I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, is this the proper stage at which to raise a point of order as to the competence of this House to proceed with this Bill? I wish to raise a point of order but I should like your guidance as to whether this is the right moment.

What is the point of order which the hon. member wishes to raise?

Sir, the law under which this House has any power whatever to deal with questions of this sort is Act No. 49 of 1919. May I express my regret that the conditions under which we are working made it impossible for me to follow the courteous method of consulting you beforehand. I have been unable, owing to pressure of work, to come near you, but I appreciate that it is in the nature of a discourtesy not to have informed you beforehand of the question I am about to raise. I want to say that the Act dealing with the matter is Act No. 49 of 1919, Section 4 (3)—

The important words are “shall be alienated”. The point of alienation was considered very carefully by the Select Committee on which I served and to enable this House to judge of the real character of this Bill I wish to draw attention to the evidence given by the Secretary of the Administration on page 18. Dr. Botha was asked by me whether he would read the section which empowers the Union Parliament, to disestablish, as my recollection was that it merely empowered Parliament to alienate and not to disestablish. He did so and said: “We think that disestablishment would have the same effect because we have the right to alienate afterwards.” Then I asked him: “We have to consider the meaning of these words and I want you to let me know to whom this land is being alienated. Who are the buyers?” He said: “It is not being alienated.” I asked him whether he was sure and he said yes. He said: “It is Crown land and we are putting these natives there and we are moving them to some other reserve.” Now the matter deals to some extent with the resemblance or interchanging of the word “alienate” with the word “disestablish”. We were told by a legal adviser that disestablishment had been used on previous occasions in a Bill passed by this House. That seemed to me to be a strange interpretation of the word. You will fail to find “disestablishment” in any South African legal dictionary. As you know, the history of that word is somewhat ecclesiastical in its origin, bearing more upon the act of disestablishing a church from the State, but it seems to have been borrowed in a Bill on one previous occasion for the purpose of changing the ownership of certain land in South-West Africa. It may have been used for a similar purpose in Acts relating to the Union but I do not know of any instances. I wish to submit to you, Sir, evidence of the spokesman of the Administration to the effect that this land is not being alienated. Therefore it is impossible for us in this House to deal with any change in the land except that of alienation. This House cannot be invoked to put its blessing upon disestablishment, whatever that may mean, but I maintain that alienation is becoming a word which we must be very careful about in regard to land vested in the Government, in the case of South-West Africa and in the South African Native Trust in regard to the Union. There again the word “alienate” is used and we may only alienate native areas in the Union for the purpose of public purposes. We are limited to that under the South African Native Trust and Lands Act. There is no such limitation in regard to South-West, and I submit to you that throughout the Bill itself there is no reference to the alienation of this land. The authors of the Bill said very definitely that they are quite sure it is not being alienated, and I maintain that the Bill in its present form cannot be proceeded with before this House. I am concerned that there should not be a light-hearted dealing with land especially in the native territories, which has been the subject of debate at San Francisco, anxiety there being expressed that the rights of the backward people should be respected in a spirit of trusteeship. I hope their rights will be respected and I hone we shall not be enticed into any sort of action which is not strictly in accordance with the legal definition of the Act of 1919.

On the principle that the greater includes the less I think it can be safely assumed that “alienation” includes “disestablishment”; but in any case it is competent for the Union Parliament, which in 1919 passed the Act referred to, to exercise its sovereign powers to amend the Act either explicitly or implicitly.

May I at this stage point out the inevitable effect of granting authority to this Parliament to do any such thing. There would be no justification. Alienation is a totally different thing from disestablishment. How is the Government going to extend it to disestablishing all these native territories?

Order order. The hon. member is now questioning the ruling of the Chair. If the hon. member had given me notice I would have dealt with the question more fully, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that there is nothing to prevent the House from dealing with the Bill before it.

I move— ft

The South-West African Administration desires to disestablish the Aukeigas Reserve, which is situated in the district of Windhoek, and has set aside suitable land for the natives who are living at present in the Aukeigas Reserve in another area about which I will give details later, situated in the Omaruru district. As the hon. member who has just sat down stated, Section 4 (3) of the Treaty of Peace and the South-West Africa Mandate Act, No. 49 of 1919, lays down that any land in South-West Africa set apart as a reserve for natives or coloureds, cannot be alienated except by the authority of Parliament. As he has pointed out, there has been no alienation of the land concerned in the ordinary meaning of the word, that is, alienation to transfer ownership from one person to another, or from one body to another, or from a number of persons to a body; but the Administration of South-West Africa merely wish to disestablish this native reserve, which land Will then revert to its former status of Crown land, for the reasons which I will explain later. Now, while there is no alienation as such the opinion of the law advisers is that the term “alienation” for the purpose of this Act should be construed to include disestablishment, and therefore the ruling is quite clear, that the greater includes the lesser. That is, it should include the disestablishment of any native reserve in the South-West Africa territory. In other words, the approval of Parliament should be obtained for the deproclamation of the Aukeigas Reserve, otherwise the intention of the legislation would be circumvented by removing the natives from the reserve and thereafter, when it is no longer a native reserve, alienating it. It is therefore for the protection of the natives that the proposal was made for the disestablishment of the reserve to come under the surveillance and be subject to the authority of Parliament. A similar alienation of a native reserve in the territory of South-West Africa came before this House in 1935. I refer to items 3 and 4 of the last schedule of the Native Land Further Realisation and Acquisition Act, No. 27 of 1935. Your predecessor, Sir, gave it as his opinion that the approval of Parliament should be obtained under the 1919 Act by means of a definite Act brought before this House and passed by Parliament. Now, the native reserve concerned is situate in the territory of South-West Africa and it does not fall under my Department, but I was asked by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to handle this Bill as a matter of convenience, because actually it should have been dealt with by the Department of External Affairs, so that we could assist the South-West Africa Administration. As I said, my Department has no officials there and has no knowledge of the area. There is no one we can ask for an independent opinion and as I had no one to advise me on the position of the reserve and the interests of the natives concerned, I decided to send this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. As you will remember the order was discharged and the matter referred to the Select Committee before the second reading, to be investigated, and that Select Committee would have the power to draft another Bill; and had the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) raised objection there another Bill could have been drawn up. Now, the reserve, which is 13,837 hectares in size is situated about nine miles from Windhoek, and it is regarded by the Administration to be entirely unsuitable as a native reserve for a number of reasons, some of which I shall give. It is too small, too overcrowded, too overstocked, and the population will indicate this, because there are 128 adult males, 298 adult females and 160 children; and 240 of the residents own 1,803 large and 4,671 small stock. The stock-carrying capacity of the reserve is 950 large and 3,500 small stock. From these figures it will be seen that it is heavily overstocked. It is rough, stony and scantily provided with pasturable vegetation; it is tramped out, and unless given a chance to recover, it is likely that the grass may become completely eradicated. It is moreover unsuitable for agriculture and the supply of “veldkos” upon which the Damaras are largely dependent is depleted. The water supplies are insufficient and can be augmented only by costly dam construction, which as farmers know, is expensive. Now, the residents travel freely and with permission between the reserve and the Windhoek location and although they are registered as residents of the reserve many of them virtually live in the Windhoek location, while their stock are constantly trespassing on the properties of the farmers living alongside the reserve. The reserve is too near Windhoek and I am informed that it is being illegally used as a cattle post by natives living really in Windhoek who should not run cattle there at all. Moreover it is a nest of illicit liquor brewing and a direct source of obstruction to the Town Council of Windhoek in its campaign against illicit liquor. When the reserve is closed I am informed by the Administration, and it appears in the Select Committee’s report here, that it is proposed to use the land for afforestation and allowing it to lie fallow so that the vegetation can regenerate. The water needs at Windhoek are increasing and the Aukeigas Reserve, having a large catchment area, being favourably situated, will in future become a great asset in this respect; but it is interesting to note that in the Select Committee’s report they make it quite clear that it is at a lower level than Windhoek so that water caught there cannot be run to Windhoek but will have to be pumped. To compensate these natives, 60,000 hectares of land has been set aside; four times the area of the old reserve. A new reserve is to be created there and this will give the natives scope for expansion there. I might say that I am informed that there are no natives at present living on the land which is being set aside for the new reserve. The new reserve adjoins the western portion of the Okombahe Native Reserve and the south-westerly portion of the Otjohorongo Native Reserve in the district of Omaruru and is approximately 180 miles from Windhoek and is in every way more suitable as a native reserve than Aukeigas.

Is there any water?

If the hon. member will wait I will come to that point. That point was raised at the Select Committee and the Administration undertook to supply water. I see the hon. member smiling. He did not think I had read the report.

I know how valueless this report is.

They undertook not to remove any of the natives until water has been supplied. In passing I may say that the proposed new reserve lies astride the Omaruru River which provides water all the year round but there is no water for the areas away from the river and the Administration has undertaken that they will not move the natives until water has been supplied by boreholes or dams, so that all the veld can be used; but at present there is always water in this river. The value is £4,000, while the estimated value of the Aukeigas Reserve is £2,000. What affected me most—and the hon. member raised an important point when he said that the question of mandates came up for discussion at San Francisco and elsewhere—was the rights of these people, and not having anyone to advise me I was particularly anxious to make certain that the natives are being fairly treated and were consulted, and for that purpose I withdrew the original Bill before it went to the Select Committee and made it quite clear that I would not be satisfied until the representatives of the natives had been brought down here to give evidence before the Select Committee to show that they had been consulted and had seen the new area and were satisfied with it. They have been consulted and they are satisfied. They were consulted at a meeting held by the Assistant Native Commissioner at Windhoek and the headman and several members of the Reserve Board inspected the proposed reserve and have expressed their satisfaction with the exchange as is indicated in evidence before the Select Committee. At a subsequent meeting of the natives in the reserve they expressed themselves by resolution to be satisfied with the area provided sufficient supplies of water were made available. The actual people who gave the evidence were the Secretary for South-West Africa, who is also the Chief Native Commissioner, the Assistant Native Commissioner for Windhoek, and three natives from the reserve, the headman, a member of the Reserve Board and a representative of the people, and they confirmed that the people were satisfied with the new area which they described as having better grazing than they had before. As I indicated just now, the Administration had stated that they would not remove these people until water has been supplied, and they also assure me that when they do so they propose to value the improvements and to pay out to the natives of the Aukeigas Reserve the value of the dams and the value of such improvements as they made, and to put these funds into a new trust fund to be established for a new reserve. They will also value the wattle and daub huts that the natives have and will compensate them for them individually. Free transport will be supplied for the old, the children, the women and the sick, and the men will be expected to drive their cattle to the new reserve, and I am informed that the Administration has arranged with the farmers en route that they can water and graze their animals whilst trekking. These are all important points. There is only one other point, namely that the new reserve adjoins an existing native reserve for people of the same tribe as the natives at Aukeigas. These people will welcome their kinsmen who will come to live with them.

I am afraid that my impression that this was a gloomy business has not been in any way lightened by the serio-comic comments of the Minister. He speaks of this tribe being completely satisfied to go 180 miles through waterless country to a place in which water has been promised. With some knowledge of the difficulty of getting water where there is none, I think those are merely fine promises. There is nothing in this Select Committee report which shows that the area to which it is proposed to move these people will be fit for human habitation. My point about this matter, if I am still allowed to refer to it without being accused of reflecting upon anyone, is that alienation as used in the 1919 Act applies to with the whole transaction. The purpose of requiring that alienation shall be approved of by this House is this House must know the price of sale and the value of the consideration received by the natives. We are not doing this at all in this Bill and we are simply putting this land in pawn for some future occasion when the Government may sell it at its own, price and to suit its own purposes. There is nothing to restrain the Government from putting compulsion upon these natives to go to the new area which is terra incognita as far as this Parliament is concerned. We know it is 180 miles away and that it is at present completely waterless. The hon. Minister spoke about a permanent river but when the natives who visited the area were asked by the Select Committee whether they had any regrets to make, the first thing the headman said was: “Yes, water and the transport to the new area.” His anxiety is obviously in regard to water. I will refer to his actual words later, which are found at page 23. The headman, who is merely an elected headman, elected largely for the purpose of looking after the sanitation of the district is not the hereditary chief. There is no chief. The tribe numbers 596 persons altogether, but the people who attended the somewhat ragged meeting numbered 70, 70 people who authorised this headman to go and look at the land. He comes to Parliament and when questioned about it his anxiety is about water and transport. He says this land is probably better and that he is willing to move there. In regard to the cattle he says: “If the Government says so we must drive them”. When asked how the stock would get there he said he did not know. When asked whether he could drive them there he said yes, they must drive them if the Government says so. He said that if the Government helps them it can be done and they will be satisfied. In regard to cattle sickness he says that when cattle are dead they are dead and when they are alive they are live. The reason assigned by the Government for the transfer is that the land upon which they reside at present has been described as overcrowded with cattle. The test which the Minister has applied, if applied to overcrowding in other areas, would render every other native area liable to be disestablished. Nearly every area practically in the Union is overcrowded with stock but if they were all allowed to be condemned on that account it would be a sad state of affairs. That is really not sufficient reason for what is now called disestablishment. No case has been established for the action the Government has proposed here. The spokesman of the Government says there has been no approach by the natives themselves. I asked Dr, Botha—

The opinion of those who know the country has been expressed by the spokesmen of several departments to the effect that the land at present occupied and at present held by these natives is suitable for a water or forest reserve. The total distance from the territory where they are at present is from 160 to 180 miles. They state in their evidence that there is no representative of the Government there. By a process which has been in existence in South-West Africa they have gradually become dismembered as a portion of their tribe, and they have at present a very enviable position in regard to their land, as it is regarded as suitable for a forest reserve or a water reserve. That contrasts remarkably with the area we propose to send them to When this matter was before the Select Committee the most we could be told by the legal authorities was that alienation was the term used, but that, as Parliament had been satisfied on a previous occasion to disestablish the area, Parliament had given the interpretation of disestablish to the word alienate. We shall now be held to have taken final action in regard to this land. If we do disestablish we should not forget that the process of alienation made in this case or to be made in other future cases will be a very unsatisfactory one to the natives.

Those of us who sit on these benches had a representative on the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill, but unfortunately he is not able to be here. I have read the evidence before the Select Committee, and in the light of the evidence given by the headman of the tribe and those who accompanied him, that the people themselves are satisfied to be moved, we on these benches are not opposing this Bill. I want, however, to take this opportunity of making one or two remarks as I wish to support fully what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has said in relation to moving native tribes. As a general proposition the fact that land is overstocked, denuded and overgrazed is not in itself a reason for moving any native community. My experience, borne out last Session when this House was asked to authorise the removal of people from Makoba’s location, has been that the native people usually have the strongest objection to being moved from the places where their ancestors have lived. This case, however, would appear to be an exception to the rule, from the evidence led before the Select Committee, and, without knowledge of the local circumstances, that evidence must be accepted. I do, however, find some difficulty in understanding what the reasons really are for approaching this tribe and suggesting their removal 180 miles away. Dr. Botha gave his reasons as follows—

Those are the reasons which the head of the Administration gave for this removal, that the land was inadequate for their needs and that it was overstocked. I know of no native reserve in the whole of the Union of South Africa where the land is adequate for the needs of the people. I am not questioning in the least the evidence that was given that the people concerned were consulted and that they have agreed to remove to ’ some other place. I am therefore not so much concerned on the evidence to refer to the advisability of authorising this particular transfer, but I do want to utilise this opportunity of expressing what I feel should be a general principle of administration, that unless it is absolutely necessary a native peasant community should not be moved from one place to another. There has been too much of that kind of thing in the past. If the Minister has the information I would like to ask him whether he could not enlarge to some extent on the reasons given by Dr. Botha before the Select Committee as to why the South-West Africa Administration approached this community to move. The matter of it being overstocked applies to all native reserves, and the reason given in regard to European farmers complaining about their cattle must always occur on the perimenter of a native area. I should like to know from the Minister why this particular community was approached, and why the matter is being dealt with at the end of the Session as a matter of urgency.

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to move the stock belonging to these natives at Government expense. It is a long distance they have to move their stock, 180 miles, and I think it is neither fair nor just to ask them to move their stock at their own expense. We are very fortunatte in having a Minister of Native Affairs like the present one. Morë attention has been paid to the Native Affairs Department under his regime than there has been during the last twelve years. Realising how sympathetic he is to the natives and how he is always prepared to give them a square deal, I do make this appeal to him that he should at least pay for the removal of these people’s stock. They are being moved not in their own interests; I refuse to believe that they are moving to improve themselves. The Government of South-West Africa wants to remove them away from what is becoming a European area. I think we must accept that as one of the real reasons for them being moved. The Government will not pay in full for the improvements on their land; that is bad enough. To move a community in this way savours of Hitlerian methods. I should like the Minister to investigate the matter further and to ensure that when these natives do move they will be happy and contented. In a matter of this kind a little extra expense should not weigh with the Minister. This is a question of their livelihood, and they may sacrifice a large proportion of their stock and assets rather than move them. I think in dealing with the natives we should endeavour to secure their goodwill, and we can obtain their goodwill by being a little generous. I think we can safely leave it to the Minister to treat them in such a way that when they move it will be with pleasure, and that they will not be driven out like a lot of cattle. It is in the Minister’s power to make the removal as happy and comfortable as possible. Any employer of labour, when he is transferring a member of his staff from one centre to another, bears the whole cost of removal. In the same way let us do the right thing with the natives, so that they will have no grudge against the Union Government in the future.

I only wish to endorse what was said by my colleague. We have no intention of opposing this Bill in view of the evidence led before the committee. I wish, however, to express some anxiety that I feel in regard to this matter, and which I shall voice now so that we may not later on be accused of not having said what we thought when we had the opportunity. We often feel there are reasons for the movement of native tribes which are only revealed long afterwards. In this case, we can only echo the hope expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) that the whole transference will be made as easy as possible. I do feel on the evidence before the Select Committee there was something to be said for postponing the passage of this Bill for another year. This would have allowed the Department to do what it was not able to do on this occasion, to investigate the situation itself. I admit that if the Bill was to be introduced this year, the Native Affairs Department did everything it could to get all the evidence that was available. But we would have been much happier if the Bill had been passed on an investigation by the officials of the Native Affairs Department.

It has no legal right.

Then I do not know on what legal right we are taking the responsibility of passing this Bill. That is my second anxiety in regard to this Bill. It was quite clear that the committee felt they were taking on certain obligations in supporting this Bill and that they were anxious as to how we would fulfil an obligation in this regard. I feel that the Government and the House are in a curious position in regard to these obligations, and I do not see how we can carry them out. I trust that the Native Affairs Department will feel they have a locus standi in this matter, that they will keep an eye on all the proceedings in regard to it, and particularly I would like to suggest that when they are watching the situation they should keep in mind particularly the answers given by Dr. Botha in connection with a statement made by one of the natives to the effect that they were anxious to keep away from European settlements—

Mr. Morris asked: Is the Administration going to do that?—Dr. Botha replied: It is not the intention to settle white meh there, but what is going to happen in the future as far as settling returned soldiers is concerned we do not know. There are no white farms on the border at present.

I feel that that is a statement which will have to be carefully considered and borne in mind by the Native Affairs Department when it is watching the development of the situation. It is quite clear from the passage read by my colleague that the factor of encroachment by European settlers sets up a moral obligation on the part of our Native Affairs Department, and I trust that our responsibility in that respect will be shouldered.

As the chairman of the Select Committee I think I should say a few words. There seems to be a suggestion by some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that there is something underhand behind the removal of the natives. I should like to read the evidence of Mr. Eaton, the Assistant District Commissioner. He was questioned on the reasons for the removal of these natives and the action taken to bring this about. In his reply he said—

In 1939 the natives realised they were being overcrowded and asked for something to be done, and the Native Administration took the matter up. The hon. member suggests we should have made closer enquiry. We have the Administration in South-West Africa which deals with Native Affairs, and unless we can definitely say they have ill-treated the natives or done something wrong it would be invidious for us to investigate the position ourselves. We have the necessary guarantees, and we have the evidence of the natives themselves—

One goes so far as to say that if they do not make the change they will have no children. I think we must accept the bona fides of the Administration of South-West Africa. They have given every undertaking it is possible for them to give, and I fail to see why a small measure of this sort should have excited such a volume of discussion in this House. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has referred to a certain location that was moved last year (Makoba’s location). That was a black spot in a white area that was removed in conformity with the legislation of the country. This is a case of a reserve in South-West Africa. The natives are being taken back to the old tribe to which they belong. The hon. member for Pinetown who raised the matter was a member of that Select Committee. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) was a member of that committee too, so it is surprising that hon. members should have questioned the bona fides of South-West Africa as to whether they will carry out their undertaking. I maintain we must accept it that they will.

There are a few matters I would like to mention and they are things which cause one to reflect a little. In the first place I want to ask why the natives should be given four times as much land as they had. The area to which they are now going—I know both territories well—is just as good as the Aukeigas Reserve. The lovely Omaruru River runs through the new reserve and it is one of the best sources of water in South-West Africa which always has water. Why must they get four times as much land as they had?

They must expand.

There are large territories at their disposal. I would very much like to have had the Minister give a little information about the reserves which are available for natives in South-West in comparison with our land which there is. Just as in the Union, these small tribes possess the best reserves in the country, and this handfull of 128 male natives have 260 women and are now going to be placed on more than 60,000 hectares of land. I have read the report of the Select Committee and it almost seems to me that the natives are more intelligent than some hon. members here. They realise the advantages of the move. They cast an eye to the future and when asked why they wanted to move, the reply was “if we look, to the future welfare of our children, it is the best”. Naturally. The The Aukeigas territory is only 13,000 hectares large, and apart from the future of their children, they cannot make a living there any more. Those who live there can no longer make a living there. They have tramped out the ground to such an extent that it is almost as barren as the floor of this House. There is no living for them, and they do not make use of the Windhoek commonages and the farms of neighbouring farmers, they cannot continue to keep their cattle there. On that account they want to move. Therefore there is actually one salvation for them and that is to go to the Okombahe area where their people are. Therefore I cannot understand that there should be any opposition to the shifting. Anyone who has the interests of the natives at heart must welcome this legislation. It surprises me that there is opposition to this legislation. If anyone wants to look after the interests of the natives he must support this legislation, but our question is, why was four times as much ground given to the people than they had at Aukeigas. The value of the new land, fixed very low, they value at £4,000. The value of the Aukeigas which they are vacating they fix at £2,000. The Minister has not yet explained why they are giving the natives land which is at least three or four times the value of the land which they are vacating. But I say that if I had to be a native representative, if I had to stand up in this House and plead the interests of the natives, then I can only say that I welcome this little Bill and I shall give it all the support I possibly can. The Government must make a plan with Aukeigas. It is sloping ground; it is trodden flat and eaten away and the trees have been chopped down by the people, and the land can now just wash away. The ground is as barren as the floor of this House. It can now fall prey to the ravages of erosion. As I have said, it is very sloping ground. It is very gravelly ground. There is great deal of mica in it and it is ground which easily washes away. The natives have no firewood there. There is no other means to make fire except to chop down the trees in the territory, and the territory is now so barren that there are practically no trees left and I consider that the Administration’s motive in wanting to presërve the ground both for the natives and the Europeans is sound. It is just 13,000 hectares in a large country, and if they do not step in and preserve this ground it will be the cause of the surrounding ground losing value, because the people have no firewood and go to the surrounding ground to chop firewood. I would very much like to know from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. The Minister spoke about a forest reserve. Are they going to plant trees there or are they going to leave trees to grow there naturally?

If they make it a forest reserve, how are they going to keep the natives out of this piece of ground? What means are they going to apply to keep the natives out? It is only 11 miles from Windhoek. It is seven miles square. How are they going to keep the natives out? It is going to be a difficult thing. I would very much like the Minister to tell us what the purpose actually is. How are they going to administer the ground? How are they going to protect the ground? What are they going to do to make it into a forest reserve? Are they actually going to plant trees there, are they actually going to spend money on planting trees, or are they merely going to leave it to nature to try and restore the damage the people have caused? With regard to the water, there is good water at Aukeigas, natural water, but nothing better than they can get at the Omaruru River. The Omaruru River has shallow and good water. It is certainly one of the best rivers in the country and on that river is one of the nicest villages in the country, namely, the village of Omaruru. That valuable stream of water will give them all the water they need for their cattle. I want to say this to the credit of the South-West Administration, that the manner in which they treat the natives in that territory gives this House every reason and cause to trust the South-West Administration to do their best for these people. Let me say this to the credit of our Administration, that I do not believe that natives are treated better anywhere in the world that the natives in South-West, and it does the Administration of that mandated territory credit, and whereas this mandated territory today is in the limelight in world discussions, I should not like to hear a word uttered in this House which at all detracts from the great work done for the natives of South-West Africa by all the Union Governments in the past, and especially by the Administration of South-West Africa, and you would have to go a long way to find a native community which lives as happily and healthily as the native community of South-West Africa, especially in the native territories. I oppose the South-West Africa Administration in many respects, but in this respect I can do nothing else but heartily support the proposal they make. It is in the interests of the country and in the interests of the natives who live there.

Are you going to organise for the native representatives there?

I shall not even answer that hon. member. There is another subject which I should like to broach and that is the question of the transport of the natives. If the Administration provides free transport for the weak and old and crippled, then I think they are doing as much as is necessary in connection with the matter. The goats and cattle which the natives have are best off when they travel with them by slow stages to their new territory. Luckily their new territory has much better pasturge than the territory they are on today, and the area in which they are. Therefore the further they trek every day, the better the grazing and the sources of water they will encounter, and as long as the Administration takes care that the farmers supply them with water and sufficent grazing on the way, they can do not better than to trek along the road with the cattle. If they were to transport the cattle by train all sorts of difficulties would arise. Between Aukeigas and Windhoek there is absolutely no grazing at all. They would have to transport them from Windhoek in broad gauge trucks as far as Usakos, and from Usakos the cattle would have to be transported in narrow gauge trucks as far as Omaruru. If the South-West Administration could arrange for water and for reasonable grazing for the animals along the road—there are only about 2,000 cattle and 5,000 goats—then it is the best means by which they can be transported. Each of the people has a small waggon or a little cart and a couple of donkeys and a few odd things with which he moves and he loads all his possession on to that little cart and treks with bis cattle. You will find that the natives from those parts know that country well. They know where the sources of water are. They know where the good grazing is. But one thing which worries me in connection with the moving is this. The natives now want to know if Europeans are going to be allowed in the new area. How is it that they ask such a question? If they are getting a territory which is more than four times as large as the one they are now vacating, how is it that they ask the question whether Europeans are going to be allowed there? Do they want to place a ban on Europeans? They ask here whether the Europeans will take their animals. We must not read into this meaning that they want to know whether the Europeans will steal their animals, but whether the Europeans will take their animals if they graze on the farms of the Europeans. There after all the white man must look after his own grazing. The kaffir does not lock after his animals. The European fences in his farm and looks after his animals. Where these natives are now going to a territory which is more than four times as large as the one which they are vacating, it worries me that they should ask if Europeans are going to be allowed there. What do they mean by that? Do they not want to have Europeans there? Because there are still Europeans living in the area to which they are going—not among them but in the vicinity—and what must you do now with the territory which is still Crown land? Must you not allot it to Europeans? I would, very much like the Minister also to elucidate this matter and tell us what the Government’s policy is. The land to which they are going is one of the best karakul areas you can get in the country. It is a karakul area to which they are going and if the returned soldiers must be placed on farms in South-West then we shall have to say: No, the natives raise objection to having Europeans in this area, we cannot give you settlements there. I would very much like to have some clarity on that matter. Further there is just one thing to do for anyone who has the welfare of the natives in view, and that is to support this Act, and to express his gratitude that the South-West Administration was so good as to give the natives a piece of land, which is more than four times as large as that which they had and I make bold to say ground just as good, if not better, than they had. But it is not reasonable to expect that we must vote for this Bill without getting proper information as to what is going to be done with Aukeigas, how they are going to protect the ground in future, how they are going to protect the sources of water, how they are going to improve the ground through afforestation or otherwise and what the policy of the Administration is or what the reactions of the Administration are in connection with the objections of the natives to Europeans being allowed in the vicinity. Nobody is anxious that Europeans should be allowed among them. The ground which they get will be theirs, no Europeans will be allowed among them, but we want to know why they want to keep Europeans away from the vicinity which has been ceded to them in connection with this transaction.

I shall be very brief, but after the speeches to which I have listened in this House I shall be neglecting my duty if I do not bring a few points to the notice of the House. The Minister appointed a Select Committee to go into this Bill. There this matter was treated absolutely on its merits, and the Bill was unanimously approved, even by the Native Representative who served on the committee. With a view to that I must now bring to the attention of the House the manner in which native affairs are discussed in this House by the Native Representatives. The natives outside are incited by members on those benches. I feel that this House must express its dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Native Representatives are constantly busy causing mischief among the people. I would just like to read out a few questions which were put at the Select Committee and a few answers to show the House how these people speak differently in the House from the way they speak in the committee. I shall mention whenever I come to questions which were put by a Native Representative. But to show the House that this move is going to mean a big improvement for the natives,

I just want to read a few questions and answers. The one question is—

The answer of the headman is this—

The following question is this—

The headman’s answer to this was—

The next question and answer is—

Further Mr. Van der Merwe put this question—

The answer was: “Yes.” Then we come to the question which Mr. Hemming put, and it is put to the headman of the natives who live there—

His answer to that was: “Yes.” He asks further—

The answer to that is—

Notwithstanding that reply a Native Representative who is supposed to represent those people comes to this House and raises objection and wants to intimate that a great injustice will be done to those people. Then I put this question—

The headman’s answer was—

The grazing there is better than it is where you are now?—What I saw is better. In the present area it is stony, whereas in the new area there is grass.

Now it is professed to the House that an injustice is being done to the natives. I have risen to bring to the attention of the House the unjust manner in which the Native Representatives are inciting the natives in the country. The natives sometimes have no grievances of any kind, but then the Native Representatives go there and rouse the people and then the natives appeal with imaginary grievances.

There is not a word of truth in what you say.

I think the time has arrived for the House to express its dissatisfaction in connection with the attitude of the Native Representatives.

I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is very unfair towards the Native Representatives. The Native Representatives made nd objection to this Bill. The objection was made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). The representative of the Native Representatives on the Select Committee agreed.

†I now come to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). He raised this point and I am very sorry he did, because let me say that although this matter does not fall under my department, I have taken the greatest trouble to see that this matter is settled to the entire satisfaction of the natives in view of the Question of a mandate which is bound to come up for discussion. Realising the importance which the terrtiory must play in the future, I refused to go on with the Bill until it had gone to a Select Committee. The Union had no interest in this matter—it is not under my department—but I look to the interest of all natives, and I was very careful that this matter should be entirely satisfactory and fair to the natives in qeustion. I insisted that the native headmen themselves should come down. I discussed the matter with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister, and I felt that we should be over-generous in our treatment Of the natives because of the misunderstanding that might occur in the future. Unfortunately this point has now been raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. The world will now say: “Here is a gentleman who sat on a Select Committee and he is not satisfied that the natives were treated fairly.” The hon. member referred to my speech as a serio-comedy. That is a sort of remark which is unwarranted and unfair. If the hon. member had all these grievances against this Bill, it was his duty as a member of the Select Committee to submit a minority report. He has not done so. He should have made it clear that this measure is not fair to the natives. The hon. member has not submitted a minority report and there is no indication for the House that he was not satisfied. I have been extremely anxious to convince the world that we are going to treat the natives completely fairly, and I have done my best to watch their interests in every direction. I do not want to go into the matter any further. The hon. member raised three points. He said there was no indication that the land to which they were going was habitable. He had the Secretary for Native Affairs before him on the Select Committee; he had the Chief Native Commissioner for South-West Africa and the Assistant Native Commissioner before him and the natives themselves, and he could have asked them what their opinion was. The natives are living close to an existing location. The very next location is a native location. It is no question of this land not being habitable. It is within a stride of the Omaruru river. Then the hon. member raised the point that the natives themselves showed no initiative to move in the matter. But surely as an ex-native administrator and as a man who has a great knowledge of native affairs, he knows that no native will ever take the initiative of moving from a place, even if it is tramped out and destroyed. He will remain on the land unless someone else takes the initiative and moves him. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) says that on principle the native should not be moved without very good reason, and I agree with him. They should not be moved lightheartedly. They should only be moved when it is in their own interest, when they have to be rehabilitated, or to enable them to make a decent living. I agree with the hon. member that to move them lightheartedly is an entirely wrong principle. He asked me to give the reason why the Administration wanted this location removed. I know no more than I told the House in my speech. All the evidence was there in the Select Committee report. It is obvious that the place is heavily overstocked. I thank the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) very much for his kind remark. I appreciate his appreciation; it was very kind of him. He says we should keep the goodwill of the natives. I entirely agree with him, and that is why I insisted on the natives coming down here to present their cases in person.

Will the Government move their stock for them?

The Administration has undertaken to move all the old people, the sick and the children. They have undertaken to arrange for the European farmers to allow the stock of the natives to graze there on the trek. The Administration is going to compensate the natives for all the improvements. The natives are going to be compensated for their huts, and I think that is entirely fair. I am sorry the hon. member said that the removal of the people from Aukeigas is a Hitler-method. I would like to ask the hon. member whether Hitler appointed the Select Committee before he moved people out of Poland, or whether he even consulted them. I deprecate that remark because it gets into the newspapers and it is referred to San Francisco. It will be quoted that one of our own members said that we were employing Hitler-methods. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) asked why I introduced this Bill.

No, I said I thought it would be better if there had been another year.

She suggests then that it would have been better if this Bill had been dealt with next year. There is no reason to postpone this Bill as the South-West African Administration has undertaken to provide for the removal and for water during the removal. The question of encroachment by Europeans in the future has been raised. But the position is that if and when a new reserve is proclaimed as a native reserve, it cannot be touched by or alienated to Europeans. Where a reserve has been created, it comes under the Mandate Act, and the Peace Treaty Act, and the matter has to come before Parliament before the reserve can be touched or alienated in any way. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) put the whole question in a nutshell when he read from the evidence which I need not repeat now.

†*The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) asked me why the Administration has now given the natives four times as much ground as they had before. It is not our concern. It is a matter for the South-West Administration. It is their business if they want to give it, and I think they started out from the standpoint that they wanted to put the natives in a decent place because Aukeigas is too small for the natives who live there now and because it is trodden out, and for those reasons the Administration is prepared to give the natives four times as much ground as they occupy now at a value of twice as much as the value of the Aukeigas. It is their concern. There is no provision for expansion in that area in Aukeigas where they now are, or for them to improve their position. We did the same thing when we moved Makoba’s location. There we gave two and a half times as much ground which was worth three times as much as the ground they were on. The hon. member asks what is going to happen to the Aukeigas location. It is all in the report. The Administration says that they are simply going to leave the ground until it is restored, and then they are going to use it chiefly for water supplies for the village. This is the evidence which the Administration’s representatives gave, but I say again that it is their business. With regard to the returned soldiers, I think we can leave that in the hands of the Administration. They are going to treat their returned soldiers very fairly. The ground will be put aside for a reserve and after that it is for the Administration to decide what they want to do with it. I think I have answered most of the questions now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee;

On Clause 1,

I hope it will be a considerable time before this transfer takes place. I hope it may be a year. I want to ask whether the Minister will not agree to recommend to the Administration that they should bear the cost of transfer and to accept an amendment when we come to Clause 2.

Order, order! Clause 2 is not before the Committee.

I just want that assurance from the Minister.

I will convey those views to the Administration. They have said that they will consider compensating losses of stock on the road but whether one can expect to pay people to drive their own animals I do not know.

On Clause 2,

I move—

That will give the Administration enough time to make the necessary preparations for these people, with water laid on, and everything possible ready for them.

And gas?

The hon. member can give us all the gas required.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Frankly I am a little shamefaced and must apologise for introducing this Bill as an amending Bill to my Consolidating Bill which has just gone through, but the Consolidating Bill was held up for such a long time that it was only promulgated on the day when notice was given about this Bill. I want to be as quick as possible about this. The position is that the need only became apparent after the Consolidation Bill had been introduced. Therefore I could not proceed with this amending Bill until the Consolidating Bill had been promulgated. During the last Session the Native Laws Amendment Bill became law, and this Bill introduced for the first time the question of the Kaffir Beer Sub-Account and the Native Revenue Account of the municipalities, and laid down the manner in which the profits from the sale of beer by municipal beer-halls should be spent. These provisions were the outcome of the report by the Native Affairs Commission after a Union-wide investigation extending over months and which I laid on the Table of the House the year before. The Commission found that in many centres the revenue from the sale of this beer was included in the ordinary revenue accruing from the native revenue account and was used by certain public bodies to finance many ordinary services which should have been rendered from other revenue than extraordinary forms of revenue. That was the whole point raised by the Native Affairs Commission in that report. It was considered that beer profits should be used to provide services which the municipalities could not under the Act be compelled to provide but which nevertheless do much to improve and brighten the lives of the native location residents. There was much difficulty in arriving at a suitable formula. Hon. members will remember the debate here when various amendments were moved and there was some difficulty in arriving at a correct formula to achieve the object the commission had in mind when they took up the report. I consulted the natives and their representatives and also the municipalities. This Bill was before the Native Representative Council. It had a good deal of publicity. The wording contained in the present Section 19 (3) of the Consolidating Act was then decided upon. This section says quite clearly and categorically that the kaffir beer account shall be charged only with two types of expenditure, firstly expenditure connected with the manufacture, sale and supply of kaffir beer generally, and secondly, expenditure on the service for improved social or recreational amenities for the native residents of urban areas, or services for the social welfare of residents living in these locations. Within a very short time of this Act of 1944 coming into operation representations were made regarding the second provision, recreational and social amenities, on which money could be spent. Some municipalities had raised large loans and had already effected great improvements, so that the service and amenities were far in advance of the ordinary standards found in the majority of urban locations. And it was found that the interest and redemption charges on these loans could not be met from beer profits, nor could the maintenance and upkeep of the services installed be paid with the money so raised. They therefore had difficulty, because while they were still allowed to use the profits from the beer hall they had made large loans and started works in the interest of the communities and the improvement of the locations, and now that source of revenue was cut off. Those Works in many cases definitely would not have been undertaken had the municipalities been aware that the use of beer profits for these purposes would be withdrawn. The Department is now faced with what almost amounts to a charge of a breach of faith by the municipalities, for allowing the works to be undertaken and then altering the source of revenue from which the expenditure would be met. I should have thought that the municipalities could have raised the issue with me before, because these improvements made in the locations were made with the definite approval of my Department, but they now say that we allowed them to incur this expenditure and now cut off their revenue. I consulted the law advisers to find whether there is any way out as the law now stands. Their advice was that the municipalities had apparently made out a good case for the amendment of the law and there was no legal possibility of getting over the law as it stands today in Section 19 (3). I am bound by the ordinary interpretation of the terms “social or recreational amenities and social welfare”. I cannot authorise expenditure from profits on matters falling outside those terms. I discussed the matter carefully with the Native Affairs Commission, with my Department and with other interested parties, and camé to the conclusion that the present amendment is not only necessary but essential, not only in the case of the local bodies concerned but—and these things may still improve—in the interests of the natives themselves. Certain municipalities stated quite frankly that they could not afford to carry on the standard of improvement they had carried on in the locations if this form of revenue was taken away. In other words, the first people to suffer would be the natives themselves, not because the municipalities did not want to do it but simply because they did not have the money. The rates in one municipality I know of have already reached the limit to which they can be put up without further permission from the Provincial Administration. Therefore they cannot meet the cost of continuing this improvement in conditions in the location. This Bill is intended to apply for a period Of two years only. It is really only a Pegging Act and at the end of that period it will be possible for us to have a clear idea of the whole question and to see exactly what the position is regarding these beer profits. That is the third amendment, and the consequences are duly explained in the explanatory memorandum which hon. members have had on their desks since last February, so I need not go into that, but it will enable me to authorise expenditure from beer profits for these purposes, for improving the conditions in native locations, maintaining hospitals, etc. things for which provision was not made in my Bill last year. It is only fair and just that this provision should be made.

We are not opposing the passing of this Bill although I may say that we accepted this position with reluctance. The reason why we are prepared to adopt the Bill at all is that it is limited in its application. As the Minister has explained it makes it possible for the Department of Native Affairs to authorise expenditure of money to which the municipalities were committed before the 1944 Act was passed. That limits the application of the Bill to certain services undertaken by certain municipalities before that date and it is to apply for two years only. It is those limitations alone which makes it possible for us to accept the Bill, although we are not satisfied with the case made out for the right of the municipalities concerned to finance any services out of the beer account. I know that a case has been made which placed the Native Affairs Department in a position which they can only meet by legislation. A particular case, that of the Springs Municipality, was made out and strongly supported by the municipality itself; but it has strong opposition from certain sections of the people of Springs. While the municipality of Springs claims that it must draw upon its beer profits to finance certain services in the location, there is a strong section of opinion in Springs which maintains that it is not necessary for Springs to meet its obligations to its population from that source of revenue. This memorandum I have here was drawn up and circulated by the Joint Council of Europeans and Africans. It states: “The beer hall is a comparatively new institution. Before it was established, the deficit on the Native Revenue Account was met by means of a loan from the General Revenue of the town. And this was done without any financial embarrassment to the town. While the expenditure in the Native Revenue Account has increased during the last six years, so has the native revenue as well as the turnover of the entire town. If the town could meet financial obligations before 1938, there is no apparent reason why Springs, a town in the very centre of the richest goldfield, in the world, cannot do so today.” This section of the Springs community has opposed strongly the proposition put forward by the municipal authorities that the expenditure of funds from the beerhall account should be authorised for services which it is the duty of the municipality to render. Now, Springs is not the only municipality which claims that its standard of social services for its native population can only be raised to the level which we regard as suitable for civilised societies by using these profits. One or two others have made the same claim. They are all Transvaal municipalities, a circumstance which is of special significance to which I shall return later. But first of all I want to turn to a consideration of the general principles underlying this legislation which makes it possible for us to accept it only as a temporary measure. We would not agree in any case to a general measure allowing the municipalities to use the beerhall profits to meet the last of what we regard as essential services, the basic conditions of decent living in urban areas; and I want to make it clear that we shall be no more prepared at the end of two years to accept that proposition than we are now. It is only fair and right to make that clear at this stage. The Minister has agreed to give temporary authority under this Bill. He will return to the House in two years time to deal with the situation again, but I want to warn him now that we shall be no more prepared to accept the general principle of the financing of essential services in native locations from these funds then than We are now. In this we are supported by all responsible thought in the country. There is a general feeling amongst all groups interested in native welfare and in responsible local government, the development of whether they are particularly interested in native welfare or not, that the principle of financing essential services for the native population in urban areas out of the proceeds of the beerhall is dangerous and unsound. It is bound to lead to the extension of a practice which none of us can contemplate. We have had to deal with the question of the manufacture and sale of kaffir beer in special circumstances, in the circumstances of a transition stage in the development of the native population; but none of us can contemplate the continuance of that trade on its present scale as part of the social life of the native community or as part of the machinery of local government. If this principle were accepted, that the profits of the beerhall might be used for this purpose, it is quite clear what would happen. The native community would be forced to accept the beerhall in every town, and pressure would be brought to bear to maintain the level of profits of beerhalls. We have in this memo from Springs a very clear indication of this. The memorandum states: “It is of interest to note that, while the Council now attaches so much importance to the beerhall, originally it was indifferent to its establishment and had actually to be induced by the Government to erect it.” It draws attention further to the fact that this year the profits from the beerhall are estimated at £40,000, while in 1938 they were about £3,000, and they are still steadily rising. I have seen in the area which I represent, strong pressure brought to bear on natives to agree to the establishing of beerhalls on the ground that if the beerhall is established the people will get decent roads, lights, sanitation etc. The people, I may say, have steadily refused to accept these services at the price of the demoralisation of their people, an attitude which I endorse. And our attitude in this regard has been backed by every social organisation in the country and by everybody interested in the development of responsible machinery of local government. It was also strongly backed by the Native Affairs Commission when it investigated the situation, as the Minister himself said. They turned their faces solidly against any acceptance of the general principle that profits from beerhalls should be used to pay for the essential needs of the native people. But here is another point which has to be considered in relation to the matter. As I said, the municipalities interested in the passing of this measure are all Transvaal or Reef municipalities. That is a circumstance which must be borne in mind by this House for it has its own significance. The Reef municipalities are exceptional. They are not typical of the country as a whole. They are urban areas in the midst of a large gold mining population. They draw their enormous resources and profits not from the stabilised populations of their own municipalities but from the enormous floating body of casual labour upon which the mines are based. They therefore obtain resources which are entirely out of proportion to the ordinary resources of ordinary stabilised communities. Thus to legislate on the bases of these conditions and to accept as a general principle that beerhall profits may be used for essential services would be to put the other municipalities at a very serious disadvantage. The financial position of those municipalities, in terms of their beerhall trading, is not typical of the rest of the country and to imply that it is, by giving them power to use beerhall profits in this way must disguise the whole necessity for considering the position of the other municipalities and the obligations imposed upon them in terms of our rising standard of living conditions. That is the problem which we shall have to meet all over the country, the problem of the financial implication of an increasingly accepted standard of civilised living. All municipalities in these days are faced with the problem of financing the rising standard which is being imposed upon them by a society which is increasingly conscious in this matter that conditions of living should be improved. We have seen some of the difficulties in that connection during this Session of Parliament when we have been legislating to providing for the housing emergency, to enable the Government to carry some of the obligations in regard to housing which the municipalities cannot meet or cannot meet from their ordinary resources. In other words, under the acceptance of our rising standards of social life we are being forced to review the whole relationship of local authorities to the Central Government, if these local authorities are to carry their obligations. In other words, more and more the country is being forced to realise that behind the now long-standing demand of the municipalities for a review of their financial relationships and financial powers lies an increasingly urgent problem of local government. In the circumstances, I feel it is most important that the needs of our native communities in urban areas, if and when that review takes place, should not be disguised by the extension of the principle of deriving the finances for native civic services from purely native sources and sources of such a kind. Of course, I know there is a factor which is going to complicate any objective consideration of the position; it is the scale of beerhall profits. It will be asked, if the municipalities are not to be allowed to spend these enormous profits on essential services, what is to be done with them? That is a very pressing question, and it is going to become more pressing now, I believe, that we have taken to control the kaffir corn trade, because I believe that control is going to lead to a very considerable increase in those profits. The increased control of the kaffir com trade will result in a very considerable increase in the profits of the beerhalls. So there are going to be considerable amounts of money in these beerhall accounts; and the municipalities are going to claim, with some apparent show of justice that they could not reasonably spend those funds on the sort of services they are tied down to under the present Urban Areas Act. I am not in a position to make any acceptable suggestion as to how that situation is to be met. We did make one suggestion which we were pretty certain would be unacceptable, that is that the beerhall profits should be placed in a central fund to be administered by the Native Affairs Department itself. Where the large profits are made, in places like Johannesburg, Springs and other Reef municipalities, a great deal of the money really comes out of the pockets of reserve natives and should in justice go back to the areas where the people came from if the money is to be spent on public services for the people themselves. But it is unlikely that any of the big municipalities would agree to the national pooling of their resources and the placing of them in the hands of the Native Affairs Department, which might distribute the funds outside the range, of the areas in which they are accumulated. If that could be done, of course, it would mean that the municipalities would begin to lose interest in the beerhalls, and that in itself I think would be a very good thing. We were fairly certain that proposition would not be accepted, and I personally have no other proposition to put forward. But I do feel that the two years we have in hand should make it possible for us to explore the whole of that particular position as well as to explore the legitimate bases of financing services for natives in urban areas, exploring them in such a way that the municipalities shall be enabled to find a way out of their present difficulties. In effect we are giving them two years to place their house in order, so that they shall not be dependent on the beerhall accounts; and we are giving the Government two years to decide how it can help those municipalities and how it will deal with the beerhall profits. It is in the hope that the Department will use these two years in that way, and that the municipalities, which have requested the permission—which is temporarily granted in this measure—shall be able to find a way out which will make them independent of beerhall profits, that we agree to this Bill; and I trust at the end of the two years we shall be in a position to say that beerhall profits shall never be used for what are essential services to be provided by any municipality to any section of its population.

I would very much like with just a few words to welcome this Bill. It is a step in the right direction. This side of the House last year warned the Minister that his standpoint was unpractical, and we are glad that he has now made a little progress. To my mind the measure does not go far enough. We should very much like to have the principle adopted that the funds shall be used for essential services for the natives, not only for general social services, because if this is laid down it will not be in the interest of the native population in the urban areas. In addition I feel very strongly that at least a percentage, where necessary and with the approval of the Minister of Native Affairs, should be available for the municipalities themselves. This may perhaps be only a very small percentage, and only with the consent of the Minister, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the natives make use of all public services and all amenities which a municipality offers and they contribute very little towards them. We must meet the municipalities there. I want to stress again, what we also advocated last year, that provision must be made for the money also to be applied for essential services for the native population in the towns.

As a councillor at the time the beerhall arrangement came into being I have always felt that as the idea really was to combat illicit liquor selling then the municipal beerhall was something that was worth while as an experiment. At the beginning of that experiment there was no desire, at least not in the council I was a member of, to exploit it for revenue purposes. The desire seemed to-be to supply this drink which was claimed to be a healthy drink, and something that contributed to the needs of the native, at a price which would just balance the cost of production. Unfortunately, as time went by the tendency seemed to be to look upon this as a possible source of revenue. That is due to a certain type of mind in the person who happens to be chairman of the finance committee rather than the wish of the majority of the members of the council. The result was that in the town to which I am referring the price of beer was increased, and we went into an era of profit making in regard to it. Because of that experience I want to appeal to the Minister that he should not by any means give encouragement to municipalities in regard to making profits from kaffir beer in order that any chairman of finance may see an easy way of doing his job in a civilised community, as has been said, at the expense of what is an appetite on the part of the native. We should very much deplore running a “pub” for Europeans to enable a municipality to make roads and put down sidewalks. We have had sufficient experience and public opinion to combat that idea. Having agreed that we would not do it as a European proposition we should be very careful about allowing this kind of thing to be done merely because it is the native who is concerned as we are here really dealing with a fundamental principle and working on a fundamental belief that we are combating an illicit arrangement by a communal arrangement run in a decent and orderly way. I hope the Minister will not contemplate nor any future Minister, the running of native beerhalls for profit to excuse some chairman of finance from financing those essential services expected in a community in the proper way, but that the native will be looked upon as a potential ratepayer who will naturally grow into becoming a contributor in the normal way to the rates and taxes and thereby pay in a proper way for the amenities he will enjoy.

In introducing legislation on the subject of beer, the hon. Minister is touching a matter on which the people we represent in this House feel very strongly indeed. This Bill is a qualified and temporary departure from the principle laid down in the Native Laws Amendment Act, that beer profits should be appropriated to social welfare amenities. It is on the basis of the reasons the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has explained, that this temporary departure is always subject to the Minister’s approval and is only in respect of servicing of loans raised before 1944, that we on these benches are prepared not to oppose this Bill pending a solution of the difficulties the Minister has referred to in introducing it. But the mere fact of its introduction involves important principles that I, at all events, in this House have always opposed. The first is the principle of the self-balancing revenue account, the assumption that a native urban community, a portion of the working class of the town—and the poorest portion—should have to meet the whole cost of its own civic services. That has just been dealt with, and I am glad to say condemned, by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). It was also roundly condemned in the report of the Smit Committee, the Urban Areas Committee. The second point of principle the Bill raises is the existence of the beerhall system. I have always opposed that system, and I shall give my reasons, because I believe the abolition of that system is the proper way out of these difficulties. I am sure the Minister will recognise in this matter that this Bill has been introduced, contrary to what was done last year after careful examination by the Native Affairs Commission, this Bill has been introduced owing to pressure by local authorities, and in order to find a way out of their difficulties. This temporary provision is being made to meet them. The history of the present Section 19 of the Urban Areas Consolidation Act is as follows. In the 1941 Session, during the discussion on the Native Affairs vote, I voiced the objection of the native people to the beerhall system which had been considerably extended under the law of 1937. Then the Minister of Native Affairs, at that time Col. Deneys Reitz, agreed to refer the whole matter of the existence of the beerhall system to the Native Affairs Commission for enquiry and report. The Minister himself said he was doubtful that the system was working in a beneficial way. It was therefore in 1941 that the Minister referred the whole matter of beerhalls to the Native Affairs Commission, and the Commission travelled throughout the country and took evidence, and upon its report, as I mentioned, was based the present Section 19 of the Urban Areas Act. The Commission refused to recommend the complete abolition of beerhalls, but it did recommend a modification of the system in two very important respects. It recommended that there should no longer be an automatic municipal monopoly in the sale of native beer; in other words, that the Minister should allow the natives to brew their own beer even where a municipal beerhall was established. Previously the law was that where a municipality established a beerhall, automatically the brewing of beer by natives in their homes was prohibited. That was the first modification the Native Affairs Commission recommended. Secondly, it recommended that beer profits should be spent only on welfare services. Both those modifications of the law were introduced in the Native Laws Amendment Bill last year and were supported from these benches. I made my reasons clear at the time for that support. I said at the time that I would rather the Bill had gone further and abolished the public house system, but I valued the amendments, as far as they went, because they would tend to discourage the system through permitting competition with the municipality in regard to their beer monopoly, and secondly as striking a blow at the practice that civic services for natives should be met entirely from their revenue account, and in that no longer in the future would civic services be allowed to be financed from beer profits. What have the results been of the amendment of the law in 1944 as applied in administrative practice? What have the results been in practice of this amendment of the law, first in relation to modifying the present municipal monopolies where beer halls do exist? As far as my Information goes in no single case has the Minister’s department exercised its discretion to authorise domestic brewing where a beerhall exists. I hope he will give us on these benches in replying to this debate the assurace he is going to exercise these powers, and that he will give some indication of the circumstances under which he will exercise them. I asked the Minister the other day about a widely signed petition from location residents in Kimberely asking for the exercise of this power authorising domestic brewing, and so far as I know nothing has been done in this respect there or anywhere else up to the present time. So the power to authorise competition with the municipal monopoly has not, so far as I know, yet been exercised, and as far as the beer account is concerned we are now asked to authorise this amendment of the law. I do not want to repeat all the arguments against the principle of limiting the civic services of a native urban community to the proceeds of what can be raised from them in the way of rates and rents. Any ward in any town, more particularly a poor ward, would cry out against the principle that ’ the council’s expenditure on their services should be limited to expenditure collected in that ward. In any case I cannot imagine how it could be done. Because, what in any city is the real large source of municipal revenue? It is the rates raised on commercial and industrial buildings. Normally speaking they are the most valuable assets for rating purposes, and the rates levied on these are spread all over the town, except in the case of the native location. The principle of the self-balancing native account is applied and yet, no activities of a normal South African city could be carried on in those commercial and industrial buildings without the aid of native workers living in the location. I believe any fair-minded person would be against the principle of the self-balancing native revenue account in urban areas, and the case needs only to be stated to be accepted. In any case it has been accepted by the Smit Committee in unqualified terms. It reported it was never intended that the native revenue account should be the sole source of revenue for services in a native township. According to the Minister’s speech the muncipalities have based their case on this, that they cannot go on with those services except from the proceeds of the native revenue account. With regard to the beerhall system. I feel that the fact that there are these difficulties the Bill seeks to cope with is in itself a condemnation of the beerhall system, and indicates the real reason why the beerhall system was ever wanted by local authorities. The native objection to the beerhall system is as follows, and it is an objection overwhelmingly shared by the native population. They do not regard the drinking of beer in the same way as the European regards the drinking of liquor in public houses. The beer in its pure form is part of their food, and the partaking of it is part of their social customs. It is taken at home with a circle of friends and relatives. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) is always strong on retaining native customs, and I would remind him this is a very deep-rooted one. The situation is different when you come to the type of native who would prefer the European type of liquor. He is dealt with in an entirely different way. There is provision for giving him permission to get that. It may well be that the whole of our liquor laws applicable to the native people should be reconsidered in future. So far as the beer is concerned there is no doubt it is looked upon in an entirely different light from what the ordinary partaking of alcohol is looked upon by the European or coloured community, or by that section of the native community that has acquired a taste for European liquor. The answer put forward by the official advocates of the beerhall system is that it is necessary for control purposes—because if there is no control concoctions are mixed up in the beer. That argument has been dealt with effectively by the Native Affairs Commission itself. In Paragraph 48 of the report of the Native Affairs Commission it is stated—

In other words, the commission found as a fact that this argument that the control of beer supply through beerhalls prevents the mixture of concoctions with the beer has nothing in it whatever. As a matter of fact, when we compare the convictions for liquor offences in municipal areas where domestic brewing is allowed with the convictions in municipal areas where there are beerhalls, it is still further evidenced that the beerhall has nothing to do with the prevalence of drunkenness. Langa has never had a beerhall; it always had domestic brewing even before the 1937 Native Laws Amending Act. I gave the following figures obtained from the police in evidence before the Native Affairs Commission. The number of convictions in Langa for drunkenness over a period of three years is as follows: 1938, 33; 1939, 27; 1940, 22. Those are the convictions in respect of a native community with over 4,000 adults. That is a record any community could be proud of, whether African, coloured or European, and that is a community that has always had domestic brewing and that has never had the beerhall system. On the Witwatersrand where admittedly you are dealing with a bigger population and you cannot really compare with Langa, there appears to have been an increase in convictions for drunkenness since the introduction of beerhalls. In 1937 the figure was 46,000 for the Johannesburg municipal area.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was dealing with the contention which is so often put forward that the beerhall system is necessary in order to prevent drunkenness and prevent an undue increase in the number of liquor offences. I had already given the record of convictions for drunkenness for three years in the case of Langa where home brewing has always been in force, and the numbers were very small indeed. So far as the Johannesburg Municipality is concerned, I had already stated that in 1937 the total number of native liquor convictions were about 46,000. In 1938, the year of the establishment of the beerhalls, the number rose to 50,000 and in 1939 it rose to over 63,000. That certainly does not indicate that the establishment of beerhalls has made any marked impression for the good in relation to liquor offences, and that, Sir, is precisely borne out by the findings of the Native Affairs Commission when they investigated this whole question. The claim of local authorities, which are the main driving force behind the establishment of beerhalls, is therefore reduced, for the reason that the Minister implicitly gave when he introduced this Bill, to the fact that they want the profit from beer selling in order to finance services which on the showing of the Smit Committee, on the showing of the Native Affairs Commission, should be financed quite apart from the existence of beer profits. This subject is not a new one. It has been investigated often in the past. The Native Economic Commission in 1932 went into it and this was their recommendation on the subject—

That, I submit, is in accordance with sound principles of administration, that the aim of administration should be to carry with it the consent and the approval of the public who are being served by the administration in question. I do want to submit again to the Minister what I submitted to his predecessor, that more particularly the circumstances which have driven him to introduce this Bill should impel him to reconsider again the whole matter of beerhalls. I am not talking now about mine compounds where large numbers of single men are congregated together. I am talking about ordinary municipal townships and villages which are set aside for the occupation of natives. I want to remind him that in the course of the enquiry of the Native Affairs Commission, to which I have referred several times, the South African Temperance Alliance, which is hardly a body which wants to encourage drunkenness, favoured the domestic brewing system rather than the beerhall system. That Alliance is, of course, against the supply of liquor of any character, but as between those two alternatives, the Alliance supported the domestic brewing system. I remember years ago in the Cape there was a proposal by the City Council to establish a beerhall at Langa, and European public opinion that was in touch with the native position here, opposed the establishment of that beerhall. I can remember that a deputation of Europeans interviewed the City Council. Its spokesmen were the late Sir James Rose-Innes, a man with vast experience of native policy and administration in this country, and Mr. Walter Meares, who is the head of a large school in the Cape, and it was very largely through their persuasions that the beerhall was not established in the Cape Peninsula. It is a system against which there is an overwhelming body of evidence, at all events in the conditions of municipal townships and villages, and the circumstances which have impelled the Minister to introduce this Bill have clearly disclosed that the drive behind the beerhall system comes from a desire to make profit for the financing of services which should be provided for in the ordinary way in which municipalities do provide such services; and I want again therefore—not for the first time in this House—to advance the plea that this whole beerhall system should be reconsidered. To my way of thinking there is something very undignified about this squabble over the profits of beerhalls. The best way of dealing with the situation and to satisfy all parties is to abolish beer profits altogether by abolishing beerhalls.

Let me deal first with the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She has made it quite clear that she did not approve of the Bill, but that she was going to oppose any further Billl that I may introduce in two years’ time. Well, when I come staggering into this House in two years’ time to introduce this Bill, I hope the hon. member will not oppose it. There are just one or two points which I would like to have on record. I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced by hon. members during this debate, but I want to show that this matter has to be faced as a practical issue. The 1944 Amending Act came into force towards the end of June, 1944. The hon. member referred to one municipality. I just want to take the position of this municipality to illustrate my difficulty in administering the Act as it now stands, and to show that this Bill has not been introduced without very careful thought. Before June, 1944, this municipality had actually raised loans and introduced the following services and amenities: they had established a first class poly-clinic at which doctors and nurses deal with child welfare and ante-natal work, venereal disease cases, tuberculosis cases, dental cases, and general medical work. The municipality had established a district nursing scheme in conjunction with the clinic. It had established a cheap milk distribution scheme which was very successful. They actually sold milk more cheaply than they bought it for. I am showing what they did before there was any question of being tied down. The municipality has established well laid out sports fields, a large nursery school—the créche scheme is heavily subsidised—a large modern recreation hall with bioscope performances, a public library, a post office building for the location, waterborne sewerage to each house, all streets had been kerbed and tarred, the whole location area had been drained by an underground drainage system; electric light had been provided and all streets well lit, and two social workers and sports organisers had been appointed. For the year ending on the 30th of this month, the position of this municipality’s native revenue account will be: Income £30,000, expenditure is £61,000, which means a deficit of £31,000. The beerhall shows: Income £63,000, expenditure £26,000, representing a profit of £37,000. It was possible to charge £11,000 of the native revenue account expenditure against the kaffir beer profits. So the final result is a deficit in the native revenue account of £20,000 and a profit in the beer account of £26,000. To meet this deficit the town’s rates would have to be increased by 2d. in the £ above the maximum of 7d. in the £, for which special permission would have to be obtained. That is the position and so this Bill has had to be introduced to meet cases like that. I think hon. members will realise that it is necessary to go into it. I feel that the municipality must supply the bare necessities, at least, but if the municipality supplies a lavatory system, or one lavatory to two houses, and by having accumulated profits in the beer account it can give water-borne sewerage and a lavatory in every house, I feel that should be looked upon as a social amenity in the sense that they have supplied the bare necessities and cannot afford to supply more.

What about the general principles?

I am not going into that now. We have two years to think about that. The point made by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) was that the profit was only to be used for social welfare and not for general municipal services. I feel that provided the municipality has provided for their natives the full social and recreational amenities that they require, if there is still a surplus of profit, which was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), some means have to be found for dealing with it, and if they have provided all the sports grounds, etc., and the social services necessary, if there are still profits over, some power must be left to the Minister to improve their amenities. But that can be gone into later. But the hon. member for Cape Western asked me a question and I am giving him my views upon it. He asked me whether I exercised my powers to allow brewing and he mildly criticised me. I have exercised that power. I made full enquiry into every case before coming to the conclusion I did. Only one case has been raised and that was refused for good reasons. Each case must be decided on its merits.

What town was that?

It was Wepener. Then on the question of self-balancing native revenue accounts, we know what the report said about that, and I agree with it. We are constantly urging the municipalities to subsidise as far as possible their native revenue account, whether they have beerhalls or not. With regard to the objects and principles of the beerhall this question was fully considered by the Native Affairs Commission when they sat and before delivering their report, and it was debated in this House last year, and I do not think that anything new can be said about it and I have nothing further to offer in addition to what I said last year.

†*Then I come to the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). He gave us to understand that we should allow the municipalities to use the profits on the sale of kaffir beer for any purpose. I do not want to make a decision now or express any opinion about it, in view of the fact that this whole matter will be investigated further. I just want to say that there are certain essential services which the municipalities ought to undertake in respect of the natives. It is the less-privileged section of the population among them, but a population which is required for the work in those municipalities and which is important for the progress of such municipalities. Take a place like Vereeniging. If it were not for the availability of native labour, then those large factories could never have been established on such a scale. In a word every case must be treated on its own merits.

The municipalities do not agree with the member for Wonderboom.

I also do not agree with him, but I want to point out that this is a matter which will be investigated further.

What has become of the suggestions from the Rand municipalities?

I shall go into the matter. Before the Act of 1944 Was introduced, the municipalities were consulted, and it is chiefly their fault that this point was not raised at that time. I want to say again that the whole matter will be investigated, but I do not want to make any further promises on this occasion.

†The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne) raised some important points. I dealt with those in my reply to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and will not repeat them. There was one other important point raised by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. She said that the principle of financing ordinary services from beer profits is unsound. Well, as I say, I am in full agreement with her. The 1944 Amendment was proof of our goodwill and we have found that that Act was too narrowly worded. The whole thing will have to be reconsidered in the next two years and also the whole question of the accumulated profit. That is an important point and we must go into it because we cannot have large profits accumulating and not being used. I think she will agree that it cannot be used in other areas, but all that can be raised later. Then on the question of the position of municipalities which have no beerhall, I shall not establish beerhalls merely to allow municipalities to make money for their other needs; that you can be assured of, but I will take the position into consideration. I think I have answered to the best of my ability all the points

Motion put and agreed to,

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Our objection to this Bill is not concerned with the amendments which the Minister has made but rather with the amendments which the Minister omitted to make—his sins of omission rather than his sins of commission. I should like to take this last opportunity—the Minister has told us that he will try next year to improve the Income Tax Act—to say that we are especially concerned with three questions in regard to our Income Tax legislation. We have mentioned those matters before, and one of them, which is a fundamental one, is that the restrictions which are imposed on the capital expenditure which the farmer may deduct from his taxable income, that restriction of 30 per cent., is something to which we are wholeheartedly opposed. South Africa is not yet a fully developed country. Our farms have not yet been fully developed. During the war it was impossible to proceed with the work of development and there is much leeway to be made up. In our opinion it is quite wrong to tell the farmers at this stage that they will be restricted in the development of their farms, so that they will not be able to keep up the speed of development which is necessary in the interests of South Africa. We do not want to impose that restriction on them. We think that it is unfair. Right through our history the State has given the farmer every encouragement to develop his farm. We granted long-term loans for fencing purposes, for dam construction and that kind of thing. The State has given the farmer every encouragement to undertake such work of development but now the Minister comes along and tries to discourage it. The view which we on this side hold is that this is the greatest disservice which the Minister can render the farming industry. I do not want to say much about this matter. There are other hon. members who also want to clearly state their point of view on this matter but we earnestly appeal to the Minister to take away this restriction when he revises his Income Tax Act next year. If the Minister will look at the annual report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue he will notice that the contributions by the farmers to the country’s revenue have greatly increased during the last few years. The farming community is contributing twice as much as the amount it contributed in the past. This restriction is now being imposed. The farmers are not unwilling to contribute but these restrictions are going to discourage developments and improvements in South Africa. That is what the Minister is doing and for that reason we ask the Minister to keep this in mind when he revises the Income Tax Act.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). I think it is most unjust to impose a taxation on these things. The hon. member for George referred to it in passing. The farmer who previously developed his farm received exemption. Those who now do so do not get that exemption. The former made use of the opportunity to improve their farms before the war. But the farmers who have been hampered by the war and who could not effect improvements are now being unfairly treated as the Government is in fact imposing a tax on improvements. But I go further. At the Land Bank we can obtain loans for fencing, we can get loans for erosion works and for the construction of dams. We pay rent on those loans but now we are also being taxed as a result of these restrictions. The farmer has to pay twice on the money borrowed by him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) on a previous occasion said that a farmer should not spend more than a certain percentage of his income on improvements. I want to say that if we have to accept his theory, then the principle is wrong to offer facilities to farmers for borrowing money to effect improvements. The State does not only take a percentage of his income for State undertakings. If the State were to do that, we would certainly not achieve the progress which we should achieve. What is the reason that our farmers are now paying nearly twice as much in taxation as they did before? It is because those farmers were able to develop their farms and for that reason they are now better able to pay taxes. The improvements which they effected on their farms turned them into taxpayers of the State, contrary to the position in the past when they could not contribute to taxation. I want to ask the Minister to have a survey made during the recess of the amounts paid by farmers in certain districts ten years ago and the amounts they are now paying as a result of the improvements which they have brought about. Then we will be able to see how much these people paid in taxation before they effected improvements and how much they paid thereafter. We can then determine the benefit gained by these people and the State as a result of the improvements. Together with the hon. member for George I want to ask the Minister to take this matter thoroughly into revision and to come here next year with an exemption for bona fide farmers as far as improvements are concerned. I can assure the Minister that we have no objection against the cheque-book farmers paying this taxation but he should not let the bona fide farmer pay on his improvements. They do not only invest capital in those improvements but even money which they have borrowed. I appeal to the Minister to meet their objections next year.

I should like to raise a matter which to my mind is in the public interest. It concerns the complexity of our taxation system and especially the aweinspiring formulas which we notice and the difficulty which people experience to calculate the taxation which they have to pay. In the public interest I want to quote an instance in order to warn the people outside not to accept without more ado the tax assessments of the Department of Inland Revenue. The position today is that people receive their assessments from the Department of Inland Revenue either for income tax or for estate duties and in 90 per cent. or more cases they presume that the assessment is correct and they do not go to the trouble to check the complicated calculation. I wonder how many people, when receiving their income tax assessment, investigate whether it has been calculated correctly in accordance with the law. They simply pay in good faith.

How many members of Parliament do so.

Yes, it concerns them too. Estate duties and all’ those other things are assessed and one simply assumes that the officials know their work and do nobody down. I have here an instance where an estate was assessed £1,300 more in taxation than they were liable for. It was quite fortuitous that I got interested in this matter as a member of Parliament. I brought the matter to the notice of the Receiver of Revenue. He investigated the matter and according to his calculation the Provincial Receiver assessed the estate for £1,300 too much. In the end he allowed a refund to be made. I now ask how many cases there may be where a wrong assessment is made and the persons concerned simply pay because they think the calculation is correct. The reply may be: Well, a person can himself calculate whether his assessment is correct or not. That does not always happen. I maintain that the system is so complicated that the people take it for granted that the persons making the assessments have to be competent and they simply pay because they consider it too much trouble to go into the matter. I have mentioned one case in which I was concerned and where a large excess amount was paid. It was merely a coincidence that I went to the trouble, as a member of Parliament, to have the matter corrected. I raise the matter here because the Minister should try to work out a simple system of taxation for which we have repeatedly asked here every year, and he should see that his Department makes its calculations carefully. I mention this also in order to warn the public that cases occur where too much has been paid and that the public should be careful not to accept every assessment without more ado and not to pay without further investigation.

I want to say a few words in connection with the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). We have discussed this matter ad nauseam, namely, the restriction to 30 per cent. of the gross income as far as improvements on a farm are concerned. There are parts of the country such as the Western Province where farms have been fairly well developed. In those cases this restriction may not make much difference. But I want the Minister to consider districts such a Gordonia and the whole North West where fencing, water supply and similar things are matters the farmer cannot do without. During the war years those people have been somewhat fortunate and now they would like to effect the necessary improvements such as fencing and water supplies. Now, however, the Minister introduces this tax on improvements. The Minister can argue very cleverly. We know that he can put his case very well, but the farmer knows that in practice things will not pan out as the Minister has put it here. Take for instance districts such as Calvinia, Victoria West and Gordonia. The farmers are not making a lot of money every year. Only during the years when there is plenty of rain do they have a good income and then they want to use some of that income to improve their farms by fencing, the erection of windmills and the boring of waterholes. I want once again to ask the Minister to consider the position of those people. It is now too late to bring about a change this year but I should like the Minister to give us the assurance that next year he will revise the Income Tax Act, especially in this respect.

I want to take this opportunity of speaking about one matter which is of growing importance, mainly the position of minority shareholders in proprietary companies. I had hoped that the Minister might grant some relief. I am not a minority shareholder myself but I hope the Minister will consider the case of minority shareholders. That might have been done if the Minister had agreed to some such amendment as I wish to suggest, namely—

That would have granted a reasonable amount of remission. If it were made retrospective from 1943 it would have met the position. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind. It is now resulting in the improverishment of people who have put their earnings into such companies.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a certain matter in connection with this Bill. I have received representations from people claiming that the Commissioner in some cases will not take into account for rebate purposes, certain commissions paid. They found that if they have been paying certain commissions to representatives of firms having contracts with them, the Commissioner decided that the commissions paid to these individuals are not allowable. In one case for a number of years he has assessed them on those payments that have been made to those representatives, and not only has he assessed them but he has made them pay three times over.

Will you give me the facts of that case and I will go into it?

I shall be very pleased to supply you with the facts. It is suggested that the Commissioner’s powers are very wide indeed, and that they are not always used in the best way. Here we have an individual firm making a payment to an agent which has been the custom for many years, and then all of a sudedn they are pounced on by the Commissioner and told these payments are irregular and that they will have to pay a penalty of three times the amount

There is no appeal either.

That is the trouble.

Yes, there is an appeal.

You cannot appeal to the Appeal Board on that matter.

There ought to be an appeal. I do feel something should be done. There ought to be some appeal from the Commissioner.

If the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) will give me a copy of that suggestion he read, I shall be able to give consideration to it as far as the future is concerned.

†*The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised a point which in so far as the particular matter to which he referred is concerned, does not really come under this Bill. This Bill does not deal with the estate duties.

I only mentioned it as an instance.

Yes, but as far as estate duties are concerned our system is not complicated, but rather clear. So it was not a very good instance.

If such mistakes can be made in regard to something which is not complicated, what is going to happen where it is complicated?

As far as mistakes are concerned, I want to point out that auditing does take place and in the case of estate duties it is done in practically 100 per cent. of the cases and the mistake would therefore most probably have been noticed in any case. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and other hon. members have once more and for the last time raised the matter of the restriction to 30 per cent. I do not want once more and for the last time to advance my arguments in this matter but I just want to say that I do not think the restrictions will necessarily hamper the farmers. On the contrary, in this regard the farmers are still being favoured when compared to other sections of the community, and therefore I cannot promise that I shall make a change in that position.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is in fact not so alarming as it looks. It may be long and it deals with a large number of subjects, but many of them are relatively unimportant and need not take up much of our time. Of course there is also no continuity of subject or principle in this Bill. Every clause or group of clauses stands on its own and in most cases the questions dealt with could be better discussed during the Committee Stage than at the present moment. A request was made to me that, in order to give hon. members an opportunity to go further into the details, I should not take the Committee Stage before Friday next. I am prepared to do so, provided, of course, that all the other stages can also be taken on the same day so that the Bill will reach the Senate in time. In view of the fact that, as I said, most matters dealt with in this Bill should be rather discussed in Committee and further in view of the fact that a clear explanation of all the sections appears in a White Paper which has been made available to hon. members, I only want to refer to the principal sections at the present moment. First of all I want to make mention of a change in the form of the Bill. For quite a number of years the Finance Bill was confined to matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but during the last few years it has also been used to make provision in regard to the use of surpluses in our Railway and Harbour Fund. We therefore have already gone somewhat further than the purpose of the legislation itself. Sometimes, however, there are other matters of less importance in regard to the Railway and Harbour Fund, just as there are matters of less importance in regard to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which can more conveniently be incorporated in this Bill. It was therefore agreed that this Bill will be considered as a Bill dealing with matters affecting both the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund, and that the clauses of the Bill will appear in two parts. Part I will deal with matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and Part II will contain matters affecting the Railway Administration. As far as this Bill is concerned Part II consists of only one clause and if necessary that will be dealt with by the Minister of Transport. As far as Part I is concerned, that deals with matters falling under me as Minister of Finance and it might be advisable for me first to refer to certain clauses in the Bill which deal with matters which have already in some way or another been discussed in this House. Clause 1 of the Bill contains the contemplated provision, as indicated in my Budget Speech, in regard to the disposal of part of our surplus in our accounts of last year. There are two paragraphs in this connection. In the first place it is proposed, as I indicated in my Budget Speech, that £1,500,000 shall be applied to the liquidation of the Treasury’s share in the premium account in regard to the repatriation of overseas debts. That matter I have explained before. In this connection I just want to refer to Clause 4 of the Bill which deals with the proportionate allocation of the premium account and the obligations thereunder between the Treasury and the Railway Administration. The second paragraph of Clause 1 contains another proposal made in the Budget, namely the transfer to loan account of an amount which was found last year on that account for the Governor-General’s National War Fund. Then I want to refer to Clauses 5 and 6 which make provision for an increased amount in regard to the expenditure in connection with demobilisation. That was also referred to in my Budget Speech. Furthermore, I refer to Clause 15 which deals with the salary of the chairman of the Central Land Board. That point has already been raised a few times as a result of comments in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General and I undertook to rectify the matter by a clause in this Bill. That is now being done. Then I want to refer to Clauses 16 and 17. In our Income Tax Act, which a short while ago was read for a third time, we have made provision in regard to reciprocal agreements with other countries as far as the avoidance of double taxation is concerned. What we did there related to income tax. Here we now propose to do the same in regard to estate duties, so that where a reciprocal agreement exists it will not be possible that an estate shall be assessed twice for the same amount. Furthermore I refer to Clauses 23 to 25. They implement an undertaking I gave in connection with the auditing of accounts under the Marketing Act. The auditing will be done by an officer of the public service or an accountant appointed by the Minister, and where State monies are involved it shall be done by the Auditor-General himself or under his supervision. In this case I am therefore acting on certain recommendations made by the Select Committee on Public Accounts and which we promised we would give effect to. I now come to another important clause in the Bill. First of all we have Clauses 2 and 3 which contain the new basis for the division of responsibilities for interest on national debt between the Treasury and the Railway Administration. The existing basis which was agreed upon in 1934 was found to be unsatisfactory and to work out to a disadvantage for the Treasury, especially as a result of circumstances connected with the war. The first circumstance arising from thé war was the issue of short-term loans at a low rate of interest purely for war purposes. Certain 2 per cent. and 2¼ per cent. loans were issued and also non-interest bearing loans in connection with war expenditure, but under the arrangement of 1934 the Railway Administration also derives part of the benefit of that low rate of interest. That is not fair to the Treasury. In the second place the relationship as fixed in 1934 was disturbed by the issue of long-term loans for large amounts at 3 per cent., mainly for war purposes. That 3 per cent. is also a lower rate of interest than the average rate of interest was in the past. In consequence the average rate of interest of which the Railway Administration also has the advantage has been considerably decreased. They derive the benefit as a result of large loans which were issued mainly in view of war conditions. In consequence of that fact it was arranged between the Minister of Transport and myself to effect a change and to put the matter on a new and fairer basis and that is being done in these two clauses. The following clause to which I want to refer is Clause 6 dealing with our contributions to Unrra. As hon. members know we have undertaken to contribute certain amounts to the fund established for the reconstruction of countries devastated by the war. The basis on which we have agreed entails that we have to find altogether £4½ million, of course not all at the same time. But according to the agreement 90 per cent. of the amount is to be found by way of payment for purchases within the country contributing. For that purpose and in order to fulfil our obligations and to assist Unrra, part of our war supplies which can be made good use of, will be handed to them and the price thereof will be credited against the amount of our contributions. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for that. I now come to Clause 18, the purpose of which is to make provision for a further deterrent in the case of offences in regard to receiving stolen property or evading taxation. It is proposed that the court will be empowered in serious cases of this nature to order the cancellation of the licence of such a business. The proposal was made after consultation with the Chamber of Commerce which first of all brought the matter to my notice, especially in regard to stolen property. Clauses 19 and 20 deal with the collection of native taxation. So far that was done by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue although the actual work was done by the Department of Native Affairs. It is now proposed to transfer the full responsibility to the Departement of Native Affairs. Then I just want to refer to the group of Clauses 28 to 31 which deal with certain provisions in the Prescription Act of 1943. That Act reduced the period of prescription in certain cases and also made the reduction applicable to the State; for instance the period of prescription in regard to the instruments relating to advances and loans in the Transvaal, was reduced from thirty years to eight years. That is quite reasonable as far as ordinary creditors are concerned, but the State is not an ordinary creditor, especially not as far as its State Advances Recoveries Office is concerned. Some of our farmers have been rehabilitated and it is not our policy to harass people for the payment of their debts. That means that you sometimes find debtors who cannot yet pay after eight years. If the Act remains as it was passed two years ago, the State will, in order to interrupt prescription, have to take action against all its debtors before the end of the period of eight years, which of course is not desirable. Where therefore the State is in a different position from the ordinary creditor, it is fair that the period of prescription shall be longer in the case of the State and that is also desirable for the debtor. For that reason we propose to amend the Act as far as the State is concerned in such a way that the period will be increased to fifteen years, but that will of course not apply to the renewal of debts which have been prescribed as a result of the provisions of the Act of 1943. That has been done, but we think that in future it will be in the interests of all concerned that the period will be lengthened as far as State debts are concerned.

Have there been cases where the State has already suffered losses under that provision?

There have been, but the amount is relatively small.

Have those people been relieved of their debt?

It would be unfair to revive those debts, for the right was there under the Act. When the Act was passed we did not think that it would apply to the State. That was only discovered later, but it would be unfair to go back on that and it will be in the real interests of the State and the debtors to extend the period in future. There were some cases where people could have made use of this mistake and it would not have been fair to go back on that, but for the future the period will now be extended. It is unnecessary to go into further detail now but we can do so during the Committee Stage.

The manner in which matters are dealt with in this House at present compel me to say, like the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) said the other day: “We are now proceeding with indecent haste”. This Bill affects about twenty other Acts and emergency matters. If this House were to do its duty we would have to investigate twenty special Acts and emergency matters in order to find out what is the meaning of every change proposed here. We only received this Bill on Monday. Yesterday I did my best in the time at my disposal to get acquainted with the contents. All I am able to say at the moment is that in the twenty-five amendments of existing Acts which are proposed here there is nothing of such a fudamental nature that I consider it the duty of this side of the House to fight this Bill during every stage. That is all I can say at the present moment. I have satisfied myself that there is nothing of such a fundamental nature that we must oppose the Bill at every stage, but I am not yet satisfied what is the meaning and what are the implications of each of the amendments proposed here. There are a few points on which I want to say one or two words. The Minister gives us time until Friday morning in order to study the Bill more fully and that suffices for the moment. In this Bill there are three amendments which are being effected at the request of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I am in complete agreement with them.

That shows that we do take notice of your work.

That is correct. As far as Clause 6 is concerned, which refers to Unrra, I must tell the Minister that we have very serious misgivings in regard to Unrra, not serious misgivings because we are being asked to make a contribution to alleviate suffering in the devastated countries. That is not our objection. We are prepared also from our side to assist to alleviate the misery and suffering which have come over this world as a result of the war, but there are two things about which we feel somewhat uneasy. The first one is that it is not proposed to alleviate the misery and suffering where they occur, on their merits. It seems to me that a discrimination is being made between those who are in want and are suffering, and as soon as that is done you should not come here to ask in the name of Christianity that we should give assistance, for in that case Christian principles are no longer the basis of such assistance. It is Christian and humane to ask for assistance in alleviating all want and suffering. If that is the attitude which Unrra will take up we are prepared to assist but if there is going to be discrimination between the sufferings and misery of the one people and those of the other people, then we must take up a definite attitude against Unrra. In the second place right through the world criticism is heard against the manner in which the money is being spent and accepted. There is hardly a responsible government in this world which does not feel uneasy about the manner in which money is being spent in connection with Unrra, and the Minister cannot expect this Parliament to put large sums, amounting to millions of pounds, in the hands of an organisation which does not apply that money in a proper way. I should like to see the Minister satisfy us on those two points during the second reading, namely that the money is intended for all suffering and want in the whole world as a result of the war. Or is there going to be differentiation, are there certain nations whose want and suffering do not concern us at all and where we are not going to assist at all? In the second place I want the Minister to give us the assurance that the Union Government will do everything in its power to see that this organisation will function in such a way that we can have confidence in the spending of the money. I should like the Minister to satisfy us in regard to these two questions. As far as the fifth paragraph in the memorandum of this Bill is concerned, I should like to have a discussion about that with the Minister and the Commissioner for Inland Revenue during the Committee Stage, for a certain measure of unrest and concern exists among trade and industrial circles in regard to the exceptional powers which the Commissioner will have in connection with the evasion of taxation and the penalties which may be imposed. I shall make use of the Committee Stage to discuss those matters very thoroughly here and there are certain aspects on which the Minister will have to satisfy us. As far as the prescription is concerned, that is a matter which came before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We investigated it and in principle we agree with the Minister. I do not think it is in the interest of the people who borrowed money from the Government or in the interest of the State that such debts shall lapse by prescription. During the Committee Stage I shall go into the other matters.

I will confine myself to the provision which is made in Clause 6 in connection with the allocation of certain surplus supplies to Unrra. This matter was discussed last Session. Already I think an amount of something like £1,000,000 has been voted by this House.

£500,000.

But I understand that another £750,000 must be found.

No, another £500,000 must be found. It will amount to £1,000,000.

Well then, it will be £1,000,000 which is being voted by this House for the purpose. We are now asked to allocate surplus supplies.

Not all the surplus supplies.

That is precisely one of my objections to that clause. There is no provision as to the quantity of these surplus supplies to be allocated. According to information in the Press it would appear that there are already surplus supplies to the value of £10,000,000 available, and that figure can still be exceeded. Thus if this Act goes through, we are giving the Government a free hand in connection with the quantity of surplus supplies which will be allocated to Unrra. When the vote “Economic Development” was under discussion, the question of war supplies was discussed, and it was pointed out by hon. members on this side that there are a large number of indigent people in South Africa. I will leave the matter there for the moment. The difficulty confronting us as regards this request which has been directed to us, is the total lack of information which we, and I believe the Government and the hon. Minister as well, have in connection with this organisation. The Unrra organisation was established with a view to granting emergency relief, but according to the statement which was made by the Minister of Economic Development two years ago, the money for Unrra will not only be used for emergency relief but also for economic reconstruction; in other words, the money will also be used to set the wheels of industry going again in the occupied countries. Therefore it is not merely a question of emergency relief. That we must understand fully. It is not charity in the full sense of the word. Then there is an important provision in connection with Unrra, namely that the money will only be spent in those countries which were occupied by Germany. Now that the war is over, rehabilitation in a country like Germany must of necessity also take place, but the position is that the money which we are voting here will not be used for emergency relief in Germany or Austria. On the contrary, we had the declaration recently from an American general who acted there as Commander-in-Chief that the policy will be to keep the German population just above the bread line.

Hear, hear.

We pay no attention to that type of remark. I mention this because it is an important proviso in connection with the whole scheme. Then I come to the more practical aspects of the Unrra question. Like many other schemes of a similar nature it has wonderful ideals and at the time it was heralded in glowing terms. We were told as regards Unrra that it is the greatest example in world history as regards the practice of humanitarian principles, mercy and charity, and so on. A United Nations conference was held in Atlantic City, and there too wonderful resolutions were passed. If you read what was said at the time, you cannot do otherwise than think of the similar wonderful words, the wonderful ideals and the wonderful resolutions which we had in connection with the Atlantic Charter, and later again at Yalta, and also in connection with the San Francisco Conference. In view of the experience which we have had in connection with the Atlantic Charter, Yalta and San Francisco, which has practically reached a deadlock, we are entitled to ask whether we are not following the same path in the case of Unrra, but with this difference that the Atlantic Charter did not cost us any money; it is only its principles which have been thrown overboard, among others by our own Prime Minister. But it did not cost us anything. Now, however, we are asked to contribute over £2,000,000. Therefore Unrra is certainly going to cost the country money, and we have the right to ask, especially in view of the hopeless lack of knowledge which has also been made manifest by the Government, whether Unrra is not also treading the same path as Yalta, San Francisco and the Atlantic Charter. We speak from experience. This organisation was established two years ago. In 1944, last year, we raised the matter in the House. It was raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), by me, by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and others, and we asked the Prime Minister for information. On that occasion we made it clear, and again today we emphasise the fact, that we are not opposed in any way to the ideals behind Unrra, but that we definitely have our suspicions about the organisation itself, and we are not voicing those suspicions for the first time. In 1944 we asked for information. The Prime Minister was unable to give us the information. Again this afternoon I read through the Prime Minister’s speech on that occasion. He could tell us nothing, except what we had read the Press ourselves. And now today I want to ask, as was also asked by the hon. member for George, whether the Acting Prime Minister, after the passage of two years, is in a position to enlighten us a little more as regards this organisation. Last year the Prime Minister could not give us the information. I say, therefore, that we want more information. We place ourselves in the position of any business man who is approached with a wonderful scheme, one or other benevolent scheme, and I ask whether there is any business man on the other side as well who would not desire beforehand full particulars of any scheme before he invested a pênny therein. Even if he were in favour of the scheme, he would first make enquiries about it. Would he not first want to know what the organisation is? Not one of the members on the other side would contribute £5 to any benevolent scheme, if he did not know in what manner the money was to be used. And that is our difficulty in connection with Unrra. We find ourselves in complete ignorance, and the Government is just as ignorant. Two years have now passed since the organisation was initiated and we know nothing about it. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what has been done so far; who has been helped and who is going to be helped. What we do know is that serious criticism has been levelled at Unrra. The criticism has not only come from this side, but also from the Australian Minister of External Affairs. For a long time now we have had our suspicions, but here we have serious criticism coming from other quarters. The Australian Minister of External Affairs complained about the over centralisation of that organisation. We know that he spoke of the top-heavy bureaucracy, incidentally the same criticism which I made in my speech yast year. I particularly devoted my speech to that aspect of the matter. Now there is the statement by the Australian Minister of External Affairs about the top-heavy bureaucracy which has been called into being and which is going to absorb a good deal of that money. He referred to “the crisis in Unrra, its activities and functions”; he spoke of “the signs or frustration and disillusionment”. It was a Sapa report which appeared in “Die Burger” and I will translate it as I go along. He spoke of “signs of frustration and disillusionment”. When the Australian Minister of External Affairs uses such language; when he expresses his anxiety in such a way, is it not then our duty as Opposition to point out that things are not as they should be in connection with that organisation, particularly where you have a docile Party on the other side which swallows everything the Minister of Finance says? Can we be expected, in view of that criticism, to simply vote money blindly for that organisation? Can it be expected of us? Speaking for myself, I say that I am not prepared to vote that money blindly in view of the uncertainty and lack of knowledge which exists. May I also refer to the remark made by the “Economist”. There is not one member on the other side who will not admit that the “Economist” is not just a second-class paper. The “Economist” is a paper which speaks authoritatively. It is a paper which is often quoted from by hon. members on the other side. The “Economist” said: “Unrra itself has need of rehabilitation”. Far from that Unrra should rehabilitate other people, the “Economist” says that Unrra itself has need of rehabilitation! But we are now asked to give the Minister a blank cheque blindly and to say: “Give to Unrra those war supplies which we have need of ourselves.” Then I want to point out that there is another aspect of the matter. We on this side, especially when it concerns emergency relief in Europe, are more particularly interested in helping the Western nations from which we are descended, including Germany. [Interruptions.] …. the nation from which the Acting Prime Minister is descended, a nation from which the Allied Commanderin-Chief, Gen. Eisenhower, is descended. We are interested in the rehabilitation of the people in France, Holland, Belgium, and I add also the civilian population of Germany. I make no apology when I say this. We are interested in the Western nations, and what do we find? We find that the Director-General of Unrra, a certain Mr. Lehmann, stated—

We have also received reports that for the moment no assistance is being given in Holland, Belgium and France. It is said that they would rather make direct arrangements with England or the United States of America.

You were not interested in Holland when it was invaded.

We are asked to contribute money as well as an unlimited quantity of supplies. But there is another aspect which has not yet been mentioned in connection with this debate, namely this. It has been arranged that all countries shall contribute 1 per cent. of the national revenue. Good. What assurance have we that as regards Unrra we will not have precisely the same experience as we had with the League of Nations? Let the Acting Prime Minister go to the Department of External Affairs, and find out how many of the members of the League of Nations ever paid their annual contributions. South Africa is one of a small group who paid its £25,000 or £26,000 every year, but there are countries like China for example which, as far as I know, have never paid. But let us put China aside, for they are a different type of people. There were some of the South American Republics who for years did not pay their contributions. What assurance have we that as regards Unrra we will not have the same state of affairs; and that South Africa, always true to its obligations, will make its contributions while other countries will not do so? These are things which we must not lose sight of. I also want to repeat what I emphasised last year in connection with the administration costs. The Prime Minister may say that it is limited to 10 per cent., but there is undoubtedly, according to the statement made by the Australian Minister of External Affairs, large, unnecessary expenditure in connection with the administration of this body. Last year I referred to the swarm of directors and under-directors, director-generals and under-director-generals. It almost sounds like the control system in South Africa and perhaps it is still worse! We know the annoyance our control system in South Africa has caused. I say that as regards Unrra a system of bureaucracy has been called into being, and that I am not satisfied that we should simply have to vote blindly, without being furnished with more information on those points. And then there is another matter in that connection which I am compelled to mention. I shall again be accused of racialism, but to me a disturbing factor in the whole Unrra affair is this—and I think it is an aspect which everyone is concerned about —namely the great measure of Jewish influence which exists in that organisation. The head of Unrra is a certain Mr. Lehmann, a Jew. We saw in the local papers that a certain Mr. Katzin, formerly of South Africa, has now been appointed as underdirector-general in Europe. According to the names which I have seen in American periodicals a number of the high positions in Unrra are occupied by Jews. You can accuse me of racialism, or whatever else you like, but I say that I feel concerned, where we are dealing with an organisation which is going to handle hundreds of millions of pounds, that there are so many Jews at the head of it. It also happened in South Africa. When six helpers had to be sent to work in the Middle East, four out of the six who were sent were Jewesses, and the choice of those people was left to the Jewish Board of Deputies. I raised the matter earlier on during this Session. I asked the Prime Minister why that particular body was selected to choose the people, and the Prime Minister assured me that that was not the case, that it was purely a coincidence. Hon. members will remember that the Prime Minister and I exchanged words on the matter, and he gave me all kinds of assurances, as he alone can give an assurance—you know how well he can deny anything; butter would not have melted in his mouth—and he gave me this assurance: “My hon. friend is quite wrong; there is no such thing; it is purely a coincidence.” He even said that a number of Jews attended a tea party at the Carlton Hotel, and that it created a wrong impression. Naturally I could only read to him the Sapa report which I had. And what happened? While he was speaking here, a letter appeared in “New Era”, written by the Secretary of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. I will not read the whole letter, but in this letter it is admitted that the Jewish Board of Deputies was actually asked to select these persons. They were asked by the Red Cross to choose these people. Here is the letter signed by Mr. J. M. Rich, the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Deputies.

That was certainly not always his surname.

No, possibly it is a changed name. In view of these facts, in view of the concern which has been shown in other countries and the lack of information, I say that we would like more information and more certainty on the matter. I will repat, and it is necessary to repeat it in order to avoid any further misrepresentations such as we have had in the past. I repeat that we are not opposed to granting help, but we want the emergency relief to be effective; we want it to be allocated in the right manner and that there should be no wastage of money. In our own country we have people who deserve emergency relief. There is an English proverb which says: “Charity begins at home”, and here in our own country there are people suffering hunger. Here in our country there are people who are without homes. I say that with the facts which I have given I have submitted a prima facie case, namely that there is uncertainty as regards Unrra, and in view of the uncertainty which exists, I say that we must think twice before we spend millions of pounds, while in our country we have people who deserve emergency relief.

We have just listened to another characteristic speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Like the Fat Boy in the Pickwick Papers he is always trying to make our flesh creep. If he were to look round when he is speaking he will find that even his own side takes no notice of him, and even the country certainly takes very little interest in what the hon. member for Beaufort West says. But if the hon. member believes that loyal South Africans are going to be interested in the fate of the Germans, in how much food the Germans are going to get, he has another guess coming to him. The Germans are going to be treated in this war as unspeakable, persons, in fact no South African sailor or soldier in Germany today is allowed to speak to the Germans. No one belonging to the Allied troops is allowed to speak to the Germans. If he does, he is to be punished. I do not want to waste my time on the hon. member. I want to speak to the hon. Minister if he will give me his ear for a moment and if his Chief Whip will kindly move away.

His master’s voice.

I do not want to say anything against the Income Tax Department because I believe it is the most efficient department in the country, but under this Clause 18 a man can now be fined, put into gaol and his licence can be taken away from him. I hardly think that a clause of that nature should appear in an Omnibus Bill. Parliament is always afraid of an Omnibus Bill. It is one of the tricks which Ministers employ to slip something in. It is an old dodge and one which has been employed ever since I have been in this House. When a Minister wants to get in something very hot, it is put into the Omnibus Bill. Can the Minister justify this before the country that we have three punishments—first of all there is the treble taxation, a fine or imprisonment and then the man’s licence may be taken away. I think if the Minister wants to get this Session over, he will be well advised to omit that provision, because he will hear a lot about this clause from both sides of the House.

Speak for yourself.

We do not like this type of legislation, the House does not like this type of legislation, the House does not like people who make mistakes to be too severely punished. We do not do that sort of thing in South Africa. The Income Tax Commissioner and his friends are going to get nothing out of this. It will only make the Department and the Government unpopular, and why should the Income Tax Department which is doing a first-class job, be hated by the people. Today the Department is known as the Collectors of Revenue, but if this clause goes through they will be called tax gatherers. We have never had a provision of this kind in South Africa, and moreover there are not so many evasions that they cannot be treated by means of the treble tax. We are now coming along with one of the most savage paragraphs that I have seen in any measure in the whole of my long Parliamentary career. This clause provides that the man’s licence may be taken away in addition to the treble tax and the fine or the sentence of imprisonment. I want to point out to the Minister that sometimes you get very stern judges, and they will follow this clause literally. South Africa does not do that type of thing. I ask the Minister to think very carefully and consult his advisers and to withdraw this clause. I know I am speaking on behalf of large numbers of members in this House. When they saw this clause they were astounded and even shocked.

I had not intended to rise, but I would just like to say that I very much regret that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has again brought in the charge that he seems not to be able to keep out of any of his speeches. One is reminded of the ancient Roman Senate where Cato began everyone of his speeches by saying: “Carthage must be destroyed,” and one may say of the hon. member for Beaufort West that he cannot make a speech without bringing in the Jewish community or the representative body which is recognised by all men of goodwill as the spokesman of South African Jewry, the Jewish Board of Deputies. The hon. member tried to make out that there was a conflict between the statement made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the letter that was sent to the Nationalist paper for publication. First of all I would like to point out that there is no material conflict whatsoever. In essentials the statement made by the Prime Minister and the statement in the letter sent in independently to the paper that was referred to by the hon. member for Beaufort West were exactly the same, and any man of goodwill will recognise that instead of trying to pick out a point for purposes of confusing and not for purposes of reasonable discussion, one must remember that that letter, which was sent to the paper referred to by the hon. member for Beaufort West, was written in answer to a direct attack made in that same paper on the Jewish Board of Deputies, as if the Jewish Board of Deputies had some sinister influence in securing these positions for Jewish people. The Government is not concerned in it one iota. The Government has not contributed anything towards the salaries or the expenses of these officials, and the Jewish Board of Deputies was asked, as was quite natural, when there are Jewish names as applicants for appointment by any public body, whether those persons were fit and proper persons. It is perfectly natural for any body that wants to be quite sure whether the persons concerned are fit and proper persons, to ask the Jewish Board of Deputies whether they are fit and proper persons.

Why should you be appointed?

These people were appointed because they were best fitted for the job. They were not appointed because they are Jews. They were appointed because they were the persons best fitted for that position. It was natural that the Jewish Board of Deputies should be asked whether they were fit and proper persons. As regards the Deputy-Director-General of Unrra, to try and cast an insult on a gallant soldier like Col. Katzin, who was selected purely on his merits and not because he is a Jew, but because he has shown himself to be a master of economics and administration. I say that does no credit to the hon. member. He has risen to one of the most distinguished positions that can be offered in Europe, the Deputy-Director-General of Unrra and instead of hon. members of this House saying what a magnificent thing that is for South Africa that a South African has risen to that position, they can only say he is a Jew, and therefore there is something sinister about it. It is that type of mentality which is causing ruin in this country. That Katzin is a Jew is a mere accident, no doubt a handicap in the minds of people like those hon. members opposite. Some other very distinguished men were appointed by America. They were not appointed because they were Jews but because they look round for a man and if they find the man or woman most suited for the job they appoint him, irrespective of race or religion. That is the only sound method of making appointments. But I only rose on the point to say that the hon. member, in thinking that the Prime Minister’s version and the version of the Board of Deputies differ materially from each other, is entirely wrong. There were a number of people who applied. Out of these a selection had to be made and the Board of Deputies actually adjudicated on those names. No appointments were made by the board.

It was not reported like that in the papers.

That is just prejudice. I pity those hon. members, for I feel that hatred is something which destroys, and what happened in Germany shows that people who are full of race hatred hot only destroy the object of their hate but destroy themselves.

I would like to refer briefly to Clause 6 which enables surplus military stores to be sent to Unrra, and I Would like to suggest that it would be a mistake to send clothing in the very early stages. I think the natives and the lower income groups in this country should have the first preference to obtain any surplus military clothing, that we have in South Africa. I think we can make a very fine gesture. I do not know whether this can be done by an extension of this clause or independently, but I certainly think we should make a contribution of food. We could today very well spare some of the supplies of food we have in this country and particularly some of the surplus meat with which our cold storages are absolutely filled. We find that many of our farmers are not able to send cattle to market because the cold storages are full of meat. There a very useful contribution should be made to Unrra, but I do not want it to be suggested that we are giving away something we are anxious to get rid of. I think we should be proud to be able to make a contribution of that kind. I feel that our Government would be supported by the country generally in making a contribution of this kind. The attitude of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) reminds me of the attitude of many people who, when the collector comes round, like to turn their backs. They make the excuse and say they will not contribute because someone is associated with the relief whom they do not like. I think that is a poor attitude to adopt. I hope that the Government will face the question of making a very generous contribution not only to Unrra but to Britain or any country which has fought our battles for us and has suffered much more than we have done.

This matter was raised last year, and at the time we put various questions to the Government in order to obtain information as regards the whole position. Unfortunately we did not receive much information. The Minister will know that doubt existed as to Russia’s attitude towards Unrra. Russia declared that she saw no necessity for Unrra performing relief work in the areas in her immediate vicinity; that if relief work had to be performed there, she would do it herself.

Unrra is also performing work in Poland.

At that time Russia expressed her disapproval at the establishment of this movement for relief work. We would like to know what Russia’s attitude is towards Unrra. Are they kindly disposed towards it and will they allow this money to be expended in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Southern Slovakia and so on, which fall under Russia’s influence? Then there is another matter. We would like to know why the governments of Holland and Belgium and also that of Scandinavia have not looked upon this relief work with complete goodwill. This House receives very little information from the Government and we would like to know. It is clear that the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) knows very little about it. We have raised this matter in order to obtain clarity as regards the position, and now the hon. member is trying to throw suspicion on us. It is strange that there is one type of person who practically controls this matter. Then there is another matter which we want to bring to the Minister’s attention. We want to ask him whether only the Jewish Board of Deputies was consulted, or other societies as well? If they alone were consulted, then I would like to know why only they were consulted and not other societies in the country as well who are interested in these affairs. The Jewish population represents only 7 per cent. of the population, and why should they be asked to provide people? No, the whole affair looks very suspicious. We on this side are prepared to grant emergency relief where it is needed. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will not divert us from those views. It is our Christian duty to do so. Where hunger must be allayed in a country, then it is our duty to do so where the need is the greatest. Before this second reading is accepted, we would very much like to know these things, for in the Committee Stage we will again deal with the matter. Last year the information available as regards Unrra was very scanty, and it seems to me that it is now still as scanty as it was before.

I would like to refer the Minister to Clauses 23, 24 and 25 in connection with the marketing method and the amendments which are introduced in this Finance Bill. Whereas I welcome the fact that accounts will now be laid on the Table of the House, and also the report of the Marketing Council, I feel that this should go one step further and that publicity should be given to both the reports and the audited accounts of the various boards. I feel that what we need is a healthy atmosphere, which would be encouraged by publishing these reports and when comments and criticisms are made by the public and those sections of industry or trade, or the producer sections who are interested. At present there is secrecy attached to them by their being only laid on the Table of the House and I would ask the Minister if he would consider an amendment in the Committee Stage to this effect.

In the main this debate has centred around one article, namely Clause 6 in connection with Unrra. The question of Unrra has been discussed in general, although all that we actually want to do here, is to stipulate that, with relation to the fulfilment of our obligations, a portion of our surplus war supplies can be used. That is all that is actually proposed here. It has been said that the acceptance of this clause will result in no restriction being placed on the quantity of war supplies which we would be able to use for this purpose. That is not correct. If the hon. member refers to Clause 4 he will see that there definitely is a limitation as regards the supplies and financial contributions which we can place at the disposal of Unrra, namely a total amount of £4½ million.

I know that, but that was not my point.

At any rate that was the impression that my hon. friend gave me.

No, I know that there is a restriction on the total amount, but there is no restriction as to the quantity of war supplies which will form part of the total amount.

That is correct, but there is a restriction as regards the sum total, namely £4½ million. Naturally I cannot say now how much we will find by way of surplus war supplies. It will, however, be in our interest to cover our obligations in this manner.

But you must not send cheap clothes over there which are needed by our own people.

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) rightly said that we must not do this at the cost of our own population who have need of those articles. I can readily assure you that this will not happen. We are making provision for those sections of our population, but we will be stranded with an accumulation of goods which we cannot dispose of here, unless it occurs at the expense of our local industries, and in that event it will be in our interest to export the goods through Unrra. This proposal in the Bill, taken merely on its own, is most certainly in the interest of South Africa.

But they want our shoes at half the cost price.

We will look after our interests as regards the prices. We will not give the goods away. The price which they pay is regarded as a portion of the amount to which we are committed, and my hon. friend can take it that we will definitely be wary as far as the prices are concerned. In connection with the general question certain matters were raised, and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) put certain questions to me. In the first place he asked whether it was the intention that Unrra will discriminate in the provision of relief assistance. That question amounts to this: What is the position going to be of former enemy countries?

Will relief work also be done in those countries?

Unrra has the power to assist those countries. It is already doing so as regards Italy. As far as Germany is concerned, the position is that for the first six months it is the duty of the military authorities to make provision for emergency relief. That problem therefore has not yet arisen. But it is also possible for Unrra to assist former enemy countries with relief.

But does the hon. Minister know that America contributed to Unrra on the condition that former enemy countries would not be assisted?

Then that condition has been violated as far as Italy is concerned.

But she is now one of their friends.

But she was an enemy country. The resolution of the executive of Unrra is such that in certain circumstances they can also undertake relief work in enemy countries. I do not say that they are going to do so, but it is possible.

If you send South African foodstuffs to Germany, there will be a revolution.

The second question was this: Will the Government do everything in its power to ensure that the Unrra organisation functions effectively; we will naturally do that. It is true that much criticism has been levelled at Unrra and that Dr. Evatt expressed an opinion in that connection. That criticism came to the ears of the Minister of External Affairs and he made enquiries, and he himself also enquired into the matter overseas to satisfy himself in regard to the matter. He then decided that we should carry on with the assistance we had undertaken to grant to Unrra. For that reason we have made provision on the supplementary estimates for a further half a million pounds. But that aspect of the matter will certainly be taken heed of. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) raised the question of the possibility of Unrra’s moneys being used not only for relief but also for rehabilitation; in other words, Unrra can provide money to help local industries in those countries which have need of help. That is correct. But the position is that this will only occur in as far as those industries make provision for local requirements. Then he said that South Africa would pay, but that other countries would possibly fail to do so. Well, I can only say that I have a long list of countries who have joined and who have already appropriated the amounts which are necessary for their payments. It looks as though it is happening fairly generally. As regards countries like Australia and New Zealand, which are practically on a par with South Africa, we know that they have already appropriated the full amounts, while this year we have only reached 25 per cent. The comparison is therefore not very favourable for us.

I was entitled to raise the matter in relation to what happened as regards the League of Nations.

Yes, we know that those things happened in another connection, and I understand why the hon. member raised the matter. But, as I said, we do not compare too favourably with countries like Australia and New Zealand.

They did it by Act of Parliament.

I do not know how they did it. Perhaps my hon. friend is right. In our case the practice is to make the amounts available by way of yearly appropriations. The question was also asked as to whether Russia is well disposed towards Unrra. I can only say that arrangements have certainly been made for Unrra to proceed with its work in countries like Poland and Southern Slovakia which definitely fall within Russia’s sphere of influence. We can deduce therefore that Russia is not unfavourably disposed.

Russia will not mind if you give their people food.

Russia is not a country which is going to benefit from it, but a country such as Poland will do so. As regards the choice of persons who are serving under Unrra, my information in connection with that matter is that those persons are chosen by a body which is called The Council for Voluntary Relief Work. It consists of members of the Red Cross and of the S.A.W.A.S. The aim of that body is to participate in the organisation and co-ordination of the work. It is the body which selects people. In any case I cannot go into the matter any further.

Why do they appoint Jews?

Quite possibly they also appoint Jews, but as far as the Government is concerned, we have only worked through that council.

Is S.A.W.A.S. not a semiState organisation?

No, it does not fall under the Government.

Is it not part of the Defence Department?

It co-operates with the Defence Department, but it is not under our control.

I do not blame the Government. I say that that organisation specially invited the Jewish Board of Deputies, and my argument is that the Jewish influence is very strong in the uppermost circles of Unrra.

That may be, but as regards the Government, we work with the council. The hon. member for George also raised a question in connection with Clause 18. I want to point out to him that Clause 18 grants no additional powers to the commissioner. It does not affect the question of the powers which he enjoys. It only affects the power Of the court.

The commissioner already has too many powers.

In any case this Bill has nothing to do with the commissioner.

†As I was saying a moment ago Clause 18 does not give additional powers to the commissioner. It gives powers to the courts and I cannot see why there should be such strong objection for the courts to have this jurisdiction to apply a penalty. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has raised a question in regard to Clause 23. It seems to me that that is a matter which had better be considered when the further amendment of the Marketing Act as a whole comes up for discussion next year.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 7th June.

I may say that I may have to rise on a number of clauses but I hope the Minister will not think I am attacking him. On the question of certain definitions in Clause 1, we have here in line 19 a definition of “dwelling”. It appeared in the old Housing Act and although it does not give a clear definition the point is that a dwelling as such is not so much what is described in words as an actual construction. My point is that I hope we will get a statement from the Minister as to the type of dwellings it is hoped to erect under this Act. In the past, under the old Housing Act of 1920, we have had a number of housing schemes. I am referring to the Jan Hofmeyr in Johannesburg, the Epping Gardens, Cape Town, the Morris Friedman, etc. One does not like to use the term but one cannot help but knowing that these housing schemes have often been described as white locations. It is sincerely to be hoped that that is not the type of dwelling it is intended to erect. If I am not mistaken I think that the majority of these houses will be occupied by returned soldiers. They have sacrificed all their pleasures and private life and we do not want to house them in a white location. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of what type of house it is intended to erect. Before sitting down I would draw the Minister’s attention to some of these private housing schemes. One is contemplated in Parkhurst, Johannesburg, at the moment. I have seen the plans and pictures of these houses and they are not in accord with the South African standard, the standard we would like to maintain. I believe the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) saw them and used very strong language. We must not allow that sort of thing to happen. To erect “pondokkies” for returned soldiers is not right. When erecting these national houses, we must also see that they will vary and that there will not be that monotonous outlook about them, but that they are different in design. Let us hope that the Minister will give us some idea of what type of house he contemplates under the Bill.

Before replying to the hon. member I would like to say that when we come to Clause 2, I intend to move that the sub-sections should be taken seriatim. I think that will be to the convenience of hon. members. The hon. member has asked me what type of house the Commission contemplates building or approving, if the house is to be built by the local’ authorities. “Dwelling” is defined in the Housing Act itself and that definition has been taken over in this Bill, and the hon. member will see that it is defined that dwelling includes a building which when constructed, adapted or enlarged does not contain more than five living rooms, together with a kitchen and the usual appurtenances, out-buildings, fences, etc. I hope the hon. member will agree with me that for the purposes of national housing a house with five living rooms, apart from the kitchen, etc., is of adequate size.

Is a dining-room included in the five?

No, that is the maximum. The Bill prescribes what a dwelling is. We are contemplating building dwellings and the maximum size is defined. So far as building by private enterprise is concerned the only limitations upon those are laid down at present by the building controller and permits are not given in excess of 2,000 square feet. The commission has a number of plans for submission to the local authorities and to be used by themselves. I entirely agree that we do not want to build rows and rows of monotonous houses all to the same design. The commission realises that, and is busy at present on schemes for so arranging the lay-out that any idea of monotony is eliminated.

In connection with the size of the houses, I want to ask the Minister whether farmers will now be able to build larger houses on the farms, farmers who have waited for years to be able to build houses; will this still fall under the Minister of Public Works? Many farmers have not built because the size of houses permitted would be impracticable for farms. If the scheme is now accepted and started, will the control as far as the farmers are concerned still rest with the Minister of Public Works? I am not speaking now of houses to which the State contributes, but which people build themselves.

It this respect the present position will continue. Permits for private dwellings will be issued by the Building Controller, and therefore it falls under the Minister of Public Works. Our aim, however, is to appoint an executive committee, comprising inter alia of the Under-Building Controller, and the purpose will be to help all private people with the building of essential houses.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

Agreed to.

Sub-section (1) put.

I take it we will first deal with sub-section (1), and I would like at the outset to say in general that where such powers are asked for, and this relates to all the clauses, by which “the Governor-General may by proclamation issue regulations as to certain matters”, powers are being granted to the Minister in connection with the building of houses which are practically unlimited. We do not know what the proclamations will be, nor do we know what direction they will take. It is indicated here only in certain groups, the possibilities are indicated, but the powers which the Minister can take are not specified. Accordingly we feel in general that if we were to try to propose amendments to the paragraphs of the sub-sections, by so doing we would practically take the responsibility in connection with, and give our approval to, the method which is being followed, and from the debate at the second reading it was clear that we on this side are not in favour of such powers being given. Accordingly we cannot try to make verbal alterations to try to further define the Minister’s powers or to extend them, for then we give our approval to the method. Therefore, while we want to try to protect the authority of Parliament as far as possible, while we want Parliament to retain control over the powers which are being taken by the Minister we cannot try now to curtail the powers by amendments, because however careful we were to couch our amendments, the Minister would still have the power by proclamation to do something different to what was intended by any proposal which we might make here. It is not possible for us in this respect to endeavour to produce clarity out of the complete vagueness in which Parliament and the country find themselves as regards the powers which are afforded under Clause 2. We are still of opinion that the Minister ought to define every power, and that without proclamations he should determine every phase of the requirements for the building of houses in the Bill. If the Minister does not see his way clear to do that, we are not in a position to make proposals which may perhaps create the impression that we are giving our approval to the method which is being followed. Therefore we will vote against the clause, for we want to try to preserve the authority of Parliament, and as far as possible to restrict the Minister, but we are not in a position to propose amendments as we would like to do.

I hope the Minister is not going to restrict this housing scheme to the towns, and I hope that he will make a special attempt to extend it as far as possible to the platteland. In the past we managed to have houses provided for bywoners on the farms through a former government. It was an outstanding and ideal scheme, which enabled many people who would otherwise have migrated to the towns to remain on the platteland. But apart from this, we have still had no provision on the part of the Government as regards the needs of housing for labourers on farms, in spite of the fact that repeated attempts have been made by the platteland, and especially by means of the agricultural unions and farmers’ organisations, to get a scheme by which the platteland can be helped with housing. We have never succeeded in doing so, and I cherish the hope that in connection with his housing scheme the Minister will seriously consider devising an acceptable and convenient platteland scheme, under which we will be enabled to provide the necessary housing for people on the platteland. This does not only apply to people who are today living on the platteland and who in many cases have to make do with a poor class of house, but I am thinking as well of the numbers who will be able to return to the platteland on demobilisation and also others who will be drawn away from the towns by better housing on the platteland and who will settle there. It is so easy to initiate a scheme for the platteland because the platteland will see to the building of the houses itself. In the towns the Government or the local bodies will have to be called upon to make provision for housing, but if there is a platteland scheme which is acceptable enough, the farmers themselves will build houses, and we will not have the difficulties which you have to contend with in the towns, shortage of labour and all the other difficulties in connection with the building of houses. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the difference. When we have a housing scheme for the platteland, then the farmers are in a position to provide their housing and their labourers’ housing themselves, but when you have a housing scheme for the town, then the local bodies and the Government have to make provision for the labourers and for the housing in the towns. And if the Government is prepared to make provision, then it must also look after the platteland and the housing of labourers on the platteland. A scheme will be very much cheaper on the platteland than in the towns, because the costs are much lower on the platteland. There are many farmers who are too poor to erect housing for their labourers, but if housing were ensured on the platteland, we would also thereby prevent people migrating to the towns and causing a surplus of labour in the towns, while they will be kept on the platteland to a large extent if housing is provided for. It is a well-known fact that there is a migration from the platteland to the towns, and it is quite natural in the circumstances. The people are drawn to the towns by better conveniences and higher wages. It is our duty to develop the platteland to retain a sound economical agricultural structure there, and if we want to do that, we must provide the necessary conveniences on the platteland, as far as is within our power. As soon as difficult times come, you get unemployment in the towns and such conditions that the Government has to step in and local authorities experience great difficulties, and they have to grasp at any remedy to lessen the unemployment; it has often happened in bad times that people have been taken out of the towns to go and work on the platteland; it has happened in the Western Province and elsewhere as well; but it has never happened that there has been unemployment on the platteland. The people who are settled on the plattedand never form a problem of unemployment. Cost of living is much more expensive in the towns, and we must prevent people as far as possible from migrating from the platteland to the towns, where they often become a burden for local authorities, and make the housing problem bigger. The food which is produced on the platteland has to be transported to the towns over long distances, and water has also to be brought to the towns, all of these are factors which make the cost of living higher than on the platteland. We are aware that the wages on the platteland have risen. I will not talk of the towns. The wages on the platteland have risen anything from 100 to 150 per cent. since the commencement of the war, and we also know that the standard of living has risen considerably—the wages will never descend again to their former level and the standard of living will remain higher, and it is self-evident that if you have a higher standard of living and higher wages, there must also be better housing. It is self-evident that if there is not better housing, then something is wrong with the economy of the workers. Therefore I want to urge the Minister with all the earnestness of which I am capable to help us to make the necessary provision for an acceptable and convenient scheme for the platteland under which we will be enabled to provide housing for our labourers. There are some of us who are better off, and more well-to-do, and who have already tackled the necessary housing schemes. There are cases where people have spent considerable amounts on better housing for their labourers out of their own funds, but unfortunately not everyone can afford to do this, and therefore it is the duty of the Government, where such a huge scheme is being tackled, to ensure that the platteland receives its rightful share, so that the labourers on the platteland will also be assisted.

I think it would be appropriate if at this stage I dealt with the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper and I move—

The purpose of the first amendment is to enable the Housing Commission to come to the assistance of a member of the public who wishes to build and who may be held to ransom by the owner of land which may be suitable for that purpose. The next amendment is to enable expropriation proceedings to take place, through the agency of the courts if necessary, or through some other agency. I hope that in carrying out its powers the commission will seldom have to resort to expropriation. These very wide powers are being taken to prevent the commission or the local authorities being held to ransom. We want people to be reasonable, and if they are reasonable we can come to an agreement with them; but if people want to make exorbitant profits they may be put to expropriation. Provision may be made for determination of the price by the court; it may be that other machinery will be set up and this amendment will enable that to be done. But whatever the tribunal for determining compensation it will be bound by Clause 3 of the Bill. The amount of the compensation will be governed by the terms of the Bill. The next amendment has been introduced to enable the regulations to be framed if necessary to prevent expropriation proceedings being unduly protracted. Then we have an amendment to correct a typographical error and to bring the English into line with the Afrikaans. The effect of the next amendment will be to enable the commission, if it takes over a scheme from a local authority, to vary the scheme if it considers this advisable. Then there is a small amendment in line 28 to rectify an error in drafting. The next amendment, in line 63, is to give effect to the undertaking I gave during the second reading debate that the guarantee the Government proposes to give to members of building trade unions is for a minimum period of ten years; as the clause stands the guarantee may be up to a maximum period of ten years. The next amendment is a new proviso that no regulations shall be made unless the Minister of Labour has consulted the trade unions. I may say that it is my intention to have all the regulations published in draft form in the Gazette before final promulgation. They will be published at least three weeks, probably the period will be three weeks, before promulgation. During that time the members of the public and all interested bodies will have an opportunity of making recommendations in regard to them. Only after they have been open for inspection for that period will they be promulgated and have the force of law. But this amendment makes specific provision for the regulations relating to the control of labour being submitted to those unions concerned. Then there is an amendment in line 16 on page 8. It is intended to remove any possibility of doubt as to the validity of regulations made under this paragraph, which enables the commission to enforce an order to admit a tenant to his premises. It is to prevent houses standing empty. The next amendment is in line 19 on page 8. It is to give the commission power to prevent the demolition of buildings—which might be used for residential purposes—in order to replace them by business premises. It is felt that before any such demolition takes place during this emergency period one must be satisfied the building cannot be used for housing purposes. The additional amendment I am moving in line 22 on page 8 (not appearing on the Order Paper) arises in this way. Buildings may be put up by small builders and building societies are in a position to make special advances under the Additional Housing Act to enable people to purchase those buildings. Under that Act it is not competent for such a loan to be made when the house has already been erected. The commission is contemplating assisting members of the public to procure houses by enabling advances to be made up to 90 per cent. in certain circumstances and in order to ensure such assistance will apply not only to houses that are being built but to a newly-constructed house that has been acquired. These words are being added after “dwellings”, or the first acquisition of dwellings after their construction.” This is in the interests of the public who require houses. There will be special provisions for financial assistance to ex-volunteers on demobilisation.

If a private individual gives up to 100 per cent. you are not going to stop him; if a speculative builder is prepared to sell and allow the purchaser up to 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. you are not going to stop him?

If a small builder has built a house and he wishes to sell and the person who buys wants financial assistance we propose now to give him up to the hilt.

But if the builder gives that assistance himself?

Then, of course, it is not necessary to invoke the aid of a building society.

I am glad that the Minister has removed a good deal of my objections by his amendments. I endeavoured to follow his explanation. A good deal of my objections now fall away, but I would like the Minister to furnish us with a little more information. Take (a) and (i) for example. Under (a) we grant powers to the commission or local authority to build houses, to devise and carry out a scheme, and to acquire material and equipment for this purpose. I would like a little more information. Things are moving at such a pace in this House that it is impossible to give everything the necessary attention. Where a local authority is authorised to build houses, it is empowered under (i) to dispose of the houses. I would just like the Minister to explain to us which paragraph contains stipulations in connection with the disposal of houses which are built in this manner, and what the basis is on which the houses will be disposed of. There are two ways of providing people with houses. Some will want to buy a house, other individuals will pay rent. One of the things we would very much like to know is whether the houses will not be fixed at such a price level that it will be too high, with the result that these people will not be assisted. My primary object in raising this matter is to say to the Minister in all earnestness that he will have to exercise care so that, in his attempt to build these houses, he does not perhaps unconsciously create a practice of keeping the prices of houses high as regards both the purchase price and the rental. For that reason we would like an explanation from the Minister as to the manner in which people will gain possession of these houses, either by way of purchase or lease, for on that depends the success of the Minister’s scheme to build houses. If he builds the houses and the purchase price and the rental is so high that the ordinary salaried man cannot afford it, if an attempt is made to keep the prices so high that they cannot stretch to that figure, then this undertaking is doomed to failure. This can be done in two ways. The one is to fix the prices artificially high, and the second is to ensure that there is an artificial shortage of houses. We hope that the Minister will make every attempt not to create an artificial shortage, but to build sufficient houses. We hope that the Minister will tell us on what basis people will gain possession of the houses, what the rental will be and what the purchase price will be; for on that depends to what extent we can give him our further support.

I think it would be convenient if I dealt with that point now. I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is the aim of the National Housing Commission to try to bring down the cost of houses in South Africa. With that object in view it is quite obvious that what must be done at the start is to build houses for letting purposes and charge reasonably cheap rents. That is the first necessity, Hon. members know that the cost of land has risen and the cost of building has risen. We are attempting under the powers sought in this Bill to limit rising costs of land and building and profits once and for all. Quite apart from what may be achieved in this Bill, it is obvious that houses built now will probably depreciate considerably in value in the next five or ten years. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) asked whether I can indicate at what price the houses will be let or sold. I do not wish to tie myself down to figures this afternoon, but what we have in view is, as far as the lower income groups are concerned, persons earning up to £25 a month, to ensure that they do not pay more than a fifth of their income, so that their rent will be about £5 a month. That rent will be sub-economic. There will be a loss on the transaction but the State and the local authorities will bear that loss. If the State runs this scheme itself it will bear the whole loss, and that will allow the houses to be let at rents within the means of the lessees. There are other persons who may be within the £25 to £45 a month group. Some of them may feel that they can purchase houses. We will make it possible for them to purchase houses and we are trying to ensure that where houses are built for that category prices and rents will be reasonable and interest will be kept as low as possible with Government assistance, and the interest and redemption payments will be able to be maintained by the purchaser. There will be others however who feel that they will not wish to enter into an obligation at this stage. They would like a house but do not necessarily want to go in for a housing scheme. They will wish to hire a house but do not wish to incur the obligation of ownership. We have to provide for them also and if such a person hires a house for four or five years he may then find that his financial position has improved and that he wishes to go in for a house on the home ownership basis. We are working on those lines also. Where a man has rented a house for five years and then wishes to buy it we will revalue the house after five years and he can enter into a hire purchase agreement. I think we are entirely at one in the goal we hope to reach. I am not able to give details down to the last penny in regard to rentals but we are working all along on the basis of one-fifth of a man’s income with due regard to not saddling a man with obligations other than the purchase price, such as rates and taxes, which may make it impossible for him to carry on. The interest on loans for national houses at present is 4 per cent. If that rate can be reduced and if we can spread it over the period of redemption, 20 to 30 years, it obviously reduces the monthly interest. The Commission is trying to meet that eventuality.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph (m) and to enquire what his policy is in that connection. I do not say that the Minister should not take more powers. He is taking extraordinary powers, and one can understand it to a certain extent. I personally said years ago that it is the duty of the State to ensure that there are sufficient houses for the population of the country, but according to this paragraph it would appear that the Minister is going to come into conflict with the local authorities, and I would like to know whether as regards this legislation under which he is asking for such extraordinary powers, he is first going to try to co-operate with the local authorities and municipalities, and along what lines he is going to set to work. I read in paragraph (m)—

Further on the clause deals with houses which are to be built in this connection and there it mentions houses which are built out of monies which are advanced by an administrator. As I understand the position, under his powers the Minister is now taking unto himself the right, say for instance if there are 50 houses built at Burghersdorp to inform the municipality that it may not impose at tax on those houses. But the clause stipulates further that this will also apply to houses which are built out of monies which are advanced by an administrator. It seems to me that this act will be retrospective and that this clause will relate to houses which have already been built out of monies which were advanced by a municipality through the administrator of the province. We know that under the Housing Act of 1920 all the money was advanced by means of the provincial administrator. Now I would like the Minister to make a statement as to what his policy is going to be in this connection. To quote an example, supposing there were 50 houses built by the municipality at Burghersdorp under that Housing Act, does the Minister intend to take the power to prevent that municipality from imposing a tax on those houses?

Not if they provide the necessary services. I will explain it later on.

The Minister will come across places where he will have to co-operate with the local authorities and municipalities. They will have to provide him with electricity and water as well as sanitary conveniences for those people. The Minister cannot act as if he were hostiley disposed towards the local authorities. I would like to have an answer on this point from the Minister before we go any further.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understood that the House had decided to deal with. Clause 2 seriatim, and the hon. member is already dealing with paragraph (m).

We are now dealing with the whole sub-section.

I do not wish to hold up the House but there is one aspect of this Bill to which I must draw attention. I cannot help considering it absolutely wrong in principle and in fact immoral that provision should be made by this House to pay anyone anything less than his property is worth. The value of property is only what it can fetch in the open market, and provision is now being made in this Bill to pay less than that, and that is immoral. We dare not do it. It is a form of expropriation of a man’s property, against his will, and to pay him less than it is worth is wrong. Property is worth what it fetches in the market. Many laws provide that valuations are calculated at the price property will fetch in the open market. I therefore want to ask the Minister this, although I know that this is an emergency to let his policy at least be that as far as possible the owner of property will be paid on the basis I have suggested, and that the powers granted under this Bill should not be used to expropriate merely to get it cheaply. If the State thinks that properties have enhanced in value 150 per cent. above the pre-war value, I ascribe that to the fault of the Government in introducing the Property Profits Tax. If the Government is responsible for the undue rise in values, I think the State ought to pay in the difference between what the property is worth in the open market and what they want to pay. Then there is another aspect. Supposing a working man has had property for some time and owing to some development round him it has risen in value, he now gets back the cost plus 6 per cent. By expropriating this land the owner may become liable to two taxes, the Excess Profits Duty and the Property Tax. It is one one of the recognised principles of democracy that every person should be allowed so to govern his own affairs as to regulate his income as he thinks fit. Here the Government can enforce an income upon a person who may as the result be subjected to harsh Excess Profits Duty or to the Property Profits Duty. That is why I merely ask that the Minister will exercise these powers very discreetly and not complicate the position, because it will be an unnecessary hardship, and the Minister, popular as he is today, may become very unpopular.

On a point of order, I thought we started off by deciding to take these sub-sections seriatim. The last speaker was on sub-section (3). Can we not take them seriatim?

May I suggest on another point of order that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) realise that he is not running the House of Assembly, and the sooner he does so the better.

On paragraph (b)(1), I move the amendment standing in my name—

I am prepared to accept that amendment.

I wish to refer to the Minister’s amendment to Clauses 2 (s) (4). The amendment is that the State can give artisans a guarantee of full-time employment for a period “not less than” ten years, instead of “not exceeding” ten years. I suggest that the Minister should limit the period to ten years, otherwise there will be confusion, because who has to decide in a particular case whether the guarantee shall be for ten, twelve or fifteen years?

It is done by negotiation and agreement.

The clause does not deal with organisations but with individuals. Take, for example, different areas. You may have one period in Johannesburg and another in Durban.

No.

If that is not so and if the intention is to have a fixed period, let us put it in the Act. Why should there not be agreement about it?

Because the building workers have accepted dilution.

When the Minister made his second reading speech it was clearly understood that the limit would be ten years. Now they say it might be more than ten years. I think the House should limit the period to ten years and not allow a body of officials to say that in a particular case they will guarantee work for 12, 15 or 20 years. The intention was that it should be ten years, and I ask the Minister to make it clear that the guarantee should be for ten years and no more. I ask him to modify his amendment so as to read that the guarantee of full time employment be “for ten years”.

It is a most extraordinary thing that a member like the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) should ever have been elected to the House because surely if the Atlantic Charter means anything and the present situation in San Francisco means anything, or this Government, it means full employment for all. The first sentence in the report of the ad hoc committee which dealt with the returned soldiers in this country said that the first benefit which the Government are prepared to guarantee to all returned ex-volunteers is permanent employment.

This applies to artisans, not volunteers.

You are not an ex-volunteer, unfortunately. I say that with malice because some of the queries raised by that hon. member are no credit whatever to this House. But apart from that the hon. Minister of Labour, or as I prefer to call him, the hon. member for Benoni—he has been the member for Benoni since 1910—has always advanced the idea that we should guarantee employment and that is the policy of the Labour Party. But here we find in 1945 that the hon. member, a K.C.—I do not know whether he is a leading member of the Bar; I should hate to be defended by him—is trying to restrict the guarantee which the Government is prepared to give the building workers. They have given that guarantee in Britain, but they were bombed in Britain and houses are needed badly. That hon. member has not been bombed. I say this, never mind the ten years to the building workers, every worker should be guaranteed full employment.

Hear, hear.

If the Nationalist Party in this House agree with that and are prepared to guarantee full permanent employment for every single individual, and give them sufficient money to let them live civilised lives, and they go no further, I will join the Nationalist Party. We have the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) who waxes eloquent about the Jews. We have the hon. member who talks only on bilingualism. We have the hon. member from the wastes of Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who with a thrill in his voice recounts the history of the concentration camps in the Boer War. That is why I cannot be a member of the Nationalist Party but if you say that you will give this guarantee of full employment for everyone, that is the policy of the Labour Party and has been for many years. It is the beginning of a policy which will be the salvation of the country in future. I am including non-Europeans also. A non-European is employed and discharged and left to his own devices even by my friends of the United Party, although I have no United Party friends now. One of the most important things in the modern development of relationships between employer and employee is the guarantee of permanent employment. I believe that Socialism is round the corner. I am a socialist and my Party is a socialistic party. What we do believe can be achieved before we get into a socialist state is a state where on the one hand the worker will be guaranteed employment at a reasonable rate of wages and the investor will be guaranteed what is called stone walled investment. [Time limit.]

I want to raise a matter which is very important, and I should be glad to have the Minister’s attention. When I as a private contractor undertake to build a house for a man, say, for £1,000 and I give him a binding tender and enter into a binding contract with him, what have I got to do when I have finished the house, as far as the profits are concerned, because it distinctly says here that no building contractor shall make a profit exceeding 6 per cent. If I make less than 6 per cent. how do I recover the difference? Then I want to put this point to the Minister in regard to the fixed percentage profit. Is that going to apply to everyone in the building trade— the timber merchant, the iron merchant and the other people who supply building material? I do not think the 6 per cent. should be made applicable to one person in the building industry and not to the others. If it is going to be made applicable, I think it should be made applicable to everyone in the building trade.

On the occasion of the second reading on the representations which I made then, the hon. Minister readily agreed in his reply so to amend this particular clause that the guarantee for building workers would be not less than ten years, and I hope the hon. Minister does not recede from that point. I hope he will not listen to the voice that comes from Pretoria City because that is the voice of a ribald or piebald reactionary. That is the voice that goes back to the industrial age of Great Britain in the last century, the time when the working class people were asking and making effective demands for a guarantee of work or maintenance. After the Atlantic Charter and after all the sentiments expressed by the Government during the period of war, it is not too much to ask that building workers get a guarantee of not less than ten years, and I am quite satisfied that the building workers themselves are expecting a guarantee of something more than ten years, a guarantee which I think they are entitled to ask for. [Interjections.]

Will they work?

It appears from the interjections of hon. members of the United Party ….

Oh no, no.

These are not interjections made by the Opposite side of the House. It is quite clear from the interjections of the United Party that they are loath to give a guarantee of ten years to the workers. The Minister must not fail to realise, and I am prepared to believe that he recognises, that the building workers are foregoing something that they hold very dear when they agree to the right of the introduction of Africans and unskilled workers being trained over a very short period for the performance of skilled work, for which building artisans over the years past have made great sacrifices; they have struggled to build up decent wage conditions commensurate with the work they perform, and now they are foregoing that to meet a national emergency. In these circumstances, it is not too much to expect from this Government that in return, as a quid pro quo, as a reciprocal act on the part of the Government, they will give a guarantee to the workers of not less than ten years. Personally I am not satisfied with a guarantee of ten years. It should be a guarantee of something more than ten years, and unless the Government rejects completely the suggestion which comes from Pretoria (City), it can only be accepted by members on these benches and by other people in the country that the promises and the assertions made by the Government in the past and during the course of the war, were merely sentiments expressed under the duress of war, things which they never intended to implement when the war is over. That is what I will believe, if there is any endorsement of the reactionary thought expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). I hope we hear no more of any suggestion that there should not be a fixed period of ten years, and conversely that members should get up and ask not only that the guarantee should be one of not less than ten years, but more than ten years. I hope that when the Minister introduces the appropriate regulations he will see that the guarantee is more than ten years.

I think I should dispose of this question of the guarantee straight away. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) exercising his right as a member of this House, has made a suggestion to me. He has asked me to limit the guarantee to ten years. I am unable to go further than the provisions of amendment. I am asking the House to enable the Government to enter into negotiations with the building trade union, to enable it to give its trade unions a guarantee of full employment for at least a period of ten years. Whether it should be longer or not is a matter for discussion, but I would urge that hon. members do not pursue this matter any further. I want to emphasise a point I tried to make in replying to the debate on the second reading. A number of hon. members have asked why this Bill was not introduced earlier. This Bill in its present form would not have been practical politics in this House unless the Government had entered into negotiations in the building trade union and had come to an agreement with them. It is a very big step forward that we have been able to enter into full agreement with the building trade union. That agreement has enabled us to tackle this problem of housing from a fundamental point of view. We are now for the first time beginning to control labour; we are going to control land prices; we are going to control profits, but these three things are inextricably bound up with one another, and having reached this agreement after careful and delicate negotiation, after having come to full understanding with one of the parties to the contract, if we now attempt to whittle down anything it would do the country a great disservice and it will make it impossible for the Government to give effect to this Bill. I suggest we leave this clause as it is in the light of the amendment I have moved, and then it will be for the Government to complete these negotiations, to bring the agreement with the building trade union to finality by entering into the requisite agreement. May I just deal briefly with the point raised by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). It is not the intention of the Housing Commission to deprive local authorities of rates. We are anxious that local authorities should build houses. They have not succeeded in doing so according to their undertaking. That may be due to a number of causes. If we can help them to do so, we will do so. If they can complete their buildings, they will be rateable. If they cannot complete the buildings we will help them. It may be that in certain cases the local authorities are not able to do the necessary servicing. It may be that the director of housing will have to build certain roads, put down the drainage and link up with electricity and so on. If the local authority does not perform those services, then what we have in mind is not the payment of rates, but what we have in mind is payment for the actual services rendered. If light is given, if electric service is given, we will pay for this specific service but not full rates. If the local authority is itself prepared to provide those amenities we shall be prepared to pay rates. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has raised a question which is more germane to the discussion under Clause 3 of the Bill, and I think it will be more appropriate if I reply to him when Section 3 is under discussion. So far as the points raised by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) are concerned, if losses are made under a contract entered into by a private contractor with the Commission, or a local authority, I assume that will be taken into consideration in assessing the over all profit in respect of the transaction. Obviously if we are going to limit profits, then in equity one should take into consideration losses. The hon. member has asked whether the limitation of profits will also apply to brick fields and timber merchants and others who supply the building material. I take it the control will be exercised through the price controller. Finally he has asked me whether the costplus-system is to be introduced. It will be introduced but not on the basis previously used in this country. The Director of Housing has tried to find an agreed basis on which to cost houses, and when that basis is agreed upon, contractors will be asked to build for that cost plus 6 per cent. In other words, the cost won’t be an indefinite figure, a previously unascertained figure. The costs will have to be ascertained in advance of the construction, of the building, and then that cost plus 6 per cent. will be the amount awarded to the builder.

I want to pursue further the matter to which the hon. Minister has just replied dealing with paragraph (r). The Minister tells us that cost will not be on the ordinary cost-plus system, that the Director of Housing is apparently going to set up a certain model house, which will be costed to the last screw, and that is going to be the basis of cost for future houses. But building does not go like that; it does not run as smoothly as the clock, and I cannot conceive how it is going to be possible to arrive at some static cost. There may be shortages of material; there may be shortages of labour; there may be weather and the many other dislocations, which occur every day in the business world, and all these factors must have a bearing on the cost. If the cost is going to be based on a price arrived at in advance then it is quite likely that that cost may allow a bigger profit than should be allowed. On the other hand it is possible that the cost may in certain circumstances be inadequate. Then again, is the Director of Housing going to build houses in every town and dorp, because the cost of housing must vary in every place. This whole idea seems to me to be completely impracticable, and the point I want to come to is this. If building is going to be carried out on the cost basis plus 6 per cent. then there can be no losses provided that a comprehensive list of costs is drawn up. That list should cover all the items of cost. If that is done there can be no loss, but if one is going to work on a figure of costs, arrived at in advance, then it is quite conceivable that losses may occur or that excessive profits may occur, in both cases with equally undesirable effect. I think it is regrettable that paragraph (r) was not constituted as a special clause in the Bill. Surely the Minister could have done that. He could have set out the whole basis, then the House would know where it stood. As it stands now it is now equivalent to a blank cheque.

Are you objecting to the 6 per cent. Will 12 per cent. satisfy you?

No, I am not objecting to the 6 per cent. That is not my object. My object is this, that if one is going to limit profit, then one must indemnify loss— I do not say limit loss but indemnify loss. It is quite impossible to work on 6 per cent. and to stand any loss out of that.

What is your alternative suggestion?

My suggestion is that cost must be provided for adequately, not on the basis of some figure arrived at in advance, but on a practical basis.

What is your formula?

My formula is to lay down exactly what headings will constitute cost for the purposes of this Act, and I think that is the only way in which you can work it out. The Minister must have the details worked out. There is last year’s Walker Award as a guide. It was, however; deficient in the headings, a factor which is easily remedied. It is for this House to lay down the different headings of cost. Then I want to say a word about paragraph (s) sub-paragraph (iv), which is not subject to the three years’ limitation in the Bill, and here again I think this should have constituted a separate clause in the Bill. This agreement is a matter which is going to be difficult. I fully endorse the idea of giving a ten-year guarantee. I am quite in sympathy with that idea, but if a guarantee of full employment is going to be given over a period of ten years, there must be a quid pro quo in the form of an assurance or some provision that for that guarantee a full day’s work will be given and that an efficient day’s service will be rendered. We are going to control the cost of land; we are going to control the cost of building material, and we are going to control the cost of building. The cost of a building, as far as labour is concerned, is roughly 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the total cost, and if is essential that in respect of that the State will get efficiency. I mention this because at, a meeting which took place not very long ago, a committee that was set up by the Housing Commission, was informed by the Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union that at least 70 per cent. of the workers in the building industry today must be regarded as inefficient and this was further confirmed by Colonel Holdgate, Deputy-Military Controller. It is due very largely to this inefficiency and a go-slow policy that the cost of housing today is so high. And if the State is going to give a ten years’ guarantee, I say there must be a quid pro quo. Furthermore there must be a certain safeguard to industry in this country, because if this guarantee is given it may be that there will be such an influx of workers from other industries to the building trade, that it may upset the economy of the country. The Minister is asking us here to give him a blank cheque. He can enter into an agreement for anything that is not less than ten years. We shall not know what that agreement is until we see it in the regulations. I am sorry that this was not brought in as a separate clause of the Bill. In view of the negotiations which have taken place, surely it would have been possible to reach agreement with the trade unions long ago and have the terms stated in this Bill.

I have an amendment to move on this clause which reads as follows—

1. (w) the acquisition, provision and maintenance, in connection with schemes, Of sufficent and suitable land for the purposes of recreation and play.

This amendment is designed to encourage the development of playing fields and open spaces for recreational purposes in any housing schemes under this Act. This amendment does not “force” the Minister, of course, or his commission to provide such open spaces, but it does give him “power” to do so. I feel that the Minister himself will be sympathetic to this amendment for two reasons. First Of all, I know that he himself is connected with the Playing Fields’ Association and that is one of their objects. Secondly,’ his constituency which marches with mine, Woodstock, is one, I think, in which all the evils of lack of space and playing fields in connection with town planning have been very amply demonstrated. I know that, in both of our constituencies there is very little space, other than the streets, for children to play in. That is one of the evils of a town planning situation which we now seek to abolish. I hope that the Minister will make use of this power. If this amendment is passed it will give the Minister this power, and I hope he will take advantage of it and give specific instructions to his commission to include open spaces in all their schemes. It costs very little to leave an open space in a planned scheme, but it costs thousands and sometimes millions of pounds to create open spaces once they have been built up. Particularly in areas where big blocks of flats are to be built are neighbouring playing fields necessary. When our soldiers come back, they too, will want to feel that their children can play and develop on healthy lines in open spaces left in schemes created for their benefit. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and, if he does, that he will take full advantage of the power that he will get under it.

I will accept that amendment.

I would like to refer to one or two sections of this Bill. In the first instance, in regard to the preamble of this section, I understand from Press reports on the second reading debate, that the hon. Minister was prepared to accept a suggestion by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) that we should have a Parliamentary committee to keep an eye on these regulations which are framed under the Act. I notice also that the Minister has moved an amendment to Section (s) Paragraph 8, whereby he undertakes to consult the trade unions on regulations which may affect labour in the country. I think that is a good principle. I am pleased the Minister has moved that amendment, but even so it is my submission that where regulations may affect industry and cocmmerce, those people should be consulted and I sincerely hope that some machinery will be created, either in the form of a Parliamentary committee or an advisory committee, which will be able to advise the Minister in regard to these regulations. The hon. Minister in his opening remarks stated that private enterprise would be given an opportunity to build. I do not want to prolong the discussion except to add that I hope full use will be made of whatever builders are available in the country. I have in my possession a long list of names of unemployed builders in Johannesburg, people who are wasting their time on garden walls and garages, at a time when we have a national emergency. I understand it was stated somewhere that the private builders have failed to build. That is a misrepresentation of fact. The fact is that these people could not build houses, not because they did not want to do so, but it was due, if I may say so, to excessive control. The third point I want to raise is under Paragraph (f), which refers to replanning. Let us hope that when we have built houses for the people who are now living in slums, those slums will be demolished. It has happened in the past time and again that a local authority or a utility company or even the State spends thousands of pounds to house people who have been living in slums; those people are taken out of the slums but as soon as they are housed elsewhere, others go back to the slums. We must not allow that. We must demolish the buildings as soon as the people have been housed elsewhere. The fourth point I want to raise is under Section (k). I am pleased to learn from the Minister that he intends to re-introduce the system of the 90 per cent. loan. That is really a very important step. In that connection it may be said to the credit of our returned soldiers that Demobilisation in Johannesburg finds today in many instances that the wives of the soldiers have been saving money during their absence. These soldiers are today coming to Demobilisation with savings of £200 or £300 which they want to invest in a house. Under this section, and the amendment these men will now be able to obtain their houses, because they will have the initial deposit. One might go even a little bit further; it may be an experiment, but there is such a thing as a moral risk in business. It has been done and it is done daily in Johannesburg where some builders put up houses without any deposit from the man at all. The builder then pays off until such time as he can obtain a bond from the building society. In other words, he reduces it gradually until he can take a bond from a building society. If a private builder should take that moral risk, I can see no harm in the State doing it, provided it was a good risk. However, the Minister has already gone quite far and I do not want to press that point. As time goes on and as the experiment advances, I hope they may find better ways of dealing with the situation. Then there is the question of the cost of the land and the Land Tax. I would have liked to have moved an extra section but I shall not do so now. While the Minister is prepared, particularly in the case of the middle classes to help them even to the extent of a loan of 95 per cent. it is very unfortunate that a substantial portion of that loan which will be advanced to them will go back directly and immediately to the State. It does seem Irish. On the one hand the State says: “I am now going to help you to build a house”, and on the other hand the State takes a substantial amount back again. One sincerely hopes that the Minister will thrash out this matter with the Minister of Finance and see to what extent land which is genuinely used for the building of houses cannot be exempted from the land tax. We have gone so far during this Session that we have granted exemption in the case of utility companies and municipalities, but that will benefit the lower income groups. The income group that carries the country, that pays proportionately the biggest amount in taxation, that squeals the least and that gets the least, is the middle income group. The members of this group will not benefit to any appreciable extent under this Bill unless the Minister can find some means whereby exemption can be granted to them where they are definitely using that ground for building purposes. That aspect is very important indeed.

Under Clause 2 (1) (b) one point gives me concern. The Bill, as a whole, controls the cost of building and of land. The point that worries me is that under this paragraph the Housing Commission can expropriate a piece of land for a housing scheme, or under the amendment proposed by the Minister this afternoon they can do so for any one individual. I should like to have the assurance from the Minister that there will be control on the profit arising from the sale of a house, or houses, built on land which has been expropriated in this way. An individual may apply to the Housing Commission for land to be expropriated in a certain area to enable him to build a house. He may take possession of that house and then within a year sell it at an excessive profit. It is true that at the end of the clause it says the Housing Commission shall be able to control the conditions of expropriation but I should like the assurance from the Minister that the profit in a case of that sort will be limited.

I shall ask the chairman of the commission to see that point is taken into account in the regulations.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Sub-section (1), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (3),

In my second reading speech I made some suggestions regarding publication of regulations. It is my hope that proposed regulations will be published and adequate notice given in the Government Gazette to all persons likely to be affected. I understand the Minister has already given the assurance of such publication. Is that so?

Yes, I have mentioned that.

Sub-section put and agreed to.

On sub-section (5),

I move—

1. (5) Any regulation made under subsection (1) shall lapse unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament passed within 30 days after the opening of the Session in which they have to be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament.

The hon. Minister knows that at the second reading I drew attention to this matter, and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) also pointed out that the Minister is now receiving full powers to promulgate far-reaching regulations, and we pointed out the desirability of his stipulating, when he promulgates the regulations, not only that they should be laid on the Table of the House, but that there should also be an opportunity of discussing the regulations. The only opportunity which now offers is to bring them under discussion by a special motion. All that this amendment proposes is that the regulations shall be discussed and be accepted by this House. It is the duty of us all to afford Parliament the opportunity of expressing an opinion in connection with the regulations. The Minister is depriving Parliament of its authority to some extent, and our amendment is only än attempt to restore to a certain extent the authority of Parliament, and I feel that this is a very fair amendment.

I feel that the Minister will say that he cannot accept the amendment because we have at present, under our Parliamentary system, nothing that permits of the control of regulation-making on a non-party, non-partisan, non-political basis. The Government itself is not wholly blameless in not having such machinery. Members would more willingly have given the Minister powers under this Bill if there was machinery for, automatically, checking “legislation by regulation” more effectively than we can now. We all know that the safeguards we have been given here are not really very effective. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. But if he does not I feel it will be for reasons of political expediency. Because we have no established non-party machinery each party seems to suspect the political bona fides of the other. I appreciate the Opposition’s desire for safeguards. I also appreciate the Minister’s fear that, if regulations lapsed through not being affirmed within a defined period, obstruction tactics might be used to destroy their efficacy. This surely is an argument for the setting up, as speedily as possible, of some non-party safeguarding machinery. May I quote from a House of Commons memorandum recently published which describes exactly the conditions existing in England and the conditions now existing here—

Is not that the position we are now faced with in connection with this Housing (Emergency Powers) Bill? May I recommend that, if the Minister will not accept this amendment he give consideration to methods recently adopted in Britain to control ‘regulation” legislation. In the House of Commons they introduced a Bill, in March, 1945, called the “Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill”, to deal with the subject. I will attempt to outline very briefly the procedure in the House of Commons in terms of their new Bill. As I go along I will try to adapt what I say in such a way as to make it understandable in terms of our own procedure. I think we will find that we may get some helpful guidance as to methods of checking regulations. First, before regulations are laid before Parliament there must be publication of notices and considerations of objections. Then, within a period of 14 days after the regulations are laid before Parliament, “petitions” may be lodged against them. Thirdly, these petitions are placed before the Chairmen of the Committees of each House—“petitions of amendment” or “petitions of general objection”. The Chairmen may have to decide if an objecting petition to a regulation is “proper to be received”. In our case the Speaker would probably decide on that point. Fourthly, if it is decided that the objection to the regulation is “proper to be received” it becomes competent for any member of either House to move that it be annulled and the House decides. It is interesting to notice, fifthly, that there is a distinction drawn between objections based on broad grounds of policy and those based on individual rights or private interests. The conception is that, objections based on broad grounds of policy are discussed on the floor of the House, while those affecting individual interests are referred to a Select Committee. Point number six is that discussion, either in the House or in Committee, is confined to the issues raised in the petition, so there is no possibility of people wandering off on irrelevant issues in the course of the debate or in Committee. The Minister might well consider this procedure or something similar during the recess, and I am sure no member of Parliament would object if, next Session, he comes forward with amendments to sub-clause 5 based on what I have outlined; if he introduces some machinery which constitutes an adequate check on the control of the regulationmaking power, which he possesses in this Act. I do hope, if he cannot accept the amendment, he will consider during the recess the suggestions I have made, in the light of our own procedure. There is not time now to adopt the Commons procedure. But if he cannot accept this amendment, I hope that he will give us some guarantee, on behalf of the Government, that any motions we might move, next Session, against regulations in terms of this sub-section (5), will be given time, by the Government, for discussion and debate on the floor of this House. At present under this sub-section we will be dependent entirely on the whim of the Government, and that is not right.

As representing what might be termed the lay members of the House I may say that we have no desire to be diverted from the main issue by quibbles about procedure however interesting they might be to lawyers. It is obvious to everybody that here a job of work has been tackled which will tax to the utmost not only the Minister but the ability of the Government. Their concentrated energies will be required for carrying out the practical measures involved in the whole issue of housing. As a lay member of the House I am prepared to ’ accept that our law advisers are perfectly competent to deal with legal matters entailed in the compilation of the Bill. Surely we are not going to argue now about every jot and tittle and wander off on these little side issues and lose sight of our real objective? I am convinced many members of this House are not facing up to the real problem that the Minister is facing up to. I should regret if we bother about piffling little alterations in this Bill when we know that in regard to what has to be accomplished we have not yet envisaged the total extent of our responsibilities. Are we already forgetting the blank cheque arrangement? I am not forgetting it. I am accepting it because if the Minister is going to face up to this task he will have to be helped and not hindered. If we adopt a clause on the lines it has been suggested it will open the floodgates for the merely legal mind. I am going to stand by the clause as it is. The safety and the liberty of the subject is not in the hands of people who follow the mere letter of the law. That is evident every time we look around us. I do feel the proper construction of the Bill is in safe hands, as safe as they can be, when they are in the hands of people who draft our Bills for us.

I do not think it is necessary to dwell at any length on the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne), for it is quite obvious from what he said that he has not the slightest idea of what it is proposed to do. We do not propose to deprive the Minister of these powers. He will still retain all the powers. We are only proposing that he should answer for the regulations, and the onus must rest upon him to do so, and it must not be left to a private member. Thus the whole argument advanced by the hon. member is based on a misconception. As regards the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell), I must say that I am very disappointed at his attitude. At the commencement of the Sitting he moved an important motion and to a certain extent I supported it; I supported the spirit and meaning of the motion, but I issued a warning at the time that the hon. member was talking at random, that he was academic and would not bring home to the people who are to blame the responsibility for the evil which exists in our system. I said that he should not come along with academic platitudes, but that he should make the motion practicable. This is our first opportunity of applying the principle in practice to which we accorded lip service to the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock. What, however, is the attitude of the hon. member for Woodstock? He says that the amendment is a very good one, that it represents his own view, but that he knows that the Minister will reject it.

I said that I wished that he would accept it.

But the hon. member has in so many words suggested to the Minister not to accept it. And then the hon. member for Woodstock made a second proposal which means nothing at all. We cannot adopt the system of the House of Commons here in haste, for our system is not that of the British House of Commons. We have the provisions of this Bill, and must try to keep them in check as much as possible, and that is the intention of this amendment. The powers remain vested in the Minister, but we would nevertheless like the Minister to come to this House and say: This is what I have done under the powers which you accorded me, do you approve or disapprove? Then the onus does not rest on a private member to rummage through the regulations to see whether there is not something which goes too far. As matters stand now a private member will have to determine whether there is not something which goes too far, and then he will have to take a second step, he will have to endeavour to bring the matter under discussion. What guarantee is there that he will be given the time? It is unfortunate and inconvenient to grant such powers to the Minister. But if he must have them, in heaven’s name let us try to retain our self-respect to some extent and not bind ourselves hand and foot. Let us expect of the Minister that he will lay the regulations on the Table and come and say to us within 30 days after the commencement of the Sitting: This is what I have done under the powers which I was given. Either approve or disapprove. Then the hon. member says that there may be obstruction. But this is at the commencement of the Sitting, within 30 days. And there is always the guillotine and the closing of the debate, all these means are at the disposal of the Minister. It is an important matter we are dealing with, and there must be an opportunity of discussing the matter. It must not be left to chance whether we will have a discussion or not. It must not be left to chance that an hon. member will go to the trouble of studying the regulations and raise objection by way of a motion. Possibly he will have to introduce it on a private members’ day, and we know how unsatisfactory that is. We are not asking for much, in view of the important matter with which we are dealing. There is just one other example of this type of Henry the Eighth legislation, and that is in the Act of 1933. There is, however, a good example for the Minister in the Sea Shore Act of 1935. There a much stricter stipulation was incorporated, in Article 10 (b), namely that a regulation promulgated in accordance with that Act would only be in force if it were approved of by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Here we are dealing with a much more important matter, and we say that if the Minister frames regulations, they can become operative immediately—he need not wait until they are approved of by Parliament—but within 30 days after the commencement of the Sitting they must be approved of, otherwise they will become hull and void. That is fair, and I appeal to the Minister and to members who have any feeling for the rights of Parliament to say that this is the least we can ask, especially when we take into consideration the exceptional powers we are giving the Minister under sub-clause (3), namely to suspend this Act by way of regulation, or any other Act which in the future may be accepted by Parliament. This compromise is the least we can ask for. We owe it to our own self-respect and in view of the role we ought to fulfil as members of Parliament which is jealous of its dignity. Give the guarantee that those great powers will remain under control. Show a measure of willingness, where you want to place yourself above Parliament in the Act, where you want to frame regulations of a far reaching nature, by stipulating that this House will have to approve of them, and that otherwise they will become null and void. I ask the Minister to give us this assurance at least.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) have put forward cogent reasons for the House to agree to this amendment. I regret, however, that I am unable to accept it, and I am unable to accept it on grounds of convenience to the House. It would entail that every single regulation published in terms of the Bill will have to be scrutinised by the House.

Are you afraid?

I am not afraid. The Government will have to be judged by the manner in which it exercises its functions under the Bill. The hon. member for Fauresmith has said it is a question of where the onus rests. The onus under the Bill rests on every private member to raise objections to the regulations. He asks that that onus should be passed to me. I am quite certain if any regulation is contrary to the wish of the public, if there is any grave measure of dissatisfaction either with the regulation or the way in which the regulation is being exercised by the commission, hon. members will know it and they will raise the matter in the House; and they will have an opportunity to deal with the matter. They will have an opportunity of dealing with the matter. If it is issued a week before Parliament starts it obviously will be issued in order to be used and one assumes it will be used before the time of Parliament has lapsed. However, on general grounds of convenience I do not think that the course suggested is a practical one in the present case.

I think you are funking it.

The hon. member said that if one is afraid of many discussions one can apply the guillotine. We have rather forgotten that instrument during the present Session and I am surprised to hear that he wants to revive it.

Only to meet your fears.

I would like to say to the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) that I shall be glad to go into the suggestion he made during the recess; in so far as the House having an opportunity to discuss the motion is concerned obviously the time for bringing forward such a motion will be at the beginning of the Session. I leave out the rare cases suggested by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), but quite obviously in the beginning of the Session enough time will be available for discussion. I cannot conceive of the Government not having it discussed.

What is the difference between you bringing it and a private member bringing it?

The difference is this, that there is no occasion to bring them under review. But if the hon. member feels he does wish to bring them under review he now has the opportunity in terms of the section for doing so.

It is very evident that the Minister is not only desirous of usurping all the powers of Parliament; it is not only evident that he is placing himself quite above anybody else in Parliament, but it is also evident that he is afraid to subject the regulations which he is going to frame to the approval of this House. In this Clause 2 he is asking for powers which are not asked for in any democratic country of any Parliament in the world, and the man who is asking for those powers is afraid to come before Parliament with those powers. It is quite clear that he is asking for the right of repealing any Act and to do as he likes, to insult the municipalities and to be able to tell them that they may not impose a tax upon buildings in their own area.

I have already replied to that point.

I know that the Minister has replied, and now I am replying once again. He is asking here for powers which are so extraordinary that even persons on his side are afraid of them, and he in turn is afraid to subject the powers he is asking for to this Parliament. In other words, the Minister is placing himself above Parliament and above democracy and above the right of the nation to say what it wants. We do not know what his plans are. The Minister says that we can introduce a motion. He knows as well as I do how many motions are talked out in this House.

A motion of no-confidence always enjoys preference.

The Minister makes me laugh when he argues in that manner. We moved a motion of no-confidence at the commencement of the sitting, and then they disputed as to whether it was a motion of no-confidence. The position is quite clear, that the only loophole we have, if the Minister merely lays the regulations on the Table, is to move a motion, and then the Minister knows himself what chance we have of conducting a thorough discussion on the matter. The only reason which the Minister advanced is that it will not be convenient. In other words, we must study his convenience. It does not depend on the convenience of the House, but on his convenience. He must realise that this matter will have political repercussions. We will declare from the platform that the Minister has not only taken these powers, but we will also tell the people that he is afraid to come to Parliament to subject himself to the decision of Parliament. We have the right to say this. The Minister cannot adopt the attitude that such a discussion will take up too much time. There are rules that arguments may not be repeated and prolonged. If we violate those rules, the Chairman or the Speaker will stop us. If matters are discussed which bear no relation to the motion, then members will be prevented from speaking. The Minister knows that there are also other ways of putting an end to a discussion. During the last five years the Government has made use of every possible trick to put an end to discussions. They have made us sit on a motion from 2 o’clock in the afternoon until the following evening at 6 o’clock. That is not all. When criticism is levelled at the Government, they postpone the discussion of a motion. If there are regulations which its own side is afraid of, it will not allow the matter to be discussed to a finish. My experience of this Government is such that I can say with every right that it makes a farce of Parliament. They have come with a Bill asking for dictatorial powers, and then they say that they are fighting for democracy and freedom. The only freedom we enjoy is in this Parliament, and they still want to deprive us of that. I can only say that this proposal of the Minister is yet another nail in the Government’s coffin. I cherish no expectation that this proposal will bear any friut. The Government has come along at the end with this Bill and truly it has as yet no plan as to how it intends building the houses. The Minister will say that we can discuss the matter under his vote. That again will also come at the end, and then everything will have to be rushed through in haste. It simply amounts to the Government wanting us to allow it to govern the country. My family was born and bred in this country. From my mother’s breast I drank democracy, and I am not going to allow the Minister to make a farce of those principles.

But you are an Englishman.

Let the Minister carry on. Let him do as he likes. He is now making a noose with which to hang himself.

Question put: That sub-section (5), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander. M.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J, M.

Davis A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Sonnenberg, M.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus’ H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Van Nierop dropped.

Sub-section (5), as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—61:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman’ L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge. M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J S.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Sonnenberg, M.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren. C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel. M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to move an amendment on this clause which does not appear on the Order Paper—

1. “(4) For the purposes of, this section the amount or price at which land was acquired includes any transfer duty, war-time surcharge on transfer duty payments, or costs of transfer or survey for which the owner concerned became liable in connection with his acquisition of the land.”

This amendment I am moving to make it quite clear that if expropriation proceedings take place and the compensation is based upon the cost to the owner plus a certain amount, then in taking into account the price at which the land was acquired, the tribunal computing the compensation may have regard to any transfer duty which the owner had to pay, to any war-time surcharge on transfer duty payments or costs of transfer or survey for which the owner concerned became liable. It means only just that these items should be included in the costs when computing the compensation.

May I ask whether that applies to land bought 30 years ago?

The Minister has power under this clause to pay an ascertained amount as compensation for property expropriated and in terms of this clause he is confined to paying such an amount. He is only entitled to pay the lesser of either the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent., or the cost of acquisition of the land to the owner plus 6 per cent. per annum from the time of the purchase. Now I welcome the Minister’s amendment because I think it is fair that costs which are actually incurred should be allowed, but I am very concerned with the limitation which this clause imposes upon the Minister. The figure of cost plus 6 per cent., that is 6 per cent. gross, is in itself inadequate. A price computed on that basis must be inadequate. It takes no account of rates and taxes paid or any other expense. 6 per cent. is not a nett figure; it is a gross figure, and it is inadequate. After all, the object of the expropriation is just this, that a fair price should be paid for the land expropriated. That is essential. I think a basis which lays down as a starting point a price which is inadequate is a wrong basis. This clause gives the Minister no latitude at all. It does not follow that the municipal valuation is a reasonable one, and it is not necessarily in itself satisfactory; it may be entirely inadequate or it may be excessive. Let me give the House an example. In the case of a certain property in Johannesburg the municipal valuation was £1,590 and the property changed hands at £12,500. What would the Minister do in a case like that? He would have been obliged to expropriate the property at the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent., approximately £2,000, and yet within two years the municipal valuation was increased to £10,000. It is essential, I think, that a further sub-clause should be introduced to provide for the case, where the two bases laid down are inadequate in themselves, so that the matter can be referred to arbitration if necessary with the right of appeal. I expect the Minister to say that the Housing Commission will only expropriate when the person asks an unreasonable figure. But this is too powerful a weapon to place in the hands of anybody. It is too important an issue when you start to deprive a man of his fixed property rights.

I regret I am at present not able to put this amendment as it involves increased expenditure and there is no recommendation from the Governor-General.

In view of your ruling I shall ask leave to report progress, but before doing so I would like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). His point is that if expropriation proceedings take place the owner might be paid less than the value of his land. Let me remind him that under Section 11 of the Housing Act the only basis of compensation is the municipal valuation. The Bill adds an alternative form, and it has been placed there to deal with cases of land outside the jurisdiction of local authorities. It might very well be that if the commission or a local, authority seeks to expropriate and permission is given, that the compensation will fall below the municipal value at present. But the policy that the commission has in mind is not ruthless confiscation but to build houses, and houses cannot be built unless land is available. But the commission wishes to give a square deal. If an area of land has been bought for £20,000 and the purchaser is asked to sell it to the commission, I have no doubt the coinmission would be prepared to negotiate in the light of what was paid for it provided it does not fall within the category of a grossly > speculative deal. If £20,000 was a fair price irrespective of the municipal Valuation, I assume the commission would be prepared to enter into negotiations to buy and to offer reasonable profit. But if the owner turned round and said: I will take nothing less than £50,000; we would expropriate, and if he got £12,000 we would tell him that he could not squeal because he would be getting less than he cosidered the value of the property. The policy is one of equity and justice, and a fair offer in the light of the circumstances, but once and for all to put a stop to the reckless exploitation of land, to holding up the commission and the local authorities to ransom and preventing the building of houses for the people. If my hon. friend looks at it from that point of view he will see that if the Government has taken wide powers it is a stick to beat unscruplous persons, but if the Government abuses those powers I am perfectly certain hon. members on this side of the House— let alone hon. members on that side of the House—will be the first to attack the Government for abusing those powers. I now move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 7th June.