I move—

This and the two following resolutions are resolutions which have been passed annually since 1942 and have reference to certain preferences under the Ottawa Agreement of 1932. This one refers to the preference which Union crawfish enjoys in the United Kingdom. Since the outbreak of war this has been of no direct benefit to the industry because the British Ministry of Food, which is the sole importer of food in Great Britain, has contracted to purchase at an agreed price the total exportable output of our crawfish canneries, and therefore we have agreed since 1942 to suspend annually for a period of 12 months this preference, and the position now is that we have arranged to sell the whole of our available crawfish canned to the British Government for the coming year. Since our industry is safeguarded we have agreed to suspend the preference for a further year. It will be necessary to review during the current year what will have to be done in regard to the future, and I do not anticipate it will be necessary to ask for it in future years.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The position here is slightly different in so far as we have no available fresh fish, nor facilities for exporting it to Great Britain. In fact I do not think we have availed ourselves of this preference since 1932, and we therefore are prepared to agree with the United Kingdom Government that this measure be suspended for a further period of six months. Again at the conclusion of hostilities this will have to be taken into review in regard to the future.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This resolution refers to an agreement between the Union and Canada in respect of citrus fruit under which the Canadian Government agreed to impose a duty of 35 cents per cubic foot during the months of May to December, during which time Union citrus would be permitted to enter duty free into Canada. Owing to lack of shipping we have been unable to ship oranges to Canada during the war period, and the result of this agreement has been simply to increase the cost of oranges to the Canadian public without any corresponding benefit to anybody, and we have therefore agreed in recent years to suspend this preference. This resolution refers to the last season, 1944, and only requires ratification in respect of the future. I am not yet able to say whether we shall be able to export any oranges to Canada during the coming season. It entirely depends on the question of shipping, and at the present moment there is no apparent prospect of the necessary refrigerating space being available.

I second.

Agreed to.

I have been asked by the promoters of this Bill, and by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Goldberg) who is absent, to take charge of this Bill for them, and I move—

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Preamble and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments made by the Select Committee.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clause 1 and in the Preamble put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I should just like to put a question to the Minister. It has now become the habit to leave the taxation proposals more and more to the discretion of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is given discretion to do this and to do that. Now I just want to put a question to the Minister in regard to that. Supposing that the Commissioner exercises his discretion under a taxation Act and he gives a certain ruling under which something is not included in the taxable income, and then there is a change of Commissioners and a similar matter is again submitted to him for decision and he then gives a different ruling; can his decision then be made retrospective?

No, not in cases where a decision has already been given.

I want to inform the Minister that there is anxiety in the sphere of industry and on the part of the public at the fact that the Commissioner may exercise his discretion and give a certain decision, and that the matter may then again come before the next Commissioner who then gives another decision. Is it possible that it may be retrospective in any respect? Will the Minister give a clear statement so that it can go on record in Hansard report.

No, it is not possible that in those circumstances it can be given retrospective effect.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I want to move this amendment, as I promised to do at the second reading, namely, to effect a decrease as regards the personal and savings levy tax in connection with married people who have an income of less than £300; it is a decrease from £3 to £2 10s. The amendment is as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I should like the Minister to give a clear reply here also. As I understand the Bill, the portion paid as savings under this article is exchangeable on all amounts paid before this particular year.

Yes.

For the years 1942, 1943 and 1944 it is exchangeable. In other words, a person who has paid the savings levy in those years can exchange his certificates in order to receive back his money. Are there exceptions, and has the Commissioner the discretion to refuse?

No, there is no discretion given to the Commissioner, but as the Act now stands it provides that where the amount is more than £20 it is not payable. It is not a question of discretion.

And in the case of an amount under £20?

The Commissioner has no discretion.

Representations were made to me to the effect that in cases where the savings levy was less than £20, the Commissioner refused to pay it out.

Then there is a mistake.

Then we have only to see the Commissioner about it?

Yes.

Then there is a further point. We want to know whether the Minister is prepared to meet us as regards subclause (b). There it is provided that the savings levy will be repayable only after six years. We feel that that is too long. We do not mind that the State forces us to save. That helps us. But in the post-war years we may perhaps want to buy a house or furniture or something of that nature, and we want the right to get back that money from the State. Under this proposal that money is frozen for six years. We cannot get that money. That is in the period when we need it most and can put it to the best use. That is the period when everyone wishes to make provision for the building of a house or something like that, so that the money can be used for some or other purpose, and here the Minister now lays down that it cannot be repaid until after six years has elapsed. Does the Minister not think that the period is too long? We should like the Minister to consider decreasing it to two or three years.

I just want to point out that where the amount is more than £20 the period is six years.

£20 for one specified year?

In view of the fact that the savings portion of the tax in future will not be payable by people who do not pay income tax, but only by income tax payers, we propose making that provision generally applicable. One will not be able to get very far with an amount of less than £20, even if for two years it was not levied, in order to build a house or to purchase furniture.

Every little helps.

Not really much in this case, but apart from that an amendment like that would lead to changing the whole of the rest of the Act. I therefore regret that I cannot consider it now, but I shall be prepared to consider it further next year.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I must ask for the deletion of this clause, seeing that it is not expected that the Bill referred to in this clause will be passed this year.

Clause put and negatived.

Clause 8 put and negatived.

On New Clause to follow Clause 6,

In the second reading speech I indicated that we proposed to make a concession of general applicability in regard to agents who had expenses over and above the normal commission. At present the tax free percentage is limited to 5 per cent. but there are cases, especially in respect of agents for the sales of townships, where the expenses may be a good deal heavier, and we therefore propose to allow for such expenditure as part of the tax free portion. I move—

1. 7. (1) Section 26 of the Special Taxation Act, 1942, is hereby amended—
   1. (a) by the insertion in paragraph (b) after the word “exceeds” of the words “the expenses in connection with the transaction which he may have incurred and which the Commissioner may allow, together with”; and
   2. (b) by the insertion, after paragraph (b), of the following paragraph:
      1. (b) bis so much of any amount, other than an amount referred to in paragraph (b), which accrues to or in favour of any intermediary in respect of the alienation of any immovable property referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of “immovable property” in Section 25, as exceeds the expenses in connection with the alienation which he may have incurred and which the Commissioner may allow, together with five per cent, of the consideration for the immovable property concerned;
2. (2) Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of March, 1945.

Agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendment in Clause 3, the omission of Clauses 7 and 8, the new Clause 7 and amendment in Clause 14, put and agreed to, and the Bill as amended, adopted.

Third reading of the Bill on 4th June.

This seems to be a suitable point at which to ask a question as to the rule which is to be followed in future in regard to cases of this kind. Is this to be taken as an indication of the future intention of the Government in making grants to widows of Ministers Plenipotentiary, or is there any sort of assurance that their petitions for pensions will be entertained. We have a very haphazard method of dealing with these matters. I am not reflecting on the Committee whose task is always difficult. I simply wish to point out that here we have a case of the lamented death of the Minister Plenipotentiary, and we propose to grant £1,000 to his widow. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is intended to deal with any similar cases that arise in a similar manner or what the policy is with regard to our Diplomatic Service which is becoming an increasingly important branch of the Public Service.

Perhaps I should explain that it has been the custom for some time now, on the retirement or death of overseas representatives like Ministers or High Commissioners to pay a gratuity which is calculated on the basis of one month’s salary for each year of service, with the maximum of 5.0 persent of one year’s salary. In the past the Government placed the amount on the estimates and had it voted by the House, but in the last case, that of Colonel Reitz, exception was taken to that procedure, I think by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), who made the point that in such cases the matter should first of all be dealt with by the Pensions Committee. That is why this procedure has been followed in this particular case, and it is our intention to follow that procedure in future. But the basis adopted has been the same as that followed in similar cases in the past.

This is a case in which a prominent member of the Public Service is about to be transferred to the Diplomatic Service, and provision is sought to be made by this recommendation for the continuity of his service. No-one would object to that. The only point is that we do not wish to repeat the experience this country had in relation to the case of Dr. J. F. J. van Rensburg. In his case there was a transfer from the Public Service to the post of Administrator of the Orange Free State and there was a condition which laid down that a certain period was to be added to his service. It was laid down that in the event of the termination of his appointment as Administrator he had the option of returning to the Public Service. That option was neither exercised nor brought into force with the result that Dr. van Rensburg received the substantial addition to his pensionable service when he ceased to be Administrator and became Commandant-general of the Ossewa-Brandwag. I hope that in this case it will not be understood that what we are doing in regard to Dr. Viljoen will be capable of any variation when he reaches retiring age or before. Dr. van Rensburg was allowed to retire before he had fulfilled the requisite essential in regard to all Service appointments, that he must reach retiring age, but without reaching retiring age he received an addition to his pensionable service. I do not want it to be presupposed that the present provision frees Dr. Viljoen from any responsibility for the fulfilment of his service before he can draw the pension.

The precedent followed in this case is not that of Dr. Van Rensburg, where the position was different and special provisions were made on his appointment to a post for a definite term of years. The precedent followed here is that followed in the case of Dr. Gie, a happy precedent, except for his lamented early death. We are treating him in the same way as we treated Dr. Gie and I think that basis is a reasonable one, that where a public servant is appointed to a diplomatic post that should be regarded as an extension of his service.

Will the Minister indicate why this was brought up by a Treasury memorandum instead of the persons concerned having recourse to a petition to this House? It seems to me there was nothing unusual in their case and it should have been dealt with in the orthodox manner by a petition to this House.

The position is that these two mem were apprentices to the Government Printer and were loaned to a private printing firm for the purpose of assisting that firm which was a contractor to the Government and did a large part of the printing work for the Director-General of Supplies under difficult war conditions. They were members of the Government Employees’ Provident Fund and there was no provision under the law to enable them to retain their membership of the fund or to expect them to contribute for that period, but in fact they were doing Government work during that period and they should not suffer.

The point I am anxious to ascertain is why they did not have recourse to the proper remedy of the position.

The point is that they are employees of ours and we sent them to do this work. I think it was right that we should take steps to see that they do no suffer and not put the onus on them.

In this case the service by the deceased was rendered to the Land Bank and it would appear to me that we may be creating a precedent here in granting a pension in respect of war services when the actual service was rendered to the Land Bank. Genl. Muller was a member of the Land Bank Board and everyone appreciates the duties he performed but I am merely indicating that in this case the present recommendation might be open to a certain amount of criticism because he was properly an employee of the Land Bank.

It has been the practice of our Committee to grant pensions to the wives of our heroes, especially generals who served in the Anglo-Boer War. General Muller rendered outstanding service, and it is in recognition of his being a national hero that this allocation was made to his widow.

This is a case in which the widow of General Tanner is the subject of a recommendation by the Committee that she should receive a pension of £10 a month. It may not be generally remembered that the South African troops went into Delville Wood commanded by General Tanner. He was twice wounded in that historic battle. He had been for many years a member of the permanent Public Service both in Natal and in the Union. He retired on pension but did not live much more than 10 years to draw his pension. During that time the present war broke out and he was again recalled to active service and at one time held the Cape Command. This is the case of a man whose services and whose conduct were foremost on the occasions on which the South African soldier was tried to the uttermost and his bravery enshrined in world history. We now propose that his widow shall receive a pension of £10 a month. I know of other generals whose widows receive as much as £500 per annum, the widow of General De Wet for example. General Beyers’ widow receives £300 per annum. I do not wish to make comparisons but to plead that the Minister will give more generoús treatment to this case. I know perfectly well that the petition that came before this House was not so clearly worded as to make it apparent that the widow was suffering want or in pecuniary need, but it seems to me that the principle of requiring a petitioner in such a case to conform to a means test is out of place in view of the services rendered by this general. I do not think this procedure was adopted in the other cases. I do not at this stage intend to move that this case be referred back to the Committee but I hope the Minister will agree to its being considered next year with a view to an improved award. Among the tributes paid to those who fell at Delville Wood or suffered but survived, there was one by Major Heal, who commanded the remnants of a Natal Regiment. He said, “If South Africa lets any of these men starve or any of their dependants want may she be left in her hour of trial. 2,800 gone—do you realise it?”

In defence of the Committee I must make a few remarks. Mrs. Tanner was dealt with as the wife of one of our great South African heroes but she inherited an estate of £8,000 and there has been no idea of a means test in this case. The award is purely in recognition of her husbánd’s wonderful services. The petition was not lightly dealt with. The brilliant record of General Tanner was before the Committee when it made this award.

I cannot understand the language employed by the hon. member in saying the award was to recognise General Tanner’s wonderful services by a grant of £10 a month. It is a very poor token. Some information as to the date of the reported legacy of £8,000 should have been given. There is no mention whatsoever of such a legacy among the papers available to members of the House. There is one case in which a widow whose husband had no claim equal to that of General Tanner, much less in fact, received £500 per annum. That was a substantial token, and to my mind a similar recognition in this case would not have been out of place. I know how prone the public of South Africa are to be misled on matters of fact in relation to some of these questions, and in order to meet possible statements that may be disseminated in the country I want to say this, that Mrs. Tanner’s case is as stated by her in a recent letter to a friend from which I shall read as follows—

She points out that the apple crop was only rendered profitable through the assistance of friends and neighbours, who charged her nothing for the harvesting and marketing. But in 1945 there was no profit. This is not a case of anybody who might be considered comfortably off, but is undoubtedly a case which deserves much more generous recognition than that accorded by the Committee.

Can the chairman of the committee give us any indication why so small a grant is recommended in the case of Mrs. Fahey,—£60 pér annum is surely insufficient for anybody as a means of livelihood.

Mr. Fahey did not hold a pensionable post in the public service, and on that account he had a salary on a higher scale. The committee considered his duties in India during the war had something to do with his premature end. Though Mrs. Fahey was left with some estate it was felt it should try to bring her up into the same category of other widows of civil servants. Hon. members will realise that under the public service, widows’ pensions are small. The committee granted an amount which brought her up to what it regarded as practically the equivalent of the maximum pension a civil servant’s widow would have received had he been contributing to the Civil Servants’ Widows’ Fund.

I am unable to put Recommendation No. (17) as the appropriation contemplated therein had not been recommended by the Governor-General.

Will the Chairman of the Committee tell us something about this case?

Maj. Halse retired on superannuation and was awarded a pension of £330. There was no provision in law governing his pension rights.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations Nos. (23) to (46) put and agreed to.

On Recommendation No. (47)—

I am unable to put recommendation No. (47) as the appropriation contemplated therein had not been recommended by the Governor-General.

May I just ask for some information in this connection. It seems to me to be a peculiar state of affairs. I have nothing to do with the merits of the case, but it seems to me that if the Government, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Select Committee, does not wish to award pensions they only see to it that the Governor-General does, not give his approval That makes the whole Select Committe a farce. I wish to protest very earnestly against it. It not only makes a farce of the Select Committee on Pensions, but of the whole House. Here the House is now sitting in order to deal with the recommendations of the Select Committee, and what do we find? If the Minister does not want the House to deal with these recommendations, or if the Minister simply wants to vitiate the work of the Select Committee, he simply sees to it that the approval of the Governor-General is not obtained, and then we are left sitting here like a lot of fools or baboons. 1 should like to know from the Minister of Finance how he regards this matter. I cannot do otherwise than to express my strongest disapproval about it.

In this case there was a break in service which the petitioner was responsible for, and it is generally claimed that discipline in the civil service would collapse if such breaks were condoned. This seemed to be a particularly hard case and our committee thought we would make an exception. The Pensions Committee is a compassionate committee and sometimes lets its heart run away with its head. Other information, however, has come to our notice. As the chairman of that committee I may say we would raise no objection to the grant.

Seeing that my hon. friend has raised the general question I just want to point out that what was done here was done according to a decision given a few years ago by the Speaker. The Speaker then gave a ruling that according to the law of the Union it is necessary to obtain the recommendation of the Governor-General in connection with all expenditure, including that regarding the granting of pensions, and just as it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the Governor-General when a proposal is made for increased expenditure in the usual legislation, so it is necessary to receive his consent in regard to recommendations of this nature. That was laid down by the Speaker in 1941. I am quite prepared to discuss the merits of this particular case, but I just want to say the procedure followed here is in accordance with the decision of the Speaker.

The statement made by the Minister is quite correct and we know everything about it, but that is not the question. By way of protest I now want to move—

As a Parliament we appoint a committee to investigate certain petitions which have been laid upon the Table of the House. The committee makes a recommendation. The recommendation may be correct or it may be totally wrong, but by means of a trick we are prevented from discussing that matter. The result is that any recommendation contained in the report of the Select Committee may at any time be removed from the Table by the Minister of Finance and the Government. They can simply say that the Governor-General does not recommend it. The merits of the case as presented by the chairman of the Select Committee makes no difference to the principle of the case raised here by us. I object to our right to discuss such recommendations here first being taken away in this manner. If something should happen later which does not make it necessary to accept that recommendation, the Minister of Finance should get up and tell us what the position is. He may recommend that the House do not agree to that recommendation, and if he has a good reason then the recommendation of the Select Committee will be rejected. But to come here and to place you as Chairman in such a position that that particular point should be removed from discussion is quite unfair. I do not think that we should allow that procedure to be followed. What the Minister of Finance has said has always been the rule. We know that expenditure may not be discussed unless it has been agreed to by the Governor-General. But it was never the intention that the Minister or the Government should smother discussion on a recommendation of the Select Committee. The Select Committee is our representative on a certain body. We appointed members to investigate certain matters. They make a recommendation and then we at least claim the right to discuss that recommendation here and to accept or reject it. The Minister is then in a position to explain his decision to the House. I cannot remember that it has ever been the procedure to remove a recommendation of the Select Committee from the Table by way of a trick.

I regret that I am unable to accept that motion. I naturally appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member has moved it. I agree that there is some difficulty in connection with the case, but the legal position is quite clear in terms of the Constitution Act and the Standing Rules and Orders. In view of the fact that my hon. friends are experiencing: difficulty in connection with the case, I want to suggest that the case be considered by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders with a view to the future. I am quite prepared that that should happen; then we can go into the difficulty which has been raised here.

But I do think that you will admit that it is the first time that it has happened.

In 1941 it occurred for the first time in a case of this character.

That is correct. Before 1941 the procedure was not like that. Then a case such as this arose and the Speaker gave the decision. Let us leave the matter there and as far as the future is concerned let us refer it to the Committtee on Standing Rules and Orders for discussion.

Here we have two cases as it is.

It is only, these two cases which will naturally be placed before the House next year.

Is it a promise that it will go to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders?

Yes.

I want to put it as follows: It is perhaps a good thing that the rules of the House should be changed if a way out could thus be found, but quite apart from that, it still remains an unpleasant fact that the Minister has abused a rule of the House to prevent a discussion, and that may happen with each one of these recommendations. Supposing the Minister does not agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee in all the other cases. Then he could only have seen to it that the Governor-General’s recommendation is not granted, and then not a single one of these cases could have been discussed. I want to record my protest that the Minister has made use of something like that to prevent a discussion. I leave the matter there, and I will want to see what the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has to say.

The procedure adopted in this case seems to be an innovation. It means that even where a favourable recommendation has been submitted by the Select Committee the Government asserts a right to advise the Governor-General to withhold approval of the expenditure. That introduces a new hurdle for the unfortunate petitioner to surmount, and it seems to me to some extent to be an interference with what in the past has been recognised as the right of the Legislature to recommend expenditure in connection with petitions to Parliament. The recommendations in the opinion of many of us are not over-generous. But in this case a Miss Van Rooyen complied strictly with the procedure of this House. Her petition was referred to a Select Committee, which is a fact-finding committee, and they investigated the soundness of her claim, with the result that this recommendation was made. I hope this will be the last occasion on which a recommendation will be made to the Governor-General to withhold authority for expenditure recommended in these circumstances. This entirely new procedure is going to react on the good name of Parliament.

May I repeat the assurance I have given, this difficulty in regard to procedure will be submitted to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders with a view to finding some means of getting over it.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) spoke about the hurdles a petitioner has to overcome. If we have Government rejections to our recommendations contested on the floor of the House, the Select Committee will have to be much more careful in regard to its recommendations of relief to petitioners. In many Treasury Reports there is no indication that the Government will approve of any award. This new procedure came about after a ruling of the Speaker in 1941, in years past our previous Minister of Finance contested certain recommendations and the approval of the House was obtained before the Governor-General’s signature was sought.

I appreciate the difficulties hon. members have raised. They have not really a satisfactory opportunity of discussing the desire of the Government to have a petition rejected, and that is the difficulty I want to see overcome as a result of a discussion by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. I give the assurance that we shall go into the matter to see whether we can get over the difficulty.

Motion put and negatived.

Recommendation No. (48) put and agreed to.

On Recommendations in Paragraph II—

There is a case here that raises a question of what procedure is proper. This is a case of Mrs. Marchant whose husband had been a cleaner or messenger in this House and in the Senate for over 10 years. The facts were set out very briefly in the petition, but the occasion for it was that the widow of the deceased official had been informed that her request for the usual gratuity could not be referred to a Parliamentary committee. That was a very difficult case. She had lost her husband in consequence of war service. The rules relating to his employment in Parliament provided that if after 10 years’ service he terminated his employment, or if his employment was terminated by the House, he would be entitled to a gratuity of a month’s salary in respect of each year of service. That was the footing he had attained to by reason of his service, which extended to over 10 years. He was entitled to a gratuity even during his lifetime if he retired from any cause other than inefficiency. How much more so is the widow entitled to such a gratuity if he died in harness. Several widows in similar circumstances had received the gratuity. She approached the officials under whom her husband was employed and received a letter which said that in view of the military pension she received, £11 a month, and £3 a month for each child, her application could not be placed before the Parliamentary Committee. Actually the rules say that it shall be placed before the Committee. She was advised by me to petition the Select Committee for Pensions. That Committee recommended that the matter be put before the other Committee concerned. I am told by one of the members of that Committee that considerable discussion centred round the fact that she had gone over the heads of the officials concerned, but her position had been rendered very difficult. How else could she get consideration? She could not carry it further herself or through any member. The case was very difficult. I have a certain amount of responsibility for having advised her to put in the petition to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). For the purpose of future guidance I shall be glad if the Minister can tell us what the rights of such persons are. In this case I feel, notwithstanding the authoritative decision of he Committee, that the Committee overlooked a very important matter, namely, that under the rules governing his employment he had earned this gratuity by reason of his 10 years’ service. His widow has been in hospital twice since her husband’s death and has one boy at the matriculation age whose expenses are far more than £3 per month. She has to pay £5 a month rent. What has she got left over for food after paying for two children and two spells in hospital? Such cases may occur again and I think this one should be referred back to the Committee.

I feel impelled to interfere in this case because I think it is one in which the ruling of the Speaker has been questioned. At the cost of boring the House I will go over the details of the case.

No-one has questioned the ruling of the Speaker.

I will explain later how it is being questioned. Ten years ago Marchant was taken on to the establishment of this House as a cleaner. He went on active service in 1940, became ill, was discharged in 1943 and given a 50 per cent. disability allowance which was later increased to 100 per cent. He died in November, 1944, and his widow was granted a pension under the War Pensions Act of £240 a year, plus a gratuity of £264. She and the two children receive £20 a month. At the time of his death he was in receipt of a basic wage of £195 with cost of living allowance and special war allowance making a total of £261. Actually a pension was given, which was greater than his basic wage, plus a gratuity. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has pointed put what he says Marchant’s position would have been if he retired after normal service. Actually, if he had retired as a cleanër on the ground of ill-health while in our service he would have been entitled to a pension of only £39 12s. 6d. per annum. On his death—and I want the hon. member to appreciate this—his widow would have been “entitled” to no pension or gratuity; she could claim nothing as a “right” but could have asked for relief according to her circumstances and I have no doubt would have got something suitable.

During the recess the Clerk of the House received an application from Mrs. Marchant. The Speaker considered that, as she was in receipt of a military pension greater than her husband’s basic salary plus a gratuity of £264, he did not feel justified in recommending her application to the Conferring Committees on Internal Arrangements. I take it that the hon. member knew, when he advised the widow to put in a petition, that her case had already been considered by the Speaker who had decided, and was right in deciding, that this case should not go forward to the revelant Committee. This right of the Speaker cannot be questioned and the hon. member, if he relies on Section 8 of the Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament, he is doing so on the wrong premises. It says there that on death of such officer the widow can make an application and that such application shall be referred by Mr. Speaker to a certain committee. The hon. member relies on the word “shall”. I consider that the action of the Speaker was absolutely proper and constitutional. The Speaker is entitled to consider, as head of this House, cases such as this which are put before him, on their merits and—this is the point—if, and only if, he decides that relief is necessary, then and only then, “shall” he decide to refer a case to the revelant Committee. [Interjection]. I am interpreting this in the way I think normal Parliamentarians with their knowledge of constitutional procedure would interpret it. It seems necessary, after that interjection, to say something about the position of the Speaker. He is the head of this House and the representative authority of this House. His decisions can only be questioned by a substantive motion in this House. I feel that any move, however indirect, as this is indirect, or oblique, as this is oblique, to question the decision of the Speaker other than by the serious step of a substantive motion, which would amount to a motion of no confidence, is a move to undermine the very foundations of our Parliamentary system. The very strenght of our Parliamentary system lies in its informality, but rests on implicit obedience to the Speaker’s authority. I think it should be known to the hon. member that he Had other informal means of raising this matter and not by the indirect and objectionable method he is using. I am not blaming the Pensions Committee. They were not aware of the fact that this lady’s case had been considered and decided on by the Speaker. I am not blaming the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) but I am blaming the member who brought this matter before the House in the way he has just done. His course of action is calculated to bring this House into discredit, and I suggest, if I might have the temerity as a back-bencher to do so to a senior Frontbencher, that he should apologise to Mr. Speaker. The case should never have been referred to today. No attempt should have been made, as it is now made, to force the Speaker to reconsider the matter. We know that the Speaker decided on the matter in a fair way and I think that other channels of raising these matters are known to the hon. member. I feel that the House should permit me to suggest that the hon. member might give an adequate apology for questioning as he has done the rulings of the Speaker of this House.

I feel sure that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) never intended to be disrespectful to Mr. Speaker. I cannot remember him being disrespectful to anyone. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) might just as well say that a man is disrespectful to a magistrate when he takes a case on appeal, and that is what is happening in this case. This case was submitted, as staff cases have to be, to the Speaker, who decided that it was a case in which he could not use his discretion to recommend any award. There is nothing disrespectful in it if the hon. member wishes to take this decision to appeal, as it were.

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

I feel perfectly certain that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) did not mean in any way to be discourteous to Mr. Speaker in connection with this case. The present Speaker is held in the highest esteem by members, and I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) that he might wait until he has shed his Parliamentary napkins before he endeavours to read a lecture to the hon. member for Pinetown.

All right, father.

Instead of him suggesting that the hon. member for Pinetown owes an apology I think an apology is due from the hon. member for Woodstock for what might almost be called his insolence. This case was brought up in the Internal Arrangements Committee, and I feel certain when the Speaker stated he was not prepared to make any recommendation we would not have objected to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) taking this case to the Pensions Committee, because I feel certain that if it had been in the power of Mr. Speaker to make a grant to the widow of a war veteran he would have been only too happy to do so. But I am inclined to think he could not make that recommendation. It would perhaps have been better had this case been handled a little differently; I do not know; I do not know, but I am certain there is no disrespect intended towards Mr. Speaker. How I view this case is this. If this man had been in the service and wanted to retire, a gratuity could have been granted to him; that is done in many cases. In fairness to Mr. Speaker I would like to say that only recently he made recommendations in the matter of dependants of the staff of the House. But the point to my mind is, this man is penalised because he had dared to serve his country. Had he not been in the army and died from war causes his widow would have gained a substantial gratuity which, I am certain Mr. Speaker would have been only too hapyy to recommend. But on account of his receiving a war pension Mr. Speaker did not feel justified in recommending that further payment in the form of a gratuity should be given him. Anyone outside the House not knowing the case would say that this soldier’s widow is being penalised because he served his country as a volunteer, not as a conscript. There is the other aspect to be taken into consideration as far as the children are concerned. This widow, with a pension of £11 a month, has three children to bring up, and she will not be able to educate them. When they reach the age of 18 the pension disappears, and in these days many children require to continue their studies until they are 20 or 21. This is, I think, a case where no harm will be done in referring the matter back to the Pensions Committee. I feel sure Mr. Speaker would have no objection to it being referred back. It is up to us to see that as long as his wife and family are alive we shall look after their interests. A token grant of £100 to this widow would probably have satisfied her, and she would have said: At any rate I am not penalised because my husband served his country. I move—

If the action of our Pensions Committee is regarded by some members of the House as a reflection on the high esteem in which we hold Mr. Speaker, we apologise; our action was in all innocence. The petitioner was receiving a pension in excess of her husband’s pre-war earnings; she also received a gratuity; there was no immediate need for assistance, although members here have tried to stress that such a need existed. The idea in referring this petition back for Mr. Speaker’s re-consideration arose because the committee understood all avenues for relief had not been explored. The committee thought it was a matter concerned with Mr. Speaker’s administration outside this House, not in the House, and it would never have come to the finding it did, if, in any way, the committee thought that Mr. Speaker’s authority was being challenged. Therefore, on behalf of the committee I would like the House to agree that we should not discuss this matter any further. It is rather distasteful and I make this appeal because the Pensions Committee definitely was responsible, through its finding, for this discussion taking place.

The hon. member for Woodstock has asked me to apologise. I have no intention of doing anything of the kind. I want to say that in regard to this case of Mrs. Marchant the wording of the rule relating to her husband’s employment is very clear. At no stage does it say that Mr. Speaker shall decide on this matter, so that in discussing the decision arrived at I do not imply for a moment that Mr. Speaker is at fault, nor do I wish in any way to imply that he has not authority to make representations to the committee. The rule says this—

And in the case of an officer who works in both Houses it must be referred to the Conferring Select Committees of both Houses. That was done, and I shall be surprised to learn that the decisions of this Conferring Committee are so sacrosanct that no member can comment on the insufficiency of the relief granted. There is a practice that is followed in other cases, I presume by the same committee. I am not doing more than to point out that in this particular case the committee has departed from its previous practice. There have been cases within my knowledge of officers of this House, “officers.” being defined as including cleaners and messengers, in which the widows of these officers have received a gratuity on precisely the same basis as the officer himself would have received had he retired during his lifetime, so that in those cases the man’s widow is not being treated less generously after his death than the man himself would be entitled to during his lifetime. As far as I am concerned I merely discuss this matter with the object of showing that in my opinion justice has not been done in this case by the Conferring Committee. I am prepared to undertake to bring it before the committee again next year. This lady asked my advice. She was confronted with a decision by the Clerk of the House that this should not be referred to certain committees. I take full responsibility for my advising her to put in the petition and I stated the case to the Select Committee on Pensions. I make no apology for that. If the hon. member for Wood-stock expects me to apologise to Mr. Speaker or to the House for an offence which I am innocent of he imagines a vain thing. I hope if any apology is needed he will abject himself before the House and acknowledge that he was wrong.

I am reluctant to interfere in this debate because I feel that as a back-bencher I may also be putting my foot into it. No doubt the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) prepared a constitutional case on sound argument, but I feel that the method of approach and particularly his reference to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) makes me feel that I would like to pass certain comments. I feel that the hon. member for Pinetown has indicated to the House at all times that he would in no circumstances insult the Speaker. I felt that not only inside the House but outside it and I therefore feel that the manner in which the case was approached lacked a considerable amount of discretion. Possibly after consideration the hon. member for Woodstock will appreciate that a man who has been a front-bencher for many years can expect to be treated with a certain amount of courtesy which I feel was lacking in this instance.

I think that the matter, as set out by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) is quite correct. I do not say that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) intended to insult the Speaker. In addition I do not think that he did so. He felt that he was entitled to raise the matter here. In the past he has always been justified in raising this matter and it was certainly not his intention to insult the Speaker. I think that the position is quite clear. The matter was referred to the Speaker and the Speaker could have made a decision without referring it to the Committee concerned. However, he referred it to the Committee. The Committee came to a decision and the matter rests there. If the hon. member was of opinion that the Speaker did not act correctly, then it was his duty to move such a motion. It would have been the usual practice. But whereas he raised the matter here, we cannot say that the hon. member for Woodstock acted incorrectly. What he has said here, is not constitutionally wrong. The Speaker, himself could have dealt with the matter, but he referred it to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. The Committee enquired into the matter. And there it remained. The hon. member for Pinetown has now stated that it is incorrect, and if we are not satisfied with the actions of the Speaker, we can go to a higher court. His supporter mentioned the case of a magistrate’s court and he said that there is a right of appeal to a higher court. The position is quite different. This Parliament is the highest court in the country. It can pass any resolution even though it be wrong. As long as the present Government is in power, the decision will usually be wrong, but nevertheless this House is the highest court. The Speaker is the person who must maintain discipline. For an hon. member to stand up here and to say that a back-bencher may not correct a front-bencher, holds no substance. The front-bencher may have more experience, but when a back-bencher thinks he has made a mistake, he has every right to point it out, for we find that people sometimes become old in this House and even then they do not know the rules. I accepted that the hon. member for Pinetown did not intend to insult the Speaker. He thought that he was right, just as the hon. member who spoke of the magistrate’s court thought that he was right. It is not an insult to the magistrate if an appeal is lodged against his finding. Then I come to the chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions. I am glad that he apologised, but I was dissapointed that he did not make his apology in a better way. He said that if this was so and that was so, then he apologised. That does not mean a thing. Such an apology is more of an insult. He should simply have said that they did not realise what the position was and that they acted in ignorance. That would have been the correct apology to make. I felt it my duty to say what I think is the correct procedure and to substantiate the viewpoint adopted by the hon. member for Woodstock.

Amendment put and negatived.

Recommendations under Paragraph II, as printed, put and agreed to.

In Paragraph IV,

I move—

The case of G. W. W. Penrice is amongst those rejected by the Select Committee without any reasons being assigned. It becomes necessary for me to recapitulate the facts briefly. In March, 1941, Mr. Penrice was committed to a mental institution in circumstances which have recently been the subject of drastic comment in a judgment of the Appellate Division to which I shall refer. His appeal for discharge under Section 40 of the Mental Disorders Act, addressed to the Governor-General within ten days of his committal, resulted in his release, though his liberation ’ was delayed until June, 1941, apparently at the request of the medical authorities.

It seems to me they locked up the wrong man.

In considering the case I submit it should be borne in mind that the Governor-General and the Executive Council who released him constitute the highest body on the administrative side of our form of Government, just as the Appellate Division is the highest body on the side of the judiciary. When that case was dealt with by the Governor-General-in-Council I may mention that that body included the late Governor-General, Sir Patrick Duncan, who as Colonial Secretary in the Transvaal and Minister of the Interior of the Union had administered the Mental Disorders Act for many years. The Prime Minister, whose experience is unrivalled, was also a member of the Council, as also were several Ministers learned in law and experienced in administration. The release of Mr. Penrice as a result of his appeal to this body surely cannot be minimised. He was released obviously because in the opinion of that body his detention in a mental hospital was not justified. Actually I could have gone further and mentioned the opinions expressed by one of the most influential members of that body but I do not propose to do more than refer to the importance of the body itself. The case formed the subject of some litigation after Penrice’s discharge. He sued to recover damages from the magistrate who had committed him on the ground that the magistrate had acted with a want of reasonable care and good faith. That case was heard by a single judge in the Natal Provincial Division, although he represented the full bench. The case was unsuccessful before the Natal Provincial Division. He wished to appeal but as the result of his omission to lodge appeal in the proper form he had to apply to the Appellate Division for leave to appeal. The Appellate Division heard his application which was argued by him in person. Although the court considered that the evidence in the case did not establish the two essentials against the magistrate, want of reasonable care and want of good faith, they held that it would have been necessary for him to prove malice on the part of the magistrate, but as no malice was established, the application was dismissed. But the Judge who gave the judgment on behalf of the court, Mr. Justice Tindall, said—

Now I maintain that this House is the body before which these comments should be repeated. The Judge went on to say—

[Time limit.]

I want to refer to Item No. 3. I should like to be told the reasons for the rejection of this petition.

If the hon. member wants information about No. 3 he will have to move something, because No. 3 is not before the Committee.

I would like to second the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in moving that the matter be referred back to the Select Committee. I feel very strongly about this matter also because Mr. Penrice is a constituent of mine. The hon. member for Pinetown has given us a short history of the whole case but I wish to say that what has happened to this man can happen to any member of this House if he had an enemy who made propaganda against him through the Department of Justice. This gentleman was tricked into appearing at the Magistrate’s Court. There was a warrant for his arrest, but it was never served on him. He was asked to call and see the magistrate on some matter. He went there in all innocence. On arrival there he was arrested and put into the dock, and within two hours he was in a mental institution as being of unsound mind. It was not on any medical evidence that the magistrate arrived at that decision; no doctor had ever examined him, and no certificate had ever been signed that he was of unsound mind. The decision was made by the magistrate on hearing the man in the box. What is worse than anything else was the treatment that man had after being sentenced to that mental institution. He was sent there on the evidence of a doctor who said if he was sent there the treatment he got would very likely mean his recovery. But when he got there he was put into a large compartment with 40 raving maniacs where there was a light on all night. These maniacs were raving and shouting and the place was in a filthy condition, and you can imagine the state of mind he would be in. It is only due to the efforts of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that he was not kept there for life, because had that hon. member not taken up his case nobody would ever have helped him. That could happen to any person, even to members of this House. When the matter was brought to the late Governor-General’s notice he said there was no evidence and no reason to justify that man having been committed to a mental asylum. There was no evidence he was of unsound mind. This sort of action is unthinkable in a country like this. If it had happened in Nazi Germany one could understand it, but that in a country like South Africa a decent man could be arrested and brought to the court house by means of a trick and then put in a mental hospital without being examined by any medical man and that a certificate could have been signed by them, takes us back to the dark ages. The hon. member for Pinetown communicated to you the remarks of the judge who spoke in the Appeal Court, and I think that the remarks that were made by the judge there should be taken some notice of by hon. members. This sort of thing should not happen in a country like South Africa, that with the connivance of the Department of Justice and the Administration a man should be placed in a mental hospital on such flimsy evidence and in such an unjust way. I know the Select Committee to which this case was referred could have come to any other decision than they have, although we have not heard from the chairman of that committee why they arrived at these findings. But I am afraid that with a man like Mr. Penrice, a difficult man with a very excitable nature, any appearance by him before a magistrate or even by a select committee would at once prejudice his case. I am afraid we are all inclined that way; we form our judgments not from evidence but from our personal experience of a man. I feel this matter should be investigated much more carefully than it has been during the Session. Penrice has suffered severely; he has spent a good deal of money on litigation and he also suffered great anguish of mind. For the last there can be no adequate compensation, but I feel that the Committee should reconsider this case very carefully on compassionate grounds if the House will agree to it being referred to them in the next Session of Parliament.

May I move as an amendment—

Let me just point out to the House what the reason was for the petition being handed in. The man was in a temporary post in the Department of Labour. He requested to be transferred to the permanent staff. On repeated occasions he informed the Public Service Commission that he could not wait for ever, but that they should inform him if they were prepared to appoint him on the permanent staff. Because they dilly dallied and did not let him know that he would be appointed on the permanent staff, he was obliged, owing to the temporary nature of his work, to hand in his resignation, for the reason that a permanent appointment had been offered him outside. As soon as he resigned, they informed him that they were prepared to offer him a permanent appointment. From the records it appears that the break in his case was practically less than a month. In spite of the fact that the break was not his fault and that he had to hand in his resignation because they would not offer him a permanent appointment, he was penalised. Therefore his position is simply due to the delay which one often encounters in government offices. Last year I explained the matter clearly and I am doing so again, and I hope that this Committee will refer the petition back to the Select Committee and that the Select Committee will realise that the break was not the man’s own fault, but was due to the delay in informing him of his appointment. I gave evidence before the Select Committee. I do now wish to criticise the chairman of the Select Committee who is hardworking, but I want to say, in order to prove how anxious they were to investigate everything, that I finished giving my evidence in less than three minutes. This shows how anxious the chairman and the other members were to learn everything about the matter. One would surely have thought that they would have been anxious to find out everything from me. It seems to me that the Select Committee adopts the attitude that when a matter is referred back to them, then they must stand by their first resolution. I appeal to hon. members of this House to refer the case back and I appeal to the Select Committee not to consider such cases in this light, for people seek their help as a last resort, and I would like the Select Committee to take a broader view in connection with these matters. Here is a long list of 125 cases which have been rejected. None of us knows the merits of each case. Quite possibly the Select Committee is 100 per cent. correct in all the cases which have been rejected, but it is strange that when it is a case of an important man, for example a head of a department, then it goes through the Select Committee without a hitch. We remember the case a few years ago of Dr. van Rensburg, Leader of the Ossewa-Brand wag, the then Administrator of the Free State. His case which perhaps was not as deserving as this one, went through smoothly.

The Select Committee refused, but this House accepted it. Is was not the fault of the Select Committee.

The Select Committee recommended it.

No.

Good, but in any case, we find that if an important man is concerned, the case goes through smoothly. But if it is a case of a less important man, then it is necessary for you to fight here year after year to obtain a small pension. The Minister said last year that he had no objection to referring the ca.se back to the Select Committee. I appeal for the same sympathy now, and in addition that the Select Committee will investigate the matter carefully. I am now appealing to the chairman and the Select Commitee for the third time to take a broader view in connection with the matter, and to realise that people regard the Select Committee as their last resort. For that reason I ask that it should be referred back to the Select Committee.

I wish to refer to the Judge’s comment on the unwarranted exaggeration made use of by one of the medical officers whose testimony was relied upon for putting Mr. Penrice in a mental hospital. I wish now to deal with a more important aspect, and that is the Judge’s finding as to the evidence that was essential and that in this case was absent. The Judge pointed out that under the Mental Disorders Act “mental disorder” is classified in these terms—

I will only mention two of the six classes—

1. (1) A person suffering from mental disorder, that is to say a person who owing to some form of mental disorder is incapable of managing himself or his affairs.
2. (2) A person mentally infirm, that is to say a person who through mental infirmity or decay of his faculties is incapable of managing himself or his affairs.

The judge points out that this essential feature of the man being “incapable of managing himself or his affairs” was not proved by the doctors. The doctors who gave evidence admitted they had never seen the accused until they went into court. I shall read from the evidence. Before the Magistrate, Howick, the first doctor stated—

Then the second doctor said—

The Judge emphasises that mental disorder within the meaning of the Act in the case of a paranoiac must pertain to a case of a man who is incapable of managing himself or his affairs. Dealing with that point the Judge said—

We must realise the only evidence of any value these doctors could have tendered, according to the judgment, was that Mr. Penrice was incapable of managing himself and his affairs, and that evidence they could not pretend to have knowledge of because they had never seen him before. What would they know of him if their eyes were turned to him for the first time when he was in the dock answering a matter that had taken him completely by surprise? Without any effort at exaggeration I have quoted the remarks of Mr. Justice Tindall who, in a previous case, made remarks in regard to the treatment of a man sent to a mental hospital, as he held improperly, and that man approached this House, as Mr. Penrice has done, drawing attention to the comments of the court, as Mr. Penrice has done, and in the case of that man he received a pension for life in consideration of the treatment meted out to him and in consequence of his improper commital to a mental hospital. I am for the moment merely stating the outline of the Penrice case as it was presented to the public of South Africa by the judge, who said he spoke because of the rights of citizens, and in the public interest. Are we, as the representatives of the public going to deafen our ears to a statement of that sort from the highest judicial body in the land. Mr. Penrice has drawn attention to his treatment and to this judgment. He has done no more than say that he is out of pocket to the extent of his costs which he implied were considerable. The Secretary for Justice estimated the bill of costs would come to £600 and that Penrice’s personal expenses would be £350. But this man suffered unspeakable humiliation too, all the indignities inseparable from his treatment, as mentioned by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). He was confined with people under conditions which I have some knowledge of, having visited him while I was in Natal—the most unspeakable noisomeness and filth one ever experienced—and at the same time being compelled to share the company of men who had to be held down for hours on end, to remain with them, to eat his meals facing an epileptic murderer—no such thing as baths—having to live cheek by jowl with thirty demented patients for almost three months before he was discharged. [Time limit.]

I am deeply impressed and I think most members of this committee are by the facts that have been placed before us by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). It seems to me, and I hope the committee and especially the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) will agree, in the light of the fact that such an impartial and judicial man as the late Sir Patrick Duncan took the action to which reference has been made, and in view of the judgment to which we have listened, by Mr. Justice Tindall on behalf of the Appellate Division, those facts are such as to justify this committee and this House—the highest court of appeal—to treat a matter of this kind with the utmost sympathy and fairness.

Hear, hear.

I am satisfied that the members of the Pensions Committee, which has one of the most onerous jobs in this House to deal with and which invariably I am sure deals with cases that come before it with a desire to do what is fair and right, will, in spite of the fact that this committee has turned down their recommendation, if the matter is referred back to them, give it the fullest and most impartial attention. I hope the hon. member for Albany, on behalf of the committee, will agree to the matter being sent back to the Pensions Committee for reconsideration.

You have hot heard his side of the case.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee I regret we cannot accept this motion. We have the greatest sympathy for Mr. Penrice and in spite of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) having inferred that this matter was dealt with rather lightly, I should like to inform the hon. member, the Committee spent a whole morning hearing Mr. Penrice’s evidence. We also heard the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and then several of us took papers to our homes and gave it further study during the night before we came to a decision the next day. I can inform the House that the Committee’s decision was a unanimous one, at a well attended meeting. I feel in cases of this nature we may injure the petitioner if we discuss details of the history of the case, especially one as sad as that now before us, but I must inform the Committee that though Mr. Justice Tindall questioned the method of arrest when Mr. Penrice was tricked into appearing in court and not shown a warrant, Mr. Penrice may have had a claim against the policeman, but a claim in which small damages would have been awarded, if any at all. Mr. Justice Tindall also states summons should have been issued and not a warrant. That being only a matter of opinion our Committee was not disposed to come to any definite decision on this point. But I should like to inform the House that during the hearing of this criminal charge that had been instituted against Penrice, two doctors were in attendance the whole time. He was then committed to the mental institution for observation, and after being there for a fortnight he was committed. He was under observation all the time in the mental institution. I can assure the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that if he has read all the clauses of the Mental Disorders Act, he will realise that even some members of this House may not be free from the danger of committal. One runs the risk apparently of being committed even by making a nuisance of oneself. We gave this matter great study. All the members studied the judgment of Mr. Justice Tindall. When we had the report of the Department of Justice, which was also a lengthy one, it was also studied in the greatest detail and after giving this the minutest attention, the Committee came to the unanimous decision to reject this petition. If there had been any division on this Committee I would have beén disposed to accept the recommendations that it be referred back to the Select Committee for reconsideration but it is not in the interest of the petitioner to have a matter like this hanging over his head for another year. As regards case No. 22 which was raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) this is a case in which the Committee found no difficulty at all in rejecting the petition, however sympathetic the Committee may have felt. This petitioner was only in temporary service in the Customs Department. He wished to improve his position by a transfer to the Labour Department, so he resigned from the Customs Department where he occupied a non-pensionable post and took up service with the Labour Department after a break of three weeks, and our Committee dare not condone breaks of this nature in the Public Service, just for the convenience of one of the officials.

Why do you not say what the reason for the break was? It was not his fault.

Our information was that he was only in a temporary appointment and as he sought to improve his position he resigned. We have numbers of petitions of this nature which our Committee rejects without any compunction. The fact that only 127 petitions out of 182 were rejected and the 50 recommended shows that the Select Committee does not give due consideration to these cases which have no claim in law.

I move as a further amendment—

The petitioner is the widow of a volunteer who went on service from an early stage up North, who later came back to the Union, a very healthy, robust type of man. I understand that he collapsed one day actually on the parade ground and was carried off to hospital, and from then onwards the circumstances are a little difficult to follow. The case is not quite clear. An application under the War Pensions Act was declined and a further application to the Special Pensions Board, was also declined, resulting in the petition coming to this House, I am not aware though as to the reasons for the decision, and I shall be glad at this stage to hear them from the Chairman of the Select Committee.

I wish to point out a very serious flaw in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). His statement before this House is that while Mr. Penrice was in the dock answering the charge he was under examination by two doctors. The hon. member has failed utterly to appreciate the importance of the point made by Mr. Justice Tindall where he said the essential thing was to prove that Mr. Penrice was incapable of managing himself or his affairs. There was no evidence of this either before this evidence began or afterwards. But I would like to put it to the hon. member: Would he have been prepared to take the verdict of two doctors who were watching him when he was tricked into coming into court and then told that he was charged with a serious offence, and that evidence was going to be led as to his mental condition? Is that a time when his calmness of mind would have been such that he would have stood up to such an examination, when his mental agony amounted to human torture? I venture to say that there is no hon. member in this House who has such presence of mind or imperturbability that he would take that in his stride and betray no sense of mental disturbance or excitement or want of balance in the circumstances. It was a time when the man was being subjected to mental torture of the worst possible kind, and the hon. member would expect us to be content with the idea that Mr. Penrice was subject to medical examination. My idea is that if we are asked to accept that, we must completely reject that kind of examination and regard it as a travesty. What evidence was given by the doctors to prove, as they must prove, that he was incapable of managing himself or his affairs. On the contrary, it is well-known in the Howick district that Mr. Penrice or his wife bought a property which was very dilapidated when they took it over, and today it is one of the show places in that district, and it owes its improvement to the work of Mr. Penrice and his wife. There is no proof whatever that the man is not capable of managing himself or his affairs, and I want to quote the evidence of one of the doctors who was concerned in the matter. One of the points that had been made by the medical evidence was that Mr. Penrice had written certain letters. Those letters were dissected by the doctors into small sections and an effort was made to place a constsruction upon those sections in support of their view that he was mentally disordered. One of those letters was written by Penrice to Mr. Churchill about a broadcast he had made and another to Sir Archibald Sinclair about the result of certain air raids. One of the doctors was asked to express his opinion about those letters. He virtually said on his oath that a man who was alleged to be suffering from a disordered condition, who had been perfectly logical both outwardly and in the exercise of his faculties, would exhibit evidence of being mentally disordered in so far as litigous matters were concerned. That is the same point that the judge made, that to be disqualified from being a free man a patient must be proved to be incapable of managing himself or his affairs. I want to read a passage to the House to show how completely unsatisfactory and colourless was the reply of the physician superintendent concerned when he was questioned about the very documents which were supposed to prove Mr. Penrice’s mental condition. He said—

Everybody knows that!—

That is most illuminating!—

What we want to know is whether there was anything in them to make one believe that he was mentally disordered!—

In other words one of the chief witnesses said when cross-examined about the matter, chat the man was perfectly normal except in regard to litigation and let me say in regard to litigation he was proved to have taken part in one case relating to his wife’s property, and subsidiary litigation or correspondence arising out of that case. The judge said though this man had become a nuisance to the Attorney-General he was not dangerous, and was living in his home where he was cared for by his wife. Many of us have been a nuisance, I think, to the control officials but we do not look forward to being rushed into court on the ground that the magistrate wishes to see us and then being subjected to the treatment this man endured. There is no doubt that the judge expressed himself in such terms as to call public notice to this case and he said—as showing the value of the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Albany—that although these proceedings did not constitute ground for an action for civil damages, they may have afforded a good ground for review proceedings. That means that if Mr. Penrice had instituted review proceedings, we have it from the Appellate Court that his treatment might have afforded good ground for such proceedings and that, Sir, is more than demonstrated by the fact that the Governor-General in Council released him and that the court itself felt that this was a case upon which they should severely comment in the interests of the public at large and the rights of citizens. I hope that what has been said by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will be taken into consideration by the Government. I think there is a very large section of the general public, certainly in our province, who hold that Mr. Penrice was shockingly treated from the moment he was placed under arrest. He was never told of his arrest; he was denied the opportunity which any free man ought to have of seeking legal advice about a matter of which he knew nothing, namely the Mental Disorders Act. The correspondence between the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice shows that the Attorney-General was unwilling to arrest and to let the gaoler discharge the onus of deciding whether he had observed anything mental in Mr. Penrice’s conduct. For the same reason he refrains from taking proceedings at a time when Mr. Penrice might have gone before a certain magistrate on the ground that he might not have enough before him to warrant him in committing Penrice for observation. The Attorney-General expressed that view in a letter of the 23rd January, addressed to the Secretary for Justice. [Time limit.]

I wish to move as a further amendment—

This is a very peculiar case. The applicant is the widow of William Harold Fyrth, who joined the army in the Great War. He was a farrier attached to transportations and remounts. And in the course of his duties ne was sent to South-West Africa and he died on the train journey from Pretoria to Windhoek on the 4th February, 1916. There was no doctor on the train, and there does not appear to have been even an officer on the train. The death certificate was issued on the 9th March, 1916, more than a month later. It was in these terms; it was by Dr. N. F. Mann—

Drunkenness being misconduct it was found by the board to which Mrs. Fyrth applied that the husband’s death was due to his misconduct and that they could give her no relief and she was therefore not entitled to a pension. Some time after that, in 1929, some nine years later, the same Dr. N. F. Mann went into the case again and he then made the following declaration—

So his conclusion is apparently quite a different one from that on which he had based his certificate, that the death was due to acute alcoholism. Under those circumstances it seems to me that some consideration should have been given to the claim of his wife for a pension. The wife was left with two young children, but she was able to work and she worked over a large number of years. She is today working in the Pensions Department, but she feels that a gross injustice was done to her, that she was entitled to exactly the same treatment as the widow of any soldier who died in the course of his duties. I think that the Pensions Committee might have given favourable consideration to this case. I have not been given the reason for the refusal, but I understand that it proceeds on the basis that Mrs. Fyrth is at the moment not destitute. Well, she is not destitute because she is working; she is a woman who is over 60 years of age, and it seems to me that she is entitled to be put into the position even at this late stage, that she would have been in if her husband had died in the course of his duties. The mere fact that she is not destitute seems to me no reason for not granting a pension to her. Many pensions have been granted to widows who have not been left destitute, and what has been taken into consideration has been the position which the husband occupied during his lifetime and the duties he carried out, and I would therefore ask the chairman of the committee to agree to this case being referred to the Select Committee for further consideration.

In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) as chairman of the Select Committee, I move as a further amendment—

May I point out to the hon. member that there is a motion before the House already by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that this case be referred back to the Select Committee.

I move now that it be referred to the Government.

As an amendment?

Yes. I was present when the hon. member for Pinetown gave his evidence before the Select Committee. It was the last sitting day of that committee to take any evidence; they were going to conclude their work the following day and in listening to the evidence and the attitude of the Select Committee, I could see that they had had enough of all their work. They were impatient and wanted to get away and they were not in a fit state of mind to listen to anything with any intelligence at all.

Order, order, the hon. member is not entitled to make a reflection on a Select Committee.

I withdraw that, but that was my reaction.

Order, order, the hon. member must withdraw that unconditionally.

Well, if that is your ruling I will do so. But at all events in listening to the evidence of the hon. member for Pinetown, I felt that the committee was not in the position to give this case the attention which it deserved, and I would like to go so far as to say that I felt the committee had already made up their minds after hearing the evidence from the petitioner himself and that any evidence on that day was really wasted on them because once having made up their minds, they were not likely to change it and it is for that reason that I move that this matter be referred to the Government for their consideraion.

If it will serve to bring this discussion to an end, I am prepared to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). I do not do so in order to reflect in any way on the work of the committee. The committee has done its work most admirably, but I do so because this case has wider bearings than the matters which normally fall within the scope of the Select Committee. I personally have very little knowledge of the circumstances of the case, but I have talked to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and we have agreed that the matter should be referred to the Government, so that we as a Government may go into it; and if the hon. member will accept that,. I hope this discussion may come to an end.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). The hon. member for Houghton referred to petition No. 188. This case was reviewed when the Pensions Act was amended in 1944, and this Act lays down that compensation shall be payable to the widow of a volunteer who dies in the Union while on military service of a desease in respect of which he was sent back to the Union, if prior to his departure he was classified in the A Medical category, or if prior to such departure classified in B or Fit category, and he has served for a period of not less than nine months outside the Union. The petitioner’s husband came back to the Union on compassionate leave. He had no medical attention while he was up North, which indicated to the Board and to our cimmittee that his disability did not arise out of his military service. This case went to the Military Pensions Appeal Board and then to the Special Pensions Appeal Board which awarded the petitioner £30 per annum. The case was again reviewed in January, 1945 and no change was made. This is a case which has been met in the terms of our Pensions Act, and as no evidence was brought which would have justified us in awarding anything of a compassionate nature, the committee rejected the petition. With regard to the claim which was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (City), this is a case of a man who died in 1916. It is a long way for us to go back, and to rectify errors, even if there were errors that were committed at that time, and our committee dealt with this case with the greatest sympathy and we could only make an award on compassionate grounds. Mrs. Fyrth is now in employment in the Pensions Office and whilst so employed I do not see that this committee can reconsider the decision to which it came recently, and for those reasons I would reject the motions that these petitions be referred back to the Select Committee.

With the leave of the Committee I wish to withdraw my amendment.

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

The amendments proposed by Mr. van den Berg and Mr. Davis were put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. Abrahamson was put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to certain resolutions.

Report considered and adopted.

This clause deals with the funds at the disposal of the Provincial Administration. It is comprised of three parts: Monies appropriated by Parliament; monies provided by the National Road Board under the National Roads Act, 1935 etc. In reference to the second item there is a matter I should like to discuss with the Minister. The money available to the National Road Board is put at the disposal of the provinces. It is derived from the petrol tax. In the past year as a result of the drop in the use of petrol the amount was only £1,200,000.

There is also money from loan funds.

Yes. In normal times it was more, about £2,000,000. We know that as soon as the war is over and the use of petrol increases it will be more than £2,000,000. Then further funds are made available on the loan estimates. In all, we can make available to the provinces millions of pounds annually through this channel. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the organisation we have established for the expenditure of this money. Is he sure that the control is of such a character that Parliament can be satisfied with it, or is it not a fact that in that way hundreds of thousands of pounds of State money are being wasted. If the Minister says he is satisfied then I should just like to refer him to the discussions that occur yearly in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I would just say that those discussions give me the impression that in the public interest it is absolutely essential that the system of financing our national roads through the National Road Board via the provinces should be altered. The other day I gave a few figures to the House. The roads were to have been constructed for the amount of £9,000,000. Up to the present three-fifths of the programme has been carried out and they have already expended £19,000,000. In order to complete the five-year plan which was to have been carried out at a cost of £9,000,000 we shall have to appropriate £32,000,000. The question that has arisen with us in the Select Committee is this. It is not because the price of everything has risen that expenditure has increased, but it is because the National Road Board has become a bottomless pit into which State money disappears every year. I was told about the lack of harmony that exists between the Road Board and the various provinces. The Road Board tries to thwart and to hamper the work of the provinces, and it puts all sorts of obstacles in the way of the provinces. The provinces, on their side, try to make the work of the National Road Board difficult, and between the two of them they are at cross purposes and clash with each other, with the result that there is a terrific waste of public money. The two are at loggerheads with each other. If we ask for a national health service the Government declares that it has not got the requisite funds. The public regards this as a matter that should enjoy priority, but the funds are not available. However, the National Road Board and the provinces continue to spend money in a way that shocks one’s financial conscience. Must we carry on like this? That is the question I want to put to the Minister. This Bill is intended as a consolidating measure. Road making is a function of the provinces. The provinces do not function as our agent. It is a function under the constitution. We have passed an Act governing the financial relationships in regard to national roads. The Minister is through this measure revising all the legislation of the country that has any bearing on the provision of State funds to the provinces for provincial services that they are carrying out on behalf of the Union Government, and why has the Minister not made use of this measure to revise the National Roads Act of 1935. Is the Minister so satisfied with the prevailing system that it can just continue? If the Minister feels with us that we cannot be satisfied, why does he not use this consolidating measure to put the matter in order? We are revising the legislation of the country as affecting the financial relationships between the Union Government and the provinces. The Act of 1935 is one of the Acts concerned. In 1935 when we passed this Act we thought we were making a good Act. The past seven or eight years has indicated to us that there are big defects in it. There is a danger of our losing millions of pounds, and though the Minister has now been presented with the opportunity to revise that Act, he is not taking it. I am not satisfied with the position. I want to ask the Minister a few further questions. I believe that the term of office of members of the National Road Board, at any rate some of them, expired at the commencement of the year.’ It was the understanding that each province should have a representative on the National Road Board and it is also the understanding that the representative of the province should be appointed in consultation with the Provincial Administration of that province. Has the Provincial Administration of the Cape been consulted in connection with the representative of the Cape on the Road Board? I would like to ask when the representative of the Cape Province was nominated to the Road Board in 1940 was advice given to the Minister through the Provincial Administration in reference to the representative of the Cape Province. Is it not a fact that the Provincial Administration, since 1940, has refused to approve in any way of the person concerned being the representative of the Cape Province on the Road Board? Nevertheless he was again nominated despite the opposition and dissatisfaction of the Cape Provincial Administration. I also want to know from the Minister whether since that, time the Provincial Administration has not intimated to the Government in every possible way that it wishes to be consulted in connection with the representation of the Cape on the Road Board.

I think I should point out that we have not before us a general amending Bill and that it is not really appropriate to bring up questions in connection with the administration of the National Roads Act. I am not the Minister responsible for that.

Who is?

The Minister of Transport. It is not an Act that falls under my administration. That Act has been incidentally mentioned in this measure because part of the funds under that Act are made available to the provinces, but we are not engaged at present on the administration of that Act. My hon. friend will have another opportunity to discuss that matter.

But we cannot plead for a change in any other way.

But we cannot undertake an amendment of the Act on this occasion, just as little as we can amend the Public Health Act because it is mentioned in this Bill. We are not occupied in amending those laws. We have not taken the whole question into review as my hon. friend wishes to put it. The National Roads Act is a special Act. It is only by way of a reference that it has been mentioned here. My hon. friend apparently wishes to see that Act revised. But that is really another matter. If he asks me whether I am entirely satisfied, as Minister of Finance, with the position,’ then I must say I am not satisfied in every respect. That does not mean, however, that I admit that hundreds of thousands of pounds are being wasted. I have no knowledge of that. Nor does it mean that I do not realise that there are more reasons for the increase of expenditure than my hon. friend mentioned. There is, for instance, the decision to tar all the roads. That had an effect on the estimates. It is not an increase in costs. This does not mean that I think that everything has always run smoothly in the relationship between the Road Board and the provinces, or that difficulties have not arisen in connection with personal questions, but in connection with that I want to point out that the National Road Board recently fell under a new Minister, namely the Minister of Transport, and that he has in fact given the whole question his attention, and among other things he has had discussions with the provinces. I believe that as a result of that a better relationship was created. I hope so, in any event, and I believe that this was the case.

Is that also the case in respect of the Cape Province?

That is the information that I have obtained from the provinces, that they are satisfied with this. But this is really a matter for the Minister of Transport. I am quite prepared to discuss that question with him, but I cannot undertake to review in this Bill that Act and all the Acts that relate to the provinces. That is going too far. The question of the revision of the National Roads Act is an independent matter that will have to be considered as such. I am prepared to consider the revisidn of that Act in consultation with my colleagues. That does not imply, however, that this is the right moment to bring that Act under revision. I want to ask the hon. member not to go further into that matter. He will have an opportunity later to mention the point he wishes to make.

But where will we have the opportunity? It is a constitutional matter?

The hon. member can put a question on the vote of the Minister of Transport.

But I cannot advocate an alteration in the legislation there. Roadmaking is a provincial function. This Bill of the Minister’s regulates the financing of provincial services in so far as the Government is concerned with them. That is to say this Bill really deals with the question of the financing of that part of the road system falling under the Act of 1935, and I am very disappointed that we cannot now go further into that. I really think that we should have the Minister of Transport here to answer this question. The Minister of Finance should not tell the Chairman now that I am not in order.

The hon. member knows that he cannot now argue for any alteration in that Act.

But we have here to deal with an Act.

The hon. member can put those questions when the money is being voted on the loan estimates.

I must honestly say that I would like to have this information now, because there is a feeling of tension here in the Cape Province. The Cape Province has gone so far as to say that it considers it has no representation on the Road Board if the same person is again nominated.

Is this Mr. Raubenheimer?

Yes.

Why?

You must ask them that.

This is not anything that we can now discuss.

But the money is being made available here.

No, no money is being made available here.

We passed an Act that certain money should be paid over to the National Road Board, and that money is now being poured into the Provincial Treasury.

But the money is not being voted here and you will have another opportunity to mention it.

Where?

When the loan estimates and the Minister of Transport’s Vote are being dealt with.

I regard it as my bounden duty not to rest until an alteration has been effected in this system of finance. I feel that I shall be failing in my duty if I leave it at that. I intend to hammer away at this matter until a change is brought about. My conscience does not allow me to do anything else. However that may be I should like to know from the Minister whether he does not think the time has arrived to revise the Act of 1935.

I am prepared to consider that in consultation with the Minister of Transport.

The Select Committee on Public Accounts makes a very important recommendation in connection with this.

Is that in the report that has been laid on the Table?

Yes, and I should like to know whether there will be a chance of discussing that.

Not during the present Session.

Then the only chance we still had during the present Session to do so falls away.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) made the observation that the Provincial Administration of the Cape Province takes the view that in Mr. Raubenheimer it has not got a representative on the Road Board. In all fairness we can expect the hon. member for George to tell us why he said that, seeing he has that information, and if he will not do so he will have to modify his statement.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that matter.

I think that the position is not quite so simple as the Minister of Finance has put it, that we should discuss this matter under the vote of the Minister of Transport. There are two parties to this arrangement in connection with roads. On the one hand there is the Minister of Transport, and on the other hand there are the various provincial administrations. We, as the Government, stand in between because we have to make available the money that the provinces use for the construction of those roads. I can well imagine that when the Minister of Transport’s Vote comes up he will adopt the same attitude as the Minister of Finance now takes up, and tell us that this is not his concern but the concern of the provincial administrations.

He is the responsible Minister.

I go still further. We are giving the money, and the Minister says now that this Act of 1935 is not under discussion. But the provinces function through the consultative committee. That is the Federal Board of the provincial councils. At the head of it is the Minister of Finance.

No, the Minister of the Interior is chairman, and it is an advisory body and not a statutory body.

I did not mean it was a statutory body. It is the ordinary channel through which the provinces express their combined feelings towards the Government. But where then will we be able to discuss this matter? We want to amend the Act of 1935. If the Minister of Transport rises to speak he will say it is a matter for the provincial councils. There are two parties involved in this difficulty, the National Road Board and the provinces. I do not want to take sides in the dispute, but there is a tremendous battle in progress. Some time ago there was a row, a row that was so serious that it is stated that the Administrator of one province was transferred as a result. We know that there was difficulty in Natal between the Provincial Council and the National Road Board and we know that shortly afterwards the Administrator of Natal was transferred to London. We do not know whether there is an actual connection between the two events, but it is really being said this is the case.

I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter. This clause only makes provision for the sources from which provincial expenditure can be covered, and I must ask him to confine himself to that aspect of the matter.

I am dealing now with the source under (b). Provision is made that funds appropriated to the National Road Board shall be made available to the provinces. In connection with that we have the position of the National Roads. It is laid down in the law of 1935 how this money shall be utilised. In this clause of the Bill it is stated what funds the provincial councils shall have for their normal and recurrent expenditure. The clause runs as follows—

It is on this point that I want to speak. It is this Bill that says that the Road Board must make the funds available for the provinces.

That is stated in the Act of 1935.

Perhaps it was there as well.

This Bill merely states the fact.

It may be a repetition, but as it is stated here my submission is we can discuss it. I do not want to evade the ruling of the Chairman but although this may be a repetition it has been thought necessary to insert this repetition here. I do not, however, wish to go further into that, but I would just say that the practice has now been in progress for a considerable period, and seeing that large amounts will be required to be made available to the provincial councils through the Road Board we can certainly say it is not a healthy state of affairs that continual friction should exist between the provincial councils and the National Road Board. This friction has been going on for years, and I should like to know what is being done to eliminate it. Is the Minister taking steps in connection with this matter? What plans has he to suggest? The whole position of the National Road Board in reference to the provincial councils is an anomalous one, and it must be set right. We wish to know what the Minister’s intention is in this connection before we appropriate any further large amounts. I do not know whether another opportunity will be forthcoming during the present Session, but it is a matter that is already a few years old, and consequently it is time that the Government should have a policy of some sort. I do not want to take sides, because I am not so thoroughly conversant with the matter, but the difficulty is there, and it constitutes an anomaly in the country and the House is entitled to know how the Minister is going to settle it, and what steps he has in mind. It is not a new thing. I think that the Government should now make some plan.

I think, actually, that I have already dealt with that point. There are really three points that have been raised. One is the appointment of members of the National Road Board. That is purely an administrative matter for the Minister concerned, of which I, as the hon. member will realise, have no knowledge. The second point is the friction between the National Road Board and the Provinces. That is also more or less an administrative matter. As far as that is concerned, I can say that as a result of action taken by the Minister, who is now responsible, a considerable improvement has taken place in the relationship between the Road Board and the Provinces.

Is it satisfactory now?

I have not heard any complaints recently. But that still leaves the wider aspect, namely, whether the present arrangement as a whole is sound from a general, financial and administrative point of view. That is the wider aspect. As far as that is concerned, I said that I was prepared to discuss the matter with the new Minister now in charge of this matter and also in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I do not think that I can take the matter any further that that.

Have you not discussed it yet?

Not that aspect of the matter, as yet, but I will discuss it in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee.

The criticism of this system of finance is not confined to the Opposition. Time and again, year after year, this matter has come before the Public Accounts Committee and things came almost to a head when the then chairman of the National Roads Board admitted to the Committee that the criticisms the Committee had levelled year after year were well founded. On that Committee we particularly criticised the system. I cannot see why we cannot discuss this matter here. We are now so to speak reaffirming this system of finance. The point is this, that in the consideration of this matter before the Public Accounts Committee last year we did not come to any definite conclusion as to how it should be dealt with, because we were given to understand the whole system would be considered at a conference at Pretoria in December of last year. That conference was held, and the result of it was this Bill, which reaffirms the old bad system. We are in somewhat of a dilemma. As you are aware, the Public Accounts Committee has brought forward its second report, but this report only deals with war expenses, and in this report this matter is not dealt with. There will not be time in a subsequent report during the Session to deal with the matter.

We will not have the report before us.

So in these circumstances I hope the Minister will appreciate the great difficulty we are in. It is no exaggeration to say that perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds are being wasted through this system of finance, but here we are reaffirming it. It is an elementary principle in public finance that the people who spend the money should tax the people for that money. Here the people who spend the money do not tax the people at all. The Central Government acts the rich father, and whatever is wanted they pay out. That fundamentally is where the waste of money comes in, and we go on wasting money in this way year after year. I think the consensus of opinion in this House, especially amongst those members who consider especially the financial conduct of affairs, is that the time has come when an end must be put to this system. We see the dilemma the Minister is in, of course. He has to pass this Bill. We realise that; and only with these reservations reaffirm this fundamentally bad system of public finance. Shall I say that we warn the Minister however that this House is not going to be satisfied with the system which is bad objectively and subjectively has proved is worse than we thought.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6„

I wish to move an amendment on (3) (a)—

I mentioned this matter yesterday to the Department ….

It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member will have the result of increasing expenditure and as such I cannot accept it without a Governor-General’s recommendation.

Under the circumstances I shall then content myself with criticising the clause. Discussing this matter yesterday I said I had approached the authorities; I approached the Minister. The Divisional Councils spend money on roads and a subsidy is paid by the Government to the Provincial Councils in respect of that expenditure. The position in the Transkei is that we have three types of roads. We have the national roads, we have the roads maintained by the Provincial Councils and for which the European population is taxed 1¼d. in the £ on immovable property. This goes into the Provincial Treasury. At one time it was considered whether we should have a Divisional Council for the whole of the Transkei, but in view of the large areas and the scattered community we decided that we could not establish such a council and agreed that the Provincial Council should tax us. I understand that in respect of that amount realised from European taxation the Central Government will subsidise the Provincial Councils. Then we have the third type of road; we have the roads that are made and maintained by the Transkeian Territories General Council, district roads. In respect of these the Bunga or General Council has exactly the same responsibilities and liabilities as the Divisional councils, It maintains the roads and is responsible for hospitalisation and so on. The Minister said that the provincial councils had made excuses for not maintaining hospitalisation among the natives. Exactly the same thing is going to happen here in regard to roads. We feel this is an attempt by the Central Government to bring about a system of finance between the provincial councils and the Central Government which will settle the financial position of the province for a long number of years. After I saw the Minister I got in touch with the provincial authorities to ascertain why the Bunga constitution was not included as he said they had not opproached him. I saw the Administrator and he called in his financial secretary—I am sorry I have not had the opportunity to convey this to the Minister privately—and the provincial authority told me this matter had been brought up before the Central Authority.

Not before me.

No. Before the Secretary for Finance.

He has no knowledge of that, nor have I. There must be some misunderstanding.

He told me they had brought the matter before the Minister’s Department and urged that the Bunga should be treated on the same basis as the divisional councils, and that their expenditure should have been included too, but that the Secretary for Finance had refused to agree to that. I do feel the position is definitely unsatisfactory as far as the Bunga is concerned. Today the Bunga is maintaining many roads which, as I said yesterday, are used by railway buses and in general public use. It is spending £60,000 to £70,000 on the roads, but in the wet weather the roads are being cut to pieces, and they cannot stand this drain on their funds any longer. I cannot see why the Transkeian General Council cannot get a subsidy from the provincial councils and why the Union Government should not subsidise the provincial council as it does with divisional councils. In one of the native areas in the Cape Province the divisional council said they could not maintain a road going through a native area, and the Trust had to make a grant of £600 towards this road. I am afraid this is a responsibility that will again be placed on the Trust, and the Trust should know where it stands in the future. The Minister has cleared the atmosphere as far as health is concerned, he has stated that the Native Trust is now relieved of all financial responsibility and now we should know where we stand, and the Bunga should know where it stands, in regard to getting a subsidy from the provincial council in respect of the maintenance of reads in the Transkei, in the same way as roads maintained by divisional councils are subsidised.

Apparently there is some misunderstanding in regard to this matter having been raised by the Cape Provincial Administration with the Treasury. Neither I nor the Secretary for Finance has any recollection of it having been put before us in any definite way and our having turned it down. The hon. member is apparently anxious that the Bunga should get a subsidy because of our including Bunga revenues. The divisional councils will not get a penny more. The provincial council, like every other provincial council, will get more. But what my hon. friend apparently fails to appreciate is what we are trying to do here is to find an equal basis of subsidising the four provinces. In the Cape Province you have the divisional councils—which exist there, and there only—and so to get a fair basis of comparison, seeing that these bodies raise their own revenues, it is right that you should take account for the purposes of subsidy of what the divisional councils spend out of revenue. But if the hon. member wants us to include the revenue raised from natives in the Cape Province we should have to do the same in the other provinces. Under the old dispensation, in terms of the report of the Murray Commission, the system prevailing from 1912 onwards to 1925, account was taken of the revenue of the Transkeian General Council, because there was nothing corresponding to those revenues in the other provinces; but in 1925 you had a general Native Taxation Act and that altered the position, and it was because of that that there was certainly no formal representation made by the Cape Provincial Authorities to us to include these particular revenues as a basis of subsidy. In any case an amendment cannot be moved, but I consider that we are doing the correct thing having regard to all the facts, and we could not in any case make the extension the hon. member asks us to do.

I wish to move an amendment—

This clause deals with the special subsidies to the three provinces, the Cape Province, the Free State and Natal, and whereas in the case of the normal subsidy, the Bill provides for an increase of 5 per cent. in view of natural expansion, an increase of 5 per cent. on the previous year, there is no similar provision in respect of the special subsidy. The position, after all, is quite simple. There must be very good reasons for the special subsidy, otherwise the Minister would not have granted it. Perhaps the reason is that one province has fewer sources of taxation than another or extends over a larger area or has a larger coloured population to be provided with schools. Whatever the position may be, there must be good reasons, there must be extra services to be rendered which fall outside the scope of their ordinary and normal resources. That is why this special subsidy is granted to them. Now I am asking that the same principle of normal increase in expenditure should also apply to this special subsidy, and I take the same basis as the Minister laid down for ordinary expenditure, the same basis of expansion, as far as the ordinary subsidy is concerned. We merely want the same principle to be applied to the special subsidy. The amount will be the same for the first year as the Minister has indicated here, but in the second year there will be an increase of the amount to keep pace with the natural expansion of the service in respect of which the special subsidy is granted. I do not know whether it is a special service but it may be because the Cape Province has 142,000 coloured children in the schools.

Do I understand that the hon. member is proposing an increase of 5 per cent.?

Not for this year, but for the next year and the year after.

That is the same thing.

In that case, I want to ask the Minister to do so. I cannot do it, but the Minister can. It is a reasonable request, that in respect of the special subsidy the same principle should be followed as in respect of the normal subsidy and that the Minister should also make provision here for natural expansion. I think that the idea is that the difference should always be there. There are special reasons why the one province should receive the special subsidy and the other should not, and even although the amandment is not in order. I still want to ask the Minister from his side, to admit the reasonableness of the request and that he should meet us. Then there is one other point which I also wish to bring to the notice of the Minister because it seems to me that the Mniister is labouring under a misapprehension in that respect. In sub-clause (3) (a), the fact is taken into account that in the Cape Province certain provincial services are carried out by the Divisional Councils. That is only the case in the Cape Province. It is admitted here that where the Divisional Councils are performing provincial services, the money spent by them on these services should be regarded as provincial expenditure in respect of which subsidy is paid. But now there are also certain of the provincial services which are rendered by the municipalities in the Cape. That is not the case in the other provinces. I have in mind especially hospitals. Apart from the hospitals under municipal control for infectious diseases, there are the ordinary hospitals. In the Cape Province the position is different from the position in other provinces. If there is a deficit in respect of any hospital, say for instance Groote Schuur, then even although it is a provincial service a contribution is asked from the City Council of Cape Town to meet the deficit. That also is expenditure by a local authority for a provincial service. Normally, it is a provincial matter. Just as Divisional Councils carry out certain provincial services and it is considered fair that the money expended by them on such services, should be regarded as part of the provincial expenditure for subsidy purposes, it is also fair that when money is spent on provincial services by City Councils, those expenses would be regarded as part of the provincial expenditure. No provision has been made for that and I just want to ask the Minister to consider that. Some misunderstanding seems to exist, because in his reply yesterday, the Minister by way of an interjection, showed that he apparently did not fully understand the point. These are provincial duties carried out by the municipalities just as certain services are carried out by the Divisional Councils. I think that it is only fair that this expenditure should also be regarded as provincial expenditure. If there is a deficit in respect of a hospital then they maintain that the municipality should pay 50 per cent. of the deficit and the province the other half. I request, therefore, that this expenditure should be dealt with in the same manner as the expenditure of Divisional Councils. I hope that the Minister will, also in this respect, put the matter right, so that the same principle will be applied and I do hope that the Minister now has a clear understanding of the facts upon which, in my opinion, the priniciple should also be applied.

The hon. member raised two points, which would both involve additional expenditure. As far as the first is concerned, I want to point out that it is not correct to say that the normal subsidy is increased by 5 per cent. every year.

If the expenses increase.

They may not increase.

Then it means that services will have to be curtailed.

It may happen that after the war period there may be a decrease in the special expenditure, as for instance in the cost of living allowances. In the old days when there was a limit of 7½ per cent., there were provinces which did not receive all of the 7½ per cent. There is therefore no automatic increase,

If there is an increase in expenditure.

Now the hon. member wants an automatic increase as far as the provincial subsidy is concerned.

Only for three years.

The special subsidy is on a triennial basis and after three years it has to be revised. We will then have to take the whole matter into consideration, and if it appears that a province has been dealt with too severely during the previous three years, then something may be added to the special subsidy, but we cannot allow the special subsidy to increase automatically. That would be in conflict with the conception of a special subsidy. It is for a period of three years and therefore not for a long period. After three years the whole position will be re-considered. The other point mentioned by him is well-known to me, because the matter of the relations between the provinces and the municipalities has repeatedly received attention. But also this point was not discussed with us by the Cape Province as part of the basis of the subsidy. As the basis for the subsidy, we take the expenditure of the provinces, and we have always regarded the Cape Divisional Councils as part of the provincial system but we have never yet regarded the municipalities as part of the provincial system. If we are forced to, we may have to go back on the idea of regarding the divisional councils as part of the provincial system. A distinction has always been made. Take for instance implements which are imported free from customs duty. Divisional councils are granted this concession, but not the municipalities. If we were to apply the subsidy to expenditure of municipalities in connection with hospitals then we would not be able to confine it to the Cape but we would also have to grant it in respect of the other provinces. I cannot accept that. We regard divisional councils as part of the provincial system, but definitely not the municipalities.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 6 (5) (a) on page 6—

1. (a) Any contributions received from the public and used by a divisional council for the purpose of carrying out any function which by law is vested in the province may, with the approval of the Treasury, be regarded as revenue raised by that divisional council.

I shall be glad if the Minister would explain to us briefly what he had in mind in this paragraph. Supposing a divisional council wanted to build a road which is desired by the public, but which will cost a lot of money, and the public contributed £1,000 or £2,000 for such a road, would that amount be taken into account for subsidy purposes, and would a contribution by the public to a hospital be taken into account?

No, that does not count.

Supposing the divisional council carried out the work.

They do not erect hospitals.

Assuming that to a certain extent that was also undertaken by the divisional councils. The contributions of the public for such purposes will not be taken into account then.

The divisional councils have two sources of revenue. The one is a subsidy from the province and the other is money which they collect from the public by way of taxation or of contributions. The principle embodied in this Bill is that we grant a subsidy on the basis of provincial expenditure. We cannot include in that the expenditure of the divisional councils because then we would be paying the subsidy twice on the provincial expenditure. What we say is actually this, that apart from provincial expenditure, we also grant a subsidy on the expenditure of divisional councils irrespective of the amount which they receive from the provinces—in other words, on everything the divisional councils derive from taxes or contributions.

Why then these words “if approved by the Treasury”?

We want to see how this develops. It may be used to obtain money which the Treasury should not grant.

All reasonable requests will be granted?

Yes.

Divisional Councils, which perform local services, are subsidised by the Provincial Councils in the same way as the latter are subsidised by the Union Government. There are certain local authorities in the Transkei to whom the same principle applies. In the Transkei the situation is that the local tax is part of the revenue of the Bunga, and that is used for roads and bridges. The purpose which they serve is the identical purpose served by the Divisional Councils, building roads, etc., but these roads are not used entirely by the native people. On the contrary they are used mostly by the European population. I cannot see what moral ground we have for refusing to recognise the analogy between their position and that of the Divisional Councils, and I wish to urge, in view of the fact that there appears to be some relationship between the Treasury and the Provincial Administrations, that if the matter is brought up again it will be discussed.

I am quite prepared to discuss it.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House but I just want to point out that I am not advocating that the expenditure of municipalities should be regarded as provincial expenditure, but that expenditure by the municipalities on hospitals which can be regarded as part of provincial duties should be dealt with in the same sense as the expenditure of Divisional Councils. The hospital expenditure is derived from provincial taxes or funds and if the province receives a contribution from the municipality then that is virtually a tax on the municipality, but it is still expenditure of the province which they would have had to obtain by way of taxation if the municipality had not borne that expenditure. The sole test should be whether it is a provincial service which is vested in the Provincial Council by law. If the Minister insists, as under subclause 5 (a) that it should be with the approval of the Treasury then I agree that he should have that safeguard also in this instance. If the principle is that the expenditure should be in connection with services which by law are a provincial responsibility, then it is only fair that the contributions by a municipality to such service, should be dealt with in the same way as the expenditure of Divisional Councils. The Minister stated quite rightly, and this is something which was also stated by the provinces themselves, that the increase of 5 per cent. does not amount to much because their expenditure is high at the moment. I would just like to tell the Minister this, that it is unlikely that there will be any decrease in expenditure during the next three years. If my proposal is agreed to, therefore, there will be no danger of a reduction of the normal subsidy and an increase of the special subsidy. I am prepared to put it like this, that the Minister should only allow the increase of 5 per cent. in the special subsidy if there is an increase in the expenditure during the next year. If there is an increase in the general expenditure of 5 per cent., which will then be taken into account for ordinary subsidy, then the special subsidy can also be increased by 5 per cent. If the increase is only 3 per cent., then the increase in the special subsidy will also be only 3 per cent. Then it would be fair. I will, however, be satisfied if the Minister gives me the same assurance as he has given the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn), that he will give this matter his consideration and will discuss it if it is brought to his notice by the provinces.

Yes, I will do that.

We welcome the Minister’s statement that he is prepared to consider and to discuss with the Cape provincial authorities the issue raised by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) and supported by the hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming). I notice he says that he will do so if it is raised by the Cape provincial authorities. In these circumstances it will be our duty, of course, to see to it that it is raised. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two other aspects of that matter. One is that the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Tembuland in respect of the Transkei does not apply to the Transkei only. The Ciskeian authorities are in exactly the same position as are the Transkeian authorities as regards local authorities. I am sure that the Minister appreciates the fact that if a general provision is made to cover the Transkei, the Ciskei must be included also, and any area in the Ciskei where a native local council operates and spends money locally raised on what are essentially local government functions. There is however this further complication, as the Minister foresaw, that wherever the native local council functions you have in effect a local government unit, and I think the Minister will agree that in essence the local councils have claims to subsidy in terms of the intention of this Bill, which is to enable local authorities to perform functions which a civilised society regards as being their obligation. It is particularly important that these native local councils should not be overlooked. They are naturally the weakest local authorities in the country and they serve the interests of the poor section of the population. They function in areas where the standard of public health is the lowest in the country. They are going to need the development not only of roads as well as hospital services, but their need for the development of water supplies is particularly urgent. All these services are services for which the additional subsidy is urgently needed. I trust the Minister will take the whole situation into review and will somehow, either in this Bill or on some very near occasion, take the opportunity of providing these local authorities with the recognition they deserve and the assistance they require.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I have an amendment on the Order Paper, which will be purely a drafting amendment to put the provisions in better terms, namely on page 8, line 72, and on page 12, line 30. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I want to ask the Minister to omit these penalties.

They date back to the time of my predecessor.

We do not intend agreeing to them this time. A person pays a provincial tax of £1 to £10—that is, the poorest people—can be penalised with 5 per cent. of the tax for every month the tax remains unpaid, that is with 60 per cent. per annum. It is peculiar that the richer the person is and the higher his tax is, the less is the amount of his penalty. Between £1 and £10 he pays 60 per cent. From £10 to £20 he pays 30 per cent., and so it goes on until he pays only 12 per cent. if his tax is £50 and more. Why should the provincial councils be allowed to impose a higher penalty than the Union Government. If we fail to pay the Union Government taxes, then the penalty is 7 per cent. per annum whether it be a rich man or a poor man. I want to ask the Minister to delete 8 or 9 and to substitute a provision that the same penalty should be payable in respect of arrear taxes payable to the Union Government. Why should we allow the provincial councils to charge an exorbitant rate of interest? No, the Minister must recognise the reasonableness of our request. He must omit this clause and he should make everyone pay a penalty on the same basis. We would like to know what the Minister’s views are on this matter.

I feel that I must support the provinces in this case. In the other cases my hon. friends have pleaded the cause of the provinces. In this case I must plead the cause of the provinces. We have to do here with something over which they have had jurisdiction all these years. Their ordinances are cast in that mould and I cannot now take away something from them which will upset those ordinances. What is the reason for the provincial penalties having been made so high? They used to be still higher. At one time they were up to 10 per cent. per month.

Then they were reduced.

Yes, but not by me.

And what happened to the provincial ordinances then?

I do not know. The provinces use the argument that they have very small amounts of taxation to collect and the imposition in the form of interest on arrears is the best way in which to collect the tax. If people know that they will have to pay the penalty, then they pay the tax and if there is not a high penalty, it would be much more difficult to collect the tax.

Why does the Union Government not do the same?

. In the case of Union taxes, the amounts are mostly larger amounts.

But what about the tax of £2 10s.?

That personal levy is a temporary war-time tax.

But what about the small amounts of income tax?

In our case they are exceptions. The provincial tax is one-fifth of the Union tax, and there is a much larger number of small amounts than in the case of the Union tax. I regret but in view of our relations with the provinces, I cannot accept this amendment. I must protect them.

The Minister says that he must protect the provinces, but he allows the provinces to make the poor people pay the highest penalties.

You should get the provinces to rectify that matter.

But the Minister of Finance has more influence over them than I have. The Minister is authorising the provinces here to penalise the poor man who pays a tax of £1 to £10 by 60 per cent. while the rich man who pays £50 or more is only penalised by 12 per cent. No, we cannot support that. Then there should be a uniform scale of penalties.

I want to tell the Minister that I have been 35 years in business and my experience has always been that the poor man pays more promptly than the well-to-do man. Just ask anyone. The poor man who owes money pays his debt.

Then he would not require to pay a penalty.

I am convinced that the Minister feels very uncomfortable over this business. The man who pays a tax of £10 is fined 30 per cent. The man who pays between £10 and £25 can be fined 20 per cent., and so it is—the higher the tax the less is the penalty until it becomes only 12 per cent. in the case of a man who pays £50 and more in taxation. That is not right. Let them all pay the same. Make it 30 per cent., but 30 per cent. all round, although I consider that a man who charges 30 per cent. on a debt ought to be put in gaol. That is usury. Our legislation dealing with usury lays down that if a person charges more than 12 per cent. interest he can be put in gaol. I think that no member in this House will agree that such a penalty is justifiable. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to put the penalty on an equal footing for all. The interest the Minister is asking on arrear Union tax is also too high. He himself is asking 7 per cent. and he is paying only 3½ per cent. But let him make it 7 per cent. for all in the case of the provinces, and then we shall be satisfied. This proposal is unreasonable, that the poor man can be penalised 30 per cent. and the wealthy man only 12 per cent. This sort of thing goes against the grain and runs counter to one’s feelings of what is just. The Minister of Finance himself cannot feel comfortable about it. He says that should he make an alteration in this Bill the provincial ordinances will have to be altered. In an interjection the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) expressed the view that the penalties were reduced on a former occasion. Then the provinces, of course, also had to alter their ordinances. The Provincial Council is now in Session, and they can easily introduce an ordinance to change the rate of interest. The Minister must also expect that this proposal will be used against his Party.

The Nationalist Party did this themselves.

Then they were wrong. It is not this Party that did it. It was the old Nationalist Party. There is a political side to this matter, and the Minister cannot take umbrage if on the public platform outside I maintain that we here give an example of how the Government treats the poor man. The poor man has to pay a fine of 30 per cent. while the wealthy man pays only 12 per cent. I have not only political considerations in mind when I ask the Minister to take our request into consideration, but we can turn this to political account because it is such an unfair proposition that it must have political consequences. I should like the Minister to make a plan to equalise the matter, because it appears to me to be very unreasonable.

I do not think this is a case where the Minister can shelter behind the provincial councils. If there was nothing before us it would be another matter. We are now being asked to give legislative powers to the provincial councils in this connection.

What they already had.

Those powers are now taken up in a consolidating Bill. This is a renewed acknowledgement of those powers, and it grants a discriminating power to the provinces in respect of the imposition of these penalties. Suppose that the provinces make use of this discrimination they can turn round and say that Parliament gave them the cue for this special discrimination. We are not opposed so much to the high penalties as we are opposed to the discrimination against people who are poor and who are in arrears. The Minister has referred to the cost of collection. The provincial income tax and the company tax are collected at the same time as the Union tax.

Not the personal tax.

I am coming to that tax. In the case of those two taxes there can consequently be no question of costs of collection. Now I turn to the personal tax. In the case of income tax the individual receives his assessment. He thus receives notification that he has to pay. In that case because the tax is usually a higher amount he pays penalty at a lower rate of interest. But in the case of the other tax he is not notified. In complete good faith he may forget to pay, and then one fine day he wakes up to find he has to pay a penalty of 60 per cent. In other words, the man who is notified that he has to pay his tax and who has not paid comes off lighter than the man who has received no notification. That is not fair, and this House cannot approve of it. There is no principle on which anything can be said in favour of it. On the contrary, there is every reason in favour of making the penalty lighter in the case of the small taxpayers. I should like to know why it cannot be equal as is the case with the Union taxes. We have no discrimination there, and if it is not necessary for us to have discrimination why should we give those powers to the provinces. We cannot escape our responsibility if we let this sort of thing continue today, and if the provincial councils make use of it. It is the responsibility of this House and that is what I think we should realise and if we realise that we shall not allow a provision of this sort to be placed on the Statute Book. Whether it is resorted to by the provincial administraions or not it will be a blot on our Statute Book.

Are the penalties uniform in all the provinces?

That I cannot say. This clause is only something that gives them the authority. Let me explain again, this is something that is on the Statute Book at present exactly as it stands there. I am merely taking it over. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that I should alter this without cousultation with the provinces. I am quite prepared to discuss the question with the provinces in order to ascertain whether they make use of this scale of penalties.

A discussion with the provinces will cut no ice unless you appreciate the fairness of the argument employed by this side.

I realise that arguments may indeed be employed against the discrimination that exists here, and I am perfectly prepared to discuss the matter with the provinces but I do not think it would be reasonable to expect that I should alter this Bill without discussing the matter with them.

I had intended to move an amendment in Clause 9 (1) in line 33 to delete all the words after “then” in subparagraphs (a) and (b) and to substitute the words “a penalty … imposed by the Union Government.” It would then read—

It was my intention to move that but in view of what the Minister has said I am not prepared to put the amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I would like to move the following amendment on this clause—

I do so with a certain amount of diffidence out of the high regard I have for the Minister in charge of this Bill, but nevertheless I feel it is my duty to press this matter. Without traversing all the ground covered yesterday, I would like to emphasise one or two points. First of all I would refer to the action of the Natives’ Representative Council. It may be that technically they have been consulted, but I cannot feel that they have been consulted in the spirit of the Act. In the first place we must realise that we are going to change something which has been in existence for more than 20 years, i.e. the fact that only one body in the country should tax the natives, and then we have to deal with the fact that we are going to increase a tax for which we ourselves have no time at all. I would like to point out that this is merely a proviso of the Bill and that no real harm can be done to the Bill if the Minister will consider the question, even at this stage, of withdrawing it. I feel that it would be a pity to rush this Bill through the House without giving a full opportunity to the Natives’ Representative Council to consider the effect of this amendment, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister to consider carefully, even at this stage, whether he cannot allow the Natives’ Representative Council and other native councils an opportunity of going into the matter again. I would like to point out that the meeting held at Pretoria was held at very short notice and it may be that those representatives on the council would have liked to consult their constituents in this very important matter, and if my amendment is accepted they will have an opportunity of consulting their people and coming to the Government with a fully considered answer I do not think this is an unreasonable request. From our point of view this is a tax that we regard as unscientific. We have asked the Government for many years to reconsider the whole system of native taxation. We have never seen the justification for singling out the natives for a particular kind of tax, and the only reason I can think of in justification of it, is that they have not sufficient means to come under the ordinary taxation system of the country. I feel that in his reply to the debate yesterday the hon. Minister was still acting under very strong pressure which was no doubt brought to bear upon him by the provincial councils. I think the very least we can expect is that the provincial councils will tell us what they are now proposing to do in return for the tax we impose on the natives. So far they have done nothing, and we have no guarantee in this Bill that they will do anything in return for this tax to be imposed, and I accordingly move this amendment in the hope that the Minister will agree to it.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to a matter in connection with Clause 10 (2). It states there that the Provincial Council will not have the right to impose direct taxation “upon the persons, lands, habitations or incomes of natives”. By the word “habitations” I assume the reference is to dwellings belonging to natives.

Yes.

That is not what the clause says.

It is the wording we have had for 30 years.

But that is not what the clause says. The clause reads—

It does not say that the habitations (wonings) belong to the natives.

The English is “habitation”.

The English is just the same. I have read it in the English text. I think it should read “habitations belonging to them”. Should the Provincial Council impose a land tax—I hope they will never do it—and if I had a farm on which there were natives and the “habitations” belonged to me but natives were living in them, they could not include them in the valuation of the land; they would have to be excluded specially. The clause does not refer to habitations of natives in the reserve; it just say there “habitations”

I shall go into that point with the law advisers.

I thought the Minister said the other day that there was no such thing as a colour bar in taxation. How does that tally with this clause? “There is no colour bar in taxation”. I still remember those words. What do they mean? It means that it does not matter how much the income of a native is in the Transvaal, the Free State or elsewhere the Provincial Council cannot tax him.

Under the Union Act he can be taxed, but under this Bill we are making provision that the Provincial Council will also be able to tax such person if he is a Union taxpayer. Consequently that will now happen.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei (mr. Hemming). I do so in the first place on the ground that he mentioned first. It is my contention from facts which have already been given this House by the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that there has not been proper consultation with the Natives’ Representatives Council on a matter differentially affecting the native people. This matter was really decided before it was brought before the public at all, I should imagine. The consultations which went on between the provinces and the Government last year, commenced before the report of the National Health Services Commission was published. As a matter of fact the public were told that the Government was not going to accept—in full at all events—the report of that commission even before the report was published. I assume that when the provincial issue was decided as to the control of hospital services, as it apparently was during those consultations, the question of taxation was also gone into. At all events, whether that was so or not, does not really matter, because the Minister will agree that this was a matter that was decided with the provinces before the Natives’ Representative Council was consulted at all. The council was called together by telephone and the Government placed before them an accomplished fact. That is not what I call consultation.

That is how Parliament is treated very often.

But that is not the reason for my major objection to this clause. What it in effect does is that it empowers the provinces to increase the native poll tax. That is what it does in effect. It means that the native people will pay an extra 2s. 6d. in poll tax which will be collected by the provinces, I have made it clear in this House, ever since I have been a member, that I am totally opposed to the poll tax. The only equitable direct tax is a tax which is levied on income. It has been said in reply to the contention of mine along those lines that the European pays Provincial Personal Tax. My answer to that is that speaking for myself, and not necessarily for the other members of my group, I would rather the natives pay the Provincial Personal Tax than the poll tax. What is the position? In the Orange Free State and Natal there is actually a tax on persons apart from income, and I think it is an unjust tax for reasons I have given. It starts at £1 in the Orange Free State and rises with the individual’s income. In Natal it is £1 for persons with incomes under £450 per annum and £2 for those with more. But in so far as the lower income groups are concerned, they are in exactly the same position as the native. The native with an income of under £200 in the Orange Free State or £450 in Natal, would be in exactly the same position as he is now. In the case of the Cape a married person with an income of under £250 a year, does not pay the tax at all. The unmarried person with an income under £150 a year, does not pay tax at all. In the Transvaal the unmarried person with an income of under £50 does not pay it, and the married person with an income of less than £100 does not pay tax at all. So in the two largest provinces, at any rate, the ability of the person to pay is taken into consideration. In the case of the native poll tax, the ability of the person to pay is not taken into consideration, and the House is not permitting the provincial councils to increase that tax. I want to deal with the argument which has been raised by the hon. Minister, with all respect to him, that if there is to be an extended system of health services in this country the people must pay for it. Of course, they must. But those services should be paid for by the imposition of a tax on an equitable basis according to means. I am prepared to admit one possible departure from that principle, and that is a specific contribution where you have a specific insurrance scheme. The National Health Services Commission recommended that everyone in South Africa, irrespective of ability to pay, should pay something towards the national health service. They graduated the person’s contribution in accordance with his ability to pay, but they recommended that everyone should pay something. But that was not a tax. What the Gluckmän Commission recommended, in effect, was an insurance contribution which is an entirely different thing. The difference between an insurance contribution and a flat rate tax such as the Minister wants the various Provincial Councils to impose, is that the contribution is dependent upon services given in return. That is what a contribution is. An insurance contribution is a tax created for a special purpose and only paid on condition that services are given.

Would you support an insurance contribution for educational purposes on the same lines?

That system is never applied to education because that is a thing that everyone must have, whereas in the case of medical attention or disability, it is not necessarily something that everyone requires. The Gluckman Commission in effect, recommended that the £10,500,000 which is now paid by private individuals to doctors should be diverted to a State fund and should be raised by a health tax, and in return each individual should receive free services in so far as they can be made available, and the Commission contemplated that the tax would not be imposed until the services were available. The Government departed radically from the Commission’s report in any event by giving way to the provinces on the hospital issue. That has been discussed earlier in the Session and I do not propose to repeat the arguments in that connection now. But having done that, they have now gone further. They are now in effect authorising the provinces to depart from the recommendation of the Gluckman report in another respect, that is to start imposing taxes on people that they could not tax before, without having provided for the services, and that is the position we are faced with. Having regard to the provincial record in relation to the provision of hospital services for Africans I would not be surprised if for many years to come this 2s. 6d. tax is about all the native population will see of the health service. The exemption of natives from general taxation referred to in this sub-clause 2 mean nothing at all because the only respect in which native taxation does differ from European taxation is in respect of this personal tax; where they pay a poll tax, the European pays a personal tax. The natives’ dogs and food and vehicles and everything else are taxed. I have heard bitter complaints from Africans against the vehicle tax imposed by the Divisional Councils. I would strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. If he wants to authorise the provinces to start a hospital insurance scheme as part of a general health scheme, that is an entirely different matter, but this simply gives them a blank cheque to increase direct taxation upon the poorest section of the people of this country without any guarantee of their getting anything in return.

I am sorry I cannot meet my hon. friends over there. I fully appreciate their attitude in regard to this matter, but for the reasons I gave yesterday I feel that it is not possible to agree to an amendment such as the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) has proposed. I do not want to go into the question of consultation again. I would merely repeat that the Natives’ Representative Council had an adequate opportunity of expressing its opinion, and will have a further opportunity of expressing its opinion before this tax comes into operation, if it does come into operation. For the rest I want to assure my lion, friends that I am not proposing this because of pressure exerted upon me by the provinces. I am proposing it because I believe it is right that the natives should make a contribution towards extended hospital services, and things being as they are at the present moment in respect of our system of native taxation I see no other way in which they can do that. I am proposing this also because I believe it is a good thing. I am proposing it because I believe it is going to be for the benefit of the natives. I believe it is going to lead to an expansion of native hospital services and I believe that if this tax is imposed it will not be possible for the provinces to advance the excuse that there are no funds for the provision of native hospital services. One must admit in fairness that there has been an improvement in the attitude of the provinces in so far as native hospitalisation is concerned. May I just make this further statement. I agree that there is a case for a revision of our whole system of native taxation. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) spoke on those lines yesterday; the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has done so today. I agree that there is a case for a revision of our system of native taxation, but we have had quite a lot to do in the last five years, and the fact that that particular question has not been tackled is perhaps not entirely unpardonable and in any case, I hope that the least my hon. friends will do will be to count it to us for righteousness that in the matter of the relationship between native taxation and expenditure on native services there has been a very definite improvement. I hope that will be counted to us for righteousness, even though the native taxation system has not been put on the basis they desire. I believe it is right and proper that we should make this provision that we are making in the Bill, and therefore I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment.

I want to show how definite the pledge was that was given to the natives in regard to their first being consulted before Bills imposing financial burdens on them can be passed in this House. It was not said that they were going to be consulted afterwards, after those measures had been passed and after they had become law. That seems to be what we are in the process of bringing about this afternoon. Let me quote the pronouncement that was made at a joint sitting of both Houses in respect of the consultation of the Natives’ Representative Council—

It is clear that the Minister gave the pledge then that that was going to be done before any such Bill was laid before Parliament, before Parliament passed legislation of that kind. I hope we are not going to blind ourselves to or ignore what was said to the natives on that occasion. It is not a long time ago. The very body which we created is now in the course of being flouted, in spite of the remonstrances of the representatives of the natives. For my own part I have no hesitation in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) because as I pointed out yesterday, I look upon the imposition of this tax as unfair. Without some sort of guarantee that any charges in regard to hospital treatment in the future will be discontinued, it will be resented in the province of Natal. At present the natives have to pay 1s. per head every time they even go to the hospital clinic, and it is quite possible that the people who pay the hospital tax may still be required to pay fees to the clinic, and I hope the Minister will not compromise us by asking us to vote for this provision.

I do not propose to hold up the House much longer. There is no necessity for me to do so. I just feel that before this clause finally goes through, we must do our best to make the hon. Minister realise how strongly the Natives’ Representative Council feel about the way in which this tax is being imposed. I know the hon. Minister agreed to the Natives’ Representative Council being consulted as soon as his attention was called to the fact that they must be consulted in the matter. It was unfortunate that that was done so late that although in effect there was actually time in which they might consider this proposition and give a reply, there was not that time for consideration of all the implications of an important departure in our financial legislation that would encourage them to take a definite stand on it. All that we are asking in fact is that the Minister should delay the operation of a clause of this kind. We are fully convinced of the necessity of the community being prepared to pay for the services it demands; we have made that perfectly clear. But we feel it is most important that the community should be carried along with the Government when these obligations are imposed. At the present moment not only has the Natives’ Representative Council been allowed to develop a certain grievance in this matter of consultation, but it has inevitably got an additional grievance. It is asked to endorse the imposition of a tax on the native population without any information (a) as to whether an additional tax is going to be imposed on any other section of the community; and (b) as to what is going to be provided as a result of the tax. I feel the Government has a good deal to gain by going slow over the imposition of the tax, without being expected to go too slow. Another year would not have made a great deal of difference to the Provincial Council, but it would have given the Native Affairs Department time, partly to do what they succeeded in doing by careful management in the matter of the reclamation schemes in the Transkei, to carry the people with them and get their consent. I do not think any of us would dream of blaming the Minister or the Government for the fact that the native taxation system has not been revised before this, but what we are contending is that this is obviously an appropriate moment in which to consider that system of taxation. In the circumstances the time should be taken to do it. If we could have the additional time, even only another year, it would give us the opportunity to induce the provincial councils to put down the programme for which they are asking us to pay, which I think is a perfectly legitimate demand; and it would also give us time to consider how that burden might be spread in the best way.

Those of us who were in the House in 1936 are all responsible to see that the Native Representative Council should be fully consulted before legislation affecting natives is passed. And I am very sure that there is no one more anxious than the Minister to observe both in the letter and in the spirit the principle that the Native Representative Council should be consulted before legislation affecting the natives is carried into effect. I am sure the Minister is anxious that should be done. I trust he will ensure that in future when it is done it will be done more effectively than was the case in respect of the Bill now before the House. I realise he cannot be asked now to delete this clause, or even to hold up the measure. I hope he will discuss it with the provincial authorities to ensure that not only shall the Native Representative Council be properly consulted before the tax is imposed, but that the provincial authorities will outline a scheme as to how they propose to spend this money.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

I move—

1. (2) Any ordinance passed by a Provincial Council under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Liquor Act, 1928 (Act No. 30 of 1928) shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 32 of this Act, remain of full force and effect until amended or repealed by Parliament.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Third Schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 8 and 35 and in the First and Third Schedules put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 4th June.