Although the Minister has been considering this question for years, and although the Corbett Committee has enquired into it for years, I cannot congratulate the Minister on the results. There is nothing original in the solution offered by the Minister, and in my opinion this Bill undoubtedly does not offer a permanent solútion of the financial difficulties between the Union Government and the provinces. My impression is that the Minister has earnestly sought for something better. He has searched and searched, but apparently his ingenuity finally deserted him and he fell back on something with which the Union commenced, something we had already tried out and which had failed. It had failed because this system of subsidisation could not be applied to the financial difficulties that existed in the difficult postwar years after World War No. 1. Now we are faced with the same post-war problems, after World War No. 2, and I believe just as this system failed after World War No. 1 it will also fail on this occasion. We are sorry not only because the Minister’s scheme will come to grief but because there is a big danger of education suffering in the way it suffered in the years 1920 to 1924, when the Nationalist Party Government had to find a proper solution for the difficulties. The Minister’s Bill falls in a natural manner into three main sections. It is a consolidating Bill. In the first place we have a clear description of the functions of the provincial councils, of the services that the provincial councils are responsible for, and the legislative powers they have in connection with them. The Minister has stated that this Bill proposes only one alteration in the existing powers, and that in connection with the construction and control of water schemes. The Minister has forgotten to tell the House that he has entrusted a second service to the provincial councils, and one about which I shall have something to say later, namely, school feeding. Previously it was a joint service. We laid down the policy and exercised supervision over it. It appears to me that the Minister became a little afraid of the baby for which he was responsible, and he is now attempting to place it on the doorstep of the provincial councils. But we shall talk about that later. The first part of the Bill describes the services the provincial councils are entrusted with and the legislative powers they have in connection with them. The second part grants certain sources of revenue to the provinces to place them in a position partially to finance those services. The Minister has stated that there have been no noteworthy alterations except in two respects. In the first place the provincial councils now have the right to impose a hospital fee in the form of a poll tax on the natives to a maximum amount of 2s. 6d.; and the other at which the Minister has already jibbed, namely the right of the provinces, if they so wish, to impose a tax on advertisements. In connection with that the Minister has stated he is not certain whether the thing is right and he would like to consult further with the provinces about it. There is therefore only one thing remaining over, and that is the poll tax on the natives, with a maximum of 2s. 6d. Representations have been made to us that 2s. 6d. is inadequate and the Minister should consider whether it is not possible to increase the amount from 2s. 6d. to 5s. It is impossible to provide adequate hospitalisation for the natives at 2s. 6d. a head. I want the Minister to realise that as far as the Cape Province is concerned he will have exceptional difficulties. Our natives go to the Transvaal to work; there they contract certain diseases and when they return to the Cape we have to provide them with medical services and hospitalisation. The Cape Province especially feels that 2s. 6d. a head is inadequate and we should like to know whether the Minister will take into consideration increasing the amount to 5s. should that be necessary in the future. The Minister does not want to come to the House every year to make an alteration, and consequently he should make this provision more elastic. Now we come to the third section, and that is the important one. Here it is admitted that the provinces’ sources of income are not adequate for the services for which they are responsible, and the Government now proposes that the Treasury should assist the provinces with funds. It is here the Minister has made the biggest change. In the Act of 1913 it was provided that the Union Government should contribute 50 per cent. to the expenditure of the provinces. That basis of subsidisation answered its purpose in normal periods, but in the post-war years it no longer answered its purpose. It failed. Then the Nationalist Party came and laid down a new basis; for the sake of convenience I shall describe it as the Havenga basis. It was that we should entrust certain services, to the provinces, certain very important services such as education and certain health services such as hospitals. Under the Burton system education especially suffered, and the Nationalist Party then resolved whatever happened it would introduce a system of subsidisation that would put the provinces in a position at any rate to finance and look after education in a proper way. Consequently the Havenga system of subsidisation on a per capita basis of school-going children was brought into operation. That system worked for twenty years. It was elastic. It is true that the Union Government was obliged to introduce a new form of subsidies in respect of new educational services. But for twenty years the system worked, and it appears to me the Minister should rather have improved on that system. Now the Minister comes with a brand new system. What does he propose? He lays down in this Bill that there are certain services that are so important that the Union Government will be entirely responsible for the expenditure. The two services he regards as of such importance are national roads and national education. He is subsidising national roads 100 per cent.; and he is subsidising native education and the school feeding of native children 100 per cent. The attitude of the Union Government is, therefore, in the first place that these two services should not be allowed to suffer whatever else may happen. The roads that have to be built for wealthy people to drive on must have funds, and the Union Government will advance 100 per cent. of the expenditure. The same applies to education and the school feeding of native children. Whatever, else happens the education and school feeding of the native children may not suffer. That is the stand-point of the Minister and he is prepared to advance up to 100 per cent. When it comes to the European child and the coloured child the Minister is prepared to advance only 50 per cent. of the expenditure. There the Minister makes the efficiency of the education of the European child and the coloured child dependent on the capacity of the provinces to contribute 50 per cent. of the expenditure. But because the Minister himself has a feeling that the money thus provided will not be adequate he tells the three provinces that he will give them additional contributions. The Transvaal is regarded as well enough off. To Natal he gives £100,000; to the Cape Province he gives £150,000; and to the Free State an additional £300,000. But the Minister lays down that those globular sums are only guaranteed for, three years, and at the end of the three-year period he will investigate the matter further to ascertain whether it is necessary to contribute further amounts. I should like the House to realise that in the judgment of the Minister there are certain provincial services he regards of sufficient importance that he is prepared to finance them 100 per cent. It is peculiar that it is national roads and the education and feeding of native children that the Minister regards of such importance. Education for European and coloured children is, in his opinion, not so important, and the Government is not prepared in this connection to contribute 100 per cent. There the Government says it will only contribute 50 per cent. of the expenditure. That is diametrically opposed to the old Nationalist policy. The Nationalist Party stated that whatever happened education, especially of the European child, might not suffer. The basis of the Minister’s system is that whatever happens education of the native child in South Africa may not suffer.

That is, of course, a misrepresentation.

That is the policy.

But it is a misrepresentation of it

Has the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) read the Bill? Does he know that the Minister in connection with the education and feeding guarantees all expenditure to the provinces of the native child; is it a fact or is it not?

Because the provinces cannot bear that themselves.

What is wrong with it?

The policy of the Nationalist Party was that we would guarantee their expenditure in connection with education. Accordingly we gave them a per capita subsidy in connection with school-going children. Whatever the financial difficulties of the provinces may be in difficult years they would get that revenue in respect of education and in respect of that education, especially the education of the European child, they would never be short. Now the Minister says: No, we do not regard the education of the European child as of such importance; it is left over partially to the capacity of the provinces, but we guarantee in future only the funds required to give the native child proper education and to feed him properly That is the difference between the Nationalist policy as laid down in the Havenga basis and the policy of the other side. The Havenga basis is being thrown overboard and in its stead we have the new system that this Minister is introducing, namely that the most important service to be entrusted to the provinces in the future is the education of the native child and the school-feeding of the native child, and expenditure in those directions are guaranteed 100 per cent. That is the first objection we have to the new system. In the second place, we object to the Minister allowing only a margin of five per cent. The Minister says that if the expenditure of a province in a certain year exceeds that of the previous year by more than five per cent. the province will receive only 33⅓per cent. further assistance from the Government on the sum in excess of a five per cent. increase. Now I should like to put a question to the Minister. We know there was a very important report in connection with national health services. The Government decided to leave the work largely in the hands of the provinces. We know that if the provinces comply with the desires of the public in South Africa in regard to national health services as far as the provision of hospitalisation is concerned, there will in the immediate future be an increase of expenditure under this head. The Minister restricts this to five per cent. I want to ask the Minister whether he really believes that it is possible for the provinces to give effect to what the people desire in the matter of naional health services and to remain within the limit of five per cent, imposed by him. In the second place, the Minister stated yesterday incidentally that he was glad to hear that the Cape Province intends to introduce compulsory education for coloured children. He is glad. I want to ask the Minister this: suppose the Cape Province introduces compulsory education for coloured children will this not involve such an expansion of coloured education that the 5 per cent, limitation will be immediately exceeded? Does the Minister believe it possible for compulsory education to be extended to coloured children while keeping within the 5 per cent. limit? Well, if the Minister says it is impossible is he not immediately throwing on the Cape Province a greater burden than the Cape Province can bear. We feel that the Minister should at least do what is laid down in the Act of 1913. That Act allowed a margin of 7½per cent. The Minister is limiting it to 5 per cent. and we feel that the Minister should make that 7½ per cent. Let us be very clear on one point. The provinces cannot give effect to the pressure of the people for ampler health services and remain within the 5 per cent. The Cape Province cannot make proper provision under this system for compulsory education for coloured children and remain within the 5 per cent. And at the moment if the Cape Province exceeds the 5 per cent. a heavy burden will fall on it. In the third place we want to say this: The distribution of wealth in South Africa is not equal. Some provinces are richer than others. Much of the wealth of South Africa is in the Transvaal Province. It is the richest province of South Africa. Prof. Frankel has calculated that in 1938-’39 the national income in respect of the Transvaal Province was £211,600,000 while the national income of the Cape Province, the mother province of South Africa, was in the same year only £107,915,000. According to those figures the income of the Transvaal was twice as large as that of the Cape Province. The result has been that in the past the Transvaal was enabled to develop its education system in a better way than any other province. We know that in many respects the education system in the Cape Province is far behind that in the Transvaal. I should like to mention a few ways in which it does fall behind the Transvaal. In the Transvaal education is free up to matric; the Cape Province cannot yet afford that; in the Cape education is free only up to Standard VI. In the Transvaal they have made Standard VI part of the secondary school and all educationists agree that this is a very good change, to make Standard VI part of the secondary school. The Cape Province cannot yet afford that.

What about the Free State? It is still poorer.

I am now making a, comparison between the Transvaal and the Cape Province. In the third place, the Transvaal has done much more in the direction of vocational training. It has gone much further in connection with the system of school farms. We in the Cape Province have not been able to afford that either. It is reckoned that if the Cape Province would introduce immediately the things the Transvaal enjoys today it would involve an increased expenditure of £500,000. Transvaal is thus, as far as educational facilities are concerned, far ahead of the Cape Province today. Under this 50-50 system, with the wealth the Transvaal has, and with the revenue it has, the advantage the Transvaal possesses becomes even greater in comparison with the Cape. The difference that exists at present between the school systems of the Transvaal and the Cape will become greater. The wealthy province is the one that will benefit most by this new system. We know that the Transvaal is the richest of the provinces, then comes Natal, then the Cape and then the Free State.

The Cape has the best system.

The Cape has a school system of which we may be proud, although we cannot provide everything that the Transvaal has today. But my point is that as far as the establishment of schools is concerned the Transvaal is better off, and if it was in a position to do more, and should the difference between the revenues of the provinces from now on become greater, the result will be that the Transvaal school system may be improved from year to year, while the Cape will find it increasingly difficult to maintain its school system. The province that will experience difficulty is the Cape. I should like us to take note of the fact in regard to the Cape that in one year, in the past year, the number of coloured children in the schools in the Cape Province increased by 5,000, while the number of European children in the schools virtually remained the same. The greatest expansion and the greatest expenditure in the future, especially if compulsory education is introduced, will be in connection with coloured education. The Cape has not the sources of revenue the Transvaal has. The margin under the Minister’s system is very small with the result that if Cape Town wants to do its duty in respect of coloured education the European child will suffer. The Minister is caring for the native child. He guarantees the expenditure as far as the native child is concerned. The Minister guarantees 100 per cent. of the expenditure in that respect.

In the same way as under the Havenga policy.

The Havenga policy also guaranteed the expenditure in respect of the European child.

It did not.

The Havenga policy stated that a subsidy would be given in respect of every child in so far as it was necessary to give a good education to every European child. The Minister must not come here and say that it is the Havenga policy that is being continued. A radical change has been made, education of the European child being now the responsibility of the provinces and we are contributing only 50 per cent. The responsibility of the native child remains the responsibility of the rich ‘father. The Union Government is the rich father. This rich father remains responsible for the education of the native child and its school feeding, but as far as the European child is concerned the Province must now just try to do its best on the meagre revenue it has.

Throw the doors open; then they will become rich.

We are now speaking not about immigration but about the system of subsidisation of the provinces. In connection with the school feeding system I merely want to say that the Minister is the father of the school feeding system. A few years ago he stood up here and said our Government is now going to take a big forward step as far as social welfare is concerned; we shall no longer allow undernourished children to sit in the schools, but we will give them food. He advertised that far and wide over the lenght and breadth of the country. This was the practical thing the Government was going to do and we were told the scheme would eventually cost the country £2,000,000. What does the Minister say now? Now he has become afraid of his own child. Where is he leaving that child? He is leaving it on the doorstep of the provinces. The scheme of which they were so proud, for which they took all the kudos in the country, the big thing they were going to do to combat malnutrition in the country, and that was going to cost £2,000,000, is now thrown on to the provinces. The Minister has become afraid of his child.

Are you in favour of the abolition of the provincial system?

This is undoubtedly the way to kill it. Take the Cape and the Free State. The Transvaal is rich and has a proper school feeding system. The Cape Province and the Free State can only introduce it little by little. What is going to become of the school feeding system? I hope the Minister will stand up and give a fine funeral oration on the school feeding system of which he was so proud. In conclusion, I should like to say something about the National Road Board. I think the time has come when this subject should no longer be left in the air. This is what the Minister is doing. The whole organisation and the financing of the National Road Board is something that demands the immediate attention of the Government and of Parliament. The National Road Board spends every year quite a few million pounds, and not the slightest degree of control is exercised over the way in which the money is expended. Our departments have not the slightest opportunity to exercise control on the way in which the National Road Board funds are spent. The provinces have no interest in it because they do not advance the money—the Government finances it 100 per cent. There is not the slightest control over the way in which millions of pounds are expended by the National Road Board. What is the result? In 1936 it was decided to build national roads. A five-year scheme was mapped out. Some 5,400 miles of roads were to be built, and 25 per cent. of them were to be tarred; the cost was calculated at £9,000,000. This was in 1936. Well, the five years have passed. Eight years have elapsed. We are now in 1945 and what is the position? They should have built 5,400 miles, and they have built 3,300 miles.

That is not so bad.

There are some people who are satisfied with anything. I should like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) to know that this was a five-year plan.

Did the war not intervene?…

The engineers went to win the war.

In 1937 it was already admitted that they could not carry out the pragramme. What, however, has been spent since 1936? Does the hon. member wish to say that it is because the war intervened? They did not carry out the pragramme. True, it may be argued that the war delayed progress, but the original programme involved an expenditure of £9,000,000, and up to date it has already cost more than £17,000,000. Is the war responsible for that? I have the particulars before me. The Central Administration alone has in those eight years cost £260,000. Road construction involved an expense of £16,800,000. Interest and redemption of divisional council loans represented £863,000. The road costs alone were £17,000,000 and the total expenditure for the past eight years was £19,208,000. When we asked them this year when they thought they would be finished with the five-year plan, and what they thought the cost, would be, they were unable to tell us when it would be completed, but they hoped that the programme that was to have cost £9,000,000 will now be carried out at an expenditure of £32,000,000. I only mention the figures to indicate what the result is when there is no Parliamentary control.

Who is responsible for the system?

If it is a weak system it is our duty to see that it is improved. Here the Minister has a chance to do this, but he is leaving the thing in the air. That is the impression one gets of the whole basis the Minister proposes, namely that he always follows the easiest road, the one that at the moment causes the least difficulty. But that is not the way to solve problems; he is only piling them up. He is potsponing the difficulties and accumulating them. After the Minister had meditated so long over it we thought he would have produced something. I must honestly say that I think much more of the Havenga system, under which it is ensured that the education of the European child shall not suffer. The present Minister is only making provision that the native child does not suffer. I must honestly say that if the Minister wants a system under which the provinces are responsible for all expenditure on European education, he ought in the case of the European children to make the grant by the Central Government not less than 50 per cent. of the expenditure in any case, but 60 per cent. in respect of European children. We on this side attach exceptional value to education and we maintain that the schools of today represent the citizens of the future. "We do not want education to be shabbily treated. We do not want, for instance, that in Natal the Afrikaner children should be further neglected in regard to education.

Cut out Natal.

We know that if there is one province where the Afrikaner child is not getting what he is entitled to then it is Natal.

Oh no.

The hon. member will hear some figures today in this House which will reflect how badly the Afrikaner child is treated in Natal. No one can say that the English child in the Free State is given a poor show. Is there any member who can stand up and say that the English child is shabbily treated in the Free State? We want the money to be made available for the proper education of every child, and we should like the Minister to lay down the principle of mother tongue education. If the Minister will not go further let him at least lay that down for the primary school education through his mother tongue, for this will be the best for his development mentally and manually. I think there will be amendments from this side of the House in connection with the matter and other speakers will deal with it. I have only wanted to deal more or less with the financial implication of the Bill.

I would not venture to criticise, especially not the Minister of Finance. But the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) stood up here and made a speech, and it seems to me he is trying to stir up the Transvaal members to see whether they will not become so swollen-headed that eventually their heads will burst. On that side the hon. member for George stood up and spoke about hatching, but I have never yet seen a broody hen affecting such turns as his. But still I am thankful that the hon. member for George admits that the Transvaal has done its best as regards education, and I am also glad that he admits that the national assets of the Transvaal are large in comparison with those of the other provinces. But the hon. member knows little about educational matters in the Transvaal. He reads a good deal and he sees this and that but he does not know too much about these thing. I do not want to spend more time on the hon. member but I would like to give the assurance that we, as Transvaal members, will not become swollen-headed. There are a few matters I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister.

So far your speech has been wide of the mark.

The hon. member says I am wide of the mark but I have never seen worse marksmen than they because they shoot into thin air. I would like to associate myself with the hon. Minister’s statement on the subject of native education and I would also express my approval of the Minister’s plans in connection with national roads because they are a very big national asset. I am quite satisfied that Natal as the Garden Province has received £100,000, I am also satisfied that the Free State has received £300,000 and I am also satisfied that the Cape Province is receiving £150,000 extra for coloured education. But then I come to the Transvaal. Transvaal is nothing but the hen that lays the golden eggs and it seems to me the Minister now wants us to believe too that we are the hen that lays the golden eggs. The hen has become exhausted. In the olden days one heard of nest-eggs but now they want to take the nest-eggs as well, for if I understood him correctly the Minister now wants to go so far as to boycott a province which brings in more for education than it requires. I just want to make a few remarks and I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is fair towards the Transvaal for the reason, as the hon. member for George says, that they are so very rich and have all the big national assets? Is it fair that our education should not get its fair share? When hon. members speak about education they should know that even in the vicinity of Pretoria there are still European children who are unable to attend school because there are no facilities for them. And when they do go they have ragged tents. If the Church does not show compassion by giving up vestries and church halls for that purpose, a city council has to supply a hall. For seven years I struggled in the Transvaal Provincial Council to get votes on the capital estimates and I believe today the position is still the same. While another province receives £150,000 for its coloured education we still have bursaries being awarded in the Transvaal of 7d. per day. I ask you whether anybody can support a European child on 7d. per day. I want to go further and I want to ask the Minister whether he considers it quite fair when we in the Transvaal hear that the Transvaal roads are the worst in all the four provinces? When we have visitors we hear that we should come to the Free State or Natal or to the Cape Province to drive on good roads.

Why don’t you build roads?

But the Transvaal is being used to lay the golden eggs. I do not want to quote figures because I cannot hold my own against the Minister when it comes to figures and I do not think there is a single member in this House who can hold his own against him, but I politely want to bring to the Minister’s attention that as things are now the Transvaal will eventually feel that she is the stepchild with all the troubles right on our doormat. Round about Pretoria, even to go to school under difficult circumstances. The Province has done its best for education but the hon. member should not think that we will become swollen-headed and that the Cape Province and the Free State and Natal should have all the advantages. The Transvaal is by no means in such an ideal position.

At this stage I wish to move the following amendment—

At the outset I want to make this accusation against the Minister. It may seem rather impudent coming from a backbencher, but all the same it concerns a subject of which I have some knowledge, and I want to say at once that there is a clear discrimination here—to use the word used by the previous speaker. Natal is specially favoured in this Bill. I want to go back to the motion we had here in the House last year in connection with the language question. The motion was divided into three parts, firstly, that the mother-tongue should be employed in the primary stages of the child’s education; secondly, that the schools should be dual-medium schools and, thirdly, that provision should be made for the training of teachers. I only want to deal with the first of these three. Last year, during the discussion in this House, no difference whatsoever existed between that side of the House and this side as regards the first part of the motion, namely, that the child should receive its educational instruction during the primary stages through the medium of its mother-tongue. When I pointed this out to one of the members, he asked me whether there was still any place in South Africa or in the whole world Where the first stage of the child’s education did not take place through the medium of the mother-tongue. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) says that he was a teacher in Natal for twenty years. I asked him to listen to the debate and to voice his criticism. Has provision not been made for mother-tongue instruction in the primary stage? I wish to quote briefly a clause relative to the mother-tongue instruction in Natal. I refer to clause 11 (1) of ordinance No. 23 of 1942 which reads as follows—

In the other three provinces the position is that if the child’s home language is Afrikaans, it receives its instruction through the medium of Afrikaans, but that is not the position in Natal. There the parent elects the medium. I now want to go back for a moment to the enquiry of the Broome Commission. The Commission sat for two years making an enquiry into the system of education in Natal. It gathered a considerable amount of data which is submitted to the Department of Education. But it is strange that this clause relative to mother-tongue instruction was, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Commission, worded differently from the proposal of a section of the Commission. In a minority report the Commission recommended mother-tongue instruction similar to that in the other three Provinces, but in spite of that, the authorities in Natal laid down that the parent should have the right to elect what the medium of instruction should be. Two members of the Commission recommended that the medium of instruction should be the mother language. Why was this proposal rejected by Natal? Let us see now what the results have been. I must say that it is very difficult to obtain any information. I tried to obtain the information through official channels but could not obtain it. I tried to obtain it through the teachers, but according to the regulations, the teachers may not furnish any information for fear of being guilty of an offence. We nevertheless obtained certain information regarding the conditions in Natal and I wish to explain briefly what the position in Natal is in connection with the application of the provision of this clause. I will refer particularly to Durban. It is surprising to see what is happening there. The schools there have been investigated by persons who are well-informed on these matters. And what do we find there? Let us see how many Afrikaans children find themselves in purely English-medium schools. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) said just now by way of interjection, that there is no such thing as doing an injustice to Afrikaans children in Natal. Here I have the figures. In the Escombe school, there are 36 Afrikaans children in a purely English-medium school; at Glenwood there are 20; at Westridge there are 30; at Sea View there are 133; at Addington there are 225; at Durban North there are 23; Mansfield Road 50; Stamford Hill, 150; Mont Clair, 75; Durban High, 12; Windsor Park, 150; Mitchell Road, 50; Girls’ College, 5; Boys’ Preparatory High School, 15; Overport, 10; Berea Road, 10. … I am glad to see that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) is here. At Park View there are 6; Botanical Gardens, 50; Girls’ High, 12; Stellawood, 12; Malvern, 80; Bellaire, 40; St. Agnes, 50; Penzance, 20; Marais Stella, 10; St. Joseph’s, 15; Red Hill, 20; Briardene, 25; Marist Brothers, 10; Fynnland, 57; North Ridge, 20. Now here we have a group of schools which are purely English-medium schools. There are no parallel classes and those Afrikaans-speaking children receive their education through the medium of English from the very first day until they leave school. Here we also have a number of Afrikaans children in the English sections of parallel medium schools. For the information of the House, I may just mention that in the parallel-medium schools the parents may choose either Afrikaans or English, but because the parents have the right to choose the medium of instruction, there are 41 Afrikaans children in Pinetown receiving their education through the medium of English. In Rossburgh there are 36 Afrikaans children receiving their instruction through the medium of English. In Wentworth 50; in MacDonald Road 20; in Clarens Road 50; and in Greenword Park 20. In other words in Durban alone there are 1,648 children whose home language is Afrikaans but who receive their education through the medium of English. That is how this clause is carried out in Natal. Why? Because the parent has the right to elect the medium of instruction. One may ask why are the Afrikaans parents so foolish as to choose English as the medium of instruction. Before I discuss that, I would just like to quote from the Minister’s own bulletin. Here I read this—

Then he goes on—

The whole system was therefore of English origin. The Afrikaans-speaking parents are in a minority in Natal, and they feel that if they do not allow their children to learn English, they would be lost, and unfortunately they have the idea that the child can only learn English in an English school. Consequéntly, they drift with the tide and they allow the poor mite to go to an English school and the poor child suffers under the unfair system.

They are bilingual. It is the English children who are not bilingual.

The second factor is that economic pressure is brought to bear upon them. As soon as the child is sent to an Afrikaans-medium school, the parent is virtually stigmatised. He is called a “Boer” and the English community decides there and then not to offer him any employment. The Afrikaans-speaking parent may not reveal his feelings in this manner; he must send his child to an English-medium school. Ultimately, therefore, the child finds itself in an English-medium school. Then there is a further reason, namely, that facilities are not always available. Strangely enough, in Durban boundaries are fixed.

Parents living in a certain area, are not allowed to send their children to another area without the consent of the Director. The schools having parallel classes may only enrol children from the immediate vicinity. If the parent lives in the Glenwood area, he has to send his child to the Glenwood school. There may not be fifteen children to form a parallel class and so no parallel classes are formed. Sometimes children living in different areas want to attend the same school, in order to make up a class of fifteen but this they are not allowed to do. It is obvious that if the child receives its education through the medium of English in the primary stages, it will afterwards also receive its secondary education through the medium of English. If the parent sends his child to an Afrikaans-medium school at the beginning, then he runs the risk of not being able, at a later stage, to send his child to an Afrikaans secondary school. I understand that there are only two or three in the whole province, and in order to avoid all these difficulties, the Afrikaans speaking parent is inclined to resign himself to the position, and to send his children to English schools. The principals, of course, often advise parents to send their children to English schools. They want as many children as possible. If the position in Natal was similar to that in the other provinces, these things would not happen. I want to know why Natal adopted this obsolete form of Ordinance No. 13 of 1916. Two members of the Broome Commission are opposed to it and in the face of, or in spite of the report of the Broome Commission, in spite of the objections lodged by the Synod, in spite of the position in the other provinces, and in spite of the universal law of nature, this system is being followed in Natal. In spite of the fact that it is a universal law of nature that a child who speaks a certain language in its home should be educated through the medium of that language, notwithstanding the fact of nature that every animal enables its young to enjoy that right, we have this position in Natal, that the child does not receive its instruction through the medium of its mother tongue. They know that they are able to bring pressure to bear upon the Afrikaans-speaking parents to send their children to English-medium schools. If it was laid down by means of regulation that the child should receive its instruction through the medium of the mother-tongue, they will not be able to evade it. I said that I wanted to make an accusation against the Minister and I now want to do so. Last year the whole House voted for the principle of mothertongue instruction in the primary stage and in spite of the fact that that motion was passed by the House last year, that system is not being applied in Natal yet. Why did the Minister bring pressure to bear upon the Free State; why are we having that struggle in the Transvaal; why must even English teachers in the Transvaal raise their objections to the introduction of dual-medium by force; why did the Minister try to force it upon the Free State? They are now applying the dual-medium system in the Cape Province and this first principle which was adopted by the House has been disregarded in Natal. The Minister can very easily force Natal to come into line. He merely has to withhold the money until such time as they change their policy. They must simply be made to feel that if they do not do justice to the Afrikaans speaking child, then we will not provide them with the money. We advance the money and we therefore have the right to say what should be done with it. That is an important principle. The authority advancing the money has the right to determine how that money should be used and where money is now being granted for education in Natal, we should have the right to say how that money shall be used. We want it to be used according to nature’s system which is recognised throughout the whole world, namely, that the child should receive its educational instruction in the primary stage through the medium of its mother tongue. It is often said that it is better for our children to go to English-medium schools because then they learn better English than in Afrikaans schools. But is that actually the case? Last year the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) mentioned the achievement of the Jan van Riebeeck School and other members mentioned the achievements of other schools. Now I just want to mention the achievements of schools in Natal where the children are also taught English but their instruction from the beginning is through the medium of Afrikaans. It is often said that while the children learn English, they are able to read and write English but that they cannot speak English. In 1943, a trophy was awarded by Mr. Joliffe for those children who were the best debaters. The following schools took part, the Girls’ High, Marists’ Brothers College, Wyketon High School, Hilton College, St. Charles’ College, and the Voortrekkerhoërskool. What was the result? The two schools who came out top were St. Charles’ College and the Voortrekkerhoërskool. They competed and the Voortrekkerhoërskool won the trophy. It was a bilingual debate. It was not purely luck because the following year; the Voortrekkerhoërskool again won the trophy. In the Voortrekkerhoërskool the principle of mother-tongue instruction is applied and here we see the result. The whole world advocates mother-tongue instruction and still that principle is not carried out in Natal. Take the case of the Port Natal High School. Until 1941, the Port Natal High School flourished. The mother-tongue medium was applied from the very start but the protagonists of the dual-medium system thought fit to put a stop to that. The result was that the lower classes were taken away and those children were sent to parallel-medium schools. In 1941 the school had 547 pupils. In 1942 the number dropped to 389. The very lifelines of this school were severed. In 1943 it had only 347 pupils and in 1944 only 294. It is estimated that under this system this school will only have 174 pupils in 1948. The school is gradually being extinguished. Its roots have been severed. That is what is happening in Natal where we hear such a lot about British fairplay. It is meanness. It is nothing else but persecution. It is British persecution. I would not go so far as to call it child-murder but it does amount to mental child-murder. It reminds one of the time when children were equally wronged during the Boer War. Then they were physically wronged and now they are mentally wronged. Every coolie’s child is able to receive its education through the medium of its mother tongue; every native child is entitled to receive its education through the medium of its mother tongue; every Jewish child is entitled to receive its education through the medium of its mother tongue, but the Afrikaner child is denied that right. I say that it is an injustice and that is why I am moving this amendment and I would like the Minister to give his serious attention to it. I wish further to point out that, in moving this amendment, I have the support of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who is now overseas. He moved the motion on the language question last year and the hon. member for Vryheid seconded that motion. I would like to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Vryheid. I am not going to quote what he said. He can look that up himself but in one paragraph he said this: “I am pleading now in all amicability that the authorities in Natal should also fall into line and introduce mother-tongue instruction in Natal.” I also have the support of the Minister of Education. The hon. Minister quoted the views of Onse Jan here and he stated that Onse Jan agreed that in the primary stages there should be mother-tongue instruction. So there I have on the opposite side the support of three of the authorities, namely the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the man who taught for 20 years in Natal. I am making a plea for this right which I am asking for in the amendment. As I have just said, I have the support of the Prime Minister and I have the support of the Acting Prime Minister. I wonder whether it is still necessary for me to talk any further on the amendment. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) also made an excellent speech here last year, in the same strain. The hon. member for Zululand said this morning that he would like to hear figures. I have now given him the figures. Last year he supported the principle of mother tongue instruction and I hope he will again support it. The Government is not powerless to act in Natal. They can take action. They threatened to take steps in the Free State and they are at present conducting experiments in the Cape. They can easily do it. I am appealing especially to the hon. the Minister of Finance, because he is a person who, for a long time, was closely associated with a pedagogic institution. I understand that he is also a leading spirit in the Sunday school movement. He therefore has a fair amount of influence in the educational sphere. We already have one judgment against us which shows us that we cannot allow these children to be treated unfairly. We read in the Bible that whosoever should do the least injustice to one of these little children, it is better that he should hang a millstone round his neck and throw himself into the sea. I do not want the hon. Minister to do that, but I want him to realise that an injustice is being done to these children, and therefore I want to appeal to him to see to it that justice is done to them. I would like to see him exonerated from the blame that he did not see to it that justice was done to these children. I want to read a few extracts at this stage from a letter written by a person who is able to speak authoritatively on this subject. He writes—

They therefore drift away from their language. They do not learn their own language any longer. They do not go to their church any longer. That is a further loss. Where you might have had a very good supporter of the Church, you now have a person who has cut adrift. I read further—

They are a loss to their own nation. He continues—

Then he refers to delimitation of boundaries, to which I have already referred—

Who is your authority?

The Rev. H. Kruger. He is much interested in education.

In Natal?

Yes.

To what Church does he belong?

He is a Reformed minister in Durban. He made an important investigation into this question. I am able to cite another authority also, and that is Dr. Greyling. He has a high status and is secretary to the Sunday schools in South Africa. I had to use these authorities because the teachers are not permitted to supply information. Under the disciplinary regulations prevailing in Natal teachers are not permitted to supply this information to us and we are forced to obtain information through other bodies. The Rev. Kruger further states—

I only quote small parts—

The Minister is head of a Sunday school institution and I would like him to note the tendency referred to in this letter which I have just read.

There is also another reason.

And that is also referred to in this letter. It is a policy of Anglicising the Afrikaner. I want to say emphatically that the reason for that policy of “the parent may choose” simply to Anglicise children on a large scale. It is the same policy as was followed by Lord Charles Somerset here and it is the same policy which Milner with his assistant Sergeant wanted to carry out in the Transvaal after the Second War of Independence. The purpose was to Anglicise children on a large scale. With the approval of the Afrikaans-speaking members opposite and also with that of the Minister of Education who has an Afrikaans surname that kind of policy is pursued. I am doubtful whether one is able to use strong enough language to disapprove of it. If we were, for example, to follow the policy in the Free State in respect of the English child which is being followed in Natal in respect of Afrikaans-speaking children then we will have much propaganda in the English newspapers. They will shout murder. But in Natal it is permitted to go on surreptitiously. That is what is happening to 1,648 children in one city in Natal. If that were to happen in the Free State there would be a hue and cry. In the Free State 10 per cent. of the population is English-speaking but that 10 per cent. is being treated fairly and they receive what they are entitled to. 25 per cent. of the population of Natal is Afrikaansspeaking and see what is meted out to them! We can no longer speak about British fair play. We now have to speak about Afrikaans fair play. To put it in every day parlance, we play fair but the English do not play fair, at least not in Natal. That is the position and we cannot emphasise it strongly enough. Some days I have often considered whether one should not start an agitation that the Children’s Protection Act should not be applied to Natal. As matters are there it amounts to neglect of the children. It is mental and spiritual murder which is being committed on the children there and it makes one consider that the Children’s Protection Act should be applied to Natal. It is very easy for the Minister to do something to alter that position. He should take steps in the direction of Natal being brought into line with the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape. If Natal wants to march along with the other provinces and the whole world then we would be satisfied. The Minister may easily do it by a slight amendment to Ordinance No. 23 of 1942. He could only omit the choice by parents so that there may be mother-tongue instruction. That is all. Then the whole matter would be in order. We only have the power to force Natal by refusing to grant funds. We vote funds here and they use the money as they like and they compel Afrikaners on a large scale to attend English-medium schools. They are aware of the fact that their numbers are diminishing. Afrikaners have large families and that is how they strengthen the position. That is the process which is taking place. We are told that the parent has the choice and that it is a good Calvinistic and Christian principle that the parent has to choose. But the parent has no choice of school and no say in the appointment of teachers. The parents may not determine the conduct of schools. They are able only to choose the medium of instruction. [Time limit.]

I shall not detain the House long on this matter. This principle was mentioned last year during the debate on dual-medium schools, but the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has made certain statements which, in my opinion, we must refer to again because he may perhaps have created an erroneous impression as a result of his ignorance, not ignorance in connection with these matters but ignorance in connection with conditions in Natal. He has stated, for instance, that Natal teachers may not furnish any information regarding school affairs. Now it is peculiar that he should say that. One of the Natal teachers wrote a book on education in Natal, and if he took the trouble he could have read that book. It deals with education in Natal up to last year. I am the ex-teacher who wrote that book, and it is before me now. It is also peculiar that last year when it was unfortunately mentioned by someone else that I was a person who knew something about education it was laughed at. But this year I gather that I have been promoted to such an extent that I am regarded as an expert.

It was a quotation made by yourself.

Nevertheless the promotion since last year was rather good. But this matter the hon. member for Christiana has mentioned is a very important one. Last year I referred to it and made an appeal to the Administration of Natal, not to the Minister of Education, to accept the principle of the mother tongue as the medium and to relieve parents of this compulsion that rests on them to make the decision, or to make the choice in connection with the medium. In that I did not blame the Administration as such for the state of affairs. I know personally what the Natal Administration is doing to influence the people to allow their children to receive education through the medium of their mother tongue. Perhaps I may be allowed to speak here on this subject, because I was a teacher in Natal for 15 years and I have had experience of single-medium, dual-medium and parallel-medium schools, and because I myself may have worn out the soles of my shoes in going after the Afrikaans-speaking parents to try to induce them to place their children in a school with the correct medium from the very start, and because I did not have to aid me in this fight the assistance of some of those persons who are mentioned here, the same persons who are now going through the country and casting the blame on the Natal Education Department.

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

Before I go further I think it is right that I should congratulate the hon. member for Christiana on the nice way in which he presented his case. As an ex-teacher he is able, I believe, to regard the matter objectively, and by his reasoning he sought to arrive at a solution of the delicate question of the mother tongue as a medium. What is the position in Natal? He explained that in the other provinces, in the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal the child is compelled to accept the mother tongue as the medium. That is so. In Natal the position is somewhat different. There we have the so-called parental clause. That is to say before the child is enrolled the parent has to go to the school and inform the principal as to the language in which the child should receive education, and if he is unable to come to the school he has to sign a form in which he intimates in what medium the child should be enrolled. Now I shall endeavour to remove a wrong impression the hon. member created in the House. Here I am again speaking from experience, and I want to point out that by circular letters it has been impressed on the principals of schools that they must in no circumstances influence the parents. Consequently when the hon. member spoke about pressure being exercised on the parents it is absolutely wrong. No pressure is exercised on them. In my opinion that is a weak point, because you find that when the parents come to the school and after you have perhaps, without exercising any pressure, pointed out the necessity for the mother tongue to be used as a medium, especially in the early stages, they have nevertheless purposely put the child in the wrong medium. I say that this is just the weak point, that no pressure can be exercised on the parent to place the child in the Correct medium. For official reasons no pressure at all is applied on the parents, but it is a fact, as the hon. member stated, that the parental choice does hold good in Natal. As far as the parental choice is concerned it is a democratic principle. When I discussed this matter with members of the Executive Committee in Natal and pleaded for a change in the system, so that the parents, when they brought their children to school, could be induced to place it in the right medium, it was immediately pointed out to me that this was a democratic principle that was being exercised in Natal.

Is it a pedagogic principle?

It is a democratic principle. To what extent we can expect a parent to adopt a pedagogic principle is another question. It does not arise here. But I think the biggest duty that rests on us as parents, as parents who have greater privileges—and I am speaking now as a parent in Natal—is to point out to other parents that they, when they do not choose the mother tongue as the medium for their children when they visit the school, are making a wrong choice. That is our big principle. But when the parents choose wrongly it is not for us to cast all the blame on the Department of Education, as the hon. member has done. That is the object of his argument. But let me read out to the hon. member what I wrote in 1940 in regard to the parental choice, before I ever dreamed of entering politics—and otherwise the thought might perhaps arise that I wrote this for political reasons. After I had dealt with the Broome Report I strongly emphasised that the choice of a medium in Natal should not be left to the parents. Two members of the commission who also urged that were the Rev. Odendaal and Capt. Botha, who is at present chairman of the Provincial Council in Natal. As reasons Why the choice of the medium should not be relegated to the parents, I mentioned the following—

1. (a) That a large proportion of the Afrikaans-speaking parents did not realise the value of the mother tongue as the medium.
2. (b) That they do not know what is the difference between a medium and a subject.
3. (c) That they are very indifferent in connection with the choice and leave it to the child or to the school.
4. (d) They believe their children will have a better chance of finding employment if they receive education through the medium of English; and
5. (e) Some parents are of opinion that the child will learn English better if it receives instruction through that medium.

There are also other reasons that I gave.

It is the same as I said.

The hon. member has, of course, studied the book of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp).

On a point of information, I did not get it out of that book, I have never seen or read his book.

I am very disappointed in the hon. ex-teacher that he should have given instruction for so long and have never read a scientific book of this nature! I, of course, do not expect other hon. members to have read it. They usually read the “Bulldog” stories, but we are now speaking about an ex-teacher like the hon. member for Christiana, and I would advise him to read it as soon as possible. The hon. member mentioned certain figures in reference to children in Durban. I shall accept that they are correct, and I shall further accept that he obtained them from teachers. Is that so or not?

I mentioned my sources this morning.

However that may be, I accept his figures, but the hon. member has omitted to tell us that in Durban and in the immediate neighbourhood of Durban there are schools where the children may receive their education through the medium of Afrikaans. He spoke about primary schools and high schools, and both are available for children who wish to receive their education in Afrikaans. That is just where the error comes in, that if we allow children in the primary school—and we stressed this point last year—to receive their education through the wrong medium in the commencing stage they will not find it easy to change the meduim later. I agree with the hon. member that usually it is the Afrikaans-speaking children who suffer thereby. We find English-speaking children usually choose the correct medium. I can neither criticise nor congratulate the Department when the choice is correct; the parents do that. It is in connection with the Afrikaansspeaking children that the parents frequently go wrong. In Natal we have English-medium schools and Afrikaans-medium schools—the hon. member mentioned one of them—we find parallel-medium schools and dual-medium schools, and then we have the private schools with an English atmosphere. The facilities do exist, let me say that at once, for the Afrikaans-speaking child to receive his education through the mother tongue as medium. Right throughout Natal they can go to schools with Afrikaans as a medium. But what do we find? We find not only Afrikaans-speaking children in English-medium schools, as the hon. member said, but we find Afrikaans speaking children in the English-medium classes of parallel-medium schools and dualmedium schools.

This morning I mentioned a number of them.

Where is the mistake to be found then? The facilities are there and it is the choice of the parents that is always wrong. This is what I want to submit to you, that we should not be offended with the Department.

The law.

Nor with the law. But we must look into it as Afrikaansspeaking people that we are not making the right choice. This is what I want. We must not look for the fault outside, we must seek it within ourselves. We are always trying to blame someone else; and I speak again from experience when I say that some of my strongest Nationalist Party friends in Natal made the wrong choice at the school with which I was connected. I do not know how many times I have not run to the parents and said: “But your child is receiving its education through the wrong medium in the wrong class; how can you expect your child at the age of seven to be instructed through the English medium? It is to his advantage that the child should receive education through the mother tongue,” and then I find that on every occasion one of the reasons I have mentioned is given. I am not referring only to my Nationalist friends on the other side, but to all Afrikaansspeaking people, or very many of them. When we say that the principle of parental choice is wrong, and that we should consequently compel the parents to choose the mother tongue as medium, we again run up against the democratic principle. Let us then rather at this stage adopt the course of influencing our co-Afrikaners to let their children have the right medium at the commencement. When we reach that stage, as we proposed last year, they will have been brought up to have some subjects through another medium, and they will then know their own language so well, and have learned the other language so well as a subject, that they may, with advantage, go over to a bilingual medium. As matters at present stand the hon. member is right. It happens that the parents choose wrongly and the child cannot avail himself properly of the dual-medium system that we proposed here last year. But do not imagine that the Natal Education Department is bent, as our hon. friend said, on Anglicising our Afrikaners. That day is long past. We have forgotten all about it. I speak as one who for years was a member of the Saamwerkunie and who together with Dr. Pellisier, Dr. Jansen, Mr. Booysen and others represented the conditions we had in Natal. I have previously stated that if you alleged that in the nineteenth century an effort was made to Anglicise the Afrikaner, as we saw it happen here in the Cape, then I agree with you. But I can tell you that since 1910, or since the Afrikaans language was recognised in Natal, in 1923, that policy of Anglicisation has never been applied in Natal. If you say that is the object there you are hopelessly wrong. At the moment we have in Natal a Director of Education with Afrikaans sympathies. He is out to give the Afrikaans-speaking people their full rights, the same rights as the English child has. It is under his control that we introduced a new policy that the English child shall be compelled at a certain stage to use Afrikaans as a medium and thus become bilingual. This is the policy in that province which you say is one that is designed to Anglicise the Afrikaans-speaking people. That province is yet going to give the lead as far as the dual-medium is concerned, and it will give the lead to make our people in South Africa bilingual. That is the same province which you know so little about. You know really nothing about Natal. You have heard of Durban and then you think it is Natal. That is not Natal. It represents only a small minority in Natal—only 10 per cent. of Natal; 90 per cent. are right-minded people.

We know what Natal made of you.

One develops and I also have developed. I will tell you what stood in the road of Afrikaans in Natal. Until 1900 there was to a certain degree an influence towards Anglicisation, but since the commencement of Union it was to be ascribed for several years to the fact that Nederlands was taught at school and was attempted as a medium—Nederlands not Afrikaans. What did we find? Nederlands was just as foreign to me at school as English was. We had two foreign languages. Nederlands had no practical value to us but English had. It was therefore not to be wondered at that many parents let their children choose the medium that would be of practical value to them; but ever since Afrikaans was introduced we find a complete change as far as Natal is concerned. You can go into the figures in our schools and you will find that. What did one of our directors of education say—

It was not our language; but ever since Afrikaans has been introduced one can detect a considerable advance. And therefore I do not want us to be unjust towards Natal as a province. Their Department of Education, the Provincial Council and the Executive Committee are not out for the Anglicisation of the Afrikaans-speaking people. We in Natal take a definite stand for our own language. We have no inferiority complex. It is a settled matter. We no longer fight over Afrikaans. We just act, and if the danger is there we, must not blame the Department but ourselves. But now it is further stated in this motion that we should compel Natal to make the mother tongue the compulsory medium; that we should compel the Natal Administration to remove the parental choice; that we want consequently through a financial Bill, through financial influence to go over to this, to say to Natal that we will not assist it unless it changes its principle about the medium according to our liking. That is not the way in which intelligent people set to work. I do not say whether it is right or wrong—hon. members know what my attitude is in connection with the matter—but as long as we leave education in the hands of the provincial councils this Government will not concern itself in the affairs of the provinces. Whether it is right or wrong that education should be entrusted to the provinces is another matter. But one fact remains, that education is still in the hands of the provinces and consequently they will evolve their own methods in connection with educational affairs. Personally I feel very strongly in favour of the principle the hon. member has expressed. We said so in the House last year, and I am not inclined to carry out any dual-medium system if the sound principle of mother-tongue education at the commencement of the child’s school career is not carried out. Only when that principle of mother-tongue education during the commencing stage of the child’s school life is applied can we make a success of the dual-medium system; and consequently we can appeal to Natal to take the course of influencing all parents towards adopting the mother tongue as a medium for the education of their children. But in the circumstances that prevail at present we cannot compel them to adopt this course, and it would not be wise to try to compel them to do so.

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) this morning, and while agreeing with some of what he said I cannot agree with it all. He criticises the provincial councils and in doing so accentuates the weakness of the provincial councils and that heightens our regret that the provincial councils continue to live. But then he supports and wishes to increase the proposed further tax on the native people. I feel, and my colleagues feel with me, that we should hesitate a long time before the provincial councils should be permitted to impose direct taxes on the native people. That right was deliberately excluded in 1925 and one must come to the conclusion that at that time all the various aspects of the matter were fully considered. If this tax of 2s. 6d. is allowed to be levied, even if it is allied to the collection of the general tax, I feel that the people themselves will not realise why another bull even if a smaller one is in the kraal. It seems to be accepted by many hon. members that the general tax paid by the native pays for all the amenities he receives, but it is forgotten that the native also pays hut tax and stock tax. Whilst the general tax qualifies a man for a land grant there is no guarantee because land is not available, but he must pay notwithstanding that there may be no land available for them. The man who cannot get land must still pay that tax. And if they get the land they are still obliged to pay a quitrent of 3s. a morgen. It will therefore be observed that there are many calls upon the native people, and it must be realised that this tax will have to be paid by every native male over 18 years of age, no matter what his income may be. I do not propose at this stage to enter into a full discussion as to the justice of the general tax, which has no relation to the earnings of the payer or the amenities he receives, but I do say emphatically that the war-time value of money and the astonishing increase in the price of everything used by the natives, an increase ranging from 100 to 200 per cent., vis-a-vis the small rise in wages they have received, makes the present time inopportune to impose further taxes of this kind on these people. We are always hearing of malnutrition and underfeeding which in some cases even result in death. How can we in those circumstances contemplate the imposition of a further tax upon people who are unable to meet their present taxes and at the same time to provide for their simple family wants? The representatives of the native people have no objection to the imposition of taxes on the native people, taxes which fall within the general taxation policy. But what we do object to is discrimination against the natives. We are forced to the conclusion that the native has the general tax imposed upon him for the reason that his income is not sufficient to bring him within the scope of the taxation existing for Europeans. It is strange that whilst the native, when he reaches the age of 18 years, has to pay £1 a year general tax, notwithstanding his economic position, the European personal tax in the Cape Province, although nominally applying to all Europeans, grants exemption in the case of a single man earning a salary of less than £150 per annum, and in the case of married people earning less than £250 per annum; and in relation to income tax, no income under £300 is taxable. I would hesitate to state the number of natives who pay general tax earning less than £30 per annum. The Acting. Prime Minister said recently that taxation knows no colour bar. What he meant is that natives who fall within the scope of the income tax law have to pay income tax, but he forgot to mention that the same native also paid a general tax, and the other taxes I mentioned. But quite apart from these considerations I would like to know what the provinces are undertaking to do in return for this extra taxation. This is not a social security tax by virtue of which in return for a small contribution a person would have a guarantee that he would receive certain amenities. Under the South Africa Act the duty was specifically laid on the provinces to provide hospitalisation for the native people. They have in my view callously repudiated that responsibility simply because they had not the right to tax the natives. I trust that the House has not forgotten the strictures passed upon the native hospital at Butterworth by Colonel Reitz in relation to the conditions that prevailed there. I want to know what guarantee we have that the present position will be better when this tax is paid. Shall we have the old story that benefits must not exceed the value of direct contributions, with resultant failure to provide hospitalisation irrespective of race or colour? I must honestly say that I do not trust the provincial authorities, in view of their past record, to treat the natives fairly and to provide for them hospitalisation in relation to their crying needs. Of course, it cannot be denied that natives need hospitalisation and that the provinces will need funds for carrying out this hospitalisation scheme. If a direct contribution is unavoidable I would suggest that the Union Government should pay that 2s. 6d. from the general tax. This could be done without departing from the original intention of the Act. In other words, the contribution of 2s. 6d. should be paid by the Union Government to the provinces out of the £1 per head which is now paid to the Union Government in the form of a general tax. I want to point out the repercussions of the proposed new tax. First of all the General Council of the Transkei has contributed for some years past an amount of £11,000 and more and this, with the subsidy of £1 10s. per £, is the equivalent of almost £30,000 per annum. Then the Trust has itself used its funds to pay for hospitalisation and other funds have also been used. I would remind the House that that is all native money. The Transkeian Council gets the hut tax as part of its revenue. We have had an instance of the use they make of this money. In the Transkei there are 4,000 miles of branch roads constructed and maintained with this money, and bridges were built. These roads and bridges are used more by Europeans than by natives but they are in fact constructed with the money of the natives. In view of all these factors I think we should hesitate a long time before imposing further taxation upon the natives. Can it be expected that the Transkei will carry on with their contributions towards these funds which were used in the past for hospitalisation if they now have to pay another tax for that purpose? We native representatives cannot force the Government or bring much influence to bear upon the Government in order to change any opinion they may have. All we can really do is to appeal to the well-known sense of justice of the Minister himself in the hope that he will give consideration to this matter and come to the conclusion that the imposition of this tax is not justified. The hon. member for George suggested that this tax should not be 2s. 6d. but 5s. What he really said is: “What is 2s. 6d. Make it 5s.?” All I can say is that although 2s. 6d. is not a large sum of money to him it means a great deal to the native, even though it does not go very far towards financing a hospitalisation scheme. But I do say that in addition to the taxes they already pay they cannot afford to pay this extra 2s. 6d. I suggest that the Minister should give the same consideration to these representations that he has done to those of the big interests represented by the newspapers and delete the second proviso to Section 10 (2) of the Bill.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) called himself a scientist.

No I did not.

He referred to his own book and said that it was a scientific work. Never before have I heard anybody here referring to it as such. He himself is thereby doing a most unscientific thing for I have never before heard of a scientist adopting the practice of blowing his own trumpet. I must tell the hon. member it looked rather a poor show when he got up here and read from his own book and then asked the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) why the latter did not read it and did not quote from it.

I quoted from it because it is the only book about education in Natal.

The hon. member himself told us that for a period of fifteen years he was a member of the “Saamwerkunie” in Natal and during that time he was in favour of mother-tongue instruction. We can only tell him now that he should be ashamed of it because he has now run away from that principle. He told us that Natal is producing the right type of Afrikaners and that we should read his book. No, the hon. member makes us somewhat ashamed of being Afrikaners when he talks like that. Before he was in politics or, as he said himself, before he had any inclination to go into politics, he was a great champion in Natal of the mother-tongue medium. But as soon as he got political aspirations and wanted to fit in with the political organisation of the other side, mother-tongue instruction was no longer good enough for him.

When did I say so.

The hon. member will remember that he voted for dual-medium education last year.

Certainly, but there should be mother-tongue instruction up to a certain stage.

It certainly is no mother tongue instruction if half the subjects are taught through the medium of the home language and the other half through the medium of a foreign language. Mother tongue instruction means instruction through the medium of the mother tongue and not half through the mother tongue and for the rest through a foreign language. In that case it is no longer mother-tongue instruction but dual-medium instruction. The hon. member has got himself into a tight corner. He talked about the democratic choice of the parents. When he was asked whether that is a principle which is pedagogically sound he did not have the courage to reply to it. He simply said that that was another matter. He, the pedagogue and the scientist, now pleads for a democratic principle which is not pedagogically sound. Where do his science and his pedagogics now come in?

You did not listen to him.

No, I did listen to him and I also understood him. The hon. member listened but he did not understand.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) does not know what mother-tongue instruction is.

People who talk like the hon. member for Vryheid talked here, admit that they are doing something which is pedagogically unsound. I want to remind the Minister of Education that years ago he also wrote a book about South Africa. It is quite worth while reading that book in regard to the conditions in our country. I do not always agree with his conclusions but it is worth the trouble to read that book.

Is it more valuable than the book of the hon. member for Vryheid?

Yes, I think that it is much more valuable.

I am only asking.

Yes it is more valuable. The Acting Prime Minister in any case tried to deal objectively with the matter. He comes to conclusions with which I cannot always agree but his book is valuable.

Did you read the book?

Yes, I read the book. The Acting Prime Minister in that book dealt with the question why his contemporaries knew English so well. He said the reason was that English was the medium of instruction. Then he went on to say that an important change had come about—

This is a change on the soundest of education principles. That was his point of view. He went on—.

In most cases today the Afrikaansspeaking children receive instruction through medium of Afrikaans with English merely as a language subject which is taught.

Then he points to the dangers which might arise—

Then he said that this resulted in the people not being any longer as well versed in English as the previous generation was. He then emphasised that it is the task of educationalists to find a remedy for it. That is what we have always advocated. We want mother-tongue instruction and at the same time we want to see our childlren become bilingual. But we want to leave that to the educationalists without us passing legislation compelling them to follow the principle of dual-medium. In his book the Acting Prime Minister also speaks of the process of “Anglicanisation” as he calls it. The Afrikaners then felt that they should have separate schools for mother-tongue instruction. In this connection I should also like to read out something. It does not relate so closely to our present discussion but it shows the objective view which the Acting Prime Minister sometimes expressed.

Only sometimes?

He says—

But then according to the “Cape Times” he must be lying.

He admits that there was such a thing as concentration camps. I do not want to go further into that matter.

I hope you will now all read my book.

I read it years ago.

You should be careful that he does not start quoting from it himself.

No, he will not do what the hon. member for Vryheid did. For that reason I undertook the task to quote from his book. The point is that where the Minister treated this question objectively he said that mother-tongue instruction is not only a sound, but the soundest of educational principles. He did not say it was sound up to Std. II or Std. III—it is the soundest principle.

You better be careful that he does not start writing another book.

Yes, he may also change his opinion now, for we have already witnessed a person who was in favour of mother-tongue instruction for fifteen years, but changed his opinion. Today we have the position in the Transvaal that a struggle is in progress in regard to mother-tongue instruction under the dual medium. A draft ordinance is before the provincial council and what did we find? Tremendous opposition became noticeable and from whom? From the educationalists, the school principals. I am not talking now about the political opposition against it. I am talking of educationalists. Last year the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), when we discussed the question here, received a very insolent letter from a certain Mr. Currey, principal of St. Andrew’s College in Grahamstown, who seriously attacked him on account of the attitude which we on this side took up, but now we find that that same principal writes letters to the “Daily Mail’.’ in Johannesburg in which he strongly opposes dual medium, and in this regard he is strongly supported by a certain S. A. Clarke, principal of the St. John’s College in Johannesburg. They strongly oppose the ordinance and maintain that they do not want to be forced, but that it should be left to them to make the children bilingual. The English newspapers are full of attacks by people who call it a fatal blunder, people who maintain that the United Party did not get their approval for this thing at the General Election. They say that they voted for the war but not for dual medium. You notice a tremendous agitation taking place against this ordinance now before the Transvaal Provincial Council, under which they want to use compulsion, and the people who object are people who from a scientific and educational point of view object to it and say that it is wrong. Last year my point of view was that we as a Parliament should tell the teachers in the schools falling under the provincial councils that they should give us bilingual citizens.

To achieve this they must do what the Minister of Education said in his book. They should proceed along pedagogical lines and find means to achieve the aim. That is exactly what educationalists are saying now. They say that political leaders should not come along and should not by means of an ordinance in the provincial council determine that they are going to compel the schools, without taking into consideration what the educationalists think about it, to introduce the dual medium. The hon. member for Vryheid quoted Natal as an example of language equality and bilingualism. When he says that he makes me laugh. We still have to see whether Natal in another 35 years will make more progress than they did during the past 35 years since Union. They have had 35 years in which to prove what they can do in respect of language equality and bilingualism, and look where they are standing today? The hon. member for Vryheid spoke here of parental choice as a democratic principle. But when parents get together and by their work and actions establish singlemedium schools, Afrikaans-medium schools, and when they say that it is their wish that their children should attend those schools and when they, according to the hon. member make the correct choice, what does he do? He and his Party come along and do everything in their power to kill the Afrikaans-medium schools as such. In that case the parents choose wisely but now they must be forced to abandon their Afrikaans-medium schools. I purposely mention the Afrikaans-medium schools for we know that the whole agitation is directed against Afrikaans-medium schools. As long as there were only the English-medium schools no agitation took place, but then he came along in order to carry into practice for the Afrikaans-speaking people the “soundest educational principle”, and as soon as Afrikaans-medium schools were established they became scared and those schools must therefore be condemned. As the Minister of Demobilisation said during that agitation, the Afrikaans-medium schools brought about all the racial hatred and therefore they should have their wings clipped. Never a word was said about the English-medium schools but the Afrikaans-medium schools should be strangled. This is a matter causing much dissatisfaction and the position today is such that at this very moment in one of our provinces, namely the Transvaal, a fierce battle is being waged about this problem in the provincial council. As far as the Free State is concerned—I can only speak on behalf of the Free State—the Minister knows that the Provincial Council of the Free State and the Administration do not want to agree to this principle which he now recognises. They are still in favour of the mother-tongue medium but besides that they recognise the principle that every child submitting himself for examination in the Free State should pass in both subjects and this again brings me to a point which I also raised läst year. I said that if they were honest about bilingualism they should do what the Free State has done, that province of racial hatred, that Nationalist province, that province which does everything in the wrong way, but which is the only province of the Union which so far has laid down that no child can pass in the matric or school higher examination unless it passes in both languages. Let Natal show its honesty and also make such a provision. Will they do that? Never in your life. Will the hon. member for Vryheid be in favour of it? In the Free State no teacher can pass out of the Normal College unless he passes in both languages. Will Natal now make a start to do the same in its Normal Colleges? I want to ask the hon. member whether he will be willing to advocate that in Natal?

Of course.

I shall be glad if Natal will now show that it is really in earnest about language equality. All its talk will not bring us any further.

Examine the figures.

If Natal is in earnest it also should lay down in its legislation that everybody there has to pass in both languages. Before that is the case the hon. member should not come here and tell us that Natal is so very much in favour of bilingualism. The Free State is the only province which postulates it and really promotes bilingualism. I want to express my agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Christiana, namely that if the English-speaking children in the Free State would be treated like the Afrikaansspeaking children in Natal, the roof of this House would collapse as a result of the shouting that would be heard here, and in the country there would be a tremendous uproar. In every little village in the Free State where there is a sufficient number of English-speaking children they have to receive instruction through English medium.

How many?

I think twenty.

In Natal it is fifteen.

In the Free State we do not have the position that English-speaking schools are treated shabbily by the provincial administration, like the Afrikaans-medium school at Pietermaritzburg. No, our provincial council provides buildings and grants privileges and everything which is necessary.

There are only two in the whole of the Free State.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. In Bloemfontein alone there are four or five. The hon. member who ran to London to fight against Afrikaans medium should remain quiet. Last year we warned the Minister that on this question they were getting on to dangerous ground and that it would cause many difficulties and if at any time they want to compel the Orange Free State to apply unpedagogically a system which runs counter to the majority of educational people in the Free State, they are looking for trouble. It will cause a great deal of unpleasantness and difficulty. I do not hope that the Government will be so stupid as to start such a conflict. I am glad that the Minister has given proof that he is also liable to being frightened. I think he was a bit frightened in regard to the tax on advertisements. That would certainly have been a most unpopular taxation. My objection was against the fact that the Minister and the Union Government, realising quite well, that it would be a most unpopular taxation wanted to push it off on the provincial councils. In that case the Government would have been able to say: “We did not levy it; the provincial councils levied it.” It gets the provincial councils into a corner and tells them: “There you have a new source of taxation.” I wonder whether it was not a cleverly devised scheme to wreck the provincial system and to make it more and more unpopular; for the time being it has dropped the matter. I want to say that if the Government wants to levy a tax on advertisements in that way it should do so itself and not leave it to others to receive the blame for it afterwards. I believe, however, that one can expect that if such a tax should be levied, it would have the same effect as, for instance, the tax on medicines some years ago. That was a minor tax which caused a tremendous dissatisfaction and which unseated a previous Minister of Finance. Furthermore in regard to these provincial taxes I must say that I am pleased that the Minister acceded to some extent to the request of the Orange Free State. Where in the first instance he only wanted to grant them £200,000 as a special allowance over and above the 50 per cent. of the annually recurring expenditure, he now granted them £300,000. They asked for £350,000, which they thought they should get. He gave them £300,000. During the past nine years, that is to say from 1935-’36 until 1943-’44, the Free State, when calculated on this basis, received on the average £277,926 annually from the Government. That means that the Free State will now receive only approximately £22,000 more than the average figure. The argument is now being advanced in favour of this new system that it is extendible. The elasticity was to be its favourable characteristic. But of course when it is extendible it is also subject to contraction. The new formula may be extendible but it also depends on the condition in the province. It will afterwards also be possible to contract it and that is what the province is afraid of. I do not know whether the Advisory Committee of the province informed the Minister that they were quite satisfied with the new arrangement? I do not think that they are quite satisfied. Of course they have to accept it because it is the policy of the Government but as far as the Free State is concerned I want to point out that the Free State has done its duty in regard to the collection of taxation for obtaining an income. There we levy the ordinary personal tax, entertainment tax, the wheel tax and the motor tax. During the past few years the Free State has not failed to collect taxation and it has not simply said that it is going to rely on the Government. No, the Free State used its sources to the full. The personal tax and the income tax were increased by 25 per cent., the entertainment tax was increased by 25 per cent., the wheel tax was increased by 25 per cent, and the motor tax by 10 per cent. The Free State made use of all its sources and levied higher taxation. The Minister cannot say today that the Free State did not do its duty as far as this is concerned. As a matter of fact the Corbett Commission also said that apart from the motor tax in Natal the Free State had a higher rate in most types of taxation. As far as the extra expenditure is concerned nobody can find anything wrong with what the Free State did. The Free State gave its teachers higher salaries, which amount to an additional expenditure of £70,000 per year. The salaries of nurses were increased, involving an additional £12,000 per year. Road workers were given higher pay which means another £22,000, so that £104,000 is required for increased salaries and those increases were absolutely necessary. I do not think the Minister can find fault with that. Furthermore last year the Free State paid off an amount of £150,000 in cash from its capital debt. In cost of living allowances the province has already paid £221,000. The Free State furthermore applied to the Government for an extra £100,000 for free hospitalisation, an amount which according to the calculations will afterwards have to be increased to £160,000 per year. The Free State is willing to introduce free hospitalisation provided the Government grants the extra allowance. The Government however, refuses to do so. Another scheme was suggested and I think that is one of the schemes which will be laid before us today, namely to tax the natives with a hospital tax of 2s. 6d. per head of the population. I only mention these points to show that the Free State fully deserves what it is getting. It does not possess all the taxable sources which the other provinces have. Just think of the roads. In normal times the roads of the Free State are used to a tremendous extent by the other provinces because the Free State lies in the middle of the Union. All the roads traverse the Free State but it does not receive any taxation from the other provinces for the use of its roads. The Free State roads are used much more by the other provinces than is the case in any other province. The Free State did its duty to levy a higher taxation and it only increased its expenditure where it was absolutely necessary. The Free State is entitled to the higher amount. I am only sorry that the Minister did not go further and did not also give them the additional £50,000 for which they asked. In conclusion I should like to hear from the Minister—and I hope it will be dealt with in his reply—whether the provinces have all agreed in principle to accept this new formula and whether they did not perhaps accept it because they could not do otherwise.

I do not intend to follow the hon. member with the discussion on the dual medium, but I should like to say this to him, from the English point of view. In the Eastern Province where 30 or 40 years ago very few of our youths could speak Afrikaans, today every school is giving instruction in Afrikaans and almost all our children are becoming bilingual.

We are very pleased indeed to hear that.

I can only assure the hon. member that in the Eastern Province, and I think in Natal, we conceive it our duty, and not only our duty but our privilege, to learn the second language, and we are doing our best in that respect. I do not think the legislation brought into this House will affect our attitude or our determination. We are doing our best now to learn the second language and we shall continue to do so. The question of the medium is one of the functions of the Provincial Council. Members of provincial councils are paid £250 a year; this is their job, and I think we can leave it to them to discuss the matter of bilingualism and to work it out. I should like to follow out the suggestion made in the speech by the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming). He suggested that the native is not able to pay a higher levy than at present, and he has taken into consideration the extra half-crown. I do not think this method of taxation a wise one amongst the natives. This poll tax is not a scientific tax, but it is the only method by which we can tap the general bulk of the natives. You get a large number of young men today who are receiving free education. When they turn 18 they go up to the mines, or elsewhere, where they earn their £3 or £4 a month, and the least they can do is to contribute something to the health of their people as soon as they start earning money. The chief point I wish to impress upon the House is there should be a guarantee that this money will be spent on native hospitals. In this connection I would like to quote a few figures from the report of the Native Trust to show that substantial amounts are being received. The amount that will accrue from the Transkei to the Cape Provincial Council is £42,000; Ciskei, £11,000; other parts of the Cape, £11,000; total amount approximately £65,000; from Natal £43,000; from Free State £15,000; and from the Transvaal £47,000. The hon. Minister will know that prior to the Act of 1925 the Cape Province was obtaining a subsidy from the Union Government based on the expenditure of the General Council. But there is no provision today for that same subsidy, and I am afraid that the provincial authorities will say that this taxation they are obtaining from the native must be applied to the whole province, and that this year the money derived from the natives in the Transkei will be applied to the whole province and not merely to the Transkei. I think that is wrong. We in the Transkei have suffered from a lack of hospitalisation for many years. In the last ten or twelve years missionaries have started hospitals. There are seven or eight such hospitals in all, and the hospitalisation is good and has caught on with the natives. Whereas ten or fifteen years ago in some institutions we only had about 20 beds there are now 200 beds, but these institutions are in a very serious position financially! I can quote to the House the statement found in the White Paper on the work of the Native Trust—

In quoting that I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the provincial councils have never stood up to their responsibility in regard to hospitalisation. They have refused to make any contribution. They said: We derive no taxation from the natives and we are not responsible for mission hospitals in native areas. At the outbreak of the war these hospitals were faced with the position that without assistance they would have to close down. The Trust came to their assistance and each year the amount devoted to them has increased. In 1941 the amount was £31,000, while for the current year the amount is £75,000. The Trust cannot carry on any longer. All I want to be assured of by the Minister is, as far as the Native Trust and Development Fund is concerned, that this taxation is going to absolve the Trust from any further responsibility or liability for the maintenance of these hospitals. When the Act was passed in 1936 and provision was made for the development of the natives, it was never contemplated for a moment at that time that the Trust would have to face the responsibility of maintaining native hospitalisation. That amount was purely for development purposes. Today on account of the legislation dealing with natives four-fifths of that amount of general tax has been taken by the Union authorities for native education, and only one-fifth is left for the Trust. I wish to say that if we have to continue with this liability of maintaining these hospitals in these areas, mission hospitals and other hospitals, we may as well close down that fund. We shall have no money left for native development. I feel it is one of the most important functions of the Native Trust and of the Native Commission to see that the onefifth left is used for native development and not for extraneous purposes such as education and hospitalisation. I want to ask the Minister one question. As I said before, this subsidy paid by the Union Government is based amongst other things upon the expenditure of divisional councils. The Union Government pays on the basis of the expenditure of divisional councils in the Cape and even of local road boards. In the Transkei we have one road board. As the Transkei has its native General Council, which carries out a large number of the duties of a divisional council, such as the maintenance of roads and the building of bridges and hospitalisation—I think the contribution this year to roads and hospitalisation is something like £13,000—in view of the fact that this General Council carries out essentially and in some cases precisely the same duties as divisional councils, I want to know why in the provision for subsidies payable to the Cape Provincial Council no provision is made for a subsidy to be paid on the expenditure of the General Council. It seems to me to be only fair, seeing the General Council is carrying out the duties of the divisional councils in regard to the maintenance of roads—and many of these roads are travelled over by railway buses and so on—it seems to be only fair that any expenditure by the General Council in the same channels as funds expended by the divisional councils should rank for a subsidy, in order that the General Council may also have a claim for some subsidy from the provincial council. The position was so bad in the Transkei in regard to roads and bridges that much repair and construction work was done by the natives without any external assistance. No assistance could be obtained from the provincial council, so the European residents agreed to a 1¼d. rate on landed property. This is one of the few instances where local people have voluntarily agreed to the imposition of a tax for their own benefit. As far as the Transkei is concerned, the general tax should be subsidised in exactly the same way as the divisional council receives its subsidy. A further point I would like to raise. The general tax is a tax on all Union natives, but I should like to point out to the Minister—and he is of course aware of the fact—that there are tens of thousands of foreign natives paying no tax into our revenue. Are these natives going to have free hospitalisation? Is there any scheme by which they could be made to contribute something? Is it fair that our natives should pay for the hospitalisation of Basutos, Nyasa natives and natives from Lourenco Marques? I think there is something wrong there. I would prefer instead of an increase in the general tax to see a tax based on the income of natives. For instance, let every employer of natives deduct half-a-crown from the first month’s salary of a native employee and remit it to the authorities. I know it will be extremely difficult to collect. But I agree with the hon. member for Transkei that this is an unscientific tax, and perhaps some other method of obtaining money from native areas might be suggested. We find that in Basutoland a levy was imposed on all native wool exported from the country, and this levy of a ½d. was collected from the traders and brought in a considerable amount of revenue. I personally would prefer to see the money required from the Transkei raised on a wool levy or some similar scheme, so that the wealthy natives might contribute something more. I hope that the authorities will try to find some better method of taxing the native who is able to pay. Where a native has 300 or 400 head of cattle and 2,000 or 3,000 sheep, it is obviously not right that he should pay exactly the same tax as the native who owns practically nothing. I hope the Minister will place this matter before the Bunga. Let them argue it out and see if they cannot devise a fairer method of taxation. I do not think the natives will object to paying a certain amount of tax for their hospitalisation, but I do not think the present tax operates fairly.

This debate ranges over the financial relationships between the provinces and the Union Government. Not over the relationships in other respects, but there is of course a measure of affinity between the two. I think it is obvious that if the Union Government has entrusted certain functions to the provinces then, especially if those are important functions, we must see to it that the means are available for the carrying out of those functions adequately. Unless of course the intention is to kill the provinces by making them unpopular in this way then after a certain period to sidetrack them. If that is not the idea it is absoluately reasonable to expect that when you entrust important functions to the provinces, as we are now doing, that the means should be made available for the adequate carrying out of those functions. Education is, of course, one of the most important functions, the question of public health and of hospitals is an important function that has been entrusted to the provincial councils, especially after the report that came out and the partial acceptance of that report by the Government. I am not referring to the other functions. But there are other functions that relate to roads for the development of the country which are also important. When we look at the means that have been made available as sources of taxation for the provinces it appears to me that the intention originally was to entrust those sources of taxation to the provinces which would be collected as direct taxation and not as indirect taxation. Direct taxation is taxation which is much more readily felt by the taxpayer and consequently it is a much more unpopular form of taxation. The taxpayer is not nearly so sensitive to indirect taxation and consequently it is not so unpopular. From the outset the idea apparently was to give only direct taxation to the provinces.

It was originally put that way in the law.

In the list there were certain taxes which were not altogether direct taxes.

They first had the general power to impose any direct taxation. I think it was in the South Africa Act.

In 1913 with the Financial Relations Act a schedule was drawn up and although the idea then was that it should be direct some indirect taxes slipped in. The first objection I wish to express is that it is not altogether fair towards the provinces to allot to them only those sources that are unpopular, and will hit the taxpayer most severly; that it would be more reasonable to provide them with a greater range of choice of indirect taxes so that they can find the necessary funds without imposing unpopular taxes. There is, for instance, a tax that has been on the schedule all these years, and that is Item 10., So far as I know it is not applied in any of the provinces today. I refer to the tax on fixed property. For a long time it was imposed in the Cape Province, but it was so unpopular that it had to be rescinded; but it still stands there as a potential means of taxation, and it seems to me that it might just as well be removed, and in its stead the Minister might just as well consider giving to the provinces an indirect method of taxation that is practical. This principle that the Minister is laying down here is substantially a return to the principle of 1913. It is a departure from the subsidy basis that followed in later years. Whether it is an improvement or whether it is a retrograde step that we should have reverted to the 1913 basis, the fact remains that there is a measure of uncertainty. There are certain services. I think it can be laid down what the minimum requirement is to carry out these services adequately. In every case an attempt has been made in the report of the Corbett Commission to lay down what is the minimum amount that would be adequate. I think the provinces would be glad to know about this basis, if they accept it from the Government and should it fall short on what one might describe as a minimum basis, for the future carrying out of those services, whether that difference between the two amounts cannot then be made up by way of a special promise. That would reassure them in adopting this basis. We must remember that we stand today at the most favourable period for provincial finances, and if you are going to establish your basis under the favourable circumstances of today it is very probable that in the future you will hot be able to manage; and the provinces that will be the first to be caught are the Free State and the Cape Province because their sources of taxation are not so ample as those of the other provinces. If we had a fixed system, a percentage right through the country, then it would only operate equitably if in each province the wealth was the same as in the other provinces. But as you have a difference in the relative wealth of the provinces this principle does not apply evenly. The Corbett Commission laid down that the wealth of the various provinces was not the same. They give the contributions of the various provinces to the national income in 1938-’39. The contribution of the Transvaal to the national income was £211,600,000. Of that the proportion due to mining was £76,600,000. There is no provincial taxation payable on mining. Thus for the sake of fairness we must reduce that amount by £76,600,000. But it still means that the Transvaal’s contribution to the national income is £135,000,000. In the Cape Province the contribution to the national income was only £107,000,000. You see immediately that the income of the one province is lower than that of the other. But its expense is greater, thus relatively it is a poorer province than the other. Consequently to apply the same basis to both would not be just. You find the same difference between the Free State and Natal. The contribution made by Natal to the national income was £48,000,000 and that of the Free State £27,000,000. Under these circumstances it is of course very difficult to say this is a fair amount although it is the same percentage in every province, and consequently I consider that the correct principle is that account should be taken of the difference in the relative wealth of the various provinces. When you come to your subsidies you have to take that into account. The basis is 50 per cent. of the expenditure with certain qualifications. In addition there are certain special subsidies. In the case of the Free State it is £300,000; in the case of the Cape it is £150,000; and in the case of Natal it is £100,000. On the normal subsidy, a margin is allowed of only 5 per cent. Whether that is adequate or not I shall leave for the moment. I think there is much in what was said by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), the basis allowed for an increase ought to be higher, especially bearing in mind the augmented services expected from the provinces in regard to hospitalisation. I wonder whether in any case it cannot be the via media that where in respect of normal services the increase is 5 per cent, in respect of hospitalisation and health services it should be 7½ per cent. But now there is another position, and it refers to this special subsidy. This is a permanent subsidy. It does not grow. There may be increased services. Larger expenditure may be necessarily bound up with hospitalisation and health services, but that £300,000 for the Free State remains at £300,000 for three years, and subsequently as Parliament may resolve. I believe that the correct principle will be for that special subsidy to be dealt with on the same basis as the normal subsidy; in other words it should also be progressive. If 5 per cent. is allowed on the normal subsidy in reference to extension of services then there ought to be, at least in respect of the special subsidy, a 5 per cent. margin for a natural increase. I think that is quite logical and quite fair, whether that amount is necessary today or whether it is not. If it is necessary for existing services it is obvious there will be an extension of those services next year, and then in the case of the Cape where this year £150,000 is being paid out, an extra 5 per cent. at least will be disbursed in respect of the expansion and so next year the sum of £157,500 will be granted. I think the Minister will admit it is a principle that is being applied on the normal subsidy. Why is a departure being made from it in the case of special subsidies, for which there exists such good grounds as indicated in the Corbett Commission. As far as the sources of taxation are concerned I have already said a few words about them. I only want to add that the whole question of the advertisement tax is apparently being reconsidered, and I would just point this out. The idea has been expressed—I do not know whether the Minister has investigated it—that a possible alternative, or a possible extra source of taxation, would be a sales tax. I am not sufficiently conversant with the matter to say whether it will be good under the circumstances, but I would point out that this tax is imposed in many countries in the world, and amongst others it is levied today in both Canada and Australia. But then of course it is a tax that would have to be adopted on a Union basis. You cannot allow one province to have a sales tax on its own, otherwise you will have the same difficulties that exist in regard to importers’ licences. Consequently it would be better to lay down a model, and then all the income from it should be promised to the provincial councils just as in the case of liquor licences. I have been talking generally about the subsidies and about the sources of taxation in connection with the hospital contributions. I see the Minister has made provision that the hospital contributions of divisional councils shall be included by the provincial councils as expenditure; but what about the position of the municipal contributions to the hospital deficit in the Cape Province? Is that also included.

No, that is purely a matter as between the provinces and the municipalities.

But in the Cape, as distinct from the other provinces, the responsibility for a portion of the hospital deficit is thrown on to the divisional councils and a portion on the municipalities.

But that is because the provinces have laid it down in that way.

But the part that is thrown on to the divisional councils falls under consideration in connection with a subsidy for the provinces. Why do we have this difference then between the portion that is contributed by the divisional councils and the portion that is contributed by the municipalities? The principle is the same. Both are local authorities. In both cases the provincial council thought fit to place a part of the responsibility on the local authority. Why make this difference, depending on whether it is a divisional council or a municipality? I think it is a matter that ought to be investigated. Then, finally, I should like to say a few words in connection with the National Road Board. This morning the hon. member for George pointed out that at the moment the whole position of the National Road Board is in the air. I want to go further than this. I think the dual position the National Road Board is in gives no satisfaction to anyone. The Minister did not do it here; he leaves the position just where it is; but he will have to devote his earnest attention to it, in order to see that the position of the National Road Board is made to fit in more closely with our system of provincial councils; that there should not be such a degree of diversity and duality, that the administrative costs are frequently so high and where this is also the cause of exceptional friction. I think the Minister realises it is not a position that works easily, and something will have to be done to see whether such a change cannot be brought about so that the friction that exists today can be entirely eliminated. A measure of friction exists especially in connection with the appointment of members to the National Road Board. I think that this is also a matter the Minister is cognisant of. Much dissatisfaction exists as far as the provinces are concerned—in respect of certain provinces at any rate—and I think it is necessary for the sake of healthy co-operation between the provincial council and the National Road Board that as far as the appointment of members to the National Road Board is concerned they should enjoy the full confidence of the provincial councils of the provinces that they represent. I think this matter cannot be left much longer in the position it is at present. The figures mentioned here by the hon. member for George afforded proof that the board fulfils a very important function. We vote that money to them, and today we are in this difficulty, that we as Parliament voting the money for the National Road Board do not exercise sufficient control on the expenditure of that money. It is not subject to any measure of control by our Auditor-General. I do not know where to fit that in; it is a matter for the Minister, but he must see that this position is thrashed out in the future so that in the future there will not be this incessant friction that we have had in the past.

For some considerable time now there have been increasing signs of the necessity for a revision of the financial relations between the central government and the provinces. There have always been increasing signs of the urgent need for an overhaul and extension of local government machinery in this country. These are two related interests and they are both involved in this measure. They are interests of first-class importance to this country and in these circumstances I regret that the hon. Minister was not able to bring in this measure a little earlier into the House when all its implications might have been more fully explored than they can be in the end-of-session atmosphere which prevails in the House today. We are laying new foundations which should be sufficiently well laid to last for a considerable time and in the circumstances it is a pity that anything of that kind should be done in a hurry. That does not mean that I feel there is anything seriously wrong with the principles that are being laid down in this Bill. My own feeling is all against the provincial councils as local government bodies in this country. I think they provide an extremely awkward basis. Our provincial boundaries do not march with any human or economic interests. The lack of balance therefore, which is created faces us with problems of accommodation which are too great, I think, ever to be effectively adjusted. That is clearly reflected in this Bill itself in the fact that we have to place alongside the general principle of financial relationship between the central government and the provinces, provisions for special subsidies for three out of the four provinces. However, it seems that the emotional support behind the provincial councils is so strong that it will continue to exist. After all, the system has been reported against and reported against for the last 25 years and it is still with us. So it looks to me as if we are not going to get rid of them. In the circumstances I think that the general principles embodied in the financial adjustments of this Bill have a good deal to be said for them. I am all in favour of making the people who spend the money raise it, and answer to those from whom they raise it for what they do with it. That is an essential change in this measure from the pre-existing situation, as I understand it, with certain modifications; and apart from the continuance of the responsibility for education and hospitals by the provincial councils, two functions which I think very definitely need centralised control to establish a unified policy, the functions that are being placed on the provincial councils, that have in the past been placed on the provincial councils but which they are now going to finance themselves, are largely of a local government nature. Therefore I believe this is a step towards making provincial councils, as far as they can be made so, real local government units. Unfortunately I cannot spend very much time on that aspect of the situation today because inevitably my main interest is focused on the revision of the powers of the provincial councils in respect of native taxation. I want to say at once that I strongly support the case that was put forward by my hon. colleague, that is that we are entirely opposed to the incorporation in this Bill of the possibility of a direct tax on the native population, even to the apparently small amount of 2s. 6d. I propose to explain my reasons for that opposition, some of which are the same as those given by the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming). But the first point I want to put to the Minister in this connection is that this Bill with this clause in it embodies a new principle in native taxation has not been effectively put before the Natives’ Representative Council for its consideration. This Bill involves a very large principle in the matter of native taxation, a new principle, and in the terms of the 1936 Representation of Natives Act, provision is made for the full consultation of the native people through the Natives’ Representative Council on any matter of this kind. The situation as I have it is this, that until this Bill was published some ten days ago, even the Native Affairs Department did not know what this tax was going to be. Since then it is quite true that this Bill with this new provision has been referred to the Natives’ Representative Council, but it has been referred to the Natives’ Representative Council in such a way that the Natives’ Representative Council themselves have expressed their belief that this-type of consultation is a complete and absolute farce. What happened in regard to this Bill was that when it was published and the Native Affairs Department realised that it should be referred to the Natives’ Representative Council in the terms of the Natives’ Representation Act, the Natives’ Representative Councillors were urgently summoned to Pretoria. I am told that they were summoned by telephone, so urgent was the call. They went there last Friday morning to discuss this matter and when they arrived on Friday morning, copies of the relevant section of the Bill were presented to them for the first time. They had apparently been told over the telephone that they were going to discuss the question of the imposition of a direct tax by the provincial council on them, but they did not even see the section of the Bill until five minutes before the meeting opened last Friday morning.

Members of Parliament are in the same position.

It is all very well, but members of Parliament can at least get up and say that they are not ready to discuss the matter and if they refuse to discuss it the matter cannot be put through the House. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) yesterday asked the hon. Minister to postpone the consideration of this Bill that has been on our desks for some ten days. I think he was quite right; I am not challenging that, but he asked that the consideration of this Bill be postponed till today and that was agreed to at once. What the Natives’ Represented tive Council did was to say that they could not express their opinion on this matter which involved a great principle so far as they were concerned on this type of consultation, and they feel that if this is what the Government really intends to do with the Natives’ Representative Council, which is what they have long been beginning to suspect, then the sooner that body is done away with the better. They refused to express an opinion on this issue for the simple reason that they said they had not enough facts to deal with the matter. They did not know what they were going to get for the 2s. 6d. They did not know what anybody else was going to pay in the way of hospital tax. They wanted to know what the returns of their own taxation were in comparison with the European taxation so that they could give a considered judgment as to whether this was a reasonable demand or not. I think members of Parliament will agree that these were perfectly legitimate questions and that the councillors had a right to expect answers to those questions. For those reasons alone I should be opposed to the imposition of this tax. I think that the Natives’ Representative Council was quite right in asking that legislation of this kind should not be passed through this House this Session, that they at least be given time to express their opinion on it in terms which would reflect the intentions of the Act of 1936. They said: “We did not ask for a Natives’ Representative Council; we asked for representation in Parliament. Now you are going to place us in the position that even what you have given us is going to be of no use to us at all”. It is a perfectly legitimate answer. For that reason I am opposed to the granting of this power in this Bill, and I hope very sincerely that the hon. Minister will reconsider his decision in the matter and will agree in the committee stage to delete the proviso in Clause 10 which gives this power to the provincial councils. He has agreed to delete the provision giving the provincial councils power to tax in the matter of advertisements. We have no political power or pressure behind our demands as those interested in advertisements have but that seems to place an additional obligation on the Government in view of its trusteeship in respect of the people we represent. Now in so far as the tax itself is concerned, even if the Natives’ Rerpresentative Council had not taken up this attitude in regard to it I should have been opposed to this tax and that for some very obvious reasons. The first point is that we know both from the report of the National Health Services Commission and from the report of the Provincial Financial Resources Committee, on whose opinion the National Health Services Commission largely based its findings in regard to hospital services, that the provincial councils have lamentably failed in their duty in regard to the provision of hospital services for natives. It is clear that the maximum proceeds of this tax of 2s. 6d. is not going to make a fantastic difference to the financial resources of the provincial councils and in the circumstances inevitably one must ask for the programme which this tax is supposed to assist in developing. What are the native people going to get in return for this new 2s. 6d. as the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) asked?

2s.

If they get 1s. 6d. worth they will be lucky. I feel that before levying this new tax for hospital services the Government should have come forward with a statement of the programme and of the time factor in their programme of hospital development which the provincial councils are offering before asking Parliament to agree to any increase of revenue for the provincial councils at all. So far there has been no new imposition in regard to the European population. The provincial councils have the power to increase their direct taxation on the European population. They may be going to do so. But we have not heard anything at all about it; and if they do it I am perfectly certain that those who pay these taxes will also demand that they should know just what they will get. Now, I am asking this question about the provincial council’s programmes with one particular section of the native population particularly in mind. This new tax of 2s. 6d., which I understand two provincial councils have already got new ordinances ready to impose as soon as the Bill goes through the House, so that there is no question at all of its being a dead-letter. This tax will be imposed on all natives. It is going to be an addition to the poll tax. Now, there has been considerable agitation, and justified agitation, from the rural areas in regard to the incidence of poll tax and what the rural native population gets out of it. The farm native population is almost half of the whole native population, and they have contended with considerable justification that they get just nothing out of the poll tax. They have no schools or clinics and certainly no hospitals, yet they are also going to carry this additional burden. What are they going to get out of it? In that connection I wish to remind the Minister of the finding of the Provincial Financial Resources Committee in this regard. They analysed both the actual position in regard to beddage in hospitals in this country and the beddage that should be provided. They decided to accept as their standard a much lower standard for natives than for Europeans. I think it is one bed for 200 Europeans and one for 600 natives. They adopted that lower standard for natives on the very ground that the bulk of the native population are rural natives and that it will be practically impossible to give them hospitalisation on the same basis as for Europeans. They thought themselves “justified in making this differentiation in view of the fact that the bulk of the native population resides in rural areas which must for some time be remote from any general system of hospitalisation and consists of people leading a primitive life in which for social and economic reasons, hospitalisation has not yet played any large part.” We know what the farming population is beginning to think about that situation; but it remains a fact that not only is that provision not made, but as the commission pointed out, there are not even roads in the rural areas to make it possible for the natives in their grave emergencies to get to the centres where hospitalisation is provided. All these services have still to be provided. That trail still has to be blazed and it will take a long time and a lot of money to do it, yet here they are already asking these people to pay another 2s. 6d. added on to their already heavy burden in this regard. In all the circumstances I feel that the native community, who will certainly bitterly resent this added burden, will have every justification for doing so. In addition I wish to remind the Minister that the Financial Resources Committee made it quite clear that one great reason why the provinces had not carried their burdens in a fashion which we would regard as adequate was because they were so weak in capital resources. They state that the provinces had found it impossible to carry their burdens in this regard. “The committee,” they said, “had received complaints from all the provincial authorities that they were hampered in their development by lack of capital. Particularly is this so in connection with the provision of school buildings and hospitals.” It adds that “the committee has no wish to criticise the present arrangements” but “the need for capital facilities to enable adequate services to be rendered is obvious and the provinces cannot be blamed for failure to expand their services if the necessary funds are not made available”. If circumstances are such that the Government had to add these burdens on to the already heavy burdens of the natives, it should have given us a statement of its plans in this particular regard also as an indication of what will be done. Finally, on this section of what I have to say—and I hope the Minister will hear me—my next anxiety is this, and it has been considerably aggravated by what the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has said. I am not blaming him this time. I usually have reason to quarrel with him, but on this occasion he was just doing what a good member of Parliament does, looking after his own constituency. The hon. member for Tembuland asked what was going to happen to the money raised by the tax in the Transkei in view of the fact that at present the Bunga is providing a certain amount of its own resources to support the hospitals existing in the Transkei. I sympathise with the hon. member for Tembuland. Services have been established there and he wants a guarantee that if the Bunga feels that it is not going both to subsidise and pay the tax, at least the money paid by the Transkei will be spent on it. But the implication of that argument, which may be all right for the Transkei, is dangerous to the rest of South Africa. Implicit in that demand that the money raised in the Transkei should come back to the Transkei is the old iniquitous principle of a self-balancing account. I cannot say that is what the hon. member for Tembuland wants, but that is what will inevitably happen. It is what inevitably happens when these specific taxes are levied on specific groups. The tendency is for the community responsible for the service to assume that its obligation ends when the resources of that particular tax end. We have seen that with the Native Trust Account, and we see it every day in the Native Revenue Account in the municipal areas. This brings me to my final point, which is that my objection to this tax, apart from the fact that it is an added burden oh people whom I am not sure can pay it—I am not stressing that too strongly at this moment—is that it is a discriminatory tax which has a very unfortunate psychological effect in this country. Out of this way of taxing the native population by methods different from those which apply to the rest of the community there arises the idea that these are the only taxes that the native people pay. That is an idea which lends some colour to the unfortunate propaganda that continually goes on from the Opposition side of the House, that the native population should be given nothing they do not contribute to, and the source of contribution is visualised as the poll tax only. This raises the whole taxation issue in this country and I want to suggest to the Minister that the time has come to depart from this method of dealing with the native population in its taxable relationship to the country. The time has come, I believe, to review the whole taxation policy and to see whether it would not be far wiser and more satisfactory to bring the native population within the ambit of the general taxation system of the country. A difficulty arises there. I want to call the attention of the Minister and the House to the fact that while this Clause 10 of the new Bill apparently limits the power of the provincial council to tax the native population and suggests that there are aspects of the native’s life which must not be taxed, in fact, for revenue other than that derived from the personal tax which the provincial council is empowered to levy, every tax imposed by either the Government or the provincial councils applies to the native population. That is, apart from the personal tax and the provincial tax on income taxpayers which the provincial councils could not impose upon natives, the native is subject to all the taxes which are imposed in this country. The situation in regard to the income taxpayer is now being altered by this Bill to bring the native income taxpayer within the scope of the provincial tax. Let me repeat that all the fees and licences which can be imposed under the First Schedule to this Bill, are all applicable to the native population. It may be a fact that the native population would not contribute much under any of these headings, but that is due to their economic status; it is not due to their taxable position under our law. And in so far as they do not pay because they are economically incapable of paying, that merely squares with the modern principle of taxation that taxation should be levied according to the capacity of people to pay. But in this Clause 10—and I am anxious to have the attention of the Minister because I feel this is important—which repeats the old statutory position in regard to the powers of provincial councils, there is the implication that the native population is exempt from the whole range of taxes applying to Europeans. This clause lays down—

with the new provisos that follow. I want to point out that any implication there that the native is exempt from taxation in these directions, that is in regard to persons, lands, habitations and incomes, is entirely unjustified. In fact, the native is subject to taxation in practically all these directions. He continually pays taxes on his land to the Trust. He cannot buy land; he cannot hold freehold land. No, that is not exactly right. I will put it this way. The bulk of the native population can never buy land; they hold their land on the basis of a perpetual quitrent. That is a tax on land. And even where they do not own land they pay on their habitations, both in rural areas and urban. They do it directly in the rural areas by paying a 10s. hut tax, and in the urban areas indirectly by paying rents in locations and rates where they occupy houses outside the location. They are also subject to the ordinary income tax law. Finally as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) says, the tax on immovable property has been a dead letter. It has been imposed only in the Cape Province and only there, in a very limited sense, so that that exclusion means nothing in effect. But here is the point which I wish to make: Although the provincial council is prevented from imposing a tax on persons, land, habitations, etc., it will now have the right to impose a tax on incomes, by this amendment, and to impose a tax on persons, which is a thing which complicates the whole situation. To appreciate the implications, the situation must be seen in this light that where the tax on persons is imposed on Europeans, coloureds and everyone else by the provincial council, it is imposed by the Union Government in respect of natives. The native population is not exempt from personal tax. What it has been exempted from is not the personal tax as such, but the imposition of the personal tax by the provincial council. What is otherwise a provincial tax has in their case been imposed by the Union Government, and as a matter of fact in all the circumstances the native has paid much more heavily in personal taxation than the rest of the community in that the exemptions which other races have enjoyed in respect of the personal tax under provincial ordinance have not applied to him in respect of the poll tax. This is the only differentiation that I know of in the ordinary taxation law. Every other form of taxation applies to the whole community. The native pays the indirect taxes imposed through customs. There is no discrimination there, unless it be that goods in common use by natives have been more highly dutiable than goods in common use by other sections of the community. I am thinking of things like kaffir sheeting and cotton blankets on which extremely heavy duties are imposed as the natives can exert no political pressure to protect them in that regard. All the indirect taxation falls upon them; and they are subject to all the licences, etc., which the provincial council can impose. The income tax is applied to them too. Now the provincial council will get the power to impose a personal tax; and let me make it perfectly plain, I am not objecting to that as a principle. In fact, the implication of what I am saying is this, that it would be far better for the native population, I think—I want to qualify it for this reason that am in the same position as the Natives’ Representative Council in that I have not been provided with a scientific analysis of the position—but on my own analysis I think the native would be far better off if he were brought completely within the ambit of the general taxation system. And it would be far healthier for the country if that were the case. It would cut the ground from under all this argument that for services provided the native depends on what is paid by the white man. That argument really derives from the poll tax. It would render ludicrous the sort of proposition put up by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) this morning, which was that the Government felt so tender towards the rich that it has to guarantee the money for the roads on which they travel, and that it was so tender—I thought he was going to say—towards the poor that it would guarantee their education, but he did not say that. He said instead, so tender towards the natives that it was going to guarantee their education: Look, he said, what they are doing for the Europeans! He said the Government would provide only a 50 per cent. subsidy for the Europeans but 100 per cent. for the natives. I am not accusing the hon. member for George of being vicious in this regard but he is a politician.

And what are you.

We are all politicians in this House; and he finds it useful at times to use that sort of argument where his Party are determined to play up European prejudice. He does it with a rather unhappy grace, but it can be done under this system, and that is an additional reason for abolishing the whole thing. We will probably lose a bit by it, and the natives would proportionally gain, since under the exemption provided in respect of personal tax in the provinces, a good many natives would have to be exempted, because in spite of the assumption that personal tax is a flat rate tax, in fact the exemptions give it some relationship to capacity to pay. Of course the reaction of the Central Government would be that it would lose, but in fact it would not lose much since it is paying over far more to the provinces on behalf of the natives, or it will increasingly do so, than the whole poll tax brings in. What I want to say is this, that neither we nor the native population have any objection to the native population paying taxes. We are extremely anxious, as are the natives, that they should make their contribution to the national revenue. All we are asking is that that contribution should be graduated according to their capacity to pay and that the amounts which they actually contribute in other than direct means shall be consistently remembered instead of being consistently forgotten. They contribute to a far higher degree than their means justify to the national revenue through indirect taxation. What they contribute in direct taxation might under this scheme of making them subject to the Provincial Personal Tax instead of the poll tax, be considerably smaller. But what we pay in political maladjustments through this type of direct taxation, which belongs, in any case to the Middle Ages, is far more than we can continue to pay. We would be far better off by applying the general scheme of taxation all round, even if it does mean handing over the control of these revenues to the provincial councils. Our one desire is that the native population shall be increasingly enabled to pay and everything they are able to pay they will willingly pay and we will willingly support this Parliament in imposing the obligation upon them. That is my case. I put it to the Minister for his consideration and I ask him seriously to consider withdrawing this tax from this Bill. It is establishing a new precedent and a bad one. Where the Government is prepared to allow the provincial council to impose new obligations on the whole community for health service or for social security which has been promised we will not be obstructionists. But this sort of thing will only make more discrimination in ideas if not in fact, and it is the idea that is so often important. It will give us endless trouble. The natives will resent it. The provinces will be inclined to give only what is paid for and the Opposition will do its best to see that the natives get nothing more than they can help, beyond what they can see is directly paid for by the natives. I ask the Minister to delete this clause and to institute a general enquiry into the whole taxation system in regard to natives, to see whether my proposition is not a sound one.

I think the new financial powers given to the provincial councils are very desirable and mark a step forward. The new basis for subsidising the councils marks a definite step forward and in particular the basis upon which education is to be subsidised. The old system of basing that upon the attendance at schools is unsound because expenditure has little relationship to a fluctuating attendance. I am glad to see now that the amount is going to be fixed but I am not sure whether the same principle is going to be applied to the institutions which are being subsidised. I take it that if the Union Government is paying each province a flat amount by way of subsidy the provinces, in turn, should pay each institution a flat amount by way of subsidy. I raise this point because I am interested in a nursery school, and there is a great deal of discrimination. This House has voted to the provinces a certain fixed sum which is distributed amongst the provinces and the provinces, in turn, have been paying that over to the institutions concerned on the basis of attendance. Now there may be something to be said for that in the case of primary and secondary education, where attendance at school is compulsory, but in the case of nursery schools there is ho compulsory attendance laid down, and our experience has been this that where an epidemic has started, such as the infantile paralysis epidemic last year, for two or three weeks more than half the pupils are kept at home. The children in these nursery schools are between two and six years of age. It is very unfair to base the subsidy upon attendance. I must say this though that in certain cases allowances were made. Nevertheless I think it is right that the provinces should subsidise these institutions at a flat rate, based, if they like, upon the number of pupils in the school but not upon the average daily attendance. Nursery schools receive no money for school feeding, and yet the Nursery School Association is taking an active part in promoting the idea of school feeding. I think this is a discrimination that might well be remedied. In introducing the Bill the Minister stated that he intended to go into the question of whether some uniform system of taxation among the provinces could not be instituted. That would be an admirable idea in connection with the personal income tax. I do not think there is any maximum limit that the province can charge, but in levying a percentage tax on income tax there should be a degree of uniformity among the different provinces. It would be a step forward if the Minister would go into it with the provinces. A few words on the question of taxation on advertising. The Minister has intimated that in the Committee Stage the relevant section of the Bill will be withdrawn, and with that many of us are pleased. He stated that in any question of a tax on advertising there should, if possible, be uniformity in the four provinces and that he intends to take the matter further with the provinces. I submit that the real test is whether we should give any power to the provinces to impose a tax on advertising. The arguments against authorising the provinces to tax advertising are numerous and overwhelming. I think it is entirely wrong in principle that anybody other than this House should be entitled to levy a tax on any item of business expenditure. I do not know why advertising is singled out as a business expense.

But the Minister has told us he has dropped it.

The Minister has not dropped it. He is consulting with the provinces with a view to securing uniformity. I think the matter should be approached more objectively and from the angle that the tax should be negatived entirely. There are many forms in which an advertising tax could be levied—on newspapers, periodicals, magazines, hoardings, posters on railway stations, and then there are catalogues, cinemas and radio advertising. Advertising is done in a multitude of ways, and the question arises why there should be taxation on certain types and not on others.

You are flogging a dead horse.

I put it to the Minister that the idea of any such tax should be abandoned.

The Minister told you long ago he was dropping it, you know he is going to drop it, and here you are making a speech about nothing.

Hear, hear.

I want to come to the final point, Clause 5 of the Bill. I am glad to see that the penalty to be imposed for late payment of personal tax is to be reduced from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. I want particularly to refer to sub-clause 1 (b). Here we find different rates of penalty for late payment of personal income tax based on the amount of tax due. The same persons have to pay the penalty on an amount, which represents a percentage of their income tax, and yet in the Income Tax Act the matter is disposed of by the payment of interest at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum in respect of any amount not paid by the specified date. In this clause the rate varies from 12 per cent. to 30 per cent. per annum. I cannot see any reason for differential penalties in the case of the personal income tax on the basis laid down here. I do not know why it should not be uniform with the penalty imposed on the income taxpayer. It would be ideal at this stage to create uniformity, and I should like the Minister to move in the Committee Stage to delete paragraph (b) and substitute a clause making the penalty uniform with that in the Income Tax Act.

I did not expect to hear a debate on bilingual education on this Bill. I thought that question had been one of the major issues at the last provincial council elections, and the country having made its pronouncement it would not be necessary to go into it again. I feel, however, this is a measure that needs to be examined rather more closely. There are a number of important points in connection with it, and I think this discussion will do a great deal of good. Particularly as far as the Cape Province is concerned I welcome the improved position it will be placed in as a result of this new measure. The Cape Province has, for many years, had to battle against the system that militated-very much against them. One of their drawbacks has been the inadequate provision for financing coloured education, and on that subject at any rate they will receive considerable benefit. I would also like to support the point made by the hon. member for Tembu land (Mr. Payn). I think the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) rather missed the point of his remarks. His principal point, I think, was that the Cape Province and all Cape divisional councils are directly responsible for certain services. In the Transkei some of these services have not been provided by the divisional council but they have been provided by the Transkeian Territories General Council. The General Council has had no subsidy from the Provincial Council in respect of those services, and on account of that they are excluded from the list of contributions that will be supported by the Government on the £ for £ basis. That was, I think, the particular point he made, and on that point I should like to mention that the. Transkeian General Council, in its current year’s estimates, is budgeting to spend £78,777 on public works and £13,000 on public health. If that expenditure had taken place in a divisional council area it would have been subsidised by this Government on the £ for £ basis, but as it has not been previously subsidised or assisted at all by the Provincial Council, it does not fall within the range of subsidies under this measure. A strong case can be made out for including at any rate some portion of that expenditure under the heading of those that may be subsidised. Then in regard to the hospitalisation of natives, the Provincial Council has consistently refused to face up to its obligations. It has beeen a very difficult task to try to get it to make very small contributions, particularly to mission hospitals, which in the Transkei have been terribly neglected by the authorities. I hope that now they will make a generous contribution and face up to their responsibilities, that they will make a reasonable grant to these institutions, and in that way enable them to obtain more assistance from the Union Government. With regard to the half-crown tax on natives I agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern. I think the method of approach in connection with consulting the Natives’ Representative Council was very unfortunate. We should have given them more time for consideration. Had we done that we might have had a much happier state of affairs. I rather gather from what the hon. member for Cape Eastern said that in her opinion the amount suggested was very low, and I was wondering whether a way out would not be to withdraw this item from the schedule and substitute 5s. in its place. The natives, I feel, can well afford to pay this amount. In regard to the statement that farm natives are unable to pay and that they are given practically no services, I may say that a very large number of farm natives today are enjoying hospital facilities. In many cases, too, farm schools are being established and they get assistance from the provincial authorities. So the natives do derive benefit from this taxation. On one point I think the farming community is going to be taxed rather excessively. I entirely oppose the idea of giving the provincial councils power to levy an auction sales tax.

They have always had it.

I think it is wrong that the Provincial Council should be able to levy a tax of this sort on one form of sale. If the Provincial Council or any other authority wants to levy a tax let them have a general sales tax. Before the war wool, which was sold entirely by auction, would have borne considerable taxation, while other sales would not be subject to the tax. If the Minister is favourably disposed to considering the point put forward by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. I suggest he withdraws this item of 2s. 6d., with the tax on advertisements and the auction tax, that he should review these three and see whether it is not possible to bring forward more equitable forms of taxation in their place. I think the country generally will welcome the agreement that has been made between the Union Government and the provinces, and that they will feel that the provinces have been placed in a much more satisfactory position. From that angle I should like strongly to support the Bill, and if one or two of these amendments could be made I should be more satisfied.

In the Act of Union it is made clear that the administration and control of natives is vested in the Union Government, and it is on that basis the whole of the machinery of the Government has been founded hitherto. At one time, it is true, a certain amount of dual taxation was permitted to the Union Government and the provinces in respect of natives. The undersirability of this was proved some years ago and legislation was clarified to avoid two taxing bodies in the Union having power to deal with natives. We seem about to revert to this objectionable principle. I quite agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in regard to the attitude of the Department towards the Native Representative Council in the way they expected them to arrive at a decision on this Bill. Intricate though it is, and difficult to understand, the Department expected them to arrive at a decision possibly within one day, and certainly within not longer than two days I want to quote to this House the promises that were made in respect of the powers of the Native Representative Council and on the extent to which they would be consulted on matters which precisely correspond to the matters referred to in this Bill before us. When the question of the Native Representative Council was before a joint Sitting of Parliament, our present Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, said—

To what extent has that promise been fulfilled in this instance? The conditions under which the Native Representative Council was consulted were such as not to allow of sufficient consideration of the matters placed before them through this Bill. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern. It would be a great mistake to proceed with the levying of the taxation proposed by this Bill, in the circumstances indicated by the hon. member in the House in regard to the consultation with the Council at Pretoria. Then there is another objection in regard to this Bill. One of the principal aims is to levy a hospital tax on the natives, a tax of half-a-crown per annum on the persons mentioned in the Bill. That tax will come into operation in the various provinces. In our own province I defy the Minister to produce any European who has ever paid such a tax. A hospital tax has never been levied on the European or native people there; certainly not to my knowledge, and I have lived a lifetime there. It is to be imposed it is a novelty to the natives, and never to my knowledge has such a tax been imposed even on the Europeans there. What will be the effect on the natives of that kind of taxation? Remember, a very large class of the natives who will fall under this taxation are persons who have no knowldege of hospitalisation themselves, and who are not particularly enamoured of hospital treatment, because they are very largely ignorant of it. A growing proportion of the natives, it is true in the backward and tribal areas are becoming accustomed to hospital treatment, but that proportion is not large enough to sway the whole of the native population to agree to the desirability of this tax. Another point made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern was whether free hospitalisation is going to be provided when this tax has been paid by the natives. I thing there is considerable room for doubt in regard to that. There is nothing even to assure us that the money collected in one year will be spent in that area or that sufficient hospitals will be provided in that area to meet the needs of the natives who have contributed towards the tax. The present procedure is for natives to pay Is to the hospital for every treatment at a clinic. It may be true we are criticising this matter at some disadvantage to the Provincial Councils. Spokesmen of the Provincial Councils are not here to say what their policy is going to be in regard to the provision of hospital treatment, and therefore we are conscious of the fact we are criticising a body that is unable to answer for itsef in this House. But we have realised what the effect of this taxation is going to be. At one time the policy in regard to native taxation was to tax the native only on visible things. In our province he was, for fifty years, taxed on his hut or dwelling. That was considered preferable to a poll tax; and I think that was amply demonstrated when the poll tax was imposed and a native rebellion ensued; not, I may add, solely because of the incidence of this tax but the tax certainly proved very unpopular and there were other disturbing influences. Now we are going to multiply forms of taxation by saying these natives must pay a hospital tax. I think it is a great mistake to multiply media of taxation. The tribal native in the past has looked upon taxation as a tribute he pays to the Government, somewhat like the tribute which under his own system in tribal law he paid to his chief. There is no feeling of innovation or novelty about the payment of taxation through the proper medium of collection, that is the Government, and the process of collection is rather different in the case of taxation paid to the Union Government. It is paid to the magistrate either in his own office or to him during his tour of tax collection. But I have seen the dog tax levied on natives by travelling inspectors or travelling collectors sent out in the case of the native dog tax, I think by the Provincial Council direct, and that I think gives a very bad impression. A man who comes from heaven knows where and who goes heaven knows where comes along with a snatchel on his back and says he is the dog tax collector, and with that pleasant announcement he proceeds to chase the people about for their dog tax. That has its own horrible objection, and I think that in my plea for taxation by a single body I need not go any further afield to illustrate the objection to two taxing bodies than the gentleman who announces himself to be the dog tax collector. Although I am a strong supporter of the Provincial Council system I feel that a decision ought to be come to at this juncture that we should not proceed with this particular tax, where consultation with the Native Representative Council has been so insufficient as to amount to no consultation at all. After all, the Native Representative Council is a body which could be very helpful in making any tax acceptable to the natives by explaining the conditions in the various tours the members make in their own constituencies. These men are very active; I have recently heard of visits they made to the native areas to give an account of their stewardship, and to explain the various subjects before the Council. I have no doubt they are serving a very useful purpose, although at one time I objected to the method of election, feeling it might lead to people of the wrong kind being chosen. In the light of my experience I feel this body might serve a useful purpose, and I wish the Government would pay a little more heed to their resolutions. Many of their resolutions are, I believe, not even replied to. I think the attitude of aloofness the Government has of late adopted towards this body is preventing it from serving the useful purpose it should. I hope better relations will prevail between the Council and the Department of Native Affairs than have been possible hitherto and that the Council will be helpful to the Government and to their own people in whatever work they undertake. I trust that the Minister will listen to the appeal that has been made by the natives not to press this taxation at this stage. The natives themselves may say quite fairly that they have not been consulted about this taxation, and as so little information about it has been conveyed to the large mass of the natives—who after all are going to be called upon to pay—it would be a mistake to impose this tax.

The debate today has in the main covered the question of bilingualism.

The mother tongue.

Yes, mother-tongue education. Consequently before I come back to the Bill it may be necessary to say something briefly on that matter which is also the subject of the amendment that has been proposed. I cannot accept the amendment, not because I am opposed to the principle that the child in the earlier stages should receive its education through the medium of its mother tongue, but simply because the amendment is in conflict with the tendency of the Bill. The purport of this alteration is to strengthen the feeling of responsibility on the part of the provinces. An amendment of this sort is in conflict with that. If you accept this it means that our financial assistance to the provinces is being employed to force our policy on the provinces, and if we do it in this case why not then in other cases? And then we put an end to provincial responsibility. The Government does not want to use its financial power to impose a certain policy on a particular province. That would be dangerous, from the viewpoint of the Opposition as well. I do not know whether they realise that. Last year we adopted a motion in connection with the language question. There were three parts in that motion. The first part was in the spirit of this motion, namely the use of the child’s mother tongue as a medium in the first stages of its education. The second part was in connection with the compulsory introduction of the second language as a medium of instruction. My friends on the opposite side were strongly opposed to that. The third had reference to an alteration in connection with the training of teachers. If the Government uses its power to impose one part on the provinces then it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to use its power to impose the other parts as well on the provinces.

Have you not tried to do that in the case of the Free State?

My hon. friend asks whether we did not attempt to do that in connection with the Free State. Not more than in the case of the other provinces. I acquainted all the four provinces of the resolution taken by Parliament. I did nothing more in the case of the Free State than in the case of Natal. If my hon. friend now asks why the first part of the policy contained in that motion was not applied in Natal we must also ask why the other two parts were not applied to the Free State. My hon. friend cannot use this Bill to force one part of Parliament’s resolution on a province unless he accepts that the same procedure he has now suggested may also be followed in connection with the other two parts.

But in respect of the first part unanimity exists.

But the resolution was adopted by Parliament as a whole. If my hon. friend now desires that we should use this Bill to force the first part on the provinces then he must not look askance at it if we exercise the same power to force the other parts on the provinces. Now I come to the Bill itself. Before I deal with the principal point that has been advanced by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) I wish to reply to a question put by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) because it is fundamental. He asked whether the provinces adopted these proposals in principle, and whether it was the case they could not do otherwise. No, I can give him the assurance that the provinces readily adopted the new principle. It is true, as my hon. friend knows, they pleaded for a higher special subsidy in some cases, but as far as the new principle is concerned they are satisfied. It is also obvious, because it is to their benefit not only bearing in mind their immediate financial needs—they obtain immediately an amount of about £2,000,000 more—but it is also to their advantage as regards the future. The new system is regarded by them as being more elastic than the old system. My hon. friend can be assured that the provinces in priciple accept these proposals. I come now to the principal point mentioned by the hon. member for George. He has mentioned two main points, and then there are certain subsidiary points that were mentioned by him and other members. He said, in the first place, that in this Bill, as far as concerns the subsidy, we are departing from the Havenga system; we are guaranteeing expenditure in connection with national roads and national education up to 100 per cent., but we are not doing so in reference to European and coloured education. He has stated that the Havenga policy guaranteed the expenditure on education for the European child, that it ensured the education of the European child should not suffer. Let us test that by the facts. I have so often to put my friend’s assertions to a factual test. Take, in the first place, the expenditure on national roads. Was the 100 per cent. policy introduced by Mr. Havenga or by me? Mr. Havenga was Minister of Finance in 1935 when that policy was introduced. In connection with the policy of 100 per cent. for native education—who introduced it, Mr. Havenga or I? That goes back to 1925 when Mr. Havenga was Minister of Finance. There is no departure from the Havenga policy in that respect. As regards the other assertion, that it was the Havenga policy to guarantee expenditure on the education of the European child and to ensure that the education of the European child should not suffer—as the hon. member put it—what do we find in the Corbett Report? According to that Report the expenditure incurred by the provinces and that they ought to incur on European education is £22 11s. 3d. per child per year. The expenditure the Havenga policy guaranteed was less than two-thirds of that, namely £14 15s. 3d.; and then out of that £14 15s. 3d. they had to cover not only two-thirds of the cost of the education of the European child but also part of the costs of the other services they had to provide. Where are we now departing so greatly from the Havenga policy? Is it quite correct to say that it ensured 100 per cent. of the costs of the education of the European child and that we are now only doing it to the extent of 50 per cent.?

It is rather distorted.

Yes, it is rather distorted. On the contrary, we are giving the provinces jointly £1,900,000 more. We are improving their position and they can thus make better provision for the education of the European child. They will be much better off as far as that aspect is concerned under this policy than under the Havenga policy. The great weakness of the Havenga policy was the absence of elasticity. As I have already shown, in the case of the Free State the subsidy had to be reduced. In fact, we kept it at the minimum notch. Under the Havenga policy no increase could have been given. In this respect as well the present proposal records a big improvement. The second main point my hon. friend made is he said we should give more money to the provinces than is now proposed. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) also argued along those lines. We are already giving the provinces this year an additional £1,900,000. The subsidy will, in future mount more quickly. We are thus giving considerably more, but look now at the contrast. Yesterday my hon. friends pleaded earnestly for a reduction of taxation. Today they are pleading for an increase in expenditure. How strikingly does it not prove the justice of the observation made yesterday by my hon. friend the member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) in this connection. The hon. member for George said that we should increase the contributions from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.

The difficulty is that you are spending money on the wrong things.

Yesterday I had to impose less taxation; today I must expend more money. That is the way it has gone right through the Session. The one day greater expenditure and the next day less taxation! He proposed that the subsidy should be 60 per cent. of the expenditure instead of 50 per cent. In the second place, he proposed that a larger amount should be granted to the Cape Province. May I point out that where he refers to the complaints of the Cape Province we are doing something in this Bill that the famous Havenga policy never did. In other words, we acknowledge in this Bill, for the first time, that there is a case for preferential treatment in respect of the Cape Province. Does he also wish on that point to revert to the Havenga policy?

I said it could be improved.

For the first time we are granting a special subsidy of £150,000 to the Cape Province. This does not merely imply that the provincial tax payers of the Cape Province will have to pay £150,000 a year less in taxation in comparision with the provincial taxpayers of the Transvaal, but it also signifies that a very large proportion of that £150,000, that has to come from the Union taxpayers is derived from the Transvaal that contributes the largest proportion of revenue to the Union Treasury. It is a two-edged sword. A further point in connection with which my hon. friend pleads for increased expenditure is in connection with the 5 per cent. margin. We allow a margin of 5 per cent. for the normal expansion in respect of which a province will be entitled to the 50 per cent. subsidy. He wants to make that larger. This limitation is a break and a very desirable break. It means that the provinces will think twice before they allow-expenditure to expand too rapidly. I want to point out that this break is really only applicable to the first year. My hon. friend apparently did not take that point. The limitation to one-third is not something that is of permanent application in respect of the increase of provincial expenditure. It applies only to the first year and in the following year and in subsequent years the provinces will get 50 per cent. of the increased expenditure. It does not mean that we are taking much from the province but we are putting it in the position of having to think twice before it enlarges its expenditure.

Every year you only allow 5 per cent. on the previous year.

Yes, but what does it mean? Supposing now that a province’s expenditure this year is £2,000,000. Five per cent. on that is £100,000. This means that if the provinces expends £200,000 next year, it will receive one-third on the second £100,000. But when we come to the following year the 5 per cent. is calculated not on the £2,100,000 but on the £2,200,000, so that in the following year the province gets the full 50 per cent. on the £2,200,000, plus a 5 per cent margin on it. The limitation only applies in the first year. The hon. member asked further what the position of the provinces is going to be in connection with health services and the expansion of hospital services. The position is simply this, that we shall find 50 per cent. and they will have to find 50 per cent. It was never the intention that the people should secure an extension of those services without paying for them. The people, I believe, are prepared to pay for that, and whether the people pay through the provinces or through us it comes to the same thing. But the provinces will have to get half from the people for the extension of the services and we shall have to find the other half. I fail to understand why they should not be in a position to do justice in respect of those services. Then the hon. member mentioned certain special points. He referred to the proposed hospital contribution that the natives are being asked to contribute, to a maximum of 2s. 6d. a head. He stated this was inadequate. So far as I know none of the provinces has raised any objection to this limitation. So far as I know they are all satisfied. He wants to put it higher. Before the provinces can ask anything more they will have to furnish evidence of what they are going to do with the money should they get it. He also spoke about the school-feeding system, and he said it was something we had let drop. It was never a Union service. It is a service that began in two of the provinces as a provincial service, and we came into it in order to extend it and to stimulate it by the grant of a special subsidy. In the first instance we contributed a subsidy of two to one. In other words, we contributed two-thirds. Under this system we shall make a subsidy on the basis of a half, and is my hon. friend entitled to become so agitated here and to enlarge on this with such a wealth of words and gestures? We are not running away from that service. In regard to the important question of the Road Beard, he breached the question of Parliamentary control. I would not say that the position is entirely satisfactory, although in this respect we are still dealing with the very famous Havenga policy. The present position is in conformity with the legislation introduced by my predecessor. What I would like to point cut is that it is not the case that Parliament has absolutely no control. On the loan votes we vote funds for the Road Board. We can say a good deal on that occasion, and my hon. friend also knows full well that it is a matter that comes under the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

But the accounts are not examined by the Auditor-General.

They come before that committee. The report is presented and the chairman of the Road Board gives evidence. My hon. friend this morning gave ample proof that he has at his disposal considerable information in connection with that matter. What he has said is not absolutely correct, that Parliament knows nothing about the matter. A further point was broached by the hon. member for Winburg in connection with the request from the Free State for an additional £100,000 required for free hospitalisation. What is the actual position in this connection? The Free State will be in a position to collect £17,000 from the natives as their contribution. The province will also get £17.000 from us. It will thus have an amount of £34,000 at its disposal in this way. This leaves £66,000 over. If they find £33,000 then they obtain £33,000 from us under the subsidy. But as a result of the expansion of the hospital services the public of the Free State will economise £66,000 in hospital fees. The public of the Free State will thus be better off as they will only have to pay £33,000.

How is it collected from the public?

They can obtain it from the European population in the form of a hospital levy. The public are now finding £66,000 and according to my calculations it will have to find £33,000 while it is relieved from the £66,000. The hon. member for Fauresmith asserted that we were driving the provincial councils to resort to unpopular direct taxation. If he refers to the South Africa Act—while he was speaking I looked it up—he will find that the South Africa Act drove them to that.

I stated that we should not do that now.

Since that time there has been a development more and more in the direction of the grant of other powers to the provinces. The proposed tax on advertisements would have been a step in the direction of indirect taxation. It is asserted that it is an indirect tax. In any case my hon. friend will definitely not argue that we should allow the provinces to make use of the most important source of indirect taxation, namely customs and excise, because this is a matter that impinges on general national policy.

I am not proposing that.

We thought about a tax on advertisements, but apparently that was not to the liking of hon. members on the other side. He also spoke about the differentiation that is made between the municipalities and the divisional councils. In that connection the position is this. In the Bill we take account of the expenditure of the divisional councils in so far as it is taken from their sources of revenue, and we regard that as part of the provincial expenditure, because the divisional councils function only in the Cape Province, and it would be unfair towards the Cape Province to exclude the expenditure of divisional councils from their own resources.

But what do the municipalities contribute to the hospitals?

We have municipalities in the four provinces. In that respect the Cape Province is not an exception.

It is only in the Cape Province that the municipalities contribute towards the hospital deficits.

That is an arrangement between the Cape Province and the municipalities. We are dealing here with the divisional council’s revenue as part of the provincial revenue in the Cape Province because they only exist in the Cape Province, and it would not be fair to exclude that expenditure from our calculations because we have not those bodies in the other provinces. The hon. member stated further that we ought to lay down what is necessary in provincial expenditure and to add the difference. He will see that that is extremely difficult to do. The Corbett Commission tried to go into that, and it had eventually to fall back on the actual expenditure of the province. It is difficult to determine what the expenditure ought to be. This would lead to endless complications and it would mean that the Union Government would have to decide in advance what the expenditure of the provincial councils should be, and that would be the end of the provincial system.

†Now I come to the points raised by my friends over in that corner. They dealt with the power which this Bill proposes to give to the provinces to impose a hospital contribution on the native people. Let me again make the point quite clear, that this Bill does not impose such a tax on the natives; it merely gives the provinces the power to do so. I make that point because while I know my hon. friends realise it, other people outside do not. Now, if the provinces are to be held responsible for the provision of extended hospital facilities they must be given the chance to receive their part of the cost of such services. In relation to social security, in relation to health services, it has always, I am sure, been realised that these things must be paid for, and paid for by the people who get the benefits. That has been realised by the various commissions and committees who contemplated contributions for the purpose in which natives would also participate. It was recognised that they would have to contribute. Now, where we say to the provinces that we recognise it to be their duty to provide extended hospitalisation, surely we must give them the power to raise contributions also from their native populations. They have the power, and they will doubtless use it, to raise contributions also from the other elements of the population for that purpose. It does not mean that these contributions will only be raised from natives. Again, do not let us make the mistake of thinking that we can get these services without paying for them. You cannot just assume that the Union Government will pay for them and think that the Union Government gets its money from Heaven. The provinces, where they supply the services, must get money from their people. We all realise that a good deal more must be done by way of hospital services than has hitherto been done, not least as regards the natives. It was pointed out here quite rightly that in the past the provinces have been hestitant about doing their job. All kinds of shifts and expendients were resorted to, such as the grants from the Trust Funds to which the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) referred. Up to the present the provinces had the excuse that they could not afford it. We are now taking that excuse away from them, which is very important, and if the importance of that is realised I do not think we are going too far in saying that the adoption of this proposal will be to the interest of and not to the detriment of the natives.

That is if they get the hospitals. They have not got them in the Transvaal but they are paying taxes.

I think my hon. friend will have to admit that there has been a great improvement. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) made a special point in connection with the consultation of the Native Representative Council. Well, the Council was consulted in regard to this particular proposal in the Bill. It was not a matter, as the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) suggests of asking its opinion on the whole of the Bill. On that point it may have taken it a long time to give an opinion. All it was necessary to do was to ask its opinion on this part of the Bill. I am not prepared to admit that it was impossible for the Native Representative Council to express such an opinion, if need be, after an adjournment over the weekend. But I cannot help getting the impression that the Council was more concerned, perhaps necessarily, to state its general position in regard to the question of consultation, than to hold up this particular proposal. I think that was the main point in their minds. But in any case I repeat that there is no finality about this proposal. We are not now imposing this tax on the natives. This tax has still to be imposed and the Council will still be able to consider and report on the proposed legislation before the imposition of the proposed taxation. Does my hon. friend realise that? Surely my hon. friend has read Section 27 of the Representation of Natives Act of 1936. The Council can still report on the legislation in this regard. This Bill does not settle the matter. Oh no. It does not put and end to the Council’s opportunities of giving its report. Therefore I say again that it is not possible to accept the suggestion that we must hold up this particular Bill for one year to give the Council an opportunity to report on it. They have had a chance and will have a further chance in relation to provincial legislation, if such legislation is forthcoming. The hon. member for Tembuland dealt with similar matters in regard to this aspect of the Bill. Let me say to him in reply to the point which he made here that I certainly would regard it as not unreasonable to expect that the provinces will, as the result of the powers given to them under this Bill, shoulder the burden which the Trust has been bearing and which was not contemplated when the Trust came into existence. Where the hon. member referred, however, to the possibility of our also taking into account in our subsidy to the Cape Province the revenues of Native Councils as was done before 1925, may I point out to him that the position has changed since 1925. Before 1925, under the so-called Murray Settlement, the revenues of these bodies were taken into account because of the different position in regard to taxation in the Cape from other provinces. In the Cape there was a differential burden as far as natives were concerned. That disappeared in 1925. The provinces were all placed in the same position thereafter, and on that account there is no longer the case that there then was for doing what the hon. member wishes us to do, and presumably is the reason why the Cape Provincial Administration which is so directly concerned, has not asked us to do it. I think they must have recognised that they would not have a case for such a request.

The provincial authorities of the Cape say you turned it down.

I do not think that is correct. I have no knowledge of it. They have not asked for it and we have not turned it down. Then the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) raised one or two points. One important point is in regard to the question of uniformity of taxes in the case of persons paying the Provincial Income Tax. I symphasise with the hon. member’s point of view, but that is not likely to be attained as long as you have the provincial system. That is an aspect in respect of which each province does want to have some autonomy, and any attempts which had been made in the past in the direction of obtaining uniformity, have broken down. As long as you have the provincial system, each province will want to be able to follow its own decisions. The hon. member also referred to Section 9 (1) (b), the clause dealing with the penalties. That is something which we have always had since 1927.

It has always been bad.

It has always been bad, but I hope the hon. member is not going to suggest that I should now have trouble with the provinces by taking away something they have hitherto had. The same applies to the suggestion made by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) in regard to the tax on auction sales. That is also a right which the provinces have had in the past. If we were to take it away a good deal of trouble would be caused. Then just one point in conclusion. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) at the beginning of his remarks expressed a doubt whether this is going to be a permanent settlement of the provincial question. I would hesitate to assure him that it will be a permanent settlement of the provincial question. I think the experience of all countries, whether you have a federal or a semi-federal system, has been that you cannot have a permanent settlement of the relations between the Government and the provinces. In any country you have periodic reviews. The same thing happened in Canada. I believe in Canada a commission reported a year or two ago. I do not think any action has been taken on that report yet. It became a serious matter in Canada and the same thing happened in Australia, so that I cannot promise that this will be a permanent settlement of the provincial question. The facts of the situation change from time to time. These changing facts have to be taken into account. I can only claim that these proposals deal with the situation as it exists now, that they will create a better relationship than has existed in the past, and that there is a reasonable prospect of their continuing to give satisfaction for some considerable time.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into Committee on the Bill on 2nd June.

I shall not keep the House very long. We were all anxiously looking forward to the day when the Government would ultimately decide to provide in the housing requirements of the people. We know what the position is in the cities today. Even the health of our European population is suffering from it. It is continually pointed out to us that people have to live in caves in a country such as South Africa and that this is a scandal, and the Minister has on every occasion spoken of the large number of houses he intends building, but he never got as far. We are therefore glad that he has now come forward with this Bill. We should like to hear from the Minister whether it is his intention that this scheme will also affect the rural areas. In the amendment which has been put it is asked that it also be extended to the rural areas. We want to know what the attitude of the Minister is and whether through this scheme he is going to effect separateness especially in the towns where it is urgently needed. We want to see the European population on the one side and the coloured and native population on the other side. This mixing of all races is not healthy for a country. We should like to know what the Minister is going to do, also on farms where poor people and bywoners are living. Will those people also be provided with decent houses? It is necessary that in this legislation provision be made that the people may build those houses themselves on a much cheaper basis. We know what the demand is; we know that every person is yearning for his own dwelling house and we hope and trust that the Minister will not tarry too long with this matter and that it will not merely be a Bill of promises because he perhaps thinks that an election is on the way and that they now want to promise the people that the Government will get busy with this scheme, and that he will let the people wait in vain for the putting into effect of this scheme.

The Housing Bill as such definitely carries the approval of both sides of the House. In other words, it is a national scheme that has been instituted owing to the state of emergency that prevails throughout the whole country. Consequently we welcome this legislation as such with the exception of one or two points in connection with which we are moving amendments. I am glad to say that the debate has been conducted on both sides in a calm manner, and we feel that we are striving for an objective that will serve the needs and the circumstances of the whole country. We on this side of the House will appreciate it if the Minister will be considerate in connection with the amendment put by this side of the House. We feel the need for it. We do not in the least desire to break up the Bill. The question is too big. It is a big national matter, and we do not want to try and thwart the Minister in connection with the institution of this legislation. The criticism emanating from this side is aimed at rounding off this Bill so that it may apply to all the different circumstances and requirements. The general complaint on that side and on this side of the House is founded, on the fact that the Minister is demanding too large powers. It is a rare request that a Minister should come to this House to be empowered to act according to his own wishes. Millions and millions of pounds of the State’s money is at stake, and consequently the House feels that it would not be justified in agreeing to place those powers in the hands of the Minister to enable him to act just as he wishes to. If we examine this Bill carefully we find the Minister has virtually the powers of a dictator over all the State departments, to take action along any lines he may think fit. Our feeling on all sides is that the Minister is here treading on dangerous ground. If he is going to act with the full powers he has demanded here he will be placing not only himself but the country in danger. If the Minister makes a failure of this scheme this Bill will later on eliminate him from the field entirely. We are all fallible, and if the Minister takes this power into his hands and fails, then he will disappear from the scene. Thenceforward he will be lost, and we do not want to see him disappear so quickly. We on this side urge that the Minister should make concessions in regard to the question of separation and in order to apply the principle of separation strictly. We know what the relationship between the various races in the country is. We know it is not favourable. To bring fire to the powder is dangerous, and why when we have a way of preventing it should we deliberately place the various sections or groups of the community so close to each other that there will be inflammable material for the future? We are prepared to vote the money and to be compliant in regard to the building of houses, and with a view to meeting the housing emergency for all sections; but let the building proceed on such lines that there will be a dividing line in accordance with the need for separation and that will prevent clashes between the sections. That is the reasonable demand from this side, and I feel that that side of the House should really have put this amendment and not this side. They have the same feelings in respect of separation as we have, I do not say all of them but the great majority. We take the liberty of recommending this to the Minister. In the past we have seen that certain malpractices have occurred whereby a single individual has filled his pockets at the expense of many other persons. We have seen these people congregate like vultures at the place where carrion is to be found. The danger is that the contractors are already licking their lips in anticipation of filling their pockets with big building plans, and that certain groups will be chosen in order to fill their pockets at the expense of the taxpayers, at the expense of the country and the people in general. I say that we would not utter such a serious warning on this point if we had not had experience in the past that these dangers really exist, and if we had not good reason to fear that certain persons would have an advantage over others; Accordingly we ask that the Minister should take all necessary precautions to ensure that certain contractors do not get all the work. He should also ensure that the profits they derive from the erection of houses shall not be exorbitant because there have been excessive profits in the past. He must also see to it that the books of these people are carefully examined, that their expenditure and income is thoroughly enquired into. The second point in the amendment from this side affects the big idea that we in the first place wish to devote our attention to housing for Union citizens, individuals that were born in this country. I think they have the right to make a claim to that. In the past it is the South African who has suffered under the housing emergency, and the first consideration should be given to the Union citizen as such. Another point to which I wish to direct the Minister’s attention is that there should be a careful estimate of how many houses should be built and where the housing emergency is most acute. We cannot forthwith carry out grandiose and extensive housing plans. The housing crisis has been occasioned by the influx of aliens, refugees and immigrants into the country. Before the war there was no such thing as a housing shortage in this country, and the population has naturally expanded in these few years to such an extent that this tremendous dearth of houses has arisen. The outstanding fact is that it has been occasioned by the influx of immigrants and aliens and refugees, but the time is coming when these aliens will return to their own countries. Well, go ahead and build 30,000 houses or more, and the result will be that house rent will immediately commence to drop and later on we shall have too many houses instead of having too few as at present. I maintain that affects the country in the same way as the country is now affected by the fact that there is a shortage of houses. The Minister should evolve a practical plan. He is in possession of all the information. He is aware of the number of aliens who are living in the country, and he ought to know how many refugees are occupying houses in the country, and he also knows how many of them will have to leave the country. After he has worked all this out properly he ought to know precisely what is the exact shortage of houses in the country, and then he should take steps to supplement the shortage. Now I want to make an appeal to the Minister. The housing shortage on the platteland bears no relation to the influx of immigrants and refugees and moreover the housing shortage on the platteland had become terribly acute even before the war. There was a tremendous need for houses on the platteland. I cannot sufficiently urge on the Minister that he should bestow his full attention on assistance to the platteland. There are houses in certain areas of the platteland that really militate against the health of the mothers and children living there. Many of those houses are built with thatch, straw and tins; poor people have to live in those houses and then we expect a healthy nation.

Are Europeans living in such houses?

Europeans and coloured people and also natives. The hon. member has no doubt seen it for himself in the Transvaal, because I have also seen it there. We expect the parents living in such houses to bring their children up properly. The people on the platteland believe that they should see to providing their own houses and they try to knock a house together with the expenditure of a few shillings. They do hot know that the Government should help them, and the result is they do not agitate. There are always complaints that the farmer does not provide a proper house for his bywoner. And in the second place, we hear that the farmer does not give proper houses to his work people. We know the difficulties of the farmer. The farmers are not all wealthy people. The platteland is full of small farmers who are hard put to it to build a decent house for themselves. How on earth can he in addition to that think about his bywoner and his work people, coloureds and natives and about providing them with proper houses? I think the need on the platteland is just as acute as that of the cities. If the townsman has to live in a proper house approved by the health authorities or otherwise, what is the difference? The same method ought to be applied to the platteland. We ought not to allow anyone to remain in a house that is inimical to the welfare of his family. On the platteland we find some of our farmers who build four or five or six rooms alongside each other and in every little room there is the coloured workman with his wife and children. I consider that is not proper. The platteland must be assisted, and the health of the farmers’ workmen must be taken into consideration. Our platteland population is dying out from tuberculosis and other diseases. The health of the workman on the platteland is in a critical state, and who knows better than our doctors that it is really to be ascribed to the fact that these people are not living in houses that make for health and strength. I want to make a strong appeal to the Minister not to forget the platteland in this housing scheme. I really feel that the right Minister to have tackled this task would have been a man from the platteland, a person who understands the circumstances of the platteland and the needs of the platteland. It is all very well for the city business man and industralist who attracts thousands and tens of thousands of people to the towns to work there; they are not concerned with the houses; the town councils must see to that. The Minister and the Government have to make that their business; these people do not pay. But the position is entirely different on the platteland. There the farmer does not know anything about the town council that can help him, and consequently it is the platteland that is always treated in a stepmotherly manner in regard to housing. I want to impress another matter on the mind of the Minister, and that is in regard to the railway rates on building material. As far as the platteland is concerned, this is a bad factor, because I want to tell the Minister that the railway freight on building material is under one of the highest tariffs. For a little wood or currugated iron and similar articles you have to pay railway rates that run into almost as much as the goods cost here in the town. Is that fair? With an eye on the Minister’s scheme I want to ask him to see to it that the rates on building material are reduced, and I would say that it should be reduced by 75 per cent. Why should the platteland pay the higher tariffs? I should be glad if the Minister with a view to this, would approach the Minister of Transport and try to get this concession. A final point. I know that the hon. Minister cannot do everything single-handed. He will have to make use of committees. Consequently he will have to appoint committees in every centre of the country, and it is expected indeed that he should do so. It cannot be otherwise. Now we desire that the Minister should not, as in the past, select persons who adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards the public and who are merely appointed because they are prominent party men. That is no reason to appoint them on the committees. In the past we repeatedly got this. I do not want to warn merely the other side of the House, but also this side, against the danger of appointing prominent party men on all the committees. Usually you find that the outstanding party man on the platteland is the biggest bluffer you can get, and then the public are victimised. Otherwise for what object have we got the local authorities, our divisional councils and municipalities? The local authority is elected by the ratepayers. Why should they be ignored and why should party stooges be appointed to do the work? Is that justifiable? We never take exception when the Minister makes use of the magistrates. These are the obvious people who should serve as chairmen to give effect to the Minister’s building plans. But we are making an appeal to the Minister not to resort, as he has done in the past, to party men but to make use of the local bodies who are conversant with the needs of such a district, and who have knowledge of local conditions. The persons who serve on the local bodies do so honorarily and they are the people who are au fait with affairs. For the sake of promoting this gigantic plan of the Minister’s it is necessary that he should not ignore the local bodies but that they should be his strength. If he does this the platteland will be saisfied, and it will be the first step towards making a success of such a big plan. There are still several points regarding which we can talk, but we do not want to detain the House longer. As I have said we do not want to thwart this big enterprise and we want to help the Minister. We are not satisfied that he should demand from this House authority to act entirely on his own discretion and to take such measures as may merely seem good to him. We expected that he would be the first person to refuse assuming absolute dictatorial authority and power but we will not stand in his way. The emergency is there. We would like to see him make a success of this task, and our blessings rest on the Minister in regard to the future, and I believe that we shall place no obstacle in his path. Next Session we shall see how far he has progressed. He has taken a gigantic task on his shoulders, and we do not want to make it any heavier. He must take the initiative and the country will judge him by what he will have accomplished.

I am glad of the opportunity of being able to say a few words now that this Bill is before Parliament. It is one of the most important Bills which has yet come before this House. I want to express my admiration of the magnanimity which the Government has made manifest by putting this scheme before the House and of the fact that we have a Minister who has the competence and pluck to tackle this important matter energetically after a war of six years. I would like hon. members of this House to realise fully that it is a national matter which must be tackled in the interests of the people of South Africa.

I do not want the people to be incited by political propaganda so that they can make full use of this attempt on the Government’s part, and I am convinced that the Minister will ’do his utmost to satisfy everybody and see that justice is done. I feel that the nation is rejoicing to think that plans are now being made for those who have already lost their identity through living in the backyards of villages and towns. When I think of my own village, then I feel that a matter of the greatest importance is being tackled, for I know how in my village many respectable people, often with large families, have to live in backyards, and it will be a great relief to them, and they will once again be able to mix in society when in the future they have their own homes. Some hon. members on the other side expressed doubt, but I have no doubt that the Government will tackle this matter wholeheartedly and carry it out. It is a responsible task which the Minister has taken on. I would just like to come to one point which has not been provided for in this Bill, and that is the plans in respect of the platteland. There I would like to make a proposal to the Minister. I do not know whether he will accept it, but I hope that he will. On the platteland we can build much cheaper than in the towns. I want to quote a few figures. On the platteland we can build houses which will not cost more than £500. I will tell you why the platteland can build more cheaply than the towns. They make their own stones, they have means of transport, they have their stones, sand and cheap labour and free water—all these things they have to pay for in the towns.

Do you think it is possible to build houses for £500 in country villages?

I am now speaking of the platteland. I am certain that many people will be able to build a house for £500 and also far less. There are many people there who live on small farms and make a decent livelihood, but who have never been able to save enough money to build a house. In the towns you find building companies who grant loans to people, but on the platteland that is not the case. Nobody is prepared to grant loans in order to build houses on the platteland. For that reason I would like the Minister to afford this opportunity to people on the platteland as well. Give them the chance of obtaining a long-term loan, so that they can pay it back in easy instalments. This will be of enormous help to the people, and it will mean that many people will no longer have to live in mud houses, and share the political views of members on the other side.

We do not want fowl runs.

As soon as one talks of the interests of the platteland, the Opposition comes along with these remarks. It is not a political matter, but one of national interest. That is why I am bringing the needs of the platteland to the Minister’s attention. Many people on the platteland will be able to build a first-rate house for approximately £500. Let the Minister help the farmers on the farms with such small sums, those poor farmers who cannot afford to build houses themselves without assistance.

You will receive information on that point when I reply, but I will explain that we have a similar system in view. I think your proposal is a good one.

There are a large npmber of soldiers who came from the platteland and who are now returning there, and these people are also entitled to assistance. The platteland must not be overlooked. I see Dr. Allen is sitting here, and I would just like to touch upon a point. He has done much in the last few years in connection with malaria infested areas which is very much appreciated. I do not know whether anyone in a malaria infested area can build a house and enclose it with gauze for £500, but I am only menioning it in order that the Minister should not lose sight of the platteland in his scheme.

After all the eloquences we have heard in connection with the housing scheme one feels some timidity in rising to speak. That, however, will not prevent me from bringing up two or three points on which I should like some information from the Minister. Let me say at once I have no intention of throwing a spanner in the works, but I shall assist the Minister in any way I can. I realise he has a difficult job to undertake, and in view of the opposition he has had to contend with in the past I think it the duty of this House to give him all the assistance it can to bring the housing scheme into operation. I am sorry the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is not in his seat because I would like to tell him I was rather disappointed in the attitude he took up yesterday afternoon on this Bill, especially in view of the fact that one of the leaders of the Labour Party did assist the Minister to draft the Bill. When the hon. member for Krugersdorp condemned the Bill by bell, book and candle I hardly knew where the Labour Party stands, and whether he is going to support the Minister remains to be seen. After the supposedly eloquent way in which he condemned the Bill one feels there is no course left open to him now but to oppose the Bill at every stage. There are one or two points I should like to put to the Minister. I understood him to say that the system which was to be largely adopted would not be binding tenders but by way of a specific estimate plus 6 per cent. If the Minister eliminated this cost-plus 6 per cent. he would remove a lot of dissatisfaction to the Bill. Having experienced something about cost plus 6 per cent I hope the Minister will modify that in the Committee stage. We have heard a lot of talk about building mechanics slowing down, and there is a certain amount of truth in some of the statements; but I want to tell the House that cost-plus 6 per cent. is largely responsible for the attitude many building workers take up at the present time. I do not want to see this system tolerated any longer. I know the Minister is in a difficult position, and possibly he thinks this the best way out of it. I suggest the Minister give the method a trial not for three years but for two years. That will give the Government and the country an opportunity of ascertaining whether it is a success or not. The cost-plus system has a tendency to create a slowdown. What is a slow-down? It means not only loss of time but additional expense which no contractor can get over while the building workers take up that attitude. I do believe that when the scheme gets going the building workers will play the game, especially when they realise what is at stake. When they appreciate there is a need for houses for the returned soldier they will, in my opinion, play the game to the country. Another point I want to put to the Minister in reference to cost-plus 6 per cent. is this. I have been approached by private people who have put this point. Supposing a building contractor undertakes a job to build a house people expect, when he is finished, that he will pass on to them part of the excess he has made on the job; that is to say if his profit runs to more than 6 per cent. he will be expected to return something. A lot of people are looking at it from that point of view. Another point is this. In the Bill continuous employment is to be provided for a term of 10 years. I realise that what the Minister has done has been in order to remove the colour bar so that natives may build their own houses. That was a big concession by the building workers, and I think the Minister surmounted it rather more easily than might have been expected. But if this guarantee for 10 years is carried out it should be made operative only to the registered building workers of today. If he leaves the door open to everybody who is likely to become a building worker in the near future the Minister will be leaving it very wide open indeed. A number of people will regard it in this way: If I am registered as a building worker I am sure of 10 years’ continuous employment. Ten years is a very long time to look forward to, and lots of things may happen in that time. I do not agree with all the statements that have been made regarding the housing shortage. In Great Britain millions of houses have been destroyed, but here hardly a hen’s nest has been destroyed by enemy action. When we come to realise that a large number of people will be leaving our shores, I maintain the housing shortage is not likely to be anything nearly so acute as is predicted. If the right steps are adpoted we shall overcome the housing shortage in a much quicker time than is anticipated. I hope the Minister will give a reply to the points I raised and particularly in regard to the 10 years’ guarantee to men engaged in the building industry at the present time. I should like to see these men guaranteed employment to compensate for the sacrifice they are prepared to make in allowing natives to engage in the building trade. If they had not taken up the attitude they have their jobs might be imperilled in the future, and as they have taken up that attitude they should be guaranteed employment on the lines they have asked for. In regard to this Bill we have to adopt one of two evils. The bigger evil is to delay house building, as this would create a definite hardship on many of our returned soldiers, and other people. So I am prepared to adopt the lesser evil and support this Bill with one or two amendments at the Committee Stage.

The hon. member who has just been seated spoke of the provision of houses for returned soldiers. Now I would just like to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the manner in which all sorts of promises are made to returned soldiers at the present time, and I want to ask his people to be a little careful in what they do. Recently what is known as the “soldiers’ parliament” was held at Bloemfontein, and various soldier organisations were present. Mr. R. H. Burns, Chief Liaison Officer was present, as well as Mr. Webb, Under-Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Demobilisation Committee. Mr. Webb said—

Thereupon one of the soldiers stood up and put this question—

Mr. Burns replied—

I want the Minister to tell me whether he and his Housing Committee and the Demobilisation Committee approve of such things being said to the soldiers. It is a serious matter. It is now being made a political matter.

The soldiers know how you would treat them.

That hon. member can never see the point. I am asking whether it can be approved of that, where soldiers come together and the matter is explained to them by such officials, it is said that the Government intends to do certain things for the soldiers, but that the soldiers must see to it that they vote for the Government. I read this in “The Friend” of 15th May, 1945. In passing I want to mention another promise which Mr. Burns made that evening. He said—

Where is such an Act? He spoke of an Act which was before the House. It is a serious matter that, when the Minister’s officials address people on the subject of housing, they should make such promises on behalf of the Government to soldiers who ask questions. I ask the Minister and the Government to put an end to such actions and the making of such promises. If there was ever a measure of which misuse can be made, then it is this one. I am not making an accustation, but this is a measure under which we may have corruption or anything else. What has become of the accusation which was made by way of a telegram and read out in this House by the Labour Party, namely, an accusation by architects in Johannesburg that there is corruption in the building control?

That does not fall under me.

The building controllers will probably disappear now that the Minister controls everything. I say that this House cannot grant all these powers to the Government before it hears what has become of the that matter. An accusation of bribery was publicly made, and as the Minister is taking full powers in connection with the building of houses and building material, we would like to know whether those accusations have been preliminarily investigated, as promised by the Minister of Public Works. We would like to have that information. I will not go into the Bill in detail, for other hon. members have already done so. But I would like to have a statement from the Minister as to what he intends doing in connection with private building undertakings. Great powers are being granted to the Minister, and we cannot grant him those powers without knowing what the Government’s policy is. There are private people who are desirous of building, and we would like a statement from the Minister in this connection.

I also do not wish to put a spanner in the good intentions of the Minister and his Department with regard to the efforts they are making to overcome the building chaos in which we are. I realise that the authoritative powers that he requires may be very necessary. I hope that these powers will be used to break down the restrictions on building in this country. I would like to read to the Minister a small passage which appeared in the “Argus” last night in regard to reconstruction in Russia—

And he goes on to say that bureaucracy which sometimes seriously hinders reconstruction should be avoided. I wish to emphasise that the building industry has more or less stood still, like a motor car, for a period of years. You can start dismantling the engine, taking off the cylinder head, and tampering with the magneto, whereas all the motor needs is some petrol. I hope that the Minister will use his powers to prevent the clogging of the building wheels which have stood still for so long. A feature that I did not like was when the Minister referred to experimental houses to be put up for costing purposes in order to work out what should be paid at cost plus 6 per cent. I do not think you are achieving what you really want to do, which is to build houses. I would like to see you pay attention and use your powers to taking away control of building material in this country and the issuing of building permits with all the red tape attached to it. Restrict buildings to the present size of 2,000 square feet so that palatial mansions cannot be built, but allow people to be free from red tape and obstructive restrictions. I am quite confident that if the material, a large amount of which possibly is available today, can be obtained from the D.W.G.S., and additional material can come into the country, building will proceed. I think that the idea of trying to restrict the profits of a builder does not work out in practice. You can do it by Excess Profits Tax on his income, calling for his balance sheets, but to try to do it on a cost plus system with so many small builders is a very cumbersome basis.

That of course applies only to national houses, where we can supervise labour.

I trust the Minister will use his power in trying to stop restrictions which have held up the position. I realise that the Bill has tried to solve the labour position. The trade unions have now agreed to open their ranks and allow dilution. That is one of the best features of the Bill. In this connection the hon. member, for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) referred to the fact that experimentation in housing was not a big factor and that the old brick house was still the best. I am prepared to accept that possibly the new prefabricated house has not yet proved its worth conclusively. We have heard of the rumble house. I know it was built by the municipality at Kempton Park, but I do not know whether it was a success or not. I have seen the vermiculite houses which look good to me, and there is talk of prefabricated houses. I feel that this is not a matter to be entirely neglected. I feel that the hon. member for Fordsburg has the same influences behind him which try to hold a country to the hand loom rather than to the machine loom. It is clear with regard to the labour position, as the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) indicated, that the trade unions must face another factor in their work. In England recently they referred to organised idleness, organised laziness and the organised feature of slowing down work. I want to know that the problem is going to be tackled. It is ridiculous that a bricklayer should turn out 250 bricks in a day, in the face of statistics. In the same way we have it in other lines of labour. I realise they need the protection of the trade unions, but they must face the fact that they must put up schemes to us whereby efficiency and output can be increased because that is the main factor. It will take time to get the necessary personnel even under the C.O.T.T. scheme, even in view of the fact that further apprentices are to be allowed in industry. But they have to tackle the fact that the present labour force will have to turn out three or four times the amount of work they do now. There must be some method which they can put up to the country so that the labour force can be used to the full extent.

If ever we have heard a speech and had a Bill proving the absolute impotence of the Government, and of a Minister to carry out the task entrusted to him, then we have heard such a speech and we have received such a Bill from the Minister when he moved the second reading of this measure. If we needed any proof of the futility of the efforts made in the past, even though such efforts were only verbal statements, then we had such proof from the Minister when he introduced this Bill. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said but one could not fail to become aware of the sad state of affairs which we have to deal with. When we listened yesterday to the speech by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in which he quoted from the various speeches of the Minister and from the official statements which he read out here in this House we saw very clearly how the Minister made promises in this House year after year, promises of the number of houses which would be built, solemn declarations of what would be done from year to year—those promises grew into a mountain, but the mountain did not even bring forth a mouse. That is the position which we have to face now. The Minister admits that he has done nothing. He has numerous excuses; and because he has done nothing he now comes along with this request that we should give him practically unlimited powers in order that he may be a dictator as far as the erection of houses is concerned. He gives no particulars to the House or the country of what he intends doing and what he contemplates. The speech he made here was again full of promises, like all his speeches in the past. The question which each one of us puts is this: must we now practically by violating everything we stand for, give these powers to the Minister. We shall move amendments but we are in this position that we are practically compelled to grant these powers to the Minister, even although it violates all our principles, simply because we realise that something must be done, and unless something is done, thousands and thousands of people, particularly the poor classes in the country, will find themselves in an even worse position. We are simply forced to do this out of sheer desperation. As an act of sheer desperation, we have to grant these powers to the Minister in the hope that, although it is possibly an idle hope, he will in the future do something to assist these people in their distress and that he will do something in order that they may find a refuge. There is not the least doubt that the position in this country is deplorable. We are told by officials and by persons who are able to speak with authority on this matter that there is a shortage of thousands and thousands of dwellings. When the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) stated here that people in various places in the country have to live in hovels, that statement was challenged by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). He wanted to know whether they were Europeans, non-Europeans or natives, and when the hon. member for Namaqualand replied that there were also Europeans, he challenged that statement. He said that he had never seen white people living under such conditions. I do not want a wrong impression to be created through that interjection by the hon. member for Rustenburg as far as this matter is concerned. The position is precarious and apart from what I have seen with my own eyes and what other members have seen with their eyes, of the wretched conditions under which European families live today, it may perhaps be illuminating to refer members to an article in the “Rand Daily Mail” which appeared during the latter half of last year. It is in connection with conditions in Pretoria. A representative of the paper went to Pretoria to make an investigation there, and, inter alia, he wrote this—

There are no other houses for them. And then he goes further—

Those are the conditions which are to be found in Pretoria, that zinc hovels of this nature in the backyards of coolies are occupied by white people and, as the paper says quite rightly, that because no other houses are available for them I do hope therefore that members like the hon. member for Rustenburg who, apparently in order to prevent too black a picture being painted of the Government, casts doubt upon what we say here, will realise that they are not doing the country a service by simply trying to explain away conditions of this nature. It is better that the country and the Government and that members on the opposite side, should know the circumstances in which white people in this country have to live.

The City Council of Pretoria is to blame.

That hon. member was a member of the City Council of Pretoria and if the City Council is to blame for it, then he is also to blame for it. But I deny that it is only the City Council that is at fault. The conditions existing in Pretoria are found in all the cities of the Union. I will concede to the hon. member that, to a certain extent, the city council is to blame, but certainly not to the full extent. It is partly due to the econmic conditions existing in the country, for which the Government alone is responsible. It is this Government which during the past six years has hung on to and controlled building material. There are thousands of people who would have built houses for themselves and for poor people, but they could simply not do so, because the Government would not make the material available. The hon. member should not just say that the city councils are to blame. They are to blame, but the biggest sinner is the Goverment and it must realise that, because the country realises it.

There was no building material.

I will come to that. Unnecessary buildings were erected on a large scale. At Bon Accord, on the main road, a large factory was erected which was only completed after a whole year. I do not know who the owner of this factory is. It will be rather interesting to know that. But this is a factory for the manufacture of malt for kaffir beer. So we can find numerous instances throughout the country where building material was made available for such purposes while thousands of families were in need of houses. The Minister can look into this matter. It will be his duty to see to it that building material is not used for such unnecessary purposes when there are people without houses in the country. It is a crying shame, that whereas people are living in hovels,’ large quantities of corrugated iron sheets and other material are used for instance, for the erection of a large factory for the manufacture of kaffir beer. I will pass over the fact that, in places such as Hermanus, large luxury houses were allowed to be built which are not even occupied permanently but are only used as holiday residences. There are many other similar instances. In these times of war Mr. Schlesinger obtained building material for the erection of a large bioscope in Muizenberg. So we can find instances throughout the country of that kind of action while decent families had no roof over their heads because the Government failed to make the necessary building material available. But I want to come to the Bill itself and the powers which are given to the Minister. The Minister has in his speech, and hon. members opposite, have in their speeches, referred to the housing need, and what they apparently had in mind was only the returned soldiers. Our standpoint is this; whether it be returned soldiers or whether it be ordinary citizens of this country, if a person has a family then the need for a dwelling is the same, and I would like to have the Minister’s assurance, now that he is being granted full powers to be a dictator in respect of building material, that he will see to it that a fair distribution of building material amongst the population as a whole is made. We hope that he will not adopt the attitude that returned soldiers should first be assisted and that the other people may just as well perish.

We spoke of all the people

I would prefer to hear from the Minister himself what his policy is and I just want to warn the Minister that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) is making promises on his behalf. I would like to have the Minister’s assurance, even although it is only another promise, that the building material which is available will not only be used to create compact residential areas in the cities. We know that there is a serious shortage of housing in the cities and we duly sympathise with the large cities on account of those circumstances but I want to say to those hon. members who represent urban constituencies that as far as the country towns and the rural areas are concerned, the housing needs there are as acute as they are in the cities. In my own town there are people who live in houses made of sackcloth. The Minister knows that sons on the farms have come of age during the six years of war. They have married and they want to set up their own homes. There are other young people who have bought farms and who have to build; there are bywoners who have to be accommodated and I want the Minister’s assurance that he will not confine the distribution of building material to the large cities, but that he will meet the needs of the people in the country towns and on the farms where building material is required in order that these people on the farms and particularly the poorer people in the country towns may be accommodated. I want to express the hope that those people will receive their rightful share of the building material which will be made available. In view of this, I want to move this further amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein)—

1. (c) to divide all controlled building materials in such a manner that persons who wish to build or to have their own houses built, as well as persons living in country villages and on farms, will receive their fair share.

In connection with the amendment, I just want to say this that the Minister stated that he is going to have people trained to do the building work and that he is going to pay them certain wages and so on. I want to bring this to his notice that there are many persons who are able to build their own houses or to have them built, also in the cities, but especially in the rural areas and on the farms. Those people should not be excluded. The person who wants to build individually should not be excluded, but he should be taken into consideration when the building material is made available. The Minister should not only look towards his large schemes, but he should also see to the individual enterprise. All the people will not want to live in houses built under these large schemes. There are individuals who want to build their own houses and I do not want the Minister to leave those people entirely out in the cold.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) yesterday admitted that I was sympathetic towards the rural areas last year.

But last year the Minister was not a dictator in respect of building material and I want to tell him in advance that he should look after those people in the rural areas who wish to build houses.

I say that to indicate that I am not unsympathetically disposed towards the platteland.

The Minister’s disposition may be of the very best but he may be controlled and influenced by certain people to such an extent that these people on the platteland will not receive their due. That is my fear and that is why I want to warn the Minister in time because the people who are going to avail themselves of the scheme are all people from the big cities and they will in the first case see to the interests of the big cities, and if the Minister does not take steps to ensure that in the platteland people will also be assisted to erect houses—and in the cities also there will be individual persons who will want to build on their own—then they will not be in a position to avail themselves of the big schemes which are contemplated. The Minister has informed us that he intends limiting the cost of houses as much as is possible. That we welcome. He has stated that the amount to which building contractors would be entitled would be the cost of the houses plus 6 per cent. Has the Minister given consideration to all the implications? While I support an endeavour to keep the cost as low as possible I can come to no other conclusion than that under this scheme the small contractors will be totally excluded. The person who enters into contracts extensively to build hundreds and, if necessary, thousands of houses can easily build at a profit of 6 per cent., but what about the individual small builder who builds houses one by one, which perhaps takes three to four month’s to complete? If he is able to make only 6 per cent. on a house say of £1,000 then his gross income over a period of three months will be £20 per month.

Plus his own wages.

I am referring to the small contractor. He cannot pay himself a wage.

Oh yes.

That is some consideration for the small type of man. I am pleased with that, otherwise the small type of contractor would be eliminated. There is another point. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) directed attention to the sins of officials in the past in connection with the control of materials. The Minister is now assuming a responsibility here which was not his responsibility in the past and I have drawn his attention to a few cases which in my opinion were scandalous. But I still want to draw his attention to this. I have referred to a sufficient number of cases, but I want to refer to this particular case, where, through an official certain persons were in the past in respect of building materials given an unfair advantage. At Pretoria on the way to Waterkloof there is a piece of land on which one speculator contractor erected six houses a short while ago. They were not for his own family. But he obtained permits from the Controller of Building Materials for erecting six houses, all of them for speculative purposes.

Is that he case in Brooklyn?

Yes, perhaps we have the same case in mind. So there may be hundreds of similar cases in the country. Such things should be impossible. How does he manage to build one house after another for speculative purposes, to make a profit on it, to make profit out of people who are waiting for homes, while numbers of people with families and who have to have houses are not able to obtain a permit. The speculator buys land and builds houses and flourishes under the control we have had to date. I refer to the case because it is clear that this sort of thing may develop into what the Americans call a racket. If very strict control is not exercised in respect of this type of contractor then you will also find this sort of thing in the future. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has proposed an amendment with a view to ensuring that when the Minister carries out his promise and establishes big housing schemes, steps will be taken to see that there will be proper separation as between Europeans and non-Europeans in respect of residential areas. I want to assume that when the Minister builds houses he will erect houses at one place for Europeans and another for non-Europeans. I take it that that is his intention. But then I want to ask him how in future without legislation he will prevent houses at present erected for Europeans passing into the hands of Indians or other non-Europeans. If the houses remain State property he will be able to control the position but is it not the intention that the people should eventually become owners?

In certain cases, yes; in other cases, no.

If there is no legislation which requires that certain residential areas will remain European areas, in what way is the Minister or the Government to prevent that in time they again become mixed residential areas? As long as the State is owner the Minister will be in a position to ensure that, but if the people become owners and legislation is not adopted prohibiting non-Europeans from buying such houses or occupying them, how is he going to ensure that separation will be maintained? He can do it only in one way and that is by legislation. Only in this way will he be able to ensure that houses erected for Europeans will in future be secured for Europeans. We are spending millions on the erection of houses and it must be provided by legislation that houses which are built for Europeans will be preserved for Europeans. Otherwise we will again just have mixed residential areas as we have extensively in Cape Town and even in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Without legislation to control the matter there will be no certainty as far as the future is concerned, and that is why the amendment has been proposed by the hon. member for Boshof. Notwithstanding the vituperation which some Government newspapers have directed against him because he has moved this amendment and moves other amendments, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Boshof is quite appropriate, and I therefore desire to learn from the Minister, when he replies, how he intends ensuring that the part of his scheme intended for Europeans in the years to come will be preserved for Europeans. Just this one point more: There is at present an influx of natives into our cities, especially Cape Town. They come here in ’ thousands. Does the Minister intend in a reckless manner building houses for natives coming to our cities in large numbers? Every day we are told of the conditions prevailing in Cape Town, at Windermere, etc. Thousands of natives come here. Does the Minister intend building houses for them under this scheme?

Only for the permanent population.

When the native has been here for a year is he a permanent resident?

No.

If he has his family here.

What is the definition of “permanent”? How is it to be determined if the Minister does not define t? Thousands of natives come here to live here. Are they here permanently? When the Minister has these powers and if the funds are made available, will such funds be used for natives for erecting houses for them? What will be the result? That where thousands now enter ten thousands will come.

Have no fears about this matter.

The Minister says I must have no fears. When I was a student in the Western Province, 30 years ago, people in the Western Province did not know what a native looked like.

20 years ago!

Yes, 20 years ago there were people here who had not seen a native, and now we must hear that in the Cape Peninsula alone there are already 80,000 natives.

60,000.

And then the Minister says that we must have no fears. If the Minister is not concerned about the position which is developing here, I fear that he does not in the slightest degree appreciate the problem which is developing here.

I will not erect houses to entice them here.

If these funds and powers are used for building houses for natives it will be the best attraction for them to come here from the native areas. Then other steps will have to be taken to prevent natives from coming here. Every day pictures are painted in newspapers of the sad conditions under which natives come to live on the Cape Flats. If they have it their own way the Minister will simply use a considerable quantity of building materials and the funds provided under this Bill to build houses for natives on a large scale. The result will be that not only the European population but also the coloured population who live here permanently will be neglected, because the supplies of building material is insufficient to provide for the needs of all. As far as wages are concerned, I would like to know whether I understood the Minister correctly that as far as nonEuropeans are concerned, whom they now intend training, whom they intend training for two months or so ….

The first training will be for approximately 16 weeks and after that three years.

Did I understand the Minister correctly that during the first period they will be employed at 1s. 6d. per hour.

That has not been decided yet, but that is the proposal.

They will be paid 1s. 6d. per hour and after having been employed for a certain time they will receive an increase of so much an hour until they ultimately earn 3s. per hour.

2s. in the case of natives.

Does the Minister realise what that means? If a native works for eight hours per day he will receive 16s. per day.

In his own territory.

Here also, if for example houses are built at Windermere?

At Langa.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he realises what that means. He is going to pay natives who had received a relatively short period of training, a few months, a wage of 1s. 6d. per hour and after a few years they will receive 16s. per day. Does the Minister not realise how he will disrupt everything by following such an unsound policy of paying natives 16s. per day? Has the Minister calculated the monthly amount? Has he asked himself the question that if he employs natives at 16s. per day, for 26 working days, it means approximately £20 per month? ’ Has he put himself the question what the effect will be on thousands of Europeans, some of whom in Government employ, who do not earn 16s. per day, but 6s. per day? Does the Minister and the Government not realise how they will disrupt everything in South Africa and especially make the position of the poor man in South Africa totally impossible. I cannot do otherwise than express my strongest protest and opposition against this policy of the Government to elevate natives in that way.

No decision has been taken. What must we pay?

There is not the slightest reason why natives who must be used for this purpose should receive higher payment than natives employed on any other work, on the mines or anywhere else, also in the building trade elsewhere, where natives perhaps receive 5s. per day. Why should natives in this case receive 16s? Is the Minister not aware of the fact that there are Europeans and non-Europeans in the country? Is the Minister not aware of the fact that the Europeans must maintain their position over the natives in South Africa? How would it be humanly possible for the Europeans to keep a higher standard than the natives if the Government follows such a foolish policy to pay natives wages above the wages of thousands of Europeans? It is a wrong and pernicious policy and I am astounded that the Government which ought to realise its responsibility in respect of South Africa has decided to announce a policy of this nature.

I second the amendment.

I shall give this Bill my support. At any rate I do not associate myself with the doubts and fears expressed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. This Bill appears to me to provide the framework within which the Minister and those he will gather around him to assist, can remove anything in the nature of obstructive regulations on the part of the local authorities and do the same as regards provincial ordinances. I know the latter have caused delay in the past, and only by accepting a Bill of this nature can the work really proceed at the pace one would like to see. This Bill also provides that framework from within which the Minister has volunteered to accept the full responsibility for its functioning, and for that I commend him, because it is a very brave step.

Fools rush in.

I would not say that, but I would say that having assumed such responsibility much depends upon the Minister. His is the responsibility to see this national housing scheme does go ahead and that the much-needed houses are soon brought to fruition. I much regret that the Minister, in his speech when recommending this Bill to the House, saw fit to generalise and lay the blame upon the apathy of the local authorities.

I gave that as one factor.

The Minister gave that as one factor, but I do not think it is a factor at all in many instances. I know the municipality with which I am associated has done everything they possibly could to get on with the erection of houses. Here are sheaves of copies of telegrams dealing with the delay caused by the provincial authorities, and some are to the Minister himself, seeking his assistance.

Your front-bencher, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said I did not go nearly far enough.

Your argument was you had not the machinery; neither had the local authorities to proceed at the pace necessary, hence my support to this Bill. Everything was up against you. Firstly, the building regulations.

I agree entirely that many of them had great difficulties, but I say some of them are guilty of apathy.

I wish to repeat; I know the East London municipality, and the Minister also knows, has endeavoured on all occasions to co-operate with him and get on with the job.

Yes, I agree with you.

But unfortunately, as I say, there have been delays from causes beyond our control.

I agree.

If you agree with that I am satisfied. One thing I do request from the Minister is, that there will be no pushing for home ownership at existing exorbitant prices. May I refer to my own municipality again. I refer to them because I know the undertaking they are prepared to proceed with. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) gave some idea earlier in this debate of what exactly the municipality was prepared to do. They were prepared to offer some 243 lots in one of the best parts of the municipality to ex-servicemen at £1 a plot, roads, kerbs and gutters fully provided. The municipality has also made it a condition that these privileges shall only be granted to persons whose income does not exceed £500 per annum. Tenders have been called for, for the erection of these houses, and I may say we have as good building contractors in East London as there are anywhere else in South Africa. Having accepted the lowest tenders the cost of a four-roomed cottage, house alone, will be £1,737; that is without even adding the £1 that the purchaser would pay for the land. To redeem this on a 30 years’ basis with repayment of 3¼ per cent. interest at which the municipality have made arrangements to borrow, entails a monthly payment of £7 12s. 4d.—that is on a 30 year basis—and then there will also be £3 16s. 9d. for rates, municipal and divisional, plus—this figure is approximate but the minimum—£1 5s. a month, bringing the total to £12 14s. per month that is what a man with an income of less than £500 per annum is supposed to pay. I say that that is impossible, and anyone who falls for signing on the dotted line on those conditions is putting a millstone round his neck and he will never be able to pay for the house in his lifetime. I would suggest to the Minister that home ownership be encouraged, but that the price should not be assessed on today’s values. Interest on the capital expenditure plus ordinary charges attached to any house should be paid, and after a period of five years the value of the house will be assessed at its true value, as it is then, and the payments off capital will be arranged from that date, any loss in the interim to be borne by the Government.

Are the houses to be leased during the initial five year period?

Certainly. They are leased on the payment of interest on the capital expenditure plus ordinary charges which shall be paid until actual assessment takes place. We are simply asking for what the Government has done in the past in connection with irrigation schemes and similar ventures, and if the Government is to assume its full responsibility and do its duty to the lower income groups the plan I have suggested will suit the circumstances. In conclusion, may I say that with the placing of this Bill on the Statute Book the House and the people of South Africa are saying to the Minister: Now, here is the order, it is up to you to deliver the goods.

I feel constrained to rise and take part in this debate to register my protest against this further usurption of the powers of Parliament. I know it is done by way of asking Parliament to concede those powers. But I do not known whether Parliament is sufficiently aware of the nature and extent of the powers it is asked to concede to the Minister. I feel I would be failing in my duty as a member of this House if I did not rise to register my protest here. At the beginning of this Session we had a motion by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) in regard to the delegation of powers. I supported that motion. I moved an amendment to that motion and I feel that it would be really running away from that motion and from the amendment I moved at that stage if I did not rise now. The nature of the powers asked for is more than an ordinary delegation of powers. Prof. Allen of the University of Oxford has thus described it in connection with similar power accorded in an Act in Great Britain—

You had not the war to think of then.

It is difficult to deal with an interruption of that nature.

Of course it is very difficult.

One does not really know whether one has to accuse the member of senile decay or perhaps of retarded development

That is only personal; answer the question.

I will deal with this particular emergency. I first want to deal with the principle. In this Bill we have powers granted, under Section 2, to the executive which include powers to encroach not merely on the sanctity of contract, not merely on the inviolability of property rights, but also on the liberties of the subject, the personal liberties of the subject. I say those are very far-reaching powers, and they require a great amount of justification, whether it be war or otherwise, before one can be justified in granting these powers. But above these powers that I have said we are conceding here, powers encroaching on the sanctity of contract and the inviolability of property rights, there is also the power—and it has not yet been remarked upon in this House and I think it is remarkable that it has not yet been remarked upon—conceded to the executive to suspend acts of Parliament. That, I think is a very far-reaching power.

Why?

Because it is a privilege and a right which belongs to Parliament and any person who has any regard for the privileges and rights of Parliament will be very jealous to concede those powers to the executive. I do not think the hon. member who has just interrupted me has read this Bilk

Of course, I have.

He does not act as if he has. Sub-section 3 of Section 2 reads—

Here the executive has the right not only to alter the terms of this Act but it is also given power to alter the terms of any other Act.

Exactly, in an emergency.

I am afraid I can only say what I think Schiller once said, that against stupidity even the Gods contend in vain.

You need not be personal. You know you are wrong.

This sub-clause says—

In other words, Parliament now deliberately concedes power to the Executive to suspend any Act of Parliament, and I think that is an extraordinary power which we are giving to the Executive, and I want this House at any rate, to realise the nature and the extent of the power which it is conferring upon the Executive. I think if there are members who have so little regard for the prestige and for the privileges of Parliament as to take it in such light-hearted fashion as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth ….

South, opposite to North

I thought the hon. member was far from the magnetic north. In any case if there are people who take these privileges so light-heartedly it is their funeral, but I am addressing myself to those members of Parliament who have sufficient regard for the prestige and privileges of Parliament to guard jealously against any encroachment on those powers. I am not speaking to people who are frivolous in regard to this matter. These are the powers that are being conferred upon the Executive by this section. I think it is well that the House should know what these powers are, that the country should know what these powers are. There may be sufficient justification for granting these powers, but to the extent to which these powers are exceptional, to that extent one must have justification for conferring them on the Executive. In this clause that I have just read, there is a provision which is not entirely unknown in our statutes unfortunately. There have been statutes before which have had a clause of a similar nature, but those clauses have always called forth the condemnation of people who know something about the subject. I wish to refer to one example quoted by Lord Hewart in his book “The New Despotism”, in regard to Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929. That is also an Act which gave power to the Executive to modify the provisions of that particular Act. In this case we go much further. We extend that power to modify and to suspend the terms of Acts other than this. But even in that form it called forth the following comment in a leading article in the “Times” ….

What do you want to do?

This is what the “Times” said—

That is what we are doing here. This is nothing else than a Henry VIII clause in which we give the Executive power to make regulations which shall have the force of modifying or suspending any Act of Parliament properly passed by both Houses of Parliament in this country. I am prepared to recognise the emergency into which we have drifted.

That is generous of you.

And also the need for extraordinary measures in those circumstances to pull us out of the mud. I fully realise that, but on the other hand one must not lose sight of two factors, two very important factors, even while conceding the position of emergency in which we are at present. Those two factors are in the first place, that it is by the gross incompetence and iaxity of the Minister responsible that this state of emergency has arisen.

Rubbish.

I do not think the Minister is very happy in the choice of his supporters. This is not an emergency which has come upon us as a thief in the night. It is not an emergency which has arisen by reason of causes over which we have no control whatsoever. More than 14 months ago the Minister made a speech in this House. If he had been alive to the condition of affairs existing then, if he had applied his mind fully, then he ought to have realised that something ought to be done. Instead of that he gave us glib promises, he gave very hopeful indications as to the number of houses they were going to build. He dallied along the path instead of doing his job.

Why did he not do it?

That is what we want to know.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) was not in charge. At any rate there would not have been any lack of water for the mortar in the houses the Minister was going to build. That is the first thing that we must realise, that it is not an emergency in which we were put over which we had no control.

Don’t be silly.

If we had a proper Minister who was alive to his duties and who had taken up these matters seriously when he spoke in this House 14 months ago, then we would not have been allowed to drift into this position in which we find ourselves today.

How could you avoid it?

While recognising the emergency that has arisen, that is the first factor we must also recognise. The second is this that apart from the emergency there has been sufficient time, if not to build houses, then for the Minister to have informed Parliament of the nature and extent of the powers which he was seeking. In other words, one would have expected if there had been a due regard for the privileges of Parliament, that together with this Bill, the Minister would have put before the House the regulations which he proposed to make under the Bill. What was there to prevent the Minister when he drafted this Bill from drafting the regulations at the same time and laying those regulations on the Table of the House, and coming to this House and saying in those circumstances: “I want you to approve of these regulations”. It would not have been entirely a blank cheque. We would have known what was in his mind. We would have known in what way he contemplated exercising the powers conferred in Section 2. In Clause 2 he vaguely asks for certain powers. I understood that during the course of the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) the Minister interjected to say that these regulations were ready. I do not know whether I correctly understood him.

Nearly ready.

If they are nearly ready, then surely by a little exceptional effort they could have been ready and laid on the Table of the House, and before this House rose, the Minister would have asked for the approval of the regulations.

Or he could have let us see those that are ready.

If there had been a proper regard for the privileges of this House, that is the way in which the Minister ought to have acted. He ought to have come and said to us: “I have contemplated this legislation for some time. I have now drafted the legislation. At the same time I have also drafted the regulations. They may not be quite all that I want, but at any rate they will give the House a fair indication of what I want, and I am prepared to put them on the Table of the House and I am prepared to ask for the vote of the House on these regulations. It may be necessary for me to come with further regulations at a later stage, but I am prepared at this stage, to take the House into my confidence and to ask the approval of the House for these regulations which I consider essential”.

He did that.

Is the hon. member referring to 1888?

Not 1878 either.

I thought it was a little bit older than that, probably 1066. I think the Minister is quite capable of answering this question without having the issue muddled by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

That is what you are doing now.

It is not a case of in vino veritas but probably in vertate vinum. In other words his truth is slightly muddled. Why have these regulations not been laid on the Table of the House? If the Minister has not got the regulations quite ready, was it an impossible task for him to see that they were ready in time for the House to discuss them, and if it had not been done why had it not been done? Surely there was time enough, even if it did mean a little burning of the midnight oil for the Minister and his legal advisers to have these regulations ready. If that had been done, I do not say that I would have been completely satisfied, but at any rate it would have tempered the delegation wind to the shorn lamb that is Parliament in this case. But nothing of the kind has been done. We have not even been vouchsafed that. As Lord Hewart remarked in his book to which I have already referred on page 86, it is still delegation but it is delegation which is robbed of its sting. He says—

The second example he quotes is this—

So it is delegated power, but it is delegated power which is to a large extent robbed of the mischief which is inherent in all delegated power. Instead of that we find the Minister talking very vaguely in Section 2 of powers he wants. He has those regulations under Section 2 largely ready and framed, but he had not put them before the House. We do not know what they are. There are members who have asked the Minister what those powers are. Not generally, but how those regulations read. Some of those regulations have been framed, but they have not been submitted to the scrutiny of this House, and we have had no occasion to see whether those powers are not wider than we feel the occasion justifies. We know nothing about those regulations. We may have them next year; that is true. The extraordinary thing is that the Minister who is responsible for both these factors, firstly for the emergency that has arisen, and secondly for the fact that even at this stage we are not permitted to have a scrutiny of these regulations, should be permitted to ask for the powers asked for in this Bill. I go so far as to say that if anything similar had happened in England where parliamentary government also obtains, in such a case the Government would either have taken the blame themselves and said: “Under these circumstances, we are not prepared to carry on any further,” or if they had not taken this step, they would have said: “There is the Minister who is responsible” and it is really nothing short of effrontery to expect the House to give these powers to the very Minister who in the past has so disregarded his responsibility in those very same matters. The least one would have expected, consistent with the self-respect of the Government, would have been to say: “We realise that this Minister is responsible. There must be some reshuffling of portfolios, or there must be some changes in the Cabinet. If we want those powers we must put them in the hands of a Minister who has not, by his past conduct, shown his complete incapability of dealing with these matters. In the case of Sir Samuel Hoare, when it had been found that he had done something which was not consonant with the interests of the country, the Cabinet did not say: “We are going to keep Sir Samuel Hoare in the Cabinet”, they said: “You have to go; we are going to stay in power but we are not going to allow you to stay in power”. It is too much to expect the House and the country to give such exceptional powers to the Minister who has already given proof of his incapacity to deal with the powers that are entrusted to him.

That is your opinion.

There are supposed to be some safeguards in this Act against the way in which this Minister will exercise those powers, but I am afraid that those safeguards’ are woefully unsufficient and inadequate. The one safeguard we have now is Clause 2 (4) and that is that the regulations must be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after the beginning of its next ensuing Session. We are in Session now. Why not have the regulations laid on the Table now? But in any event that is the normal thing. Most regulations must as a matter of course be laid upon the Table of the House, so as the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) has already pointed out, this is really no exceptional safeguard. It is the ordinary practice. The other safeguard is in Clause 2 (5) and that reads as follows—

I think that is also wholly inadequate because, firstly, you have this trouble as to who is going to bring up the regulations for discussion; where are we going to get the time? Who is going to concede the time if the Government is not inclined to do so? The hon. member for Woodstock has also remarked upon the inadequacy of that safeguard. It can be said that there is the general safeguard that we can call the Minister to account at the next Session if the Government will be so kind as to give us an opportunity, but that is really not much of a safeguard. Lord Hewart in the book to which I have already referred says this—

We had that experience when we were discussing the Union-Castle Steamship Company contract. There was a large number of members on the other side of the House who agreed that it was a most unfavourable contract for South Africa, but the inexorable Party Whips were put on and against their better knowledge and against their own convictions, many members on that side of the House had to vote for it.

Order, order!

Rather than to call the Minister to account, you have got to see that those powers are curtailed before he exercises them in such a way that it is undesirable for the country, because once he has exercised them in that way, the Party Whips are put on the job and you get no satisfaction at all. I say it is a foregone conclusion that once the mischief has been done the whole force of the Parliamentary majority is brought into play and the Party Whips are put on and an appeal is made to the Party allegiance of members on the other side.

The same with you.

I can see on whose corns I am treading. As I say, there is really not much in this safeguard of calling the Minister to account. It is not really a safeguard at all unless of course—and that is what I want to ask the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation who is the responsible Minister—unless the Minister gives the House the assurance that when the matter comes up to this House, it will be left to the free vote of this House and that the Party Whips will not be put on. Is the Minister prepared to give us that assurance? Is the Minister prepared to tell us that he is so satisfied that he will carry out those duties in a proper way, that he will not misuse or abuse the powers that are given to him, that he will leave it to the free vote of the House? If he is prepared to do that, there will be some substance in saying that this matter should be left because the Minister can be called to account, but without that assurance this is simply an empty gesture to say that the Minister may be called to account. It is a foregone conclusion. Hon. members opposite, as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), were constrained to say the other day, that they have no choice. The hon. member for Hospital says that he feels this way but he has to vote that way. That is why I say there is no sense in saying that the Minister can be called to account. No, I think a further safeguard is necessary. Clause 2 (5) should be amended on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Wood-stock, i.e. that the regulations shall cease to have effect unless approved by Parliament within, say, 20 days after the opening of Parliament. Do not leave it there as at present, that it must be disapproved, because then there is no duty on anybody to bring those regulations to discussion; there is no certainty that the Government will grant the time for that discussion; but if you put it in the way in which the hon. member for Woodstock has suggested, namely that the regulations must be approved by the House, then the Minister is bound and the Government is bound to give time for this discussion, because unless the regulations are approved within 20 days after the commencement of the Session, those regulations will lapse. If I may recapitulate what I have endeavoured to put before this House, it is this: Is it too much to ask in view of the urgency of the matter, in view of the nature and extent of the powers which are asked, is it too much to ask in the name of Parliament and for the sake of Parliament’s rights and privileges that these three safeguards which I have mentioned, at any rate should be granted as a condition of the conferring of these evtraordinary powers upon the Minister?

Of course, it does not matter about the soldiers’ rights.

The three safeguards which I have envisaged are these: In the first place that the regulations should be placed before this House for its approval before the House rises; the Minister says that he has the regulations practically ready. Have them put on the Table of the House and have them approved before we rise. That is the first safeguard which, I think, we may fairly claim as Parliamentarians. Leave aside for a moment, the question of what Party you belong to.

And postpone the building of houses; that is all you want.

The second safeguard is this, that any further regulations which the Minister may deem necessary be laid on the Table of the House within twenty days of (he opening of the next Session of Parliament. Let the Minister say: “I will issue those regulations; I will act under those regulations, but I promise that within 20 days of the next Session of Parliament I will lay them on the Table of the House and I will get the approval of the House for it”. That is the second safeguard.

And the third.

I must ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) to stop these interruptions.

I am prepared to concede that the necessity may arise for further regulations which the Minister has not yet drafted. I am prepared to concede that necessity and I am prepared to grant him the power to act under such regulations, to make those regulations, but then he must come to this House within 20 days of our next Session and ask for the approval of these regulations by this House, and not leave it in this way, that they shall be in force unless disapproved. It must be a positive act on the part of the Minister. He must give the House an opportunity of debating those regulations and his conduct in the matter; and the third safeguard which I think would be a most valuable safeguard against any abuse of his powers, is that the Minister give the assurance to this House that, when the matter is brought up at the next Session of Parliament—these regulations that he issues in the recess—he will leave it to the free vote of this House to condemn or to approve of those regulations, and his conduct under them. I think that would be the most effective check on any abuse of the wide powers that are asked for in this Bill. I think the House will realise the fairness of what I am asking. These are extraordinary powers. Under ordinary circumstances no Parliament would dream of granting them, but I think we are entitled to say that, if we give the Minister these powers, he must be prepared to grant safeguards so that Parliament may know that the powers will not be abused, either by the regulations he makes or by the way in which he carries out the powers.

I think we all recognise the knowledge of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) with regard to legal procedure and accept his knowledge on that, but we are also in this position that members on this side of the House view with suspicion any attempt of members opposite to frustrate measures which we feel are necessary to bring about a better state of affairs with regard to our soldiers who are returning from the front. Those of us who were here a few years ago still have memories and we know what the attitude was of hon. members on that side of the House towards our soldiers.

One can see you are in a corner if you resort to that argument.

We also know that it is the urgent desire of members on that side of the House that we should fail in our duty towards these returned soldiers.

You have failed for the last 14 months.

They know that when these soldiers come back and we cannot provide them with homes they will be dissatisfied.

You have already failed.

They also think, and it is wishful thinking, that the soldiers, dissatisfied with what the Government have done, will turn to the Opposition. The last thing on earth that soldiers will dream of doing is to support them.

What are you afraid of then?

Certainly not you, but the position is this. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies, and I, for my part, whilst realising that we are conferring upon the Minister very great powers, am satisfied that if he can build houses under these powers, that is all that is required. If he builds houses we need not worry about any irregularities.

Can you not be a Parliamentarian for once?

We know that Parliament will not withhold its assent to the powers demanded by him if he is successful in building houses for the soldiers. That is one of the most necessary things. We have to tackle it no matter how much Parliamentary procedure goes by the board. But I do say this, that if the Minister fails to build houses under this Bill I would prefer not to stand in his shoes, because in my opinion the political career of the Minister depends upon making a success of the powers we are conferring upon him, and I want to say to the hon. member who has just spoken and who asked the Minister to leave it to the free vote of the House, that the House will give its assent. I am sure that under the powers given to the Minister he will build sufficient houses to guarantee getting the assent of Parliament next Session to the actions he has taken. But I am a little unsettled in my mind about one or two matters in this Bill. Firstly, what is the position of the small man? It seems to me that there is a tendency to sacrifice the small man by not giving him an Opportunity to acquire land at a reasonable price and to build his own house under the aegis of the building societies. I would like to feel satisfied that these men will have an opportunity and have land made available at a reasonable price to enable them to build, because I feel that every house built not only relieves the shortage but when a private individual builds a house he is leaving one which will become available for a returned soldier. I hope the Minister will reassure us on this point. There is another matter I would like to ask the Minister, namely, whether they have given any consideration to the question of mass production. It seems to me that even under improved methods we are in the main building houses in very much the same way as they were built 100 years ago, except that we are building them not quite as fast as they did then. That is due to trade union regulations which have grown up in the past 20 years. All the industries have in the last 30 years had improved methods of production, and one feels it is strange that the building industry is proceeding to a great extent on the same lines as they have for many years, but I feel that we can only catch up with our building problem if some other method is evolved in building instead of laying bricks one by one, for instance. It seems to me that more might be done with large moulds and concrete, and spray painting instead of hand painting, and that the building of houses should be expedited very considerably. I feel that mechanical forms of doing work should be further investigated. In conclusion I wish to say that if the Minister can make a success of this housing scheme not only the House but the country will approve of any steps he takes.

I likewise recognise the knowledge of the hon. member for Faure-smith (Dr. Dönges) on constitutional questions, but I also recognise that all he said with reference to the disregard not only of Parliamentary rights and privileges, but Parliamentary duty is correct. Most of what he said was based on logic and on reason. I only wish that his case were a true reflection of the views of the Party to which he belongs and that it were a measure of their love for Democracy, and if it were, the country would be less concerned today about the rise of Fascism in this country when our own soldiers have been fighting overseas in order to destroy it there.

The country is concerned about the rise of Communism, not Fascism.

It would be pure sophistry to pretend that after six years of war, when our manpower was used to prosecute the war there would not be a housing shortage at the end of the war. But what the House must also recognise is that during this period the necessary steps have not been taken to put ourselves in a position to meet the housing shortage which exists today. In the motion moved by the Labour Party at the commencement of the Session it was recognised that the time was coming when the Government would have to accept responsibility for building houses, and it required no prophetic insight into the housing position to realise that necessity, but the position would have been a lot better today if steps were taken some years ago in anticipation of this acute shortage. When the present Minister of Labour was in charge of the Welfare Department he took the step of presenting to this House the Rents Act which has been of considerable value and benefit to the country during the war and will be of benefit in future, and if the control of the sale of houses and the control of land values had been parallel with the control of rents, we would not be faced with the present inflated land values which is largely responsible for the great difficulties we are faced with at present. The real trouble rests not in the absence of houses but in the cost of building houses today, costs which are not explained wholly in terms of the increase in wages to building workers or the increase in building materials, but it is largely due to increasing land values, because land values in 1939 were not pegged in the same way that rents were pegged. Had land been pegged in 1939 there would not have been this great difficulty we have today to build houses. The Minister in recent years has been speaking in telephone figures about the number of houses to be built but year by year it was easy to see that these remained figures and that there was no reasonable expectation of the figures being fulfilled. The difficulties of the municipalities are not difficulties of one or two months standing. They are difficulties which date back to the past years and the municipalities in this country, in the main, have taken the correct and reasonable standpoint in their examination of the building costs of houses and have recognised that the main factor, as regards working men is the amount of interest they have to pay for the house. The passing of the buck between the Government and the municipalities and vice versa has gone on until we now have to recognise generally that particular measures must be introduced, so much so that the Minister comes along and asks the House for a blank cheque. That blank cheque can only be given with considerable misgiving. It can only be given with the knowledge of the fact that the return of our soldiers is being exploited for the purpose of asking this House for powers to give to the Minister the right to introduce Government rule by regulations in a democratic country, and rule by regulation is something which almost every member supporting the Government is pledged to oppose. The granting of regulations in terms of this Bill is an expression of totalitarianism, covered by the excuse of providing houses for returning soldiers so that they might have homes to live in. We are openly introducing a measure of totalitarianism in the name of soldiers who have been overseas fighting against that system. Another cause for misgiving, which will remain a very severe cause of misgiving, unless the Minister can give a specific reply to the question put by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) regarding the dual control, is the planning and the building of houses. If there is to be proper central co-ordination it is necessary and essential that the Minister in charge should also take over the position of the Building Controller, and only with these rights vested in one Minister will it be possible to co-ordinate the planning and building of houses, so we should abolish the dual position which exists in that regard. Now it may be strange, having said that we should remove the dual position, that I should now go on to say that in regard to certain provisions in this Bill, the provisions of controlled labour and the provisions dealing with wage regulation instruments, should be put into the hands of the Ministry of Labour. The working classes in this country fought for a long time to ensure that there should be a proper State Department to deal with industrial questions, and in this Bill where provisions are being asked for to deal with wage regulating measures, the House is entitled to ask from the Minister that such provisions should be solely under the control of the Ministry of Labour. And there is particular reason why we should ask for that assurance. Let us see how one clause of the Bill reads. Paragraph 4 (e) says that building workers will be guaranteed employment for a period which shall not exceed 10 years. In answer to that I say to the Minister: “Thank you for nothing”. They are going to give a guarantee which shall not exceed 10 years and which can be anything less than 10 years. It is a guarantee of full-time employment to building artisans which may last one or five years, but less than 10 years, and in all the public utterances I have heard in regard to the guaranteeing of full-time employment to the artisans as a reciprocal measure for their foregoing their rights, not in one instance has it mentioned that a period of less than 10 years should suffice. I have heard 10, 15 and 20 years, but this is the first time that I have heard of a period of something less than 10 years. When it could be as little as this Bill provides for I say to the Minister—and I am quite satisfied that every building artisan in the country will say—thank you for nothing. That is no protection to building artisans who are being asked to forego their rights to preserve decent wages. For months past, through the Press, the suggestion has been made that it is purely on account of the building artisans seeking to preserve and entrench their privileges that building has been held up. On the other hand everybody recognises the truth that the building artisans and the trade unions have frequently and consistently said that they are prepared, because there is a national emergency, to accept the dilution of industry, to see Africans trained, if they are trained for the purpose of building houses in which Africans will reside. Everyone knows that African workers earning wages of from 25s. to 35s. a week cannot afford to live in houses built by European artisans at their rates of pay, and because of that the building artisans have said they would forgo that restriction and agreed to the introduction of African workers on skilled operations. What we ask for in return is a satisfactory assurance that this national emergency will not be exploited for the purpose of in future reducing wage conditions, but all the Minister does now is to guarantee them for less than 10 years. There is another important question. For six years the engineers have been subject to conscription, to the control of manpower, and statements have been hinted as coming from the Cabinet that in the near future there will be a relaxation of that. Engineers are looking forward to this iron control of manpower being removed, and it is not satisfactory to transfer the manpower control over engineers to the building artisans of this country at a time when the war in Europe is finished. I say you must get co-operation from the trade unions, and you can get that co-operation. The gestures which have been made to the country are gestures which are a guarantee that you will get co-operation. Do not apply compulsion to them when they are quite ready to meet the country in its need.

There must be many members in the House like myself who had great difficulty in following the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is his legal perambulations. We have, it is true, been dissatisfied in this country and in the House at the enormous lack of houses and at the slow progress made during the last year. The Minister himself recognises that fact, and he has come to ask us for extraordinary powers to meet the position of emergency. It is quite true that this House must be careful in granting such emergency powers, but when a national problem like this is before the House I think the safeguards the Minister have given when has has assured us, as he will no doubt, that that will be carried out, is adequate in this situation in order to meet the case, especially now that one hears that there is a new Director of Building in this country, and that his Housing and Planning Commission are now in a position to function adequately. I want to draw attention to the fact that a great deal of the trouble in the past has been not so much through the local authorities refusing to do their duty in taking action, but there are many other factors which the Minister knows well which prevented them from taking the necessary action to provide the adequate number of houses which many of these local authorities had every intention to provide. I hope the Minister will see to it, with his Commission, that in future such difficulties will be overcome to give local authorities every possible encouragement. I also want to draw attention to the fact that apart from the local authorities there is in the Cape the Citizens’ Housing Utility League which in the past did excellent work to provide sub-economic houses for Europeans, and which has lately adopted the scheme to build a large number of houses for coloureds at Matroosberg. I am a director of that company. Our difficulties in the past very often were that when we negotiated with the Central Housing Board for a loan we had to do it first through the local authority and then through the Provincial Administration. It actually took 5½ months to get a loan through while our contract was already given out, and it is quite true that that contract increased in price owing to a rise in wages, and the cost of material had actually increased so that there was an addition of 6s. per month in rental to sub-economic houses for Europeans. I think the Minister should, through the powers he takes in this Bill, help those societies who are out to assist in the housing problem, especially in relation to the poorer type of coloured and European person. I should like him to see whether he cannot help this Housing Utilty League by the Government giving the total amount of loan required for such houses. At present we have to go for 15 per cent. to outside sources. We pay a higher rate of interest and that adds to the rental to be paid by these people who fall within the lower grade of wage earners. In view of the powers he is taking in this Bill I feel confident the Minister will come to the aid of similar housing leagues—I believe there is also one in the Transvaal—who are out to give their services free to the housing problem which confronts us. I am sorry in a way that under paragraph 4 the Minister gives special powers to the Provincial Council of Natal. On a previous occasion in this House I remarked that the time was ripe when the provincial system should be done away with. The National Convention of 1910 expressed the hope that the Provincial councils they provided for under the Constitution would not last too long, and that in due course provincialism would die away. I do not think we should give new powers to a provincial council or more than entrench existing powers. If the Minister was quite sure this would help the housing scheme good and well, but I hope that in future the Minister will be very careful in giving any powers as regards houses to provincial councils unless there is strict supervision and direction of policy and execution by the Central Government. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) referred to the Big Four. It is quite true that during the war when circumstances were much more urgent than they are today this question arose in connection with military contracts. I myself strongly objected to the fact that these contracts were handed out to a Big Four while many builders who should have been taken into consideration were left out in the cold. I do not know who the hon. member referred to as the Big Four, but I want to ask the Minister that under the powers he is taking in this Bill he should see that the whole building industry is utilised and that no big individual builders are given contracts out of all proportion to those received by the other builders, who can also assist. I therefore hope that through his Planning Committee everything will be carefully planned. Although there is great haste, the haste is not great enough to prevent careful planning, and unless there is careful planning and total pooling of all the building resources in South Africa I do not think any building scheme on a large scale can be a success. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take note of these few remarks and that he will specially consider the good work done in the past by the Citizens Housing League of Cape Town.

This debate has ranged for three days, and I am deeply indebted to hon. members for the constructive suggestions which have been placed before me from all sides of the House. There is no doubt that the anxiety of hon. members in regard to the housing position has shown itself by the manner in which, with one or two exceptions, they have attempted to keep this matter above the level op Party politics. I want to thank hon. members very sincerely for the manner in which they have approached the subject, and for the suggestions that have been made. I do not propose now to deal with every matter that has been raised in the course of this debate. That would detain the House too long. I want to try to deal with the main threads that have run through the debate, but I can give the House the assurance that all those points will be considered. I shall ask the Director of Housing to do so, and we shall ensure that constructive suggestions that have been made shall be followed up. It is clear that, apart from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and the addendum to it by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), members of the Opposition are prepared to allow a second reading of this Bill to be taken. The main objection of hon. members opposite, and in this they have support from other sides of the House, is that such far-reaching powers as are contained in this Bill, or are made available by this Bill, should be ultimately sought by means of regulation. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has spoken on that subject this evening. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Rupssell) raised the matter yesterday. Their action is consistent with the stand they have taken in this House during this Session on the delegation of powers. It would have been illogical on their part if they had not raised this matter which has come up in this particularly acute form. I think every member of this House agrees—I hoped that would be inferred from the remarks I made in introducing the second reading—that Parliament does not lightly welcome being asked to give far-reaching powers by way of delegation and by way of regulation. It is not a function which Parliament lightly accepts, an it is only an emergency of a particularly grave character which justifies the House in acceding to such a request. I suggest we are in such an emergency. I will come to the criticism that this emergency should have been foreseen, or the suggestion that this emergency was with us a year or more ago. But I suggest in this matter, whether we are taking far-reaching powers or not, one has to be guided by the circumstances of the emergency itself. I do not feel that one need necessarily look for precedents in this matter. One can overdo the question of precedents. There are times when a Government must make up its mind to make its own precedents, and not be concerned with what has happened in the past. But in actual fact I do find in this case, apart from the war emergency reguations, the powers conferred by the War Measures Act, an Act peculiar to a country in time of war, there is a precedent for empowering the Governor-General by regulation to take such drastic steps without coming to Parliament. I find one of the last Acts passed by the Nationalist Government, in which they were supported by my friends opposite, was the Currency and Exchanges Act, No. 9 of 1933. In terms of Section 9 of that Act—

1. (1) The Governor-General may make regulations in regard to any matter directly or indirectly relating to or affecting or having any bearing upon currency, banking or exchanges.
2. (2) Such regulations may provide that the Governor-General may apply any sanctions therein set forth which he thinks fit to impose, whether civil or criminal.

Then sub-section (3) of Section 9 provides that—

Two blacks do not make a white.

I entirely agree, but I would say this. There is this distinction between what I am asking Parliament to do now and what the former Nationalist Government asked Parliament to do in 1933. They placed before Parliament a measure which enabled the Governor-General for all time to change an Act of Parliament by regulation. That Act is still in force. I ask for this power, because of extraordinary circumstances, for a period of three years only. Do not let us concentrate too much on precedents, however. We are dealing with a matter according to the circumstances prevailing at the present time. The hon. member for Fauresmith has suggested that I might have laid the regulations on the Table now. He mentioned that I had said they were nearly ready. Although the task of drafting them is nearly completed my hon. friend will, I am sure, appreciate that regulations cannot be laid on the Table merely when they have been drafted departmentally. They must be scrutinised by the law advisers, and there are difficulties of that sort in making them available now.

The Governor-General said in his speech you had discussed this matter thoroughly.

I shall come to the matter of why I did not introduce them earlier, at a later stage. I am dealing now with the request made by the hon. member for Fauresmith. I do not think it will be practicable to lay the regulations on the Table before the House adjourns for the Session. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) suggested that, in order to meet the difficulty, I should establish a post-Session Select Committee. The hon. member for Woodstock yesterday afternoon pointed out the constitutional difficulties in the way of that course, and I need add nothing to what he has said in that regard. But I do feel a good purpose may be served if an opportunity were given to hon. members on all sides of the House to meet me in an informal committee if they wish to do so, and to have an opportunity during the recess of consulting with me, or the Director of Housing and the chairman of the National Housing Planning Commission, any regulations which may have been made or which it is proposed to make. A committee of that sort has already been appointed from members of the Party to which I belong; but it seems to me a good purpose will be served—and I throw out the suggestion to hon. members—in having a committee representative of all parties which could meet from time to time. I leave it to the Parties, and to the Whips of the Parties, to consider whether they would like to avail themselves of that invitation.

You want more scapegoats than yourself.

My hon. friends suggested they wished to be consulted and to know what is happening, and if they wish to do that they must not run away from any responsibility indirectly placed upon them. The second objection raised by hon. members opposite is that this housing emergency could have been prevented. The hon. member for Boshof said this could have been foretold at the beginning of the war. One knows that the housing question in South Africa, or the housing shortage in South Africa, is not a sudden and new phenomenon. It is an acute manifestation of a chronic disease which has been going on for almost a quarter of a century; and after every war that disease becomes more apparent than before. Obviously one knew that during the war years there would be a falling off, a depletion in the number of buildings put up; but do my hon. friends, who suggest this emergency could have been prevented, suggest we should have had recourse during the years of the war to the manpower and the material resources of the country which were being reserved for defence requirements? We cannot have it both ways. Either, if you wage war you wage war to the fullest extent, and one realises there must be sacrifices in the community, and if a certain limited amount of material is available, and if a certain limited amount of labour is available, one must decide whether to divert this away from war purposes into channels such as housing, or you have to concentrate them all on the war effort. The Government has taken full responsibility for bending all its energies and all its national resources to the war effort in the last five years ….

Why did you make promises?

…. and if the cause of housing has suffered thereby, we can only say that has been in the greater cause of South Africa. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) interrupts and asks: “Why did you make these promises?” and I would remind him and another hon. member that the hon. member for Gordonia, in the course of the debate last night, suggested that in introducing the Housing Bill last year I had misled the House. And he began referring to certain statements I had made. I want to refer him to one of the quotations he made. He quoted the fact that I had said—

And he said all the Government had done during the war years was to “think” about housing and that we had done nothing. Housing can be divided into two parts in South Africa, housing under the Housing Act, that is national housing, and housing which flows from the ordinary coming into play of private building. I said on this occasion that, despite the pre-occupation of war, the Government had not turned away its mind from housing. The hon. member quoted that and said the Government did nothing but think. I asked him to go on with his quotation. The hon. member then quoted a lot of figures, but he did not quote the passage immediately below that, and which was significant—

That is the figure he did not quote. During the previous nine years of peace 8,000 had been built, and during the four years of war 10,000 had been built, more than in the previous nine years of peace.

How many of those 10,000 were for whites?

My hon. friends are very keen on quoting the shortage of houses.

How many were for whites?

I have not the exact figures at the moment, but if the hon. member suggests by that interruption that the housing shortage is in respect of Europeans only, he is being inconsistent with the allegations of other hon. members opposite. The housing shortage of 150,000 ….

In my speech I quoted the number of houses you built since 1939.

The hon. member did not quote what I mentioned. I leave the point there. There has been another suggestion in this debate, namely, that 14 months ago we should have realised there was a housing emergency. It was said that every member of this House realised there was an emergency 14 months ago and yet nothing was done. The hon. member for Boshof quoted the Van Eck report. He said that Dr. Hamlin pointed out there would be a shortage of 150,000 houses …. [Interruption.] If this figure is correct—and I assume its correctness for the purposes of discussion—it falls into two sections, 30,000 houses for Europeans and 120,000 houses for non-Europeans. But these houses do not refer to national houses only. The Van Eck Committee never found there was an immediate need for only 150,000 national houses. The Van Eck Committee found there was a total need in the country of 150,000 houses, whether built under the Housing Act or by private enterprise. I want to emphasise that point because there has been a certain amount of confusion in the minds of some hon. members who have participated in this debate when we talk about meeting the “housing” shortage we know that we cannot hope to meet that entirely by the building of “national” houses. The building of houses by private persons, the building of houses by private enterprise must go on side by side with the building of national houses, and there is no intention on the part of the Government, in taking the powers sought under this Bill, to interfere with or to restrict private enterprise and prevent private enterprise playing its part in building houses.

Will the private individual who wants to build a house be able to get a permit?

I will come to that if my hon. friend will be a little patient. The allegation against me is that we knew the difficulty and did nothing. Is that correct? The Van Eck Committee did report in February, 1944. It did suggest there was a shortage of 150,000 houses. What did the Government do? I introduced a Bill in this House. My hon. friend quoted from my second reading speech. In that I gave details of what had been done in the past and asked for powers to establish a National Housing Commission with much wider powers than the former Housing Board. Where are the specific promises that were made? The hon. member for Gordonia quoted the fact that I had said the Government had committed itself to £23,000,000 in respect of sub-economic houses, but the hon. member does not know the system under which sub-economic housing has been working. When this Government took over in 1939 the former Government had committed the country to a sub-economic housing programme of some £13,000,000. That is to say, it invited local authorities to apply for loans to build sub-economic houses, but the former Minister of Finance had said the accumulated amount of applications from local authorities for building must not exceed £13,000,000. That did not mean that £13,000,000 would be spent immediately. But it meant this. Suppose that £13,000,000 had been allocated, then, if another local authority came into the field and asked for a loan it would have to be told: No, we are up to the limit of our commitments and we cannot help you. The present Minister of Finance during the war years agreed to the Government committing the country to a sub-economic programme of £23,000,000. That was the position.

You might as well commit the country to £100,000,000 if you do not spend it.

What is the increase in the national debt as the result of your commitments?

I am not going to follow up the rather abstruse interjections of my hon. friend. I am merely attempting to give the House the facts. It is alleged I made promises: I am giving the facts. It may be the hon. member did not understand the facts.

Your promise was a promise of houses.

In order to attempt to follow up this allegation made against me that I was making rash promises, the hon. member brought in the name of Dr. Hamlin, and he said I had repudiated Dr. Hamlin. [Interruptions.] If the hon. member for Gordonia would not allow himself to be the victim of postprandial excitement it would assist me. I listened to him very quietly when he spoke, and I now want to deal with his allegations. He said I had repudiated Dr. Hamlin. I have never repudiated Dr. Hamlin.

No, he was right. [Interruptions.]

If my hon. friends would not allow this nervous excitement to get the better of their normal calm and cautious behaviour, I shall deal with the matter. I made no statements about the former Director of Housing, Dr. Hamlin, until my attention was directed to a statement he had made and which was given prominence in the Press. In this statement he was reported as having said that no question had been more misinterpreted or more misrepresented than that of housing. “Promises had been made which those who made them knew would never be fulfilled”.

You made those promises.

It seemed to me that statement must hit me amongst others.

You are not repudiating it.

You are feeling the pain before they hit you.

I was rather startled by the statement in view of my experience of the facts. So I think in view of the fact that the hon. member for Gordonia has raised the matter, and as there does seem to be a certain amount of misunderstanding on the point, I had better give the House the facts. Dr. Hamlin said that promises were made which those who made them knew could not be kept. He used a phrase about “Ministers running away like scalded cats”. He was Director of Housing in July, 1944, and he wrote to me in that month as follows—

He then went on to give certain figures in regard to the houses which it was alleged were being built, and then he went on to say in this letter—

That was my statement to the then Director of Housing and he complained that that was an unfair allegation, contending that he was helping me to carry out “the most ambitious programme ever undertaken in South Africa.” A few months later Dr. Hamlin went down to Bloemfontein and, on the 6th November, 1944, he said—

And on the 28th November, 1944, he addressed members of the African Health Officials Association in Johannesburg and once again gave his views on housing. These views were splashed across two columns of “The Star”, “Views of Dr. Hamlin” and he said—

And then he went on to deal with the permits issued for private buildings. Three weeks before he had said national houses were being built at the rate of 1,000 per month. What I have done is not to repudiate Dr. Hamlin but to say that, if in fact statements were made which misled the country, a certain measure of responsibility might possibly attach to the former Director of Housing. May I return now, Sir, to the allegation that one should have adopted other steps at the beginning of last year. The steps then taken were to appoint the Housing Commission with wider powers and to arrange for building materials being made available for national houses. In June, 1944, I asked the local authorities for their estimates for building programmes for the year ending June, 1945. I have given the House the facts before. They asked to build 23,000 houses. The Housing Commission, knowing of the limitation of materials, cut down the request to 12,000. We then asked them to give written undertakings to build 12,000 by June, 1945, and, they gave them. During that time the Housing Commission solved the vexed problem of the financial assistance to be given in respect of losses on national housing schemes. I had been told up to then that the only hurdle in the way of local authorities going full steam ahead with building national houses was that the losses on sub-economic houses were too heavy. We changed the formula to the complete satisfaction of the local authorities and, by November, 1944, I was in possession of undertakings from all the local authorities in the country that they would build 12,000 national houses by June, 1945. We had material enough for 12,000. Was that being negligent? Of these 12,000 I believe that approximately 4,000 will be completed. [Laughter.] My friends laugh but they missed the point.

And you missed the boat.

The point is that by November, 1944, they had given information which could be assumed to be correct, information in writing in the form of undertakings, and if it was correct the maximum use could be made of the available material. There was a suggestion in December that there might be labour difficulties in respect of this immediate programme and I asked the Commission to make enquiries and to make sure whether these houses would be built. It was the information which subsequently came to me which made me realise that the scheme had broken down. I am not suggesting that the former Director of Housing made these statements mala fide. He made them bona fide. I do not suggest that the local authorities who undertook to build houses did so lightly. They probably believed that they could carry out their commitments, but various circumstances intervened. In some cases it appeared that labour difficulties arose, labour being diverted to small projects. Whatever the difficulty may have been, whether it was due to the multiplicity of authorities, to labour difficulties or otherwise, the fact remains that these national houses were not being built. In the meantime private building went on in terms of building control. I am referring only to difficulties in respect of houses built under the Housing Act. It was because we realised that if these difficulties continued we would not solve our problem that the Government has come to this House to ask for these special powers. If the Government did not come to ask for special powers, Parliament and the country could have held the Government negligent for not stepping in. There has been no misleading of the country, no deception. The moment the position was fully appreciated I made a statement to the Senate on 4th April last, in which I indicated the views of the Government.

Then you have had almost two months in which to frame your regulations.

My hon. friend is in too much of a hurry. I come to his point. The introduction of this Bill has become largely possible through the fact that agreement has been arrived at with the building trade unions in regard to the dilution of labour, trainees, etc. These communications have been going on whilst hon. members opposite smiled at the apparent dilemma of the Government. It would certainly have been premature to introduce the Bill before we reached agreement. The very fact that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) says that he does not like the provisions of the Bill regarding labour shows the difficulties which would have arisen if, following on prior careful negotiations one had not reached agreement with the trade unions. And the position would have been infinitely worse if we had rushed in with a Bill without consulting them. Let me assure the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) that it is not the intention of the Government to offer the trade unions a guarantee of less than 10 years. Negotiations have been going on on that basis. I am quite prepared, at the Committee Stage, to move an amendment to make the guarantee at least 10 years. So much then, Sir, for the allegation that we should have anticipated the position and should have taken wider powers at an earlier stage. This House approved of the Bill I brought before Parliament last year. In the second reading of the Bill I stressed more than once that the plan of the Government was to co-operate with local authorities and allow them to build, and that was approved. Parliament gave me authority to go forward with the programme and allow them to build. Parliament did not then say it would not work. It was willing to give it a trial. It has unfortunately broken down and now one is asking for additional powers to meet these difficulties and others. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) has said that he would have wished to have more details of our plans in applying these powers. I think the House is entitled to have some idea of the manner in which it is proposed to use the powers. It is of course not practicable for me now to deal in detail with the matter, but generally speaking my object is this, that the Commission is in touch with the major local authorities. It is enquiring from them their building programme, what they can build, what they would like to build and the nature of their difficulties in respect of material and labour. The Commission will then, after receiving this information, decide whether it, by the exercise of these new powers, ’ should assist the local authorities in the work. We do not wish to interfere with the local authorities provided they get on with the job. If they cannot get on with the job or are unwilling, the commission will build itself. But we go further, because it is quite obvious that even if the local authorities are in a position to build themselves there may still be gaps and timelags. I have, therefore, issued instructions to the Director of Housing that the commission should begin building at once, and the Director is searching at present for suitable ground for the building of houses to be let at cheap rentals. We intend to start building straight away in the main centres of the Union, houses for people in the lower income groups. But this Bill is not intended only for the lower income groups. I would divide national houses into three categories: (a) houses to be sub-economically let to the lower income groups; (b) houses to be let at economic rentals; and, group (c), houses to be sold on the hire-purchase system to persons earning between £25 and £45 a month, the group to which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) and others referred. We intend to deal with all these categories under the Bill and to make it possible for persons falling in these groups to be assisted. Of course the Bill goes further than this because it is possible, under the expropriation terms, to expropriate land for private people. If an ordinary private person wants to build a house, and finds suitable ground but is being held up to ransom, it is possible for the commission to expropriate the land. It is a far-reaching power but it is indicative of the fact that the Government wants to assist people in building by private enterprise. The plan involves control of land prices, profits and labour. It envisages an immediate start in building by the National Housing Commission itself. It envisages the provision of houses for those who can afford to buy them, in the middle group. I want to again emphasise the difference between national housing and ordinary private housing. A great deal of criticism has been offered in this debate to the control system. The Housing Commission has hitherto had nothing to do with the control system. It is not intended by this Bill to take over the control of all building material. Powers are taken to control materials in respect of national housing but it is not the intention of the commission to use these powers to the detriment of ordinary building. Side by side with national housing must go on the building of ordinary houses. There is a good deal of force in the contention that for the purpose of building houses within certain limits all control might go, bêcause we can control labour. Of course control of large building must remain like flats and picture palaces. Although some churches may be built I still think that the need for building houses is a Christian need which must be considered as a matter of priority. Concern was expressed about the building of houses on farms and in rural areas. Provision is made in the Bill for that, in Section 2 (1) (k) and the commission will do all it can to arrange for permits for buildings in rural areas and on farms. In introducing the Bill I mentioned that regional committees will be appointed, initially in the larger areas, but I quite agree with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) that it will probably be necessary for us to have small committees in various parts of the country, and I would welcome the co-operation of members opposite, and all members of the community in dealing with these housing matters.

Did not your Party recently pass a resolution that no Nationalists should sit on any committee.

They will be voluntary bodies for looking after the interests of these areas, and if any individual can make a contribution I will welcome it. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) asked me about trainees. They will fall under the Demobilisation scheme at first. They will receive intensive training for 16 weeks and then be trained on the job. While on the job as trainees they will receive a rate of pay greater than that of apprentices. On completion of the training, after three years on the job, they will be full artisans and receive artisans’ wages. There are a number of other points of detail to which I will give attention. Some of the points raised may come up again and be more appropriately dealt with at the committee stage. So I come finally to touch on the amendment, moved by the Opposition. I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment. The one concerns the old King Charles’ head of the Opposition—compulsory segregation. It is the policy of this Government to provide housing amenities for all sections of the community, and we feel that the system which has been so successful in the Cape areas can be extended, the system under which,, by a process of natural attraction, the members of various racial groups go to the same area. Since 1920 I know of no single instance under the Housing Act of a scheme providing for mixed residence, and it is certainly not the intention of this Government to allow it. I do not accept the amendment because it is not necessary, and we on this side of the House do not need to pass statutory powers to deal with the matters which can be dealt with administratively and need not give offence to any section. My hon. friends opposite are sometimes touchy when they were attacked in debate, but there are members of other races who have have feelings. They are also human beings, creatures of flesh and blood, so why should we cast aspersions upon them.

What aspersions?

If my hon. friends feel that if they get into power they want these safeguards, let them put them in. We on our side of the House do not need Acts of Parliament to make us do the right thing. The same applies in respect of the other two amendments. It is evident that national housing is not intended for aliens. It is true that there are aliens in the country. There are also numbers of British evacuees. There are still 6,000 wives and children of British servicemen in the country. I am making enquiries as to whether their return may be expedited. They are all anxious to go back. Hon. members will appreciate that if one can allow five or six thousand of these persons to go fairly quickly quite a number of flats and boarding houses will become available. But I hope my hon. friends do not object to South Africa having given them refuge. As far as the final amendment is concerned, it is not necessary to accept that. The principle of allocation and fair distribution of available material must obviously be adhered to. In these circumstances I regret that I cannot accept any of the amendments. I would like to thank the House once more for the very constructive suggestions; except for one or two minor lapses, I do appreciate the high standard this debate has taken.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—64:

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H, J.

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

Noes—22:

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O,

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 2nd June.

I move—

This Bill, like other taxation measures with which the House has already dealt, does two things. In the first place it seeks to give effect to the resolution passed in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in the second place it sets out to make certain other changes which have been found to be necessary in the existing income tax law. As far as the first part of the object of the Bill is concerned, that is dealt with in Clause 1 which fixes the rates of income tax for the present year. As I have already indicated we are not making any changes in the existing rates of taxation except as far as one subsidiary point is concerned, but in terms of the constitutional convention we must none the less re-enact the existing rates from year to year, even though no change is made. The bulk of this Clause 1 of the Bill is in the form of a re-enactment of the existing rates of taxation. The one subsidiary point is in respect of the treatment of excess recoupments which I explained fully when I moved the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. On that account I shall not repeat what I then said. The relevant parts of Clause 1 are sub-clauses 1 (a) (vi) and 2 (c). Those paragraphs deal with that particular point. The rest of the Bill, however, contains provisions which have not been dealt with by the House previously this Session. I do not intend to go into details on all of them. Some of them are of a minor character and have been explained in the White Paper which is available to all hon. members. But I shall refer to all those which are of substantial importance. The first point to which I wish to refer is in respect of contributions to staff pension funds. There are certain clauses in the Bill—Clause 2, Clause (5 (a), Clause 6 (b) and Clause 7 (a)—which seek to clarify the position in regard to contributions to such funds. The present law provides for the deduction from taxable income of contributions to funds of this nature. But in effect, the present law leaves it to the commissioner to decide whether or not a fund is to be recognised for such purposes. To an increasing extent, however, doubts and difficulties have arisen in the determination of funds which should be so recognised, and that is the more so because, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) pointed out, I think, two years ago there is a possibility of abusing this provision in the present law. On that account it seems to be necessary to define more clearly the nature of the funds in respect of which the concession should be given. Let me give an instance. It is possible today for claims to be made for deductions from taxable income in respect of contributions to a fund, where the contributions amount in fact to ordinary savings which are returnable with interest, to the contributor. In some cases those contributions are quite considerable and in some cases, too, the funds have only one or two members. Hon. members will therefore see that there is a possibility of abuse, and that it is obviously desirable to define properly what kind of fund should be recognised. That definition has been attempted under paragraph 2 (b) of the Bill. In dealing with this matter, my Department has for some time been in consultation with the representative bodies of commerce and industry. Their criticisms on the original departmental draft were substantially made before this Bill was introduced into the House, but one point remained outstanding, and that is a point in regard to Section 2 (b) (2) (b) (iii) and (iv). These are paragraphs which exclude for the purpose of deduction, funds where the contributions are applied to payments of ife insurance premiums. With regard to that one substantial point the representations made to us had not been met when this Bill was submitted. Further representations were made to me after this Bill was published, and as a result I feel that this aspect of the matter requires further enquiry. That enquiry it will receive in connection with the revision of the Income Tax Law which we are contemplating next year. In the meantime I shall propose at the Committee Stage to delete those two paragraphs to which I have referred.

Will you mention them again, please.

I propose co move at the Committee Stage to delete paragraph (2) (b) (2) (b) (iii) and (iv), but as a temporary means of checking abuses I propose to move an amendment in Clause 6 which will provide for a ceiling in respect of the contributions to such funds. The amendment will, of course, be on the Order Paper, and will indicate what the ceilings will be. I do not think that this will lead to any substantial hardship. I think it meets the position as a temporary expedient. Then I want to refer to Clause 4 of this Bill which amends Clause 9 of the existing law which was put into the law to deal with attempts at evasion by the creation of trusts. We have found, however, that the existing law does not cover one possibility of evasion, i.e., where there is a transference to a trust of shares tn a private company. The amendment will now have the effect of curbing that type of evasion. Another clause which deals with a somewhat similar subject is Clause 9 of this Bill. There we have the case of a taxpayer who has omitted income from his tax return where the omission is discovered in a subsequent year. At the present moment such omitted income cannot be taken into account for reducing losses carried forward to the subsequent year whereas obviously it should be so taken into account. That means that if in the year in which the income was actually earned the taxpayer still has a loss, even after this omitted income has been included, he cannot be taxed on that omitted income in respect of the subsequent year, where he has perhaps quite a substantial income. In other words, this omitted income cannot be brought to account to reduce the loss carried forward to the subsequent year. If the discovery of this omitted income gives him a favourable balance for that year, he is taxed on it, but if it gives him an unfavourable balance in the year, it does not reduce his loss carried forward to the next year, and therefore he escapes taxation. Clause 9 is intended to rectify that. Then I pass on to two clauses which deal with rather different subjects, Clauses 3 and 6 (a). Those clauses deal with the question of lease premiums. A lease premium is a special consideration given in connection with a lease. The principle of the present law is that such a premium is part of the taxable income of the lessor, while it is deducted from the taxable income of the lessee. Sometimes, however, a lease premium takes the form not of any cash payment but of an undertaking to effect improvements on the leased property. Obviously that should also be taken into account. But in the same way it means, of course, that the lessor should pay on that amount whereas the lessee should receive the benefit, just as happens in regard to other lease premius, and that is proposed in the clauses to which I have referred. Then I would like to refer to Clause 7 (b) where it is proposed to make an exception which will be acceptable in several cases. I have already referred to a similar concession as far as excess profits duty is concerned in the special taxation Bill. The point is this, that both in respect of normal and super tax, the taxpayer is entitled to a rebate. If the period of assessment is less than a full year under the present law, the rebate is adjusted proportionately. Take, for instance what happens in the case of death. It is quite possible that the income is not spread proportionately over a year, take for instance, the farmer who gets perhaps practically his whole year’s income in the first three months. In that case it would be unfair to the estate obviously, if it only got a proportionate rebate; or take the public servant who retires in July and gets his leave gratuity and then perhaps dies a few months afterwards. There again the estate is unduly burdened, and so it is only fair to make it possible for the commissioner to arrange that in such cases the rebate shall not be decreased on a proportionate basis. I think that is a concession that, will be generally acceptable. There are only two other mattters to which I heed refer, and both deal with procedure. In the first case, Clause 10 contains certain amendments in regard to procedure in respect of appeals against decisions from the Income Tax Special Court to the Supreme Court. I may say that in respect of these suggestions the Bench has been fully consulted. There are two points. At the present moment, in the case of an appeal to the Special Court, the Court is limited to the particular point of law which has to be formulated in advance. Sometimes the Court may consider that there is another point of law much more important, but the Court is debarred from considering that. We are proposing to empower the Court to deal with any point of law in the event of a disputed assessment. Secondly, we are proposing to allow by consent of the parties for an appeal direct from the Special Income Tax Court to the Appellate Division. Very often everybody knows right at the beginning that the case is not going to be settled until it comes to the Appellate Division, and where the parties agree they may go to the Appeal Court straight away to save time and money. The other provision to which I wish to refer is the provision we propose to make to facilitate the conclusion of agreements with other countries in matters of taxation with the view to eliminating double taxation. Section 94 of the existing law empowers the Governor-General to enter into such agreements. What we propose here is to extend his power in that regard by making it possible for agreements of that kind to cover reciprocal assistance in tax collection as between two countries. Those hon. members who read the budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England will have noticed that an agreement on those lines has been concluded between Great Britain and the United States. A similar agreement has been negotiated between Great Britain and ourselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to the proposal to negotiate agreements with various other members of the Commonwealth. I think to an increasing extent such agreements will be negotiated and it is desirable that we should have the further powers herein referred to to make those agreements as flexible as possible. Sections 11 and 12 provide for this. Those are the only points to which I think it is necessary to refer at this stage. The other points are explained in the White Paper, and they can be discussed further in Committee, if necessary.

Because this side of the House has no objection in principle against the tax we are being asked to extend for another year, the second reading of this Bill need not take too much time. This side of the House, however, feels that the Minister should improve his Income Tax Act in three respects, and that point of view will be put by members on this side. We ask for three things. It will not cost much money, but yet it will be a great consideration for the persons affécted. In the first place we ask that where sickness strikes a family and that ill-health is of such a nature that it not only destroys the income of that person for that year but also causes him to involve himself in debt, the State should take cognisance of that. The Minister told us that it is difficult to find a formula which does not open the door to malpractices. I can just tell him that another country found a formula like that. Canada has it, and what is possible for Canada is not impossible for South Africa. Secondly, we ask that where parents have a minor child above the age of 18 years, between 18 and 21 years, and that child attends a recognised educational institution, the same rebate should be applied in respect of that child as is applied in respect of a minor child under the age of 18; and, thirdly, we object to the limitation of 30 per cent. which was last year placed on the improvements which a farmer can set off against his taxable income.

Were there cases where that caused difficulty?

Yes, that point of view will be put by this side of the House. I only mention the matters. There are members on this side who will deal with the matter further. That is all we ask for. If the Minister is prepared to meet us as regards those matters, the committee stage of the Bill will also not take much time. As regards the amendments, we did our best to discover what the implications are of each of the amendments. In Clause 1 there is a concession to the gold mines. It is to allow the gold mines which have been exhausted still for the last time, if I may put it that way, to pay out a good dividend. The Minister shakes his head, but that is what it boils down to. We know that the capital expenditure of a mine is calculated for the life of the mine, and amortisation is provided for annually. Supposing we come to the end of the life of a mine and they sell the machinery. Under the old Act there was a danger that practically all the income from the sale of the machinery would go to the Treasury. The Minister can make appreciable concessions to such a mine. I can only say that we do not intend voting against it.

The present arrangement sometimes works very unjustly.

I just want to tell the Minister that we are very little interested in the dividends he still allows an exhausted mine to pay; we would rather see him try to encourage new mines still waiting to be developed in the Free State to produce. Now we come to Clause 2. As the Minister knows, we welcome sub-clauses (a) and (b). It closes the door to evasion of income tax, which Undoubtedly took place in recent years. The Only fault I wish to find with the Minister is that he is closing the stable door after the horse has been stolen. The worst evasions took place during the war years, and he is closing the door only now.

There is only a foal inside now.

Yes, he catches only the foal, but we would have raised serious objection to those two sub-clauses at the end of that clause except for the fact that the Minister promised to move the deletion thereof in the committee stage, and that satisfies us. As regards the rest of the amendments we have no objection and I leave the matter there.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already indicated in what directions we wish to plead with the Minister for concessions. Last year already, even in the beginning when notice was given of these taxation proposals, we pressed the Minister to exempt people who have been affected by a catastrophe, in other words, people who owing to ill-health were forced to call in doctors and incur hospital expenses. There is no single family in South Africa which is not at one or other time affected by sickness, hospital expenses, etc. If I may refer to the report of the Gluckman Commission, it is pleaded for there—and it is felt right through the country—that medical services should be given free to the population of the country. In view of the strong feeling in South Africa that people who are affected by disease and who go to hospitals must be considered, we want to ask the Minister at this late moment to meet those people. It is wrong to tax the health of the nation. I think at the moment of two cases who are lying in hospital here from my constituency. They have been here for months and their expenses amount to hundreds of pounds, yet there is not the least provision n the Act to give exemption to these people. [ therefore want to plead very earnestly with the Minister at this moment to take this question into consideration whether he cannot move an amendment in the committee stage to give concessions to these people. A second matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention is the question of the tax on improvements which was levied last year. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) asked whether we knew of cases of hardship. Let me tell the hon. member that this tax does not affect people with farms which have already been developed. They do not suffer much as a result of this. But we have a pioneering country and the further one goes into the interior the fewer farms there are that have been developed. Much development must be done. Owing to the war there has been a cessation of development for almost five years. Let me give an example. I know of somebody whose gross income from his farming operations in the past year was less than £1,000, but he spent more than £1,000 in improvements in the form of jackal-proof fencing, boreholes and windmills. I should like to take the hon. Minister to the northwestern constituencies and he will find that a surprising amount of development still has to be done, and where these people develop their ground and cultivate it it eventually results in increased income to the State. But what is more, when we read the report of the soil erosion expert from America who visited our country and said that we have to tackle soil erosion with all our might, and seeing that the Government is being asked to spend millions of pounds in the interests of the national problems of South Africa, it is certain that the Government should not only exempt these people from taxation but that the State should do everything in its power to minimise the danger of erosion. The Minister last year said that the difficulty is that they want to trap the cheque-book farmers, the professional people who farm in order to evade taxation. I want to ask him whether it is so impossible for him or his Department to give a definition of a bona fide farmer. Last year we referred him to the definition of a bona fide farmer contained in the Farmers’ Relief Act but the Minister would not accept that definition. I ask him whether it is possible to give a better definition. Is it impossible to give a definition that a bona fide farmer is someone who does not perform professional services, but devotes himself entirely to farming and is dependent on his farming operations? I allege that it is possible for the Minister to find a satisfactory definition. If the Minister will do what the Nationalist Government did in 1928, namely to realise that the improvement of a farm is a source of income for the country and therefore not to tax improvements, if the Minister is imbued with the idea of seeing the farmers independent, and if he wants the country to be developed, the Minister will be able to find a definition of a bona fide farmer, and for that reason it is that I at this late moment ask the Minister to move an amendment by which the improvements effected by a bona fide farmer will be exempted from taxation.

I should like to say a few words in connection with the second point that was mentioned by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth); in the first place in regard to granting a rebate in respect of children above the age of 18 years who attend a recognised educational institution. The Government, I hold, should do nothing to thwart the education of the child; the Government ought to do the reverse. It should do everything in its power to ensure that the child is educated as well as possible to become a useful citizen of the State. When the child has reached the age of 18 the rebate is no longer allowed for income tax purposes, but we feel this is just the time when the parent spends a great on the child. It is just the time when he goes to the university or to the high school. It is not only school fees that have to be paid, not only the fees for education at the university, but also money for board and lodging, and I am convinced that many parents are not in a position to allow their children to continue at school. It presses especially heavily on people in the lower and middle income groups who have to keep a child at school. The wealthy man does not experience any difficulty, he can pay the extra costs; but every few pounds the middle class man or the poor man can save he has to save, and I am pleading specially for these people. There are the Government officials who do not draw very high salaries, there are the teachers who do not draw high salaries. They are anxious to give their children as good an education as possible, and it is they who today are finding things difficult. It is expected of them that they should live at a good standard and it is expected of them that they should set a certain example for their children. What does the State do to assist a child of 18 to reach the stage that he becomes a useful citizen of the State? I feel that if the Government or the Minister meets the parent in regard to children over 18 it will be a good step. It is wrong for the Government to thwart and to hamper the parent or the guardian at the stage when he needs help most. I may cite the example of a teacher who has two sons he would like to educate. He is a teacher at the high school. The children are very clever and he has already spent a great deal on their education. The one is studying medicine and the other surveying. It costs him a great deal to keep these children at school, and it is expected from him as a teacher that he should bear the whole expense. He has spoken to me and I feel the arguments he has advanced are right. He says that every pound he can save is of great help. This not an isolated case; there are hundreds and possibly thousands of similar cases. I should like to ask the the Minister whether, if he can see no prospect of allowing this rebate in respect of a child so long as it is continuing its studies, then at least he should grant a rebate until the child has turned 21.

When I asked the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) by way of interjection whether there were cases of difficulty in connection with the 30 per cent. rebate he said that cases of that sort would be mentioned.

There are many cases.

When the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) rose, I really expected him to cite more striking instances. He referred to the case of a farmer whose income was less than £1,000 and who spent more than £1,000 on fencing, dams, boreholes and windmills. Last year the Minister increased the rebate from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., and I must honestly say I feel that was satisfactory.

Why not 100 per cent.?

For approved erosion schemes.

I do not want to hold up the measure. When we are in Committee we may perhaps be able to go into the matter further, but I must say that it does not seem to be good economics for a farmer making less than £1,000 a year to spend more than £1,000. A farm should be developed gradually, and if 30 per cent. is allowed that appears to be quite adequate. Then £700 will remain, certain other expenses that can be deducted, leaving his nett income perhaps at £400 or £500, and on such an amount very little tax is paid. I do not consider the hon. member has made out a case to review the position.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) has said in reference to the 30 per cent. rebate. When the 30 per cent. was instituted we felt it was a war measure because the Minister was in need of further revenue. But now the war is over we are appealing to the Minister to allow the full amount farmers expend on farm improvements. That is no more than right and just. It is an encouragement for the farmers and the farmers today receive no encouragement at all. Under the taxation laws the Minister allows 15 per cent. wear and tear on implements, but when we go into the increase that has occurred in the price of implements between 1940 and today we find the prices have actually risen from 100 per cent. to 200 per cent., and only 15 per cent. rebate is allowed. Let me remind the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Hayward) that in my constituency there are numbers of cases where the 30 per cent. is inadequate. A farmer has an income of £2,000. He is a newcomer, and he has built a dwelling house and outbuildings, and begun to improve his land,-and he has spent more than £1,500. That is the capital he has invested. If 30 per cent. only was exempted it would only be about £400.

In any case he cannot make a reduction in respect of a dwelling house.

I am referring to improvements. What does the hon. member regard as improvements? He improves his cowsheds, his fencing, etc. This is not subsidised. Fencing wire is today very expensive and iron posts have risen from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. There is no subsidy as far as this is concerned. The farmer has to pay the higher costs, but he can only deduct up to 30 per cent. for income tax purposes in respect of improvements. Now I should like to bring another case to the notice of the Minister. Farmers today have to deal not only with soil erosion, as the hon. member for Calvinia has stated, in order to protect mother earth, but they have to contend with other difficulties, such as noxious weeds and other pests. There is the Scottish thistle that is spreading throughout South Africa. The Scottish thistle is today a greater danger than erosion, and that evil is not being tackled by the Department of Agriculture. I can assure the Minister that in my constituency farmers are paying up to £300 a year to eradicate the Scottish thistle, and if they do not incur this expense in continuously eradicating the thistle they would within ten years no longer be able to make a living. We know what the position is in certain parts of America. There the Scottish thistle has made such headway that hundreds of people no longer can make their livelihood; and in South Africa the Scottish thistle is already driving farmers off the land. Seeing the war is over I would ask the Minister not to stick to the 30 per cent., but to revert to the old basis of 100 per cent. for improvements and the eradication of noxious weeds, the building of dams and the prevention of erosion. It is an extremely reasonable request we are making, and I hope the hon. Minister will yet bring in such an amendment.

I should like to express my appreciation for the manner in which hon. members on the other side have tried to expedite the disposing of this matter. I want therefore to reply very briefly in the same spirit. These matters have, of course, all been discussed before. They were discussed in Committee of Ways and Means; the House gave its decision at that stage, and we cannot go back on that. Let me deal shortly with these three matters. In the first place the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) brought up the point about medical expenses and hospital expenses. I can only repeat that I do not feel happy about the proposition that it is necessary, by way of a tax rebate, to meet people who have to shoulder such a burden. In the first place by such a concession you can only meet a man with a small income on a very small scale. On a small income the scale of taxation is so low that a concession such as the hon. member is advocating would be very limited. It is true something of the sort is done in Canada, but in that country the scale of income tax is much higher than ours. For that reason the concession signifies much more than it would here. I have stated, however, that when the whole subject of our taxation system is enjoying consideration, and should we go over to an increased scale of income tax, this point will receive further consideration. But this year in any case nothing can be done. The second matter mentioned by the hon. member for Calvinia, and it was also touched on by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk), is in respect of the consideration farmers receive in comparison with other taxpayers in respect of their capital expenditure. This matter was thoroughly discussed last year and again this year. As hon. members know, this provision was greatly abused by cheque book farmers. The door had to be closed, and in our estimation a 30 per cent. concession is entirely reasonable in respect of the bona fide farmer. It is not regarded as a war measure, and the fact that the war is over makes no difference.

Instead of hitting at the 10 per cent. cheque book farmers you are now hitting at all the farmers.

By no means all the farmers have been affected by this. It affects very few farmers. In regard to the plea made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) that there should be a rebate in respect of children over 18 years of age, at any rate those who attend university, I would like to say that most children who have turned 18 are able to earn something on their own account. Consequently those whom the hon. member wishes to give favourable consideration to represent a relatively small group. They already benefit by the fact that their university education is to a large extent paid by the State. Now the hon. member wants to confer a further advantage on them. If it really meant that persons who are at present not in a position to enjoy a university education would be enabled to do so, one could understand it. But what would the concession mean? Five pounds a year. That is all. If this money was utilised, say possibly £50,000 or £60,000 to give bursaries in deserving cases, if that was the plea, it would have been a better plea than to allow £5 in respect of any student, whether he is a poor man’s child or a wealthy man’s child. I am afraid therefore I must give the same reply as I have done on previous occasions. I regret that I cannot comply with the requests to which expression has been given.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 2nd June.