his hands, which is something we have frequently asked him to do, we naturally welcome his effort, but I must say at once that after I had perused the Bill and taken note of the powers the Minister is here asking, I am not prepared to give the same power to the Minister that we gave to the Government during the dark days of the war. It is unnecessary today to place such powers in the hands of the Minister. Insofar as the Minister will have the requisite authority to go ahead with his housing schemes I am prepared to accord him my support, but there are one or two things in this Bill which I do not like, and I trust that the Minister will permit us to alter those previsions so radically during the committee stage that it will at any rate give satisfaction in this House and in the country. If we allow the Bill to go through in its present form, without the revisions in Clause 2, then I fear the land will definitely have to pay for that and when I say this the Minister must not take it as a personal reflection upon him. That is not my intention, but powers are being asked for here that I am not prepared to agree to. I have made a thorough study of the Bill and I have searched in vain for a provision that allows the Minister to let private individuals build their own houses. I can find no such provision. But I find in Clause 2 that the commission will exercise control over material, and in consequence of the fact that they will have control over material no private individual will have the right to build his own house in his own time and in his own way. That is one of the foremost objections. I am not opposed to the control of the prices of material. There I think the House will unanimously support the Minister, but we do not want the position to recur in connection with the control of materials that it will be placed in the hands of people who give preference to certain favourites as has happened recently. Under this clause I can see absolutely no provision under which a private individual who wants to build a house can go along and ask for the building materials. He does not possess a house and he wants to build one, but he will not be able to obtain materials. I have searched the Bill for that opportunity but I cannot find it. What is the effect of it? The effect is that you will be confronted with this position; all houses will be built exclusively under the control of the commission and the local authorities. The great mass of the people will simply have to wait. They all will have to go through this one channel. If our experience was that every channel is utilised when a task is tackled and that it is expedited as much as possible we should perhaps have reason to say: We are prepared that you should put up these houses; go right ahead! But our experience is just the reverse. We find not only red tape, but also it is really the exception when you have capable people to speed up the work. I am not saying this to cast a reflection on anyone, but I am speaking from the bitter experience we have had in the past. I know in my heart that the right people will not be appointed. The Minister must not be offended when I state that. But I know that the Big Four or the Big Twenty will again play their rôle.

Who are they?

They are the people who want to do the work in order to foster their own interests. The Minister has asserted that this is not a repetition of cost-plus. I tell the Minister that it really is a repetition of cost-plus. True it will not be 10 per cent. this time. Here it will not 6 per cent., but it remains cost-plus, and the Big Four with their favourites will do just what they like. Those thousands of people who want to build their own houses in their own way and in their own time will be completely eliminated. I maintain that if the Minister leaves an opening for private individuals to build their own houses we shall find that when in two years time the Minister comes along to render an account of his stewardship and tell us how many houses have been built his success will be fourfold compared with his expectations, provided these people can only get the material. I do not want the Minister to close the door on the man who wants to build his own house. I know there are people who proceed from the standpoint that houses should be built only by building contractors with years of experience in the building trade. I say that on the Witwatersrand you today have houses that were built by big contractors and within twelve months those houses have become dilapidated. Hon. members who come from the Witwatersrand will support me in that. But the houses that my father and his brothers built 30 and 100 years ago are still standing today. They have not cracked or broken down. The cheapest and the best house is the house that was built to stand for all time.

Are you accusing the artisans of not being able to do their work.

I am not saying that, but we are too inclined to run away with the idea that when a house is built by workmen under the supervision of a big contractor it is necessarily a good house. I can show you houses on the Witwatersrand that have not been standing twelve months and they are full of cracks. There are hundreds of people who have never built a house who can build as good a house as any man. I do not want to suggest these people should go out to build houses for other people, but allow them to build their own homes. As I have said before, the commission will have control of building materials. We know that the private individual who wants to build for himself will be bullied and bilked. He will not know the ropes or how to set about getting a permit. He will be fobbed off, and because I am convinced in my heart that the private individual who wants to build for himself will be sidetracked I am taking up the cudgels on his behalf. Give me a house that has been built by a man in his own time and in his own way, and I can assure you that house will stand for a long time. Now I want to know whether the Minister is going to allow that. It is clear to me from this Bill that the private individual will not have the right to do this simply because he will not be able to obtain materials. What is going to happen now? Your Big Four type of contractors will get all the business as they got all the business during the war, and they will be only out to help their friends. The small man will have a raw deal. I want to tell the Minister that if he will see to it that private individuals are given permits and are permitted to erect their own houses he will have solved his problem within two years. As the Bill now reads the small man has no hope against the big and powerful contractor. He will not be able to obtain material or he will have to wait until they have skimmed off the cream and then perhaps he will get a little. I want to know why the private individual should be eliminated. Why cannot the Minister say that the quickest way to stimulate housing in this country is to ensure that the available material is distributed as quickly as possible? It is stacked up to the ceiling. I proposed that course two years ago. The materials are being accumulated. Do you know for whose benefit that is? I do not charge the Minister in that connection, but it is for the benefit of those in authority who are behind him. Do you know who is going to get that material? The Big Four again; the people who got the Fortification contracts and they will build in that way.

Who are the Big Four?

It is those with the moneybags who will see that they get material. The small man will not smell that material. Will the Minister in his reply say that every individual, whether he falls under a big municipality or not, will have the legal right to be taken into immediate consideration and that he will not have to wait until the Big Four have skimmed off all the cream? Much more is bound up in this Bill than one realises at first blush; and I think as far as concerns the workers of South Africa we have had just about enough of the control of manpower and we are not prepared to grant that authority again. The man who thinks the workers are prepared to allow themselves to be bound down for another three years under such jurisdiction as that exercised by the Controller of Manpower is entirely out of touch with the feelings of the workers. Let me tell them that the South African workers, the South African Trades and Labour Council has unanimously disapproved of the control of manpower. Does the Minister imagine that we are prepared to extend that power again? I oppose that to the utmost because I believe that the Minister can carry out his plan without resorting to controls. Have we not had six years of war? Now I should like to put a personal question to the Minister. What right have we now got, notwithstanding the so-called emergency that exists, to lay down that a part of the workers of South Africa must remain under control, that the building industry workers should remain under control? Although the employer is referred to in the Bill in practice it is the employer. I may say, suppose I am going to build a house for myself; I get a few tradesmen to help me, and then the controller comes along and says these men may not work for me, that they have to work at a large place. If there is one thing we cannot tolerate it is a continuance of the control of manpower. The Minister can proceed with his scheme without that tyrannical power. I can give the Minister the assurance that if there is one thing that is unpopular in South Africa it is the control of manpower. Is this right? Is this a free country? Every other section of the community is free and can do what they please. The mineworker can do as he likes, he can work in whatever mine he wishes to. Any other tradesman can go where he fancies. The tailor can work where he desires. But the building worker, the carpenter and the mason, is not allowed this liberty. He still falls under control. And have we not had a great deal of experience of the unsympathetic enforcement of control? Have we not experienced that a good deal? I say that during a period of war we were prepared to sacrifice everything, but now the war is over we are not prepared to concede anything of that sort. And what strengthens me in saying this is the fact that I am convinced the Minister can carry out his plan without exercising control over manpower. Take, moreover, the question of wages. I think here the Minister is going too far. I had thought the matter of wages was something decided by the Wage Board, by industrial agreements, but here the Minister is also taking the question of wages under his control; it appears to me to be overlapping with another department. What is it we have here? We have this position, that all the schemes will be carried out by contractors. Then we say to all the workers in the building industry: Look I am compelling you to work for the Big Four or their friends on the basis of 6 per cent. The 6 per cent. is guaranteed by the Big Four. In other words you are obliging a man—it is well-nigh tantamount to conscription—to Work for a contractor, for a firm, who will make 6 per cent. out of him. This House has only the right to force a man to work for an employer when no profit is attached to it. But no free citizen may be compelled by Parliament to work for a company when there is profit attached to it. I say I am not prepared to allow this to go through. During the Committee Stage I shall urge the Minister to make an alteration. This Parliament has no right to do this sort of thing. Parliament could only take such a course if there was no profit involved in it, but to say now that you are going to take a free citizen and to compel him to work on a basis of 6 per cent. profit—where will it land us? Members on the other side have said they will give the Minister the power. Well, not with my acquisence. I shall definitely not do so. We had to put up with that tyrannical attitude during the war, but we cannot permit it any longer.

How are you going to vote if the Minister does not comply with your request?

You will notice that under paragraph (vii) of (s) the power will be exercised because there we empower—

I have mentioned that power is taken to prevent private individuals obtaining material to build houses. In sub-paragraph (i) of (t) it is stated—

and then under (ii) it is stated—

Do you see here how clearly it is emphasised that the material which has accumulated today will not be obtainable by the public, or people who want to build houses, but by the Big Four and their friends. Well, I had thought that the country had suffered enough by the war. They must have made enough out of cost-plus during the war to be satisfied. Why should we go further and say that the people should be bled white in order to give them their 6 per cent. We cannot concede that.

How are you going to vote if your demand is not acceded to?

That is of course his own business.

There is another matter on which I trust the Minister will furnish the House with a reply, and it is something everyone is anxious to know—what is going to be the price of the houses? He will tell us that he does not know what the land will cost ? How can the Minister speak about expropriation if he does not even know what the land will cost? He says three things are necessary—land, material and labour. He knows exactly what the labour will cost. He ought to know what the price of materials is today. He ought to know at what price he will be able to purchase land. How is it he is not in a position to state the price at which the houses will be available to the public? This is one of the most important things. Do not tell me that after the war our soldiers and the members of the public will want to be provided with houses costing £1,500 and £1,600 and £2,000. Persons with a salary of £25 or £30 a month cannot pay that. If houses of that sort are envisaged the scheme will prove abortive. If we are going to build houses costing a penny more than £800 or £900 we shall be building houses altogether too expensive for a person in receipt of an income of £20 or £30 a month. He will not be able to afford it. We know that. The big four have representatives everywhere, and they are endeavouring to instil it into the minds of the public that you cannot build a house at a lower figure. That is not correct. During the war houses were built by the Department of Lands that I would be satisfied with, and would live in, for less than £400; but the Big Four and their friends and the municipalities tell you that you cannot provide a house under £2,000, and then they want us to accept that. That accounts for the contractors racing round in order to skim off all the cream within three years so that during this period a great number of houses can be disposed of by them at £1,500 to £2,000. The Government and the nation will then be saddled with these expensive houses in the future. This matter of the price of houses we cannot just let slide. The second reading must not be taken before we know something more about the matter.

A little while ago, I do not know how many of the members were present, the Minister of Public Works recommended the so-called “austerity house” to the people of Johannesburg. The Minister said on that occasion: This is the sort of house we are going to build in view of the circumstances. Look, what a miracle that such a house can be built for £1,500. Let me say that house was not worth half as much as the houses built by the Department of Lands for £400. On the same day at least half a dozen contractors who were there said: We wish that the Minister would tell us how many thousand of these houses he requires at £1,500; we shall build them. But they were valued by the public at £400. I ask the Minister to stand up as the guardian of the people, because we are confronted with attempts to squeeze the people dry now that the opportunity is there. All sorts of wires are being pulled to exploit the great shortage of houses and by a lot of wangling make the public pay dearly for the houses. Because we know that most people are willing to pay for a house more than they know it is worth, just in order to have a home. I make this suggestion. Let the Minister say at once that the cost of all material will be fixed at pre-war prices plus the enhanced cost that according to the Government represents the increase in prices during the war. Not a penny more. Then it will be equitable. Then we shall find out the fellows who have told us the livelong day to what an extent the costs of living have increased. Then we shall see where they come in. I say that the price can be fixed for boards and screws and locks and ceilings and all these articles, and they should not cost a penny more than before the war plus the increase in price corresponding to what the Government has determined is the increase in living costs; nothing more. Then we may expect that we shall get houses at reasonable prices. But now we hear mention of houses costing £2,200 that before the war were £700 and £800. I ask where we will land ourselves if we say to the people: Here are your houses, but as soon as the people are in them we know that they will be plunged into poverty. Because if they have to pay on a basis of £1,500 and £2,000 for houses worth £700 and £800 we shall be conferring as great a disservice on the people as is possible. That is why I am suggesting this way out. The Minister says he requires these large powers. Let him then keep control on the material and fix the prices for the material, and let material be available for every individual so that no one will have preference. Then the Minister will find out that the municipalities will co-operate with him and he will be able to utilise his commission to the fullest extent. Not only will he receive the co-operation of the local authorities in the matter but he will find that all the individual forces now slumbering in the country will rally to him and the housing plan will progress much more rapidly than will be possible under this Bill. I know the Minister’s scheme will not have progressed far when the suggestion will be made that the scheme should again be modified, and what I am afraid of is this, that instead of concentrating the people’s energies in fostering the housing scheme a new complexion will be given to it. It will be said that we cannot put up 10,000 houses but that we should allow the importation of prefabricated houses. I know that is being mooted, and as soon as the Minister finds he is not making progress with his plan his so-called experts will tell him that he must import houses to satisfy the people. I want to protest in advance against any attempt of this kind because I know the tremendous agitation that is in progress in the House to import the so-called prefabricated houses from other countries and to put them up here. We do not want this sort of thing. We want houses that are constructed of bricks and stone obtained in our country, because such houses will prove much cheaper in the long run. Do not import these so-called temporary houses, because they will cost us a lot in the end. The best house is the house that may cost a little more now, but that is built of good material. Do not let us import houses on a big scale in order to get rid of this scheme and to escape from it as soon as possible. I only want to tell the Minister that I am not going to vote for his Bill at the second reading. Those are my reasons. And in Committee I shall ask him to introduce the necessary amendments, and I hope the Minister will realise that what I have stated here today is not directed against him personally. I know he is in earnest because he, just like myself and other members, have already talked and talked, but he has not made any headway. I want to tell him this that I am not going to stand in his road if he wants to do anything, but I should make myself guilty of gross disloyalty if I should give my vote for this Bill knowing that paragraph (ii) as it now stands is in direct conflict with the interests of the workers and the freedom of the workers. Therefore in Committee I shall urge that the position should be so improved that the Minister should at least have the goodwill and co-operation and support of the workers in connection with his plans.

I am one of those who wishes to support the efforts being made by the Minister of Demobilisation to translate into being the promises that have been held out to the returned soldiers that they would have a roof over their heads soon after their return from active service. The Bill itself is a very far-reaching one but I have a good deal of misgiving as to the final end and termination of this matter, because I fear very much that the spirit of the blank cheque may infect those who are to be the Minister’s humble instruments in carrying out his policy. Public servants are all too prone to take a view of this kind, and to run loose to a considerable extent in regard to matters of expenditure often becoming regardless of a reasonable and right-minded policy in carrying out a big-minded enterprise. I do not know of any enterprise carried out by public servants that has not cost four times more that it should have done, and I think they are a very expensive luxury when you come to rely on them for building or construction work. The point I have misgiving about is the extremely far-reaching power that is taken under this Bill. Not only have we almost reached a totalitarian stage, but even in regard to the ending of these powers indicated by the limitation of 3 years—at the end of three years the widest powers are to cease—the bodies that will have been put into being by these powers have an almost unlimited lease of life. Like John Brown’s soul they will “go marching on” when his body lies mouldering in the grave. That will be the case with the powers the Minister will be provided with by the passing of this Bill. The spirit of the blank cheque may have its good purposes, but from one’s experience of bad times, as well as good times, one comes rather to fear the blank cheque spirit. I have heard many a distressed soul express thankfulness and exclaim: “Thank God for the good bank manager—that is the bank manager who honours cheques on an overdraft”. And in regard to this matter it seems to me we shall be treading a very dangerous path if we give such unlimited power to people we know very little about. The Minister we know, and we honour the enterprise and vigour with which he takes up matters he has to introduce into the House; and I must say he portrays his enterprises in very captivating terms he usually gets his own way in this House. I want to be sure in such an enormous matter as this that he is going to find the sound and careful men to carry out the policy to which he has set his hand. One thing I am extremely doubtful about, and that is the clause which deals with the construction of companies which are to have power over—

This prescribed class of company “or other body” is the sort of body I am most suspicious of do not like these companies or other bodies that are constructed to do certain things for a Ministerial department. They are new features in the picture. We can understand Government control. We can understand the Government building of houses, but why should a company be promoted to deal with the salé of the dwellings? There is always, to most of us, a suspicion of some kind of graft going on in connection with these companies that spring up through provisions of this kind, and I hope that the Minister will, before we get to the Committee stage of this Bill, decide upon a really extensive cutting down of the dangerous powers set forth in the Bill at present. There are many powers which the ordinary prudent and careful mind rejects at sight, but I do feel that the Bill is very cleverly designed to give almost painless totalitarianism. Where in the past we have been inclined to take fright at Government by regulation, it is now called by a different name, “a prescribed company” or “prescribed class of company”. That, in other words, means a company that is constructed by regulation, and we are going to have, before we know where we are, to authorise expenditure for a tremendous number of things which we shall be taken to have approved of under this fascinating word “prescribed” which we did not intend. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister should go very carefully over this Bill again. Most of us are tremendously uneasy about the prospects of the returned soldier finding when he comes back that no provision has been made for his future residence in his own home. I hope, sir, at the same time, the Minister will not take excessively extensive powers that will merely encourage the avaricious and dishonest to pester him, to be a constant source of annoyance to him, arid so impede the real legitimate work that should be got on with. This Bill, to my mind, presents too many temptations to the avaricious and the enterprising who are always hanging around the skirts of any great enterprise to see what rake-off they can get. We have to profit by the past and we have to be prepared for that kind of thing, and to see we hold out no great opportunities to them to make hay while the sun shines. I hope the Minister will, on second thoughts, before we reach the Committee stage, cut out a great deal that is in this Bill, that will not be really necessary for him in embarking on a bold scheme which is aimed solely, with one single purpose, at the housing of the men who come back, and at the erection of dwellings in the best and most satisfactory manner possible.

I do not think it is necessary, nor are we called upon at this stage, to offer any further criticism against the almost unlimited powers which the Minister asks this House to bestow upon him. I think the country is more concerned about an urgent need that exists than the granting of powers that may or may not be excessive. I would only ask the Minister to bear one factor in mind. We know under leases which exist today there is usually a clause prohibiting the lessee from sub-letting. I do not see that is specifically provided for, but I take it the general provision which gives the Minister power to determine the conditions of land tenure will, in the present Bill, enable him to make provision in the regulations to be promulgated to declare any prohibition against sub-letting void. We know of several instances where people living in Pretoria have come to Cape Town for several months during the year, and they cannot allow their houses to be sub-let for fear of cancellation of their lease. This is a matter that has been taken up with the Minister’s department, but I feel the opportunity afforded by this Bill should be seized upon to obviate an anomaly, which certainly allows many houses and flats to remain vacant during several months of the year. There are just one or two points that were dealt with by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) that I shall touch on, before generalising on the Bill. I take it he voices the sentiments of the Party he represents, the Labour Party. I want to ask him from our side whether we are entitled to expect co-operation from Labour through their trade unions. I feel we are entitled to know their attitude. To what extent is labour going to assist us in keeping down the costs of houses. To what extent are they going to take pride in craftsmanship in working on the buildings on which they may be engaged? We know that several bricklayers content themselves with laying 200 bricks a day and regard that as a day’s work, and we also know that a good bricklayer can lay 800 or 1,000 bricks. Speaking to an old contractor the other day about conditions in the past—15 years ago—when there were not so many machine tools—he said that a carpenter could hang 8 doors a day doing all the work by hand, whereas now with improved building devices and machinery he is satisfied to hang two doors only. If we are going to have an outburst from labour criticising us so severely, we must ask them to what extent they are going to co-operate and assist. During the discussion of the Minister’s vote in Committee of Supply I raised the question of costs. I am sorry that the Minister’s reaction was not as full as one expected. If I remember correctly all the Minister said was that he would draw the attention of his department to the figures mentioned by me. The question of costs is of such paramount importance that I make no apology for reiterating it here this afternoon. If these houses are going to be put up at an exorbitant cost the scheme is bound to fail. The houses will have to be paid for over a period of many years and the terms will be easy, we hope. I believe that in a few years we will have returned to normal and prices will recede to pre-war levels. If therefore we give the ordinary man a house costing £2,000 and expect him to pay it off during a time when a similar house would cost only half, we will destroy his pride of ownership. That house will not be looked after properly and we will have a repetition of the failures we had in the past when so many municipalities refused to avail themselves of housing loans because they said that these people did not take sufficient interest in their homes and allowed them to go to wrack and ruin. I feel therefore that I can at this stage again mention the figures for which experience has taught us in Ermelo that houses can be built. We have a non-European house of three rooms which can be put up with non European labour for £113. That is the overall cost. I have listened to speakers this afternoon and not in a single instance have figures been mentioned which approximate that figure. All the figures mentioned were 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. higher. I feel that if it can be done at Eremlo it can be done elsewhere. The materials used were good. The workmanship though not of the highest order is good and it will ensure that the house is permanent and lasting. In the case of Europeans we put up a five-roomed house with two sanitary conveniences outside at a cost of £460. If you add the cost of the land and the Union rates that you may have to pay in the bigger centres it will bring it up to £600 or £800, and that is still a reasonable figure. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of cost. Unless you can give a man a house at a reasonable cost the scheme is bound to fail; it is doomed to failure. Much was said about the shortage of skilled artisans. This Bill will make a change in the situation. There will be a dilution of the restriction requiring only skilled artisans to be employed. I make bold to say that some semi-skilled artisans put up a utility house which will stand the test of time. It was mentioned this afternoon that our forbears built houses of mud and these houses have stod for 200 years. With semi-skilled labour we can put up a house, quite a decent one, which will stand the test of time, but we must nevertheless insist upon a certain standard. We know that during the building boom on the Rand jerry-built houses were put up at fairly high cost and even before they were completed they were showing signs of cracks and many of them are dilapidated structures today. I might mention another experiment which is worthy of trial. One of the collieries in Ermelo has gone in for a scheme of prefabricated houses. They use what is called vermiculite, a composition of low-grade mica which is processed by mixing it with a certain quantity of cement, and when this vermiculite is cast into a form three inches thick you have the same strength and stability that a nine-inch brick and mortar wall would give. Its added advantage is that it is fireproof, damp-proof, soundproof, and, above all, verminproof. As we are having so much trouble in the coastal belts with pests like Italian beetle or the powder beetle attacking wood, this is a form of structure which I think should commend itself. We know that a tremendous amount of damage was done in the coastal areas by these beetle pests, and in this connection it may be worthwhile for the Minister to insist that when we import timber from overseas, that timber should be pre-treated in the country of supply, or otherwise, at the least, it should be treated here, because you might put £100 worth of timber into a house but if you have to replace that timber once the house is finished the cost of replacement will be out of all proportion to the original cost of the timber. We cannot overemphasise the importance of the pretreatment of timber. I think timber will prove to be the bottleneck of any housing programme. I have seen the figures and it will require at least 75 fully loaded cargo vessels per annum to supply us with the timber necessary for our Government and municipal housing schemes. I shall be glad to have the assurance from the Minister that provision has been made for the acquisition of the necessary timber because unless we have it we will not be able to carry out the housing schemes. In passing I feel that appreciation should be expressed to our Forestry Department for their efforts. They have in the years past had the foresight to lay down large areas under forests and if it were not for our locally supplied timber we would have been in a very parlous position during the war period. Now, coming back to the question of costs, in this Bill provision is made for basing costs on a cost-plus system. We have had very unfortunate experiences in the past in connection with military contracts. Very often the cost-plus system offers no inducement to economy at all. The more cost the greater the remuneration of the contractor, and I would like the Minister seriously to bear in mind the possibility of private enterprise contracting and building in competition with the cost-plus system. I do not wish the Minister to rely solely and entirely upon this cost-plus system. This system may have its advantages but it certainly has serious disadvantages. In conclusion I would again commend the Minister not only to direct the attention of his officials to it but to examine very closely the details I have given him about the Ermelo scheme, because cost is of paramount importance.

I have listened carefully to the debate and I do not think any mention has been made of the platteland. From all I could hear it was only the towns and cities that were spoken about. I would like to stress the point that I think the Minister should bear in mind that we have recruited many men from the platteland to go to the front. Those men today will be coming back and many of them would like to go back to the platteland but many will have no homes, because some of them after joining up got married and they will be coming back without any facilities for housing. In this legislation proposed everything goes to the cities and towns and I would like to stress the point to the Minister that the artisans whom we recruited from the platteland should also be considered. When the men come back and the work of building starts they will have to go to the cities. On the other hand we find that a good many natives have turned out to be builders. There are good builders amongst the Basutos. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is only going to make provision in this legislation for giving work to natives belonging to the Union or whether he will extend a helping hand to the natives from Basutoland and other territories. If he does that he will find that a good many Union natives will not get work under this legislation but that the Basutoland boys will get all the work. He speaks about regional committees. These regional committees, as far as I can understand, will only be applicable to the cities. I would appeal to the Minister to look to the platteland too and to see that there are regional committees there also. Then there is the following. I am now speaking about my own area. 1,000 men went to the front. These men look to us today for homes. If they find that the only facilities are to be given to the cities I say these men will have every reason to be disappointed with us. May I make a suggestion on these lines, that the Minister should, in his reply, tell us something about what he intends doing for the platteland. It will be much appreciated. If he says that they can borrow £250 to construct a house on the platteland he will be doing something for the returned soldiers from the platteland. But there is absolutely nothing in the Bill which grants the platteland any facilities.

There is nothing against it though.

If the Minister studies the Bill he will see that it always just refers to “local authorities”. I therefore think that we should have these regional committees in the platteland. He should also allow us to get a loan, or revert to the old system of giving £50 to a man to build a house. He will then be doing something for the returned soldiers. May I tell the Minister that there are men today most anxious to build houses on the platteland, not with material which must be got from somewhere else, but with local material. The only thing they want is doors and windows, but even these they cannot get at present, and I appeal to the Minister to see that these big firms and the control boards who have the right to control all building material will not exclude the small man, and that the platteland will get its fair share. I would also like to say this that I do not know whether the Minister has taken into account the number of people in this country at present from other countries but I do feel that if we are going to have these expensive houses some of them will go back and that the Minister will keep down their numbers. May I also say that the Lands Department have at Vaal-Hartz houses costing the Department £350 with boarded floors and ceilings, a dining room, three bedrooms, a kitchen, pantry, bathroom, and two mosquito-gauzed verandahs. These houses have stood the test for a good many years now and I hope the Minister will do something on similar lines. We ask for serviceable houses on the platteland. The other point is this. Certain young men will leave school and under this proposed legislation I do not see how they can become artisans in the cities. I do hope the Minister will not prevent these young men from becoming artisans and that provision will not be made for the towns people only. The last point is this: Some of these artisans may be qualified and may be good for the towns and the cities but I say we have men on the platteland who can build a very good house although they have no certificates. They have built good houses in the past. I hope the Minister will not bring forward legislation to say that they must first pass an examination before they can build a house. We in the small towns and on the farms should be granted facilities to build for ourselves. But the Minister must help us to get material. In the past it took people more than 18 months to get a permit for a door for a house. I hope this will not continue. If the Minister does not do this you will have a setback in the country which is uncalled for. The people on the platteland, who supply the food for the cities must be helped so that they can become producers. Lastly the Minister must give preference to those in the malarial areas. Unless certain facilities are given to them they will be in need of medical assistance. I appeal to the Minister seriously to consider this because these areas at present are being developed on a very large scale and unless they get special facilities it will be a setback as never before in this country.

I want to move that the debate be now adjourned.

No, we can still go on a little while.

All right, in that case I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister. I want to associate myself with the remarks made in regard to building workers. The Minister should not limit himself to artisans only. If he does so, the work will be impeded for a long time. There are boys who are capable, but who have not been able to join the trade unions, although they can do the work. Furthermore, I also do not want him to curb the initiative of private individuals. Let everybody who wants to build a house have the opportunity to do so. The Minister will remember that there was any number of farmers who wanted to build houses during the war, but the size of the houses was limited so much that most of them could not build. The floor space allowed was too small and the farmers did not build because in many cases they thought that if they had to build a house of that type, they would afterwards have to build on again or have to enlarge the house, which would mean additional expenditure. Since the Minister asks for all these powers, I hope that he will give a definite reply on this point and that he will tell us whether the farmers will have the opportunity to build. In some cases they have been waiting for three or four years for the reason which I have already explained and they would now like to have the opportunity to build. This is a very important point as far as we are concerned and I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically and that he will be accommodating so that those people can obtain the necessary materials. I know of scores of cases where the people could not build because under the emergency regulations the scheme was such that it would have been quite impossible for those people to build. It would simply have meant a double expenditure in the end. I hope that the Minister will give an explanation on that point.

I shall be brief. To begin with I feel that this Bill is the most important matter introduced this session and it cannot be denied that it has been overdelayed. But the criticisms that have been levelled at the Controller of Building Material have to a great extent been justified. I feel that the handling of permits has been ineffective, slow and unjust. What I suggest should be done right away is to lift the ban, to lift all control on buildings of 2,000 to 2,500 square feet and to make the material required for houses of that size available to everyone, so that the private individual will be able to put up his own house. The few points I wish to raise are mostly in connection with the returned soldiers. Up to the end of hostilities winning the war was priority number one. Now demobilisation comes next and I feel that housing the soldiers should be priority number one. Then there are our prisoners of war and returned soldiers who have been away for four or five years who could not look after their own affairs like some of us who did war work but did not go away. They must have preference in every way. I feel that the Government should take immediate steps to procure as much timber from Europe and as many fittings for houses as they can, to have them available when shipping space is procurable. I also feel that the Minister should at the committee stage introduce an amendment to empower him, to subsidise houses for soldiers and prisoners of war, apart from the grants and loans they will get from the Demobilisation Department, because I am afraid that the cost of these houses, on account of high wages and inreased prices of materials, will make it impossible for them to pay for the houses. It is said that there is a shortage of labour and artisans. When the war broke out we were short of munition workers and other war workers, but womén were co-opted and they made a very good job. I do not say you have to co-opt women workers in the building trade, but in many walks of life there are people who would be only too keen to assist in building houses In conclusion I want to say that the country will not be satisfied with anything less than very prompt and speedy action. The Minister asks for a blank cheque. We gladly give it but we expect him to make proper use of it. The provision of houses will be the acid test for the Minister and his department and for the Government.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 1st June.