I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

In accordance with the usual procedure I propose to reply to this debate solely in Afrikaans. I hope that no hon. member who addressed the House in English will be inconvenienced by the fact that I am replying in the other language.

†*Let me start with a few remarks of a personal nature. In the first place I want to express my hearty thanks to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) as well as other hon. members for their references during the course of this debate to my recent indisposition. I appreciate it very much. Then I want to express my appreciation for the willingness of the House to proceed with the Budget debate in my absence. I also want to express my personal regret that I could not be present to hear the various speeches which were made during the debate. I have, however, had an opportunity of reading the Hansard reports of all the speeches to which I did not listen personally, and hon. members may therefore take it that their speeches have received my attention. In addition to that I want to express the hope that I will be forgiven if for the same personal reasons to which I referred, I reply perhaps less fully to this debate than I would do normally.

I feel, therefore, that I should confine myself strictly to the Budget as such. There are, of course, many other matters of interest which have been raised during the course of the debate. I refer, for example, to the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) who dealt with the question of the possible extension to other provinces of the system of school farms which was so successful in the Tranvsaal Province. I think she rendered a service by raising this matter here and drawing the attention of the House to it. I feel, however, that I cannot take the matter any further. In any event, in view of the constitutional position as far as the provinces are concerned, there is not really much that I can do in that connection in my capacity as Minister of Education. I must therefore apologise to her as well as to other members who raised similar matters here, that I cannot devote any attention in my reply to the important speeches they made here.

I confine myself, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to dealing with the Estimates as such. It goes without saying that I should start with the hon. member for George, although I do so in his absence. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) brought the debate to a close with a speech in which he quoted a Latin passage. I hope I will be forgiven if I too use a Latin quotation—ab Jove principi. I start with the speech of the hon. member for George, who, like Jupiter of Olympus, scattered thunder. I do not propose to refer to the sometimes exaggerated statements and the rather wild criticism which characterised the speech of the hon. member, Just as it characterised his previous speeches on similar occasions. This House has heard the hon. member for George, I think, on six successive occasions, as the first speaker in the Budget debate, and we know that the hon. member—I notice that he has just come into the House—says those things but that we are not expected to take them very seriously, that he does not really intend them to be taken seriously as his attitude in this House would suggest—perhaps we must take it as pretty Fanny’s way! I shall rather try, Mr. Speaker, to find the more well-founded points of criticism in my hon. friend’s speech and reply to those points.

In the first place I want to express my sympathy with the hon. member for George. He came to this Parliamentary session well pleased with himself. After all, the United States of America had presented us with an account for £75,000,000! Just imagine how that would confuse our finances; with what type of Budget would the Minister of Finance be able to come forward in those circumstances! Naturally there could be no question of taxation relief; no, the Minister of Finance would be obliged to increase taxation and in addition to that he would have to incur large additional debts! That was the expectation, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the session. It was in that mood that the hon. member came here on the first day of the session with his atomic bomb—not without Schadenfreude, not without pleasure at another’s misfortune. We know what became of this atomic bomb.

No, we do not know yet.

We know that notwithstanding this atomic bomb in the shape of an account for £75,000,000, the Minister of Finance introduced a Budget which makes provision for taxation relief to an amount of £16,000,000. We know that. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) described this £16,000,000 as a poor concession. If, before the explosion of that atomic bomb, someone had predicted to the hon. member for Kuruman, to the hon. member for George, or to any other member on the other side, that we would come forward with a Budget which proposes taxation relief to an amount of £16,000,000, they would simply have ridiculed him.

Now I come to what the hon. member for George said in his speech in regard to this debate. In the first place, the hon. member tried again to make a controversial issue of the Government’s war policy. Year after year we have discussed the war policy in this House; in one Budget debate after another the Opposition stated that they were opposed to the spending of a single penny on the war. In one Budget debate after another, the hon. member for George complained of the increase in the war debt. In their Press, particularly, there were so many misrepresentations with regard to this question of war debt, that I thought it necessary to clear up the position in this connection in my Budget speech. I made three points, the first being that during the past six years our national debt increased by an amount of £272,500,000 and, secondly, that it is wrong to describe the entire sum as war debt, and thirdly, that during the war period we created capital assets to an amount of £95,000,000 which must be off-set against that sum. The hon. member for George now states that that is a misrepresentation of the position. He states that in that period of six years there were loan receipts to an amount, according to his figure, of £69,000,000. I think the correct figure is £60,000,000, but I leave it at that. Then he goes on to say that if we had not participated in the war, that sum of £60,000,000 would have been used to create capital assets. Quite possibly, although we do not really know what would have happened to the Union if we had not participated in the war. But we took part in the war, and why should we not have used that money wholly or partially to cover our war expenses? But even if we had not used a single penny of that money to cover the war costs, there was still a difference between the two figures of something like £35,000,000, and in that event our State debt during that period would still have grown by £35,000,000, and we should then have had to deduct at least £35,000,000 from £272,500,000. Even on that basis, therefore, the hon. member cannot say that if we had not participated in the war our State debt would not have increased. But can we simply take it for granted that if we had remained neutral we would not have incurred any war expenditure? As hon. members know, we were in a defenceless position in 1939. I have in mind a country like Sweden, which did not participate in the war, and which finds herself in the position that during these six years her national debt increased considerably more than our national debt. Take the case of Ireland; take the case of Portugal. The national debt of those countries, too, increased during that period, as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges indicated here. To come back to Sweden; since making my Budget speech, further information has come to my notice. It appears that the expendi-ture which was incurred by Sweden in connection with war measures, although Sweden remained neutral, amounted to approximately £660 million. Well, how can we take it for granted that if South Africa had remained neutral our national debt would not have increased? I do not deny, of course, that our national debt increased to a greater extent than the national debt of Portugal and Ireland, for example. If we had remained out of the war, it may be that our national debt would not have increased to the same extent as it did. But I want to state most definitely that the hon. member for George is wrong when he says that if we had remained neutral our national debt would have remained practically unchanged. It would have increased and increased considerably. Moreover, I want to say that our war debt is considerably less than the amount which has repeatedly been mentioned by the Opposition; and in addition to that I want to say that just as little as I apologised to this House during the war for incurring war expenditure, so little do I now apologise for the war debt which has been incurred. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that as a result of our participation in the war, South Africa stands today infinitely higher in the material, financial and moral sphere than she would have done if she had remained neutral; that this country stands infinitely higher in the esteem and goodwill of the nations of the world than would have been the case if South Africa had remained neutral.

Now I come to what my hon. friend said in regard to the Budget as such. His first important point in that connection was that we should have been able to make greater concessions by way of tax relief than is proposed in this Budget. He mentioned the figure of £27 million instead of £16 million. His arithmetic was somewhat complicated, but as far as I can understand, it is tantamount to this. There were three factors which were supposed to represent the difference of £11 million. The first factor is that in the year 1945-’46, that is to say, in the current financial year, we saved £4½ million on appropriation. We should therefore have deducted £4½ million from the Estimates in respect of the ensuing year, because we shall again be able to save that amount. His second argument was that we are making provision for £10 million in connection with the purchase of food, but that we can rely on getting back at least £3½ million. The third was that we can collect at least £3 million more by way of arrear taxation. As far as the last point is concerned, I just want to explain to the House that the question of the amount that we can collect by way of arrear taxes was very carefully investigated and was investigated by me personally. It was examined in the light of the available data with regard to the outstanding amounts and also in the light of our experience of the past few years, and also with regard to the position in connection with staff matters in the various departments concerned. I want to give the House the assurance that we shall collect every penny which can possibly be collected, and moreover I have already considerably increased the figures which were submitted to me by the departments. I expect to collect more than they themselves expect. I think it is somewhat difficult to see where we shall get this additional £3,000,000. The second point was in connection with the purchase of food. Apparently my hon. friend did not see the point clearly at the time. The purchase of food is financed by the Reserve Bank, and the amount I mentioned is not the gross amount but the nett amount. There he expected £3,000,000. Then I come to the most important item, namely, the saving of £4½ million. The hon. member’s argument is this: We are going to save £4½ million in 1945-’46; why cannot we look forward then to doing the same in the year which lies ahead? But my hon. friend did not fully understand the position. On which item do we expect to save £4½ million? We expect to save £4½ million on the main estimates, the supplementary estimates and the two additional estimates, of which the second has not yet been passed. The main estimates, the supplementary estimates and the two additional estimates make provision for the expenditure of £135½ million, and on that we expect to save £4½ million.

But you do not ask for something which you do not spend.

No. This sum of £4½ million, Mr. Speaker, is on the appropriation as a whole. In this Budget we are only making provision for the main estimates and the supplementary estimates; we do not know what awaits us in connection with the additional estimates. Just as we had to make provision this year for additional estimates, so we shall have to do so again next year. When we take the year 1945-’46, the position is that we did not save £4½ million on the main estimates and supplementary estimates, but we shall spend £4¼ million more than was provided for. If my hon. friend takes the financial trend of 1945-46 as a guide for 1946-’47, it will mean not an increase of the available balance of £4½ million but a reduction by £4½ million. On an examination of the hon. member’s figures, therefore, it does not appear that we can make concessions to an amount of £27,000,000 instead of £16,000,000, but that we can scarcely concede £12,000,000. The taxpayer, in other words, will be considerably better off under this Budget that he would have fared under the hon. member for George. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) apparently felt that the hon. member for George was rather groping in the dark in this connection and he advanced a different estimate of how an additional £11,000,000 could have been made available for tax relief. I just want to draw attention to two of the items he mentioned. The first is the surplus for 1945-’46. He did not want us to apply that to the reduction of debt but to a reduction of taxation. According to the hon. member I should even have kept the £1,000,000 for the Governor-General’s Fund on the Loan Account. The second point is that in the new year we should not pay the full amount which is necessary in connection with the provision for food purchases. What does that mean? It simply means an increase in our debt. How often in the past have I not listened to attacks on the Government in connection with the increase of our debt? How often has the Government not been criticised on the ground of the fact that we were not doing enough to reduce our debt? But surely the first step which should be taken in connection with the reduction of debt is the allocation of surpluses for that purpose. But the hon. member for Fauresmith states that the Minister of Finance is too conservative, that we must not carry the reduction of debt too far. And then the hon. member for George accuses me of having a blunted financial conscience! But the hon. member for Fauresmith says I am too conservative. I think I shall leave it to them to decide that between themselves. Let them decide. Now I come to the next aspect of the Budget and that is the manner in which the tax concessions have been divided in the Budget. A great deal has been said in this connection in the course of the debate in regard to the proposals in the Budget as far as the mines are concerned. The hon. member for George described the Budget as a Hoggenheimer Budget. He went on to say that it was a onesided Budget in the interests of Hoggenheimer only. An amount of £16,000,000 is being conceded by way of tax relief. Of that sum £3,250,000 is devoted to an alteration in mining taxation, and this is supposed to be a one-sided Budget in the interests of Hoggenheimer only. It is not necessary to comment on that. In this respect, too, the hon. member naturally suffered a disappointment. He had hoped that after the Budget day there would be a boom on the Stock Exchange and that he would then be able to come here and say: “See how Hoggenheimer rejoices.” He is naturally disappointed. That is not taking place. Notwithstanding this Hoggenheimer Budget the average price level has rather fallen as far as gold mining shares are concerned.

Not as a result of your Budget.

In connection with this aspect of the Budget, I want to emphasise three points in particular. But before I come to that there are two matters which I should perhaps explain. The first is that apparently there are still hon. members who do not realise that even in normal times we tax the gold mines and the diamond mining companies more heavily than other taxpayers. Even the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) did not realise that that was the position as far as diamond mines are concerned. That has always been the characteristic of our taxation policy, that this aspect of our economic life which deals with wasting assets has to pay taxes on a higher scale than other aspects of our economic life. The gold mines in the ordinary course of events, as well as the diamond mines, are taxed more heavily than other undertakings. The principle, as I have said has always been accepted having regard to the nature of the assets with which we are dealing. The State is entitled to a greater share, by way of taxation, in that type of asset which is created. That is also the principle which the inter-departmental committee accepted and strongly defended. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is apparently not satisfied with that. I cannot, particularly since he is absent, deal with his arguments in this connection. In any event as far as the Government is concerned we stand by the principle that in the normal course of events it is right that the gold mines should be taxed on a higher scale than other undertakings. That has always been the position. The second point which it is necessary to explain is that the special war taxes hit the gold mines considerably harder than other industries. We imposed an excess profits duty which eventually rose to 15s. in the £ on other industries. The gold mines do not make excess profits in the ordinary sense of the word, but there was a rise in the price of their product, and in the first instance they derived a certain amount of benefit from the increased prices. But what did we do? We did not take away from them 15s. in the £ of the increased price or 20s. in the £, but we took considerably more from them consequently as a result of war taxation on the gold mines, whereas in 1939 they paid out approximately £20,000,000 by way of dividends, they only paid out £13,000,000 in 1945. It may be as well for me to enlarge on these figures so that the House will gain some idea of the effect of our taxation system as applying to the gold mines. The following are the figures in connection with dividends: In 1939 they paid out by way of dividends £20,000,000; in 1940 the amount was £21,000,000; in 1941 it was £19,400,000; in 1942 £17,500,000, in 1943 it was £14,300,000, in 1944 an amount of £13,600,000 and in 1945 the amount was £13,050,000. That was the effect of the taxes on the gold mines.

Was the production constant?

They did not have sufficient labour.

That was also a contributory factor, but nevertheless this position which I have described arose as a result of war taxation and I ask whether there is any other industry in respect of which the dividends decreased to the same extent during the war as in the case of the gold mining industry and which is still being taxed so heavily by the State. Now I come to the three points which I want to mention in this connection, and I want to emphasise that our first object in bringing about taxation alterations in this Budget was, of course, to afford relief of war burdens. Can anyone deny that the shareholders in the mines were also entitled to a share of this relief, in the light of the figures I have mentioned? On whom did the war burden rest more heavily than on them?

The wine farmers.

The wine farmers flourished. In so far therefore as the taxation proposals concerning the mining industry afford relief to the shareholders, no one can say that it is not justified. But then I come to the second point. This relief will certainly not be used only for the purpose of paying higher dividends. The hon. member for Fauresmith, as well as the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), quoted from newspaper reports to show that this concession will make possible an increase of 23 per cent. in the dividends. The hon. member for Westdene went so far as to say that there is no indication that this £3,000,000 will be used for the development of low grade ore or for the encouragement of ultra-deep level mining. It is very clear that the hon. member for Westdene has not read the report of the interdepartmental committee. The basis of the new formula is, in fact, that it has the effect of encouraging the development of low grade ore, and the object of the proposal in connection with capital amortisation is, inter alia, to promote the development of ultra-deep level mining. It means that this concession to which I am now referring is not in the immediate interest of the shareholders only, and I shall be surprised if the dividends of shareholders are increased by 23 per cent. No, this concession represents a very important step in the direction of the prolongation of the life of the mining industry as a whole. Then I come to the third point which I want to emphasise in this connection. These proposals as far as the mining industry are concerned, are also of great importance to other sections of the community. By this time we must all realise what the indirect advantages are, what the indirect value of the mining industry is to the farmers, to trade, to industry, to everyone in South Africa. No one will deny that the steps which we now propose to take will encourage development in the Free State, but nevertheless we heard a Free State member saying that there is nothing in the Budget for the farmers. Are the Free State farmers not going to benefit enormously as a result of the development of mines? No, what this Budget does in the interests of the mines is to a large extent also in the interests of the farmers and of all other sections of the community in South Africa. Then just one further point in connection with the mines. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) raised the question of the position of the smaller mines under the new formula. He stated that some of them would be in a worse position than they were previously. That is the case in connection with a comparatively small number of mines; that applies to mines which have done fairly well in the past and which were not adversely affected by our war taxes. If we can make concessions to those mines, we must be careful to avoid any possible adverse effect on other mines. I want to give the hon. member the assurance however that I am taking steps to go into the matter and to consider the possibility of granting concessions.

I have already referred to the relationship between the interests of the mining industry and the interests of agriculture. It is not necessary to say much in regard to the representations that the farmers are not being fairly treated in this Budget. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) asked why we were not giving the farmers the same concession, as far as capital amortisation is concerned, as we are giving the mining industry. The reply, of course, is this, that while the mines are being treated more severely in connection with taxation in comparison with other industries, the farmers are being treated more favourably in certain respects as far as normal taxation is concerned. The Government accepts the principle—and I have often defended it, that it is right that the mining industry should be treated more severely than other industries as far as normal taxation is concerned, but no one advocates that that principle should also be applied to the farmers. In other words, since the farmers’ position compares favourably with that of the mining industry as far as normal taxation is concerned, he has no right to say that he is being treated unfairly when in the interests of the community as a whole, in the interests of the general promotion of our country, we propose this concession with regard to capital amortisation. For the rest, I want to remind the House that our first object in connection with this Budget was and is to bring about some relief in war burdens. The war burdens imposed on the mines have been relieved in a special way, in the first place because the mines are being dealt with in a special way for normal taxation purposes, and in the second place because particularly heavy burdens were imposed on the mines during the war. But no specific war burdens were imposed on the farmer as such. It is true that he is called upon to bear additional war burdens, but he does so together with the rest of the population, and in this Budget he is afforded relief together with the rest of the population. The relief in connection with telephone accounts, railway passengers, the payment of duty on the sale of land, benefits the farmers as well. The alteration in connection with the personal tax and the saving fund levy also benefits the farmer.

What does the poor working man get?

I am pointing out that those reductions will also benefit a large number of farmers. The alteration with regard to the pre-war standard in connection with excess profits duty, will also benefit a number of farmers. It will considerably reduce the number of farmers who are liable to pay this tax. The proposed alteration in the pre-war standard in respect of excess profits duty will also benefit a certain number. This tax has been criticised by a number of hon. members, and the argument was advanced that the excess profits duty had a retarding effect on agricultural production. From that we must infer that the proposed alteration will have the opposite effect.

A great deal has also been said in this debate in regard to the alleged absence of relief in the Budget as regards the poor man or the ordinary man. The hon. member for George also had a great deal to say in that connection. There is sometimes a tendency to use these two expressions as though they have the same meaning. The hon. member for George proceeded to quote certain examples, and he mentioned the case of a person with an income of £700 or £800. I think we ought to separate these two types, and I therefore want to deal separately with the person who is not an income taxpayer, and I shall refer to him as the poor man; and in the second place I want to deal with the position of the person who is an income taxpayer, but who falls in the medium group of income taxpayers. As far as the first class is concerned, I want to point out that the relief which is proposed in this Budget will in the first place exempt 130,000 married persons. There are 130,000 persons who as a result of this Budget will no longer have to pay direct taxes to the Treasury. I need not even refer to the reduced levy on unmarried persons. And in spite of this the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) spoke of the recklessness of the Government towards this class— recklessness bordering on crime. The hon. member stated that there was no tax relief for this class. There we have 130,000 persons who will be given taxation relief, but nevertheless a statement of this kind is made. I should like to know what more we could have done for this section of our community by way of relief from direct war taxation. There was no other means of granting relief. I know that in the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for George reference is made to relief in the incidence of indirect taxation as well as direct taxation. Unfortunately the hon. member for Ceres is not in the House, but I should like to hear from the hon. member for Ceres whether there is any customs duty in respect of which he would propose a reduction in order to grant relief to this group. The hon. member for Ceres has always had a great deal to say in this House in regard to the retention of our protective system. I maintain that there is no significant customs duty which could be reduced at the present time in the interests of the poor man without interfering with our protective system. In the future when hon. members talk about the incidence of indirect taxation on the poor man, I would ask them to point out to me where that relief can be granted. Of course, there is another type of indirect tax, namely excise duty. There was a certain amount of propaganda to make beer and cigarettes cheaper.

Tickey beer.

Those days have long ago passed. But I know of no one who advocated this type of relief on economic grounds during the course of this debate, and when the hon. member for Ceres spoke about a crime against the poor man, he certainly did not mean to suggest that the crime is that I did not reduce the price of beer. No, we are faced with the very simple fact that it is not possible to do more for the poor man by way of direction taxation relief, because in comparison with other countries, the incidence of direct taxation which the poor man is called upon to bear in South Africa, is very low. In saying that I do not want to suggest that the poor man will not derive any benefit from certain portions of these taxation proposals. There are individuals who are regarded as poor, but who have to buy petrol in connection with the occupation they follow. They will derive a certain amount of benefit from the reduced customs duty. The food subsidy of £10,000,000 is certainly a concession which will mean a great deal to the poor man as well. Moreover the steps which are being taken in the Budget, not the least of which being in connection with mining taxation, in order to encourage the provision of employment, are definitely in their interests too.

This may be a suitable point to pause for a moment to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), which I read with interest. His criticism of the Budget largely amounted to this, not that we were not giving the poor section of the community sufficient by way of taxation concessions but that we were not doing sufficient by way of provision for improved services with regard to health, housing, education etc. I think my hon. friend was somewhat unreasonable in some of the details which he mentioned in connection with his criticism. As far as housing is concerned, for example, he referred to an amount of £200,000 on the Health Vote, and he used that as a yardstick of the provision made by the Government in connection with housing. That sum of £200,000, of course, only deals with a portion of the Government’s housing programme. I referred in my Budget speech to the fact that ample provision will have to be made for housing on the Loan Vote, and I think when the Loan Vote is laid on the Table of the House the hon. member for Berea will also be satisfied with the amount included in this connection.

Would we be able to get the figures of the Loan Vote in time to deal with the Budget?

The hon. member has raised the point whether it is not possible to place the Loan Estimates on the Table at ’the same time as the ordinary estimates. Well, in that connection I just want to point out that during the past six years, we have tried, mainly with a view to the convenience of members of Parliament, to introduce the Budget earlier than we did previously. I introduced our Budget particularly early in South Africa, and that has made it impossible to complete both sets of estimates in time. If it is decided later to revert to the old practice and to fix the Budget date towards the end of March, I shall do my best to make available the Loan Estimates also on that date. I would also tell the hon. member for Durban (Berea), as far as the other services to which he referred are concerned, that during the war years as well as the present year there has undoubtedly been an unpredecented expansion. There has never been a period in the history of South Africa when there has been an expansion of our social services on an equally great scale. I do not want to suggest that we have done enough, but let us be grateful for what has been done and let us not forget that it has always been accepted that the year 1947-’48 will be the year when we shall make a start with our real social security proposals. I want to endorse the main statement of the hon. member for Durban (Berea), however, and that is that the development of our human resources should be one of the most important objects, and it is certainly much more important than to reduce the price of beer by 1d. or the price of cigarettes by 2d.

What about the medium income group? The hon. member for George quoted the example of an income taxpayer with a taxable income of £700 or £800. That type of person, of course, will benefit considerably from this Budget. In the majority of cases the individual has a motorcar. In the majority of cases he has a telephone, in the majority of cases he travels by train. The alteration with regard to the personal tax and the savings fund levy will also mean a great deal to him. The increase of the age limit up to 21 in respect of rebates on children will also be of assistance in many cases. But in saying that his actual income tax is considerably higher than it was before the war, the hon. member for George is quite correct. He is granted considerable relief under this Budget, but on this point he does not benefit much. The hon. member for George stated that this type of man should be placed in the same position in which he was before the war. I am afraid that that is something which cannot happen. I certainly would not encourage the expectation that it will take place. It is an indisputable fact that this type of man under our taxation system has always got off very lightly in comparison with similarly placed in other countries. Take his position during the war after we had increased the scale of taxation, including income tax. I have here comparative figures for England and the other Dominions, as well as for South Africa. I have here the figures for 1943 in connection with unmarried persons, but the relationship would largely be the same as far as married persons with one, two or three children are concerned. Take the man with an income of £600. In Australia in 1943 he paid £179 on it by way of direct taxation; in the United Kingdom £171; in Canada £185; in New Zealand £152. The average in those countries was £172. The figure in South Africa, including provincial and other direct taxation was £47; in other words, approximately one-quarter of the average in the other Dominions and England. Take the man with an income of £800 per annum. In Australia he paid £265 in 1943, in the United Kingdom £254, in Canada £276, in New Zealand £225, an average in these countries of £255. In South Africa he paid £71.

What were the taxes before the war?

I want to admit that even before the war our taxation, comparatively speaking, was on a much lower scale for this type of man. We cannot expect to revert to this low scale. Let me explain it a little further. As hon. members know, the Planning Council in dealing with social security worked on the basis of an amended social security scheme which was to come into operation in 1947-’48. They then worked out what scales of income tax would be necessary in order to meet that expenditure together with other current expenses of the State. They compared this with the existing, that is to say, the war-time scales of taxation for six income groups, and they came to this conclusion: If South Africa is to afford that amended social security scheme the man in the group £200 to £400 will have to pay 2 per cent. by way of direct taxation instead of 1 per cent. as is the case today. The man in the group £400 to £1,000 —that is the group to which my hon. friend referred—will have to pay 7 per cent. in comparison with 3 per cent. The man in the group £1,000 to £2,500 will have to pay 17 per cent. in comparison with 7 per cent. The man in the group £2,500 to £5,000 will have to pay 27 per cent. in comparison with 18 per cent. The man in the group £5,000 to £10,000 will have to pay 37 per cent. in comparison with 30 per cent. and the man with an income of more than £10,000 will have to pay less than he pays today, according to their calculations, i.e. 47 per cent. in comparison with 52 per cent., and in addition to that, according to their proposal, there will have to be added 6 per cent. by way of contribution to the social security scheme. In the light of those findings how could any Minister of Finance with a sense of responsibility have proposed a reduction in the scale of income tax this year, knowing that next year he will have to increase it again in order to be able to afford a social security scheme? It is very clear that there are members who speak very lightly of improved social services, but who still do not realise what our taxpayers will have to pay by way of increased income tax for those improved services. There is one aspect of the position of the ordinary man in connection with our general financial policy which has apparently not been considered by the majority of members. I refer to the effect on the so-called ordinary man of inflation or an inflationary policy. I am sorry that not more members were present when the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) took part in this debate. I do not agree with everything he said. I do not think he sufficiently took into account the practical aspects of the matter. But as far as the purely economical aspects of the matter are concerned, he gave by far the best exposition of the Budget in my opinion. There are two things especially which appeared very clearly from his speech, the first being that inflation hits the ordinary man in the same way as taxation. In that respect I agree with him. I also agree with him when he says that although we shall never be able to return to the old price level, a measure of deflation is something which should be contemplated, and I think the hon. member for Cape Western, as far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, is on a more sound footing that the hon. member for Durban (Berea). The second point which appeared from the speech of the hon. member for Cape Western is this, that taxes can do a great deal to check inflation and that taxation concessions can do a great deal to encourage inflation. The hon. member for Cape Western even went so far as to voice the criticism that we did not finance all our war expenditure by means of taxation during the war. That would have been the ideal. But I can only say that our record in this connection compares favourably with that of other countries. The fact that during the last year of the war, when our war expenses amounted to more than £80,000,000, we only borrowed £20,000,000 for purposes against which cannot be off-set the creation of new assets, is certainly a considerable achievement. In any event, I concede that as far as that point is concerned, the hon. member is theoretically on sound ground. But on the other hand the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Fauresmith apparently do not believe that taxes do check inflation. They wanted us to distribute a further £11,000,000. The hon. member for Berea felt that we could have gone further in the direction of taxation relief. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) wants us even at this stage to borrow money in order to meet the Defence Vote so that we can immediately abandon all war taxation. The hon: member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) saw the matter in a more correct light when he stated that there would have been a danger of inflation if this Budget had released more money for circulation. I associate myself with him and I associate myself with the hon. member for Cape Western, and I associate myself with President Truman and his advisers, whom I quoted in my Budget speech. Let no one think that the danger of inflation is a matter of the past. It would probably have been very popular if I had acted as the hon. member for South Rand proposed; in other words, to abolish all war taxation immediately and to borrow more money to pay for it, but the country as a whole and particularly the poor man and the ordinary man would have had to pay a dear price through inflation if we had done anything of that kind.

We are importing inflation on a large scale.

I have now disposed of the points of a more general nature in connection with the Budget. Now I have to say a few words in regard to points of a specific nature which were raised during the course of the debate. The hon. member for Cape Western referred to our system of native taxation, to which I undertook last year to give my attention. I have not taken any specific steps in connection with that question in the interim, since it formed part of the general investigation of the Planning Council. The Planning Council found, however, that it was unable to make any specific recommendations. In the report of the Council, however, certain remarks of a general nature were made in regard to this matter and a few specific suggestions were made. The whole matter will now be further taken into review by the Government in the light of the manner in which the Planning Council dealt with it. The hon. member for Cape Western also referred to the Fixed Property Profits Tax. He sharply criticised the proposed concession in this Budget. He described it as a “green light to land sharks.” He expressed the opinion that any watering down of this tax would promote inflation. Various other members held the opposite point of view. They stated that the continuance of the tax resulted in increased prices for fixed property and they advocated its entire abolition. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member for Cape Western, who dealt with this question more objectively, is nearer the truth. Last year I submitted figures to the House to indicate that during the first world war the rise in price in connection with land transactions was twice as high as it was in this war. The amount of additional money which was brought into circulation during this war was infinitely more than it was during the first world war. We might therefore have expected a much sharper rise in the price level during this war than during the previous war. That did not take place. The tax to which I refer was a contributory factor. I have not the slightest doubt that the abolition of this tax will not lead to a lowering of the price level of fixed property, other than of a very temporary nature, and I assert that those who have an interest in the sale of fixed property are fully aware of that. What they desire is a boom in the market and not a lowering of the price level. But here I just want to quote from a minute which was submitted last year by the Director of Housing to his Minister—

Although I endorse the general attitude of the hon. member for Cape Western in this connection, I do feel that the time has arrived to make concessions as far as this tax is concerned with a view to the gradual disappearance of tax liability, and for that reason the proposal was made which is contained in the Budget. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), as well as other hon. members, put up a plea in this connection for the exemption of returned soldiers from this tax. I feel, however, that if they reflect upon the matter, they will realise that the acceptance of any proposal of this nature would simply open the door wider for tax evasion. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) referred to the alleged power of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to impose threefold fines under the Income Tax Act. He described it as cruel that the Commissioner should have the power, when a taxpayer has omitted one item from his return, to fine him threefold on his entire taxable income. I think my hon. friend misread the Act. Neither I nor the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can find that provision in it. The individual can be fined threefold on the item which he omitted but not on his entire taxable income. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) asked why I had consulted commerce and industry in connection with taxation matters, as I indicated in my Budget speech, and why I had not consulted the South African Agricultural Union as well. Let me just explain. I did not consult commerce and industry. They approached me and offered their assistance. I was glad to avail myself of it; the Agricultural Union did not approach me. If they had approached me I would naturally have availed myself of their offer with the greatest pleasure. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) raised a point in connection with the position of the Pension Fund for Cape Widows. This is a matter in which various member are interested. I am glad to be able to say that the report of the actuaries which is submitted every five years, has now been received. The actuaries found it possible to recommend an increase of the bonus from 45 per cent. to 60 per cent. as from the 1st March of this year, and that recommendation has been accepted by us. The hon. member’ for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) raised the question of the farmer on the cash basis, as far as income tax is concerned, who is obliged to sell his stock owing to drought and who may be called upon as a result of that to pay high taxes. This is not really the appropriate time to examine this matter in all its details. I want to point out, however, that the farmer on the cash basis is not the only person who may have to pay high taxes because he is compelled to sell his stock during periods of drought. In any event he enjoys an advantage as far as the income tax system is concerned. He occupies a favoured position and I find it somewhat difficult to see how we could grant him special concessions. I am quite prepared, however, to discuss this matter further with the hon. member. What I want to prove at this stage, however, is that the altered basis of calculation on the pre-war standard for the purpose of excess profits duty will bring about considerable relief, as far as that tax is concerned, in this type of case. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort also raised the question of the possibility of Government assistance in those cases where heavy stock losses are suffered as a result of drought. In reply to this I just want to say that we are instituting investigations into the position in this connection with regard to the severely drought-stricken districts. As soon as the necessary information has been obtained the matter will be further considered. Finally I come to the amendments which were proposed during the debate. The hon. member for George proposed an amendment in which the Government is asked to undertake five things. The acceptance of the first paragraph of his amendment will practically mean that we will have to close the war expenses account. I should like to do it, but I am afraid it will not be possible before the end of the new financial year.

Give us a guarantee that that sub-heading will not be exceeded.

I cannot give that specific guarantee but we shall naturally do our best to exercise the normal control. There are certain items which cannot as yet be finally determined. There is, for example, our account as against America in connection with lease-lend. That has not yet been finally determined.

The delayed action atomic bomb.

My hon. friend still feels a little sensitive in regard to this “atomic bomb”. As I have said, however, I have no doubt that towards the end of the ensuing financial year we shall be able to close this account and we may even have a balance in the account which we can then use for the reduction of our war debt. The second paragraph deals with the incidence of direct as well as indirect taxation in respect of the lower and medium income groups. It is not necessary to add anything to what I have already said in this regard. The same applies to the third paragraph which deals with the agricultural industry. The fourth paragraph contains a new point. The hon. member asks that a Silicosis Act be placed oh the Statute Book during the present session. I want to give my hon. friend the assurance that that is the intention of the Government. I think we shall be able to introduce the Silicosis Bill in the near future. Unfortunately my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Development and Mines is not in the House at the moment. I think the Bill is almost ready, and it is definitely our intention to place it on the Statute Book this year. The fifth paragraph of the amendment read as follows—

If that means that we cannot accept any such arrangement which will not promote the interests of South Africa, we readily accept it. But if it means that our hands are to be tied in such a way that no concessions may be made on our part with the object of getting benefits from the other side, it would of course be dangerous to accept that proposal as it stands. The second amendment was moved by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), and it also deals with the question of silicosis. In view of what I have just said in regard to the Silicosis Bill, this amendment is also redundant. The Silicosis Bill will be proceeded with this year.

He asks for relief.

Of course it will be an improvement. The Silicosis Act will bring about a considerable improvement in the existing position. It is not necessary to use the re-valuation profits for that purpose. It is not necessary to place on the shoulder of the taxpayer the obligations of the employer. That is what this proposal means. The Act will place these obligations on the shoulders of those who ought to carry out these obligations. In this connection the hon. member for George also accused me of misrepresentation as far as the re-valuation profits are concerned. He stated that I had put the position incorrectly in my Budget speech. Well, the disturbances in the world economy as a result of which we received these profits, are certainly not unrelated to the conditions which lead to the creation of our war debt. That is what I said. I do not think there is any misrepresentation there. The most important increase in the price of gold took place a few days before the outbreak of the war. We cannot say that these two things were not related to each other. In any event these profits ought to be regarded not as something which belong to one section of the community, but something which belongs to the taxpayers as a whole, and I think the hon. member agrees with me that it ought to be used for the reduction of our debt. As against these two amendments we put the Budget as a whole. It is a Budget which clearly proves the sound financial position of our country. It is a Budget which grants taxation relief over a broad field — a wider and broader field than I daresay my hon. friends on the other side ever expected. It is a Budget which will contribute in no small measure to the development of our national resources and the provision of employment. The hon. member for Berea, too, came to the conclusion as a result of his analysis of the Budget that the Budget offers sufficient encouragement to investors. It is therefore a Budget which contains good things for the taxpayer at this stage and which also gives him good hope for the future. I started my speech today with a Latin quotation. I am going to close with a Greek quotation. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is responsible for this. He was not satisfied with my comparison of the Budget to the box of Pandora. Of course, there is more than one rendition in connection with that fable and I prefer the rendition on which I based my quotation to that of the hon. member for Hospital. The Olympian gods, in this case, of course, the Government, brought together in this box in the interests of humanity, in this case the taxpayer, all the good things. The fact that humanity did not make proper use of those assets, that it did not make the best use of all those good things, was not the fault of the gods. In this case, however, I trust that the taxpayer will make good use of our good gifts, but then according to the retention, there still remains hope for what lies ahead, and I therefore close my speech by wishing the population as a whole fruitful use of the gifts contained in this Budget and good hope for the future.

I feel that I should preface my remarks by following the precedent set by my colleague, the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance, and explain that in my reply I propose to confine myself wholly to the English language spoken in the Scots tongue and I hope that no hon. member in the House will be seriously inconvenienced by that.

Now, we have had a good deal of criticism during the discussion on the Railway debate on the question of the Railway reserves, and I would like once more to make the position of the Reserve Fund on the Railways very clear for the benefit of the House. To begin with there appears to be a good deal of confused thinking regarding depreciation and regarding the Administration’s Renewals Fund. It therefore becomes necessary for me, I feel, to explain something of the financial operations in this regard which, incidentally, are not peculiar to the Railway Administration, or to any other administration, but are common to all good business concerns. The ordinary principles of business require that additional assets acquired by a business shall be charged to capital account, whilst the replacement of worn-out assets shall be a charge to revenue account. This is precisely the policy followed by the Railway Administration. In following this policy the Administration acts as any wise business man acts, namely it sets aside out of revenue each year a sum of money and places it in a fund so that when replacements of assets falls due the money has been collected and is available to meet the cost of replacement. If no such money had been collected, if there were no such Renewals Fund, the cost of replacement would be a heavy item against the revenue of a particular year. It must be clear that setting aside such an amount from revenue each year has a two-fold object. First of all, it ensures that the money will be available for the replacement of the asset, and secondly it helps to equalise the expenditure over the years and prevents violent fluctuations which would result if each year’s replacements had to be paid for separately out of revenue. My business as the Minister of Transport is to ensure that there is sufficient money available in the fund, which we call the Renewals Fund, to meet the costs of replacement as they arise. Parliament is not asked to vote any money for the Renewals Fund—that is the ordinary function of the Railway Administration—but Parliament does authorise the expenditure from revenue estimates of amounts to be set aside each year from revenue to be placed in the Renewals Fund. The only question, therefore, that can be asked by critics in this House is: Is the Minister ensuring that there is and will be sufficient money in the fund to meet the cost of replacements as they arise? My answer to that question is that this Minister, this Government and this Parliament have done more to strengthen the Renewals Fund of the Railways than has been done by any other Minister, Government or Parliament in the history of the Railways, and I am prepared to prove it. I have referred before now in globular terms to the Renewals Fund having a reserve of something like £16 million. This figure is a fact, but hon. members appear to be under the impression that the amount is there for the purchase of assets of any description, whether required as replacement or as additional capital assets. I have already explained that the fund cannot be used for additional capital assets, but I would also make it clear that the fund is divided into various parts to cover various types of assets. It would be bad business if, for example, I spent that portion of the fund reserved for rolling stock on permanent way, or took funds reserved for the replacement of workshops and spent it for replacement of road motor vehicles. Members require no further endorsement of the financial strength of the Administration’s funds, and the Renewals Fund in particular, than the published accounts of the Administration, and I recommend hon. members to study them in the light of my remarks.

Hon. members opposite have associated the Renewals Fund with the necessity for reserve funds. It would be most improper to use the Renewals Fund as a secret reserve. Despite the arguments of hon. members opposite I decline to do that. When I took over in 1939 the Renewals Fund stood at the sum of £2,900,000; today it is £16,500,000. I found that the then basis of contribution was too low. From 1934, 60 per cent. of full life rates were paid into the fund. This was continued by me until 1942-’43 when I paid in full life rates, because at that time I was satisfied we were not overtaking our wastage, but as the war continued and as all that rolling stock continued in operation beyond its calculated life the result of my increasing my contributions to the Renewals Fund was that the Renewals Fund reached a very large sum of money, at one stage nearly £17,000,000. I therefore decided to bring back the contributions to Renewals Fund to 50 per cent. as a temporary measure in order that the Renewals Fund would not step ahead of its necessity; as it is now I have expenditure for three years in the Fund. It was obvious I was carrying too large an amount in that Fund, and therefore as a temporary measure I have reduced the contribution from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. until such time as the Fund falls into its proper proportion, and thereafter I shall bring it back again to full life rates. I would have done that irrespective of whether I had a surplus or a deficit. The step I took has nothing to do with the deficit. It is an essential feature of good management.

The Auditor-General is not so certain about that.

The Controller and Auditor-General has made no remarks whatever in regard to my reducing the Fund; he has not considered the matter.

He has asked your General Manager for it.

There is nothing in the report of the Auditor-General now before the House in regard to anything I have recently done in regard to this Fund. Though I have reduced my contributions to the Fund to 50 per cent. I may explain for the benefit of hon. members opposite, who are always holding up my predecessor, the late Mr. C. W. Malan — for whom I personally had the greatest admiration—as a master of finance, that that contribution rate is still considerably ahead of anything that was contributed to the Renewals Fund during any year of Mr. Malan’s tenure of office. It was not until 1934 that contributions were made regularly to the Renewals Fund at all. So even now I am much ahead of anything done by hon. members opposite at any time they had control of the Renewals Fund.

I should like now to refer to the Rates Equalisation Fund. That is one of our reserves. That is one reserve that the Railways are entitled to provide. The Rates Equalisation Fund, as I have explained, is being used this year to tide us over what is purely, I hope, a temporary difficulty. I have explained that we are at a difficult period in the Railways financial position. We are still facing very heavy working expenditure. We are still facing very heavy cost-of-living allowances. And we are, on the other hand, not getting our normal high-rated traffic which usually helps us in the matter of profit. For that reason I believe this is only a temporary state of affairs, and I am entitled to use the Rates Equalisation Fund to cover it. What is the Rates Equalisation Fund but an umbrella to put over us on a rainy day, and what is the sense of being out in the rain and not opening up that umbrella?

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) took me to task last year for not using it to meet the permanent increases on the Railways. It cannot be used as a fund to meet permanent increases and expenditure, but it can be used as a reserve fund to cover any temporary fluctuations as between revenue and expenditure.

That is what I argued last year.

That is all I am doing now. Hon. members opposite tell me on the one hand that I must use my reserves, and on the other hand they tell me I must build up a reserve. Why I should build up a reserve which, according to them I am never going to use, is not clear. I only ask them how am I going to meet the position?

We told you four years ago and you would not listen.

Four years ago I was putting heavy sums into the Rates Equalisation Fund. I was building up a reserve. Every bit of surplus cash I had I put into the reserve. Those hon. members are prepared to criticise me for increasing expenditure and they are prepared to criticise me for using the Reserve Fund, but they will not tell me how to meet the deficit. The only alternative to doing what I have done is either to increase rates or to reduce wages. Either we have to follow the policy I am following, and use the reserve that I provided for this very contingency, or else either increase rates or reduce wages.

We are in good times now.

They would like you to do both.

Yes, they would like me to do both, and they would make a lot of capital out of it if we did. Their reserve of capital would go up; but I have no intention of doing that.

I should now like to deal shortly with the question of white labour. I was accused of breaking down the white labour policy. Anything more recklessly untrue than that I find it difficult to imagine. I dealt with this in my budget statement, but as the repeating of these misstatements has presumably some political capital and they go on repeating them, I want to make the facts quite clear. My predecessors in office started what they called the Civilised Labour Policy, but they started it on an uncivilised level of wages. The hon. members for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) and Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) all supported the Government that paid white labourers 5s. a day. The United Party Government that followed raised that wage to 8s. 6d. per day, but this Government has raised the rates to 11s. a day plus cost-of-living allowance of 5s. 1d., or a total of 16s. 1d. Our cost-of-living allowance today alone is more than the whole wage that was paid by hon. members opposite who are criticising me for my white labour policy.

But wages are higher now.

Yes, wages are higher, but we are paying 5s. 1d. to cover the living standard. I could get, so I was told, no white labour because I gave it no opportunity for advancement or promotion. Hon. members will be interested to learn that during the term of office of the present Government 18,149 railworkers have received promotions to graded positions, an average of nearly 3,000 per annum, and this, I submit, accounts to a large extent for the steady decrease in the number of railworkers in railway employ. We give these men such opportunities for promotion that we are running short of the supply on the lower scale. Other factors, as I have indicated, are improved agricultural prospects and more prosperous and extensive industries. I think the record of railworkers in the railway service is one to be proud of: 1,892 have become shunters; 1,777 have become firemen; and others have become station foremen, checkers, clerks and even stationmasters. Does this record make the Railways bad employers under this Government? I ask that question but I know I will get no answer. Railworkers today enjoy twelve days’ leave a year as a right, instead of ten days’ leave as a privilege after three years’ service as in the old days. They get many other allowances. They can now become members of the Railway Sick Fund and provision has been made for sick pay. This is a record of which this Government is proud, and if these facts are read in conjunction with a progressive decline in the European labour force at our disposal, it becomes obvious why it has been necessary for me to appoint a commission to go into the question of how to recruit our white labour for the future. The Railways are working at top pressure and at any price we must have that labour.

I would like to correct one speaker who spoke to me about imported artisans. The hon. member asked me a question a short time ago; he asked me how many artisans in the employ of the Railways were born overseas. I gave my answer, 145 I think it was, as the number of artisans born overseas. He then accuses me of importing artisans for the Railway service. I have never imported a single artisan for the Railway service. Any artisan taken on in the Railway service must have had three years’ residential qualification except in the case of specialists required for some special job, and who are unobtainable otherwise.

Two years should be enough, that is the period for naturalisation.

The Railway policy has been set at three years. I may say I have been taking every artisan I could lay my hands on. Whether they are from overseas or not I have had to do it in order to keep the Railways running. I am still prepared to take on any artisans offering. On the question of staff appointments generally there was a great deal of criticism about the wages paid to superintendents.

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

When we adjourned for the luncheon interval I was referring to the salaries which we were accused of paying on too high a scale to our senior officers. I would like to explain that on the Railways the salaries are far from being very high as regards our senior officers. In practice we have lost officers because we were not paying enough. We are very short of engineers because the career of an engineer on the Railways is not attractive enough from the point of view of remuneration, and to accuse us of overpaying our engineering and other superintending officers is to accuse us of something we are certainly not doing. It is quite true that on the Railways these officers get pensions and other privileges, and security of employment, but even so we are finding the greatest difficulty in getting these men to remain on the Railways, and I would rather be in favour of increasing the salaries of these men, than of leaving them even as they are. Far from paying these men too much, I think that the whole of the Railways’ scales are on the low side, and that particularly applies to technical officers.

Then again we were requested from various quarters to remove what is called the means test in respect of relief to pensioners. I would like to make it quite clear in connection with that relief that we afford the pensioners that we do not really apply a means test in the full sense of that term. We do require to know from any pensioner first of all what he is getting in the way of Railway pensions. Of course we know that, but that is the basis of our calculation. Then we also want to know what he is getting from other employment, and we want to know what he gets from other pensions, but we do not take into account such income as comes from war pensions or disability pensions or workmen’s compensation payments or phthisis payments. These various kinds of payments are not considered at all. We do not ask for any return in respect of them. We only want to know these three essential things. That is the only means test we apply, in respect of these three things, Railway pension, employment, and other Government pensions. I think it will be agreed that this is a very moderate means test, and it simply means that by doing that we have a little more to spread amongst those who really need it, as opposed to spreading it over a larger number, many of whom do not need it. Whilst on staff matters, the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) referred to the Security Committee and demanded to know from the House what possible authority this Security Committee could have to decide the fate of any Railway servant. This Security Committee was of course a war measure. It was appointed at a time when there was a great deal of sabotage and destruction going on in the Railways, and it was appointed as a sheer war necessity to make sure that any person who was liable to commit sabotage was not put into a position of responsibility. The hon. member demands to know what authority this committee had to decide the fate of Mr. X. Who constituted this committee. It consisted of the General Manager as chairman with the Deputy General Manager functioning when he was not there. It further consisted of the Assistant General Manager Technical, the Assistant General Manager Commercial, the Chief Traffic Manager, the Chief Civil Engineer, the Chief Electrical Engineer and the Chief of Police. That is the Security Committee. In fact, it comprises the whole of the management. Now, who is more competent than the General Manager and the immediate chiefs, his right hand men, to decide whether Mr. X should take a special job or not? Obviously no one other than these people can decided such an issue. Therefore the Security Committee which is purely an advisory committee to the Government, was also a committee consisting of the whole management of the Railways, and therefore if Mr. X’s fate is settled by that committee, I say there is no one who can question that decision.

Now we come to the question of the demobilisation of Railway servants. I would like to make the position clear here. I may say that this was accelerated as much as possible. The gross total of European volunteers from the Railways was 13,594. The highest number away at any time was 9,565. Men were coming and going all the time, so that in relation to general demobilisation, the latter figure is significant. The previous estimate of men coming back has now been made precise. The actual position from January, 1946, onwards is: January, 3,201, and February, 2,062. Many of this total of 2,062 are on leave prior to returning to civilian work.

In this debate there was some interest shown in air matters. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) gave us the benefit of his criticism in respect of what we were doing in the air, and I would like to reassure the House—because he drew a rather sorrowful picture of our airports— and to point out that although he stated that everything we were doing about the airports was not up to the latest standard, and although he wanted to make sure that we were taking the best advice and doing everything as well as possible, I can assure the House that we have well trained engineers on the job. We sent engineers especially to England and America to study the construction of airports before we put a spade into the ground. There is nothing being done in our airports, national or international, which is not in accordance with the best practice and the highest standards. These airports are being built to carry the heaviest planes that anyone is contemplating flying in future, so I think the House can rest assured that no work will be done that is not according to the latest ideas in respect of airport construction. With regard to the payment of our air personnel, the salaries and allowances we give them, the hon. member rather startled me by suggesting that we might accept American standards for this purpose. As the hon. member knows we have not accepted American standards anywhere else, and certainly not in respect of Cabinet Ministers and members of Parliament, and I do not think that we should start applying American standards among our flying men.

I only compared them.

Yes, but you compared them in such a way as to show me the standard I should aim at, and I wish to say I have no intention of rising to that level yet. The time for that may come, but at the moment I think it is far ahead of our reach. What we do pay is according to the very best European standards. Our air personnel are by no means underpaid. I think on the whole we pay our air services very well; but one is always prepared to consider any weaknesses in this respect, because I am no believer in cutting wages.

The hon. member also wanted to know what was the difference between Constellations and Yorks. It is no doubt a very interesting matter, but it is hardly appropriate to the present discussion. I would begin by saying that Constellations are much too large for anything we require. Not only is it one of the largest but it is one of the most expensive machines, and it is not suitable for our work here or for our work overseas, because we have not the passengers. As I have explained before, the Yorks are being used as interim or temporary machines. We shall ultimately have another type when it is ready, the Tudor. It would be better to compare the Constellation with the Tudor. But you cannot really compare one plane with another. Every plane suits its particular function. If you require a plane for a 2,000 mile non-stop flight in the stratosphere you would get a different machine than if you are flying 1,000 miles at a relatively low level. The efficiency of a plane must be judged in the relation to the work it has to do and it is no good just comparing large planes with small planes. The small plane may be more suitable for the function it is required for than the larger plane. It is accepted by all aeronautical experts that it is better to run a small plane every day than to have one large plane every week with seven times the load. It is not convenient for everyone to travel on a particular day, and it is much better to distribute the load than to run one service infrequently with larger planes.

Regarding the question of an air transport agreement with America I should like to say we have made no such agreement with America. The matter has been discussed in a general way, more in respect of the basis on which such an agreement might be framed. But we have not got to the point of actually framing an agreement for an American service. I have no doubt it will come. But as far as I know America is not quite ready to consider that. We are quite prepared to enter into an agreement with the U.S.A. in regard to service between the U.S.A. and the Union of South Africa.

I now come to our road motor services and the question of national roads. I was very glad to find such general support for our road motor transport policy in the House. This is very important because our road motor transport is frequently assailed from outside. Some say that our charges are too high, and that thereby we are penalising the producer. Outside, the allegation is that our charges are too low and we are thereby creating a position unfavourable to private enterprise. We have to find the mean between helping the producer on the one hand and considering the requirements of private enterprise on the other. The fact that producers say: We cannot pay that; and private enterprise says that we are charging too little, suggests we are striking a fair balance between the two interests.

I was also again asked whether I would not contribute to roads. The argument is that the road motor transport as they use the road should contribute to their upkeep. There is no use at all telling the Government that, unless you come forward with a suggestion as to how the cost will be met. I can pay for roads by putting up the charges of road motor transport. I explained before that an increase of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. on road motor tariffs will yield approximately £500,000. If you like to double the road motor transport tariffs wou will raise a sum of £1,500,000. I could put that into roads. But if you double the tariff the solution will come much easier, the problem will be solved by putting this traffic off the roads. It is no use talking about road motor transport building roads unless you find some means of financing it.

Regarding road motor transportation boards, which were criticised, I would again emphasise that I have appointed a commission to go into the whole question of the working of the Road Transportation Act. When we have got their report, and I do not think there is any reason why it should be unduly delayed, we will be able to see what is necessary to bring road transportation up to date. In regard to trafficking in motor carrier certificates, that is to say the building up o-f goodwill, that is a matter that has given me a good deal of concern. When the time comes I am prepared to come with legislation which will review the position. The idea of building up goodwill in the trafficking of motor transport certificates is contrary to the spirit of the Act and I will do everything to stop it. There should be no goodwill at all in motor transport certificates.

There are signs it is happening now.

Yes, but I shall do what I can to stop it. The boards can lay down the tariffs and I say if we find there are people who own these services who are wanting a high value for their goodwill that is prima facie proof that the tariffs on that route are too high and the Central Road Board can control that. However, I think we will find better ways of handling the problem.

In regard to the National Road Board, somebody asked what are our future plans. At the request of the Government the National Road Board recently drew up a scheme of post-war national road works. That scheme has been placed in the hands of the Social and Economic Planning Council for their recommendation, and when they are finished with it the Government will see how far they can progress along the lines recommended.

In regard to the question of the Cape Town Foreshore, I would like to say this, that we have now’ got, as hon. members will remember, a Mr. Beaudouin, who came out to represent the Cape Town City Council as town planner. He drew up a plan. There are weaknesses in that plan, and the Foreshore Committee have been at work overcoming these weaknesses and they have now produced a plan which I think is a workable one. Mr. Beaudouin is, I believe, coming out again next week and is going to see the plan finally and approve it or modify it, and once he has done that we will go ahead with the work.

Will finality then be reached?

Yes, I have made it quite clear that once this plan is finally approved the time for action will have come and the time for planning has stopped as far as the essentials are concerned. There will, of course, be planning for town buildings and so on for a long time to come. I have had a new model built, and as soon as the plan is approved by the committee I shall give instructions for it to be made available for members of Parliament to see it for themselves. You will then see there is ample room in every direction both for coming into the town and going out of the town. I am sure hon. members will be very pleased.

Does it include a new approach to Cape Town?

The national road will come in along the Foreshore, and then break up into various streets, and it will be possible to go to the Sea Point side of Cape Town without coming into the centre of the town at all. Every possible movement of traffic has been considered so there will be a minimum of congestion at any point.

In regard to our meteorological service the Government has been in some little difficulty, because there has been such a great advance during the war in respect of meteorological survey work and we feel the time has come when we should have some expert advice. Before finalising our post-war meteorological service, we propose to endeavour to obtain from America an expert meteorologist who can advise us on what he thinks it is worth our while doing, and what the cost will be. The terms of reference which have been drawn up are: The scope and adequacy of the meteorological services of the Union including (a) the value, in relation to cost, of stations in the South Atlantic and the steps which should be taken to establish them if they are considered necessary: (b) the need for the introduction and development of new devices such as the radio-sondé, radar, and atmospheric direction-finding and the scale on which, if necessary, they should be employed: (c) the value of observations from neighbouring territories such as Bechuanaland and South-West Africa and the need for stations in these areas, including possible radio-sondé stations. The other terms are: The value and possibilities of seasonal forecasting (3-6 months) and medium range forecasting (4-5 days); and the co-ordination of fundamental long-range research in meteorology in Southern Africa. When this advice is forthcoming the Government will be able to make future plans with full knowledge of the necessity and usefulness of any service it is decided to establish. We shall be able to make plans for what is required, estimate the cost and know what results are likely to be obtained. In the meantime we are retaining the services of such meteorologists for whom there is occupation at present. As the House knows we require to have a large meteorological service for the purposes of our harbours and our air services.

I should like to say a few words about our Superannuation Fund. Some questions have been asked as to the effect recent increases in wages would have on the Fund. The various substantial improvements in salaries and wages have naturally thrown a greater strain on the Superannuation Fund’s finances. In October, 1944, when the last general revision of salaries and wages occurred, the scales of contributions by the staff were raised by ½ per cent., the Administration increasing likewise its £ for £ contribution. Even this may not be sufficient to stabilise the Fund’s finances in spite of the large cash payments to the Fund paid by the Administration for many years. But the position can only be accurately assessed once we get the report of the quinquennial actuarial investigation, which is now in progress. I indicated last week that this report was just on the point of being completed, but I am now advised that it will be some months before we receive it, and I would like to correct the statement I made that it would be on hand shortly. The Administration is responsible for the maintenance of the Fund in a sound condition, and when we have the report we shall take such measures as are shown to be necessary for the Fund’s welfare and which are recommended.

Regarding the question of the segregation of passengers on the Cape suburban line, I can only say I replied to that very fully on the Part Appropriation debate. In that reply I indicated that various matters connected with this question were receiving attention by my department. The subject is being pursued, and there is nothing that I can add now to what I said in the Part Appropriation debate.

This concludes my review of the debate. There were many smaller matters raised and many suggestions made for the improvement of our Railways and Airways services. These matters will receive individual attention in due course, and the members concerned will be communicated with. To those members in the House, more especially the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) who put forward several good ideas for the improvement of our Airways service, the Administration is much indebted.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—73.

Abbott, C. B. M. Abrahamson, H. Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, O. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—38.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Burnside, D. C.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

I.e Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Funds, during the year ending 31st March, 1947.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

Vote No. 1.—“His Excellency the Governor-General”, £25,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 2.—“Senate”, £49,450, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”, £163,300.

Is it the intention now to proceed further?

Evidently there are various members who want to talk about this Vote and therefore I now move—

What are we on now? Has Vote 2 been passed?

Votes 1 and 2 have been passed.

We cannot hear what is going on down here. There are one or two matters we wanted to raise on the Senate vote.

I am sorry it is too late.

I want to impress upon you before the Speaker takes the Chair that it is impossible for us to hear the proceedings.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

We were quite unable to hear what transpired. I do not know whether I can raise the point at this stage, but unfortunately down in this corner of the House we could not hear, with the result that we understand that the Senate vote has been passed, though I certainly wanted to raise one or two points on it. Now we have nothing more to say in the matter. That I must protest against most emphatically.

When the House is in Committee it is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Chairman and the Speaker will not interfere with the discretion of the Chairman.

It is very difficult to hear. It is a question of the acoustics of the House.

You could raise it on the Assembly vote.

I cannot allow any further discussion on this matter.

I move—

I second.

I object. I want to bring it to the notice of the House that I was within my rights in objecting before progress was reported.

Order, order. It is too late.

May I enquire just when we can have an opportunity to discuss these things? What are we here for? I tried to raise the point …

The only subject the hon. member can discuss at the moment is the date for resumption and whether he objects to the debate being resumed.

Yes, I do. I move that in view of the attitude of the Chairman of Committees and the attitude of the Minister, there should be no date for resumption whatever. This House will not just be dictated to. On our side of the House we are not prepared to accept that. Let me quote this as just one instance of what I have been raising in this House for many years, namely that we as members of the House have very few rights.

Order, order. The hon. member must confine himself to the date of resumption.

Well, that is very difficult.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary for me in introducing this Second Additional Estimate to make a general financial statement. I think that everything necessary to be said in this connection has been covered by what I said on previous occasions. In the first place it was covered by what I said in introducing the first Additional Estimate when I held out the prospect of this Second Additional Estimate being submitted to the House. For the rest it has been covered by what I said in my Budget Speech as portion of which must of course be regarded the White Paper which was laid on the Table. The figures of our total estimated expenditure for the year still remain the same as set out on that occasion. In other words we expect that our financial figures of expenditure on the Revenue Account will amount to £131 million. That is the figure I mentioned in my Budget speech. Apart from that we expect that our expenditure on Loan Account will amount to £62,500,000. That is also the figure I mentioned on that occasion. Therefore, the present additional Expenditure figures have already been taken into account in the Budget speech and in the Budget proposals. In the Additional Estimates which are now before us, there is a long series of special items, mostly small ones, and I hope that the House will not find it necessary to have a general debate about it, but that the House will be prepared to go into Committee, when the necessary information in connection with these particular items will be provided in the most convenient way.

I second.

I just want to ask the Minister whether he is not ashamed continually to appear before this House with a confession of how badly he estimates and how unreliable is the framing of the estimates of revenue and expenditure which he is continually putting before the House. That is a simple question, and I should like the Minister to give a clear reply. If I were in the Minister’s shoes I should hide my head in shame. There have been other Ministers of Finance before the present one, but I must honestly say that the Minister has this year broken all records for bad calculation. I just want to tell the House what happened in regard to the original estimates this year. The Minister laid on the Table the main estimates. We always knew that that was not final and there can always be some extra expenditure which he did not foresee, and which has to be provided for later, but the main estimates are in fact an indication of what the Government intends to spend. It may perhaps be out a little, but not by a large amount. But what happened this year? The Minister laid on the Table original estimates to an amount of £116 million. Hardly had he laid that on the Table when he submitted loose sheets which immediately increased the expenditure by another £6 million to £122 million. The ink on that was hardly dry when he submitted the first Additional Estimates amounting to £3,300,000, on which followed the second Additional Estimates amounting to £27,000 making a total of £125 million. And hardly had the House convened this year, when the Minister brought forward his first Additional Estimates. That had hardly been dealt with before he brought his second Additional Estimates. That means that six times in one year he patched up his original estimates.

That gave you people the opportunity to talk.

But we do not want it. The Minister is wasting the time of the House. We would like to see that when a balance sheet is put before Parliament it should be approximately correct. But nothing which the Minister put before us has been even approximately correct. In the case of expenditure on this estimate, he started off with £116 million and finished up with £131 million. He was only out £15 million. The revenue for the same year was estimated by him at £122 million. Now he expects to receive £130 million. He was out in his estimate of revenue by £8 million. And that is not only the position this year. I took a little trouble to investigate, for it is important to see how the Minister estimates revenue and what he actually receives, because the result of wrong estimates is that the people have to bear unnecessary taxes. In 1943-’44 the original estimate was £99,866,000, his revised estimate at the end of the, year was £107,468,000, but his actual revenue, as indicated by the Auditor-General was £109,616,000. In that year the Minister was out in his estimate of revenue by an amount of £10 million. For the year 1944-’45 the original estimate of revenue was £111 million. The revised estimate at the end of the year was £116 million, and the Auditor-General reported that the actual revenue was £118 million. The Minister was out by £6,500,000. If it is an art to estimate badly, the Minister is an artist: But I hope that it will rather be his ambition to deviate as little as possible from his main estimate, instead of deviating from it as much as possible. The way in which the Minister is always bringing forward additional estimates and supplementary estimates does not redound to his credit. He overdoes it. All this by way of introduction. I now come to the estimates themselves, and I feel that it is my duty to say a few words about two matters in particular.

The first is the disturbing increase to be noticed in the amounts asked for as travelling expenses. In connection with that I should like to say that that is especially attributable to the mass of transfers which have taken place recently in the Public Service. This surprising increase in travelling expenses for which provision is made here, is partially due to that. In this connection I should like to ask the question whether it was really necessary. I think that in regard to the increase in travelling expenses, the Prime Minister is the biggest sinner. In the original estimates £12,000 was asked for as regards his Vote, but we finished up with £21,000, an increase in this vote of 75 per cent. I think that is due to the fact that the Prime Minister at present has to travel fairly extensively. But as regards the Treasury we have the same phenomenon. It started with £2,250 and now approval is being asked for an amount of £3,500, an increase of 55 per cent. So one can go right through the estimates. Just look at Customs and Excise. Can the Minister tell us what the reason is why so much travelling has to be done this year in connection with that? The original amount asked for for travelling and subsistence allowance was £11,000. Now £17,300 is being asked for, an increase of £6,300, or 57 per cent. Why is it that the Customs and Excise officials suddenly had to travel so much this year? Take Posts and Telegraphs. There also we find a terrific increase in travelling and subsistence allowance. But I would especially draw the Minister’s attention to the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts and the magistrates, and I should like to say a few words about that. Provision was made for £49,000 in connection with travelling and subsistence allowance, and now £65,000 is asked for, an increase of £16,000 in one year. May I, just for the Minister’s own good, make a comparison? I think it is necessary to compare how the account for travelling and subsistence allowance increased since before the war. In 1938-’39 the total account under this item was £737,000, which included Defence. Without Defence it was £659,000 for that year. This year the Minister is asking for £1,105,000, again excluding Defence. Has our Public Sêrvice grown so tremendously, and is it necessary that so much travelling should be done, or is it a sign of the spendthrift spirit in the Public Service? The public is asked to travel less, but here we have this inexplicable increase in travelling expenses. As far as I know it has never yet happened in the history of South Africa that travelling and subsistence allowances increased at such a tremendous rate. One cause for it is the mass transfers taking place in the Public Service today. Take for example the Department of Justice. In one single year 60 or 70 magistrates were transferred.

Many more.

I want the Minister to realise that it is not only the question of costs which is involved, but also that much discomfort and hardship is caused to married people who are transferred in these times. Was it necessary for Justice suddenly to order transfers on this enormous scale? Why did it have to be done on such a large scale? It causes great expenditure to the State, and great discomfort to the officials. They probably had just succeeded in finding a house to let when they suddenly received instructions to go elsewhere.

In some cases they just remained one year.

Yes, in my constituency we also had a case where an official filled a post for just one year and then was transferred again. He had just obtained a house in the new post when he was again transferred. That official probably knows for a fact that in the new place to which he is being sent he will not obtain a house. I very strongly object to that. It causes expenditure and places the official in a very difficult position. I should like Treasury to put a stop to that.

The Public Service Commission is responsible for that.

Has the Minister and the Treasury no authority at all? The Minister says that the Public Service Commission is responsible, but it is not always a case of promotion.

Even transfers are made on the authority of the Public Service Commission.

Why is that done? It is not even always a case of transfer by the Public Service Commission. I know of transfers within the Minister’s own Department, an internal matter of his Department. And are magistrates not transferred by the Minister of Justice?

It is done on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission.

Even when there is no promotion? I should have thought that that is something over which the Treasury would have authority, and for which its approval would be obtained. It may be that the Public Service Commission not only does not think of the expenditure, but it also does not think of the inconvenience caused to married officials. My post is full of complaints of officials who cannot understand the reason for it, and I object. I was of the opinion that Treasury had to give approval but if Treasury has nothing to do with the matter, I think it is high time that it should be consulted, so that costs will not be incurred unnecessarily.

Then I should like to refer to another matter, which falls under Vote No. 34. Funds are asked for additional personnel in the office of the Surveyor-General. I should like to ask the Minister: Supposing we vote this amount, can the Minister give us the assurance that an end will then be made to the chaos today reigning in the office of the Surveyor-General? There is not a single legal person in this House who does not know that owing to the accumulation of work in the office of the Surveyor-General transfers cannot be put through. There is tremendous delay in the registration of properties.

This has nothing to do with the work of the Surveyor-General.

But an amount is asked for here for extra personnel.

For trigonometrical surveys.

No, also for the central cartographical office, where the work is being delayed. The Surveyor-General stated in a Press interview appearing in the newspapers this morning that he cannot complete applications for transfers to be approved of within four months. That makes it impossible for the Deeds Office to register transfers. Continually cases of hardship are being brought to our attention. I can mention one in my constituency. A man bought a piece of ground on which to build a house. He obtained a permit and material and had a little money. He started building in the hope that within a reasonable time he would be able to get transfer of everything in his name, so that he could then receive a building loan from one or other building society. He commenced building operations. Eventually all his money was exhausted, and he was still waiting in vain to receive approval from the Surveyor-General and the Deeds Office. He cannot get transfer, with the result that this man was forced to terminate building of the house, just at a stage when rain could cause considerable damage. All this is due to accumulation of work in the various departments. I should like the assurance from the Minister that there will be an end to this scandal. The Surveyor-General simply says—

And he states—

I have here a series of letters I received in connection with this same matter. I have one letter here, for example, in which it is stated that it took three months and four days, but now the Surveyor-General states that the minimum period is four months. That causes tremendous inconvenience, and I should like to have the assurance of the Minister, that a stop will be put to this. Otherwise I shall have to accuse the Minister of spending money in the wrong directions, thus inconveniencing the public. They spend money where it should not be spent. There are the travelling expenses which are increasing so rapidly and unnecessarily. When the Minister submitted his original estimates the Vote “Transport” especially in connection with motor cars was £375,000. At present the amount is £663,000. We feel that we want less motor transport and more personnel for the office of the Surveyor-General and the Deeds Office. To me the estimates appear to be out of proportion.

The whole Government is out of proportion.

Yes, they spend money in the wrong places. I have a letter before me which I can read, a letter received by an attorney at George from his correspondent in Cape Town.

What has that to do with the increase in this Vote?

There is a bottleneck in that office.

But what has that to do with the increase in this Vote?

Well, I have said what I wanted to say, and I shall leave the matter there.

It is not my purpose to traverse the whole of these additional estimates. I think that might well be done in the Committee stage. But there is one matter that I desire to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. It was my intention to bring it up on the Senate Vote but my advice is that it is as well that it passed the Senate, because this is a more appropriate place to deal with the matter that I wish to deal with. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister knows that I defer to his judgment very much indeed. He also knows that I feel very strongly on a certain matter, and that is the source from which our budding diplomats should be drawn, the source from which we should get those who shall represent us diplomatically. It seems pretty evident that we are embarking on a world-wide diplomatic service. We are going to be represented in all parts of the world apparently. At all events, we are about to be represented in a very large number of countries. Incidentally I would like in passing again to suggest to the Prime Minister not only the desirability but the great advantage of having full diplomatic representation in Russia. I am about to refer to the custom which appears to be growing up which I rather resent, that of drawing our diplomatic representatives from the public service, from officialdom. That to my mind, is preeminently wrong.

Order, order. May I remind the hon. member of a ruling that has been consistently given by all previous Speakers that on a motion for the House to go into Committee on the estimates of Additional Expenditure, as well as on any of the later stages, the debate must be confined to the subjects contained in the Estimates and the reason for the increase of expenditure.

I am fully sensible of that and I think you will agree that I am perfectly correct in bringing it up because you will notice that under the head “Residential premises in Sweden” there is a sum of £420, and we are not going to build or renovate residences unless we put someone into them. We are not as foolish as all that. I hope we are not as foolish as all that. We are appointing an ambassadorial representative—I do not know whether he is a Minister Plenipotentiary, or an ambassador …

A chargé d’affaires.

… but whatever he is, he is something. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, if rumour does not lie, if she is no longer a lying jade, has decided to appoint Mr. du Toit, the present Clerk of the Senate, to that high and rather onerous post, a post calling for the utmost tact, diplomacy, general knowledge and at all events mixing qualifications.

Order, order. May I remind the hon. member that he must not reflect upon any official of the Senate? Later on an opportunity may be given to the hon. member to raise this matter.

I am not reflecting on the Senate nor on any official of the Senate. How did I convey that to you, Sir? Is my language so ambiguous? I am not reflecting on the Senate.

On an official of the Senate.

I am not reflecting on an official of the Senate. I am not doing anything of the sort. I refer to the fact that I deeply resent drawing our diplomatic representatives from the public service.

What has that got to do with the vote?

Order, order. The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increases in this vote—£420.

Yes, and I am suggesting to you that the reason is that we are now appointing a diplomatic representative and in consequence of that you are going to build or renovate a building for him at a cost of £420.

I am afraid I cannot accept that.

I am afraid, Sir, you are over-harsh. Anyhow, I think I have said enough to let the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister understand that I am right up against this method. I do not see why these diplomatic representatives should be drawn from the public services. You have sitting behind you a number of eligible people. Look at this vast intellectuality shining from the visages of the hon. members behind you. Surely you can find sufficient of those to appoint as diplomatic representatives.

Order, order.

Yes, I have done now. I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on having attained the exalted rank of “Rt. Honourable”, and I want to ask him a question about this additional amount for the Mint. Perhaps I will have another opportunity of bringing this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister when you, Sir, are not so vigilant in the Chair. I notice that the Mint now calls for an additional amount of £5,000 for wages. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether this is to meet the indebtedness we voluntarily incurred as payment to these poor unfortunate individuals while they are looking for work?

That was provided on the Labour vote, on the First Additional Estimates.

What is this then; can you explain this?

This is for expanded activities in the bank section.

But you have been restricting activities.

Are you printing notes?

I cannot understand this. Immediately after the war we were sacking men and women wholesale from the manufacturing side of the Mint and I should have thought there would be a diminution rather than an increase in expenditure.

This is the Mint section.

What are you printing? Are you printing sovereigns again?

No, he is printing notes.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to raise a matter for the discussion of which there is unfortunately no other opportunity, and therefore I do it with apologies to the Minister of Finance. I regret that the Minister whose vote it affects, namely the Minister of Public Works, is not in his place this afternoon. I refer to Vote No. 25 on this additional estimate, on page 13. I refer to item 1, namely the administration of War Measure No. 64 of 1944, dealing with building control. On a previous occasion I was ruled to be out of order when I wanted to discuss this matter, and in going through the main estimate I discovered that there was no provision made for the subsistence of these people, and, under those circumstances, I am obliged to bring the matter up here. I want to state this afternoon that the time has arrived when this expenditure is not necessary, this expenditure of £27,000. I want to state that we can manage on much less than the amount for which provision is made here. In the first place I want to read a letter to the Minister of Finance which I received this morning. I hope he will be so kind as to communicate the contents to his colleague the Minister of Public Works. The letter reads as follows—

That is exactly my point. We are faced today with a shortage of houses. The Government does everything in its power to have houses built and to have them built fast, but where private enterprise tries to build houses and to build them fast, these people on whom we spend large sums of money are limiting building as far as possible. When we advocate the abolition of building control, we are told: Yes, and if we do that the people will immediately build luxury flats and large theatres and great hotels and such-like great projects which will take up too much material and labour and therefore will be detrimental to ordinary housing.

Order, order. The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase in the Post.

The reason for the increase is the building control. I shall be very glad to have a ruling from you on this point. This item did not appear in any of the previous estimates.

On this point may I just say that the reason why this additional amount is being asked for is because with an eye to the speeding up of the issue of building permits, certain steps were taken to decentralise the building control organisation, which involved the employment of additional personnel. That is the reason.

I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for that explanation, but the fact still remains that if that is the case it is a peculiar bit of irony because here one receives letters complaining about the delay in the issue of building permits. We can save this expenditure in future. I feel that in future we should abolish building control over ordinary houses.

Order, order. The hon. member is now entirely out of order. The principle has already been adopted, and the hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

I understand that extra staff has been appointed to speed up the issue of permits. But that does not agree with the information I received from Johannesburg. There are specific complaints about the delay in the issue of building permits, and if that is the case it shows that there is something wrong with the building control.

Order. The hon. member is out of order.

I tried to make my point. I am sorry that one is so restricted here. But if that is the case I should like to draw your attention to the fact that there will be no other opportunity to discuss this question of building control in the House.

I am introducing this subject with some trepidation and I shall not waste any time on it. During the course of seven years’ experience of the Pensions Select Committee, I have come into contact with a large number of very hard cases.

Order, order. May I ask the hon. member to what item he is referring?

I am referring to social welfare.

Which item in social welfare?

I can point to an item, but may I say that I said at the beginning of my speech that I venture to raise this subject with some trepidation.

The hon. member has given sufficient indication already that he is out of order.

Well, in that case I will refer it to the Minister personally.

Under Vote 16 I just briefly want to put the following question to the Minister. I should like to know whether we mint coins for the Indian Government.

I think we did do that. I do not know whether we still do it.

I just wanted to know in view of the proposed boycott on the part of the Indian Government as regards trade relations between South Africa and India, whether we intend continuing with it. I do not want to expand on that now.

I should just like to put a question to the Minister on Vote 19. I see there is an increase of £150,000 in the item Native School Feeding. I should like to know what the reason for that increase is. Is the reason that grown-up native children still go to school? I do believe that there is no age limit as regards native school children. I should be glad to hear whether there is an age limit, and what the reason is for the extra amount.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) dealt generally with the question of the additional amounts he asked for from time to time for the current year. There is nothing exceptional in the fact that we came before the House in the first place with supplementary estimates and afterwards with additional estimates. That has happened repeatedly; it usually happens, but what is extraordinary this year is that the amount asked for after the main estimates were framed, is higher than usual. I concede that. There are certain reasons for it. The first reason is connected with the so-called loose sheets to which my hon. friend refers. What was the reason for the loose leaves? The reason was simply the modified system of subsidising the Provinces. When originally we had the estimates printed we could not yet take into account the suggestions we would make for the amendment of that system. For that reason we later had to explain to the House what the additional provision would be. But what is of importance in this connection is the following: The modified system of Provincial subsidisation was accompanied also by a modification in the powers of the Provinces to levy taxes. It has resulted in some of the taxes being taken from the Provinces and handed over to the Union Government. Therefore that in itself had as a result an increase in our expenditure of £4 or £5 million, which was however balanced by an increase of £4 or £5 million in our revenue. When therefore comparisons are made between the original figure in our first estimate and the figure of expenditure as it is now estimated, we should take into account that £4 or £5 million in addition which was set aside for the Provinces but which was offset by the Provincial taxes which have now come to us. Therefore that is a very important point to remember in connection with this additional amount. The second extraordinary matter is, of course, UNRRA. As my hon. friend knows, in the course of this year, chiefly by way of supplementary or additional grants, we made provision for more than £4 million in regard to UNRRA. That is, of course, quite an extraordinary amount, and for that reason the difference between our original and our final figures of expenditure is higher than usual. But there is still another reason, and that is the reason why there is a larger diversity of small items in this additional estimate than we usually have there. That is due to the fact that we are now experiencing a period of transition. We are passing over from a wartime basis of financing to a peacetime basis. That brought with it a fair amount of change in the provision which has to be made for the various departments. Just to mention one case to which the hon. member referred; because the war is over it is again possible to make appointments to our foreign embassies. That immediately causes increased travelling expenses. That is just an example of the manner in which the end of the war was accompanied by unexpected expenditure, and on one Vote after the other where there were results of that nature. Therefore when we compare the general position with that pertaining for the previous two years, we have to keep in mind especially these three factors to which I have referred. Then my hon. friend referred to the question of travelling expenses. Well, let me say this, that the question of travelling expenses is something in which Treasury always takes a great interest, because one has to deal here with a very large number of small items which do not lend themselves to control easily. It is to a certain extent something which is in the hands of the departments in so far as the control over expenditure in connection with travelling allowances is concerned, and the Treasury therefore welcomes it when Parliament indicates that a watchful eye should be kept on the different sources of expenditure. There are also certain factors which we cannot leave out of account. One of them is the fact that as a result of increased costs of living there has also been an increase in subsistence allowances. The fact that there is an increase in these expenditures therefore does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in the number of journeys made. It is largely attributable to the fact that the scale of allowances has been raised. My hon. friend referred to the position in connection with the Department of Customs and Excise. It is true that in that Department there was an exceptional number of transfers, but that was done purely because of special circumstances. It has so happened that in the course of this year a number of vacancies occurred in that Department as the result of resignations and deaths. Those factors brought about the necessity to have transfers on a larger scale than usual. It is typical of the manner in which this increase of expenditure sometimes takes place that it is quite impossible to control it. As regards the general question of transfers in the Public Service, we are essentially in the hands of the Public Service Commission, and I know of no policy of mass transfers, as my hon. friend called it. I know of no such policy. It may, of course, be that as a result of the return of soldiers to their old positions there was the concomitant fact that the people who had acted in those posts in some cases had to be transferred to other places.

There was also a regrading of posts.

The regrading of posts, of course, always results in the transfer of officials, but the regrading of posts is something which continually takes place. But apart from that I know of no new policy as regards transfers from the Public Service. I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) that the general principle in connection with building control is something which can very properly be raised when the Vote of the Minister of Public Works is discussed in the usual Committee of Ways and Means. There we shall deal with the provision as a whole, and that would be the correct stage at which to bring this general question under discussion. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) raised a question in connection with the Mint. In reply to that I just want to say that this additional provision is only necessary in connection with the actual work of the Mint as regards the striking of badges and medals. This additional estimate is not required in connection with the minting of coins. As far as I know we have at the moment no contract to that effect with the Indian Government, but in any case the minting of coins would not fall under this. To the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) I just want to say that this provision is made solely for school children, and the additional amount asked for here is required purely as a result of the fact that the number of schools making use of this system has increased enormously in the last year.

Is there any age limit in the case of native school children?

I think in practice there is. I do not know of persons of advanced years who attend schools.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1946.

Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

On Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs”, £14,470,

Seeing that the financial year expires within a fortnight, it is remarkable that large sums of money are still being asked for to be spent hurriedly on this last estimate of the previous year, especially in view of the provision already made by Parliament for a considerable amount of money to be made available by way of additional estimates. I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister must explain to the House what emergency or hurry exists in connection with this Vote, and in that connection we should like to know what the general policy is.

The few items appearing here are mostly in connection with appointments and transfers in our diplomatic service. The Committee will understand that we have now reached the point where a fair amount of transfer and change and increase in our diplomatic service is taking place, and there are all kinds of small difficulties and small amounts of expenditure arising in that connection.

Why the hurry?

It is the end of our financial year.

It is for the current year which will end on 31st March. Here a house must be made ready and there an official must be transferred from one post to another. These are small official matters caused by the transition from war-time to peace-time conditions.

Have these expenditures already been effected?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 6.—“Treasury”, £8,400,

I shall be very glad if the Minister would inform us what the reason is why under “C”, additional expenditure, the amount suddenly rose from £400 to £1.200. We are very curious about that.

There is a very good reason for it. It is mainly in connection with expenditure made in connection with the Gold Mining Taxation Committee. That was appointed as a departmental committee, and for that reason expenditure for it had to be covered by this vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administration”, £333,035, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 12.—“Inland Revenue”, £17,245,

I think the Minister ought to give us details of the remissions we are asked to approve here.

There are the two cases of Moller and Breytenbach. In the first place as regards the case of Moller the persons nominated as heirs in the estates of Mary Anne and Pieter Barnard Andries Moller were accepted by the test-tators in 1902 before the coming into effect of the Adoption of the Children’s Act. Children adopted according to the provisions of that Act, for purposes of death duties, are classed as direct descendants. Death duties are calculated according to the tariff applicable to direct descendants. It was ascertained without any doubt that the two children in this case were legally adopted according to formal procedure, and they were given the same treatment as children adopted under the Act which followed upon that. I think the hon. member will be satisfied with that. Then there is the case of Breytenbach. Breytenbach was the owner of ground which he acquired in 1925. In 1943 he sold the property to his son for the amount of his debts. This transaction would not have made the sale liable to the provisions of the Act, but when the actual amount of the debt was determined the son repudiated the sale. Therefore cancellation followed, and the result was that when he resold the property, as he in fact did, he became liable to the tax by virtue of that cancellation according to the amendment which we had made to the Act. But it was not really a cancellation in the true sense of the word, and for that reason we waived the amount. For that reason it was considered right to waive this amount. I think my hon. friend will be satisfied with the explanation.

The cost of collecting income tax has risen considerably. There is an increase of approximately 50 per cent. I take it that that was due to an increase in personnel.

Not quite.

Then there is again remission in regard to personal tax. I presume that was a mistake.

Yes, that is correct. As regards the first point, I just want to explain that as a result of the increased scope of income tax, the court of appeal has much more work to do. One can understand that as a result of the increase in the scope of the tax, and because many people become liable to pay bigger amounts there are more cases going to the Income Tax Appeal Court.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 13—“Customs and Excise,” £43,540,

Here we have more cases of remissions. In the one case it is an appreciable amount, namely E J. Marramore. We should like to have an explanation.

As regards Marramore the position is that the firm imported certain raw materials with the idea of using it in the manufacture of other products. According to the law they are then entitled to a rebate of customs duties. But for that they had to take out a licence. In the course of time it appeared that this firm sometimes traded under the style of Marramore (Pty.) Ltd., and sometimes as E. J. Marramore. The licence was only taken out in one name. Strictly according to the law, they could only receive the rebate under one name. That was only a technical point. We had full right to demand the money, but it would have been against the spirit of the Act, and therefore after investigation we decided to remit the amount. As regards Schabort, this is a case to which I gave a considerable amount of attention. During February 1941, 1,515 proof gallons of spirits was sold to Schabort by the K.W.V. for fortifying his own wine. That would mean that he would be entitled to a rebate. In transit as well as after delivery 507.1 proof gallons were lost by evaporation and leakage. That was only ascertained by the Excise officials one month after delivery. It is very difficult to determine who should be held responsible for that. Strictly speaking, Schabort should be held responsible, but I consider it would be unreasonable to pay the tax on spirits he could not use. That was another case where we thought we had to meet the taxpayer.

That is a dangerous precedent.

I admit that.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”, £5,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £64,508,

A considerable amount is made available here in connection with the new medical faculty in Pretoria. We want to express our appreciation of that, but should like to know why this amount is being provided for out of revenue. That is not clear to me, and I hope the Minister will tell us that it is a grant to the university to aid the development of the faculty.

The usual basis on which we assist universities in regard to buildings is the £ for £ basis. In other words, if the university finds £10.000 we on our side give another £10,000. That is voted on the ordinary revenue vote. But in some cases we give assistance by way of a loan, and then it is placed on the Loan Vote. In that case the university has to pay interest and capital redemption on the full amount of the loan. In the case of the University of Pretoria a loan was granted to them first, but they came to us later and said that they had found portion of the money, and asked whether we would not subsidise them in respect of that portion In regard to that portion there would then be no interest and capital redemption payable. That is to the interest of the university, and finally also in our interest.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—“Industrial Schools and Reformatories”, £16,050, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 19.—“Native Education”, £252,970,

When this vote was before the House last year, the Minister asked for £580,000 for the feeding of native schoolchildren. We on this side objected to this amount, because we said that it would encourage natives to live a life of sloth if they did not pay anything towards it themselves. The European has to pay for the full amount for the feeding of European children, and he also has to pay for the native. Three weeks or a month ago the Minister asked for an additional £250,000. We again objected. We pointed out that the native children in certain places go to school just on those days when they receive food, and then they leave again. It encourages a lazy life on the part of the natives. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) mentioned certain cases, and the Minister promised to have them investigated. That was three weeks ago, and now the Minister again asks for £150,000 so that the feeding of native schoolchildren will now cost us £850,000.

No, £730,000.

Yes, for this year. If we continue in this way to feed the native children without their contributing anything, how will the European population stick it out? The Europeans will revolt if things are continued in this manner. I have no objection to native children being fed. Nobody on this side of this House has any objection to that, but let the natives pay for themselves. The Europeans have to pay for.it when their children are fed at school, and when native children are fed, the Europeans have to pay also. The Secretary for Native Affairs is very proud of the fact that during the last twenty-five years there has been no increase in taxation as regards natives, and that in the face of the fact that the Europeans’ taxation has increased from year to year. During the past six years the Europeans’ taxation increased from £49 million per annum to £130 million. I think that a halt must be called here, and I therefore want to move that this item be deleted.

It is quite correct that certain allegations were made at the time we dealt with the first additional estimates, which I promised to have investigated. I instructed my department to submit reports to me about the matter, but those reports have not yet been completed. What we are dealing with here is provision for the past year. The general question of principle will, of course, have to be discussed when the main estimates are discussed. We are here making provision for money which has actually been spent in this financial year. In the first additional estimates we could not arrive at the final number of schools to which the schoolfeeding system would be applied. We have now obtained that figure, and this additional amount is required. In any case I stated on the previous occasion that the final figures had not yet been furnished to us, and that evidently we would require an additional amount. It appears that we require this additional £150,000. These increases of expenditure are therefore necessary to fulfil our obligations under the present system. The general question falls to be discussed under the main estimates.

I should be glad if the Minister would utilise this opportunity in order to tell us what total amount is being devoted to native education. Here the amount of £2,243,000 is mentioned. On page 220 of the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1944-’45 he refers to the amount devoted to native education, and it is not clear to me whether the amount mentioned by the Auditor-General has any relation to this amount.

That will be for the previous year.

But it would be interesting to know whether it is in the vicinity of £2 million. Let me refer to item No. 10 in the report of the Auditor-General which refers to the expenditure of the Native Trust. It is stated here that included in this amount, there is £2,055,000 for native education. The report of the Auditor-General for the previous year refers to the amount spent by the Native Trust on native education, and we should like to know whether the Native Trust has spent an additional amount, apart from what appears in these estimates. The second question is the following. An amount is given to the Native Trust. Do they contribute towards native education, and if so, to what extent do they contribute to this sum of approximately £2¼ million which is devoted to native education. Then I should like to refer to the nineteen bursaries of which the Auditor-General makes mention in his report. These bursaries are awarded to native students who study at the University of the Witwatersrand. Is this amount now also being paid to the Provincial Administrations, or is it an additional amount spent by the Trust? The difficulty we have in regard to this matter is that we should like to know whether the Union Parliament contributes this amount required for the nineteen bursaries, or whether the Trust pays it.

It is no longer being paid by them.

Do we pay it then?

During the present financial year the system of financing native education was changed. Formerly it was done through the Native Trust, partially out of native taxation which did not come to us, and partly from funds voted by us on the Native Affairs Vote. During this year we changed that system. We now receive the full amount of the native taxation. The amount which they formerly utilised for education no longer goes to them. It is approximately £1,200,000. They received nothing from native taxation for education. In the year 1945-’46 we created a new vote in the estimates, namely Native Education. Under this vote the money goes directly to the provinces. On the other hand we received an increased amount of native taxation.

Where these bursaries are made available, the money for it is made available by the provinces.

The bursaries to which my hon. friend refers were created by the Trust. The responsibility for it has now been taken over by the Union Government, together with the responsibility for the rest of native education. In the Budget last year, provision was made for bursaries for native students to receive medical training. I think that the same amount has again been budgeted for this year.

That means that the Government takes the responsibility.

In the new Budget provision is again made for the same amount. The Trust does not give money for that purpose any more. They no longer receive the native taxation for that purpose.

This amount of almost £12,000 for seed wheat, has that also been taken away from the Trust?

I am not quite definite on that point. But the arrangement in connection with native education is that the additional amount asked for here for native education is simply being asked for as a result of the increased cost of living allowances which the provinces have to pay to teachers in the native schools.

In future, will the vote, Native Education, be a true reflection of everything that is devoted to native education?

In future the full amount voted by this House for native education will be voted on the Native Education vote.

And the whole of the native taxation is then given to the Treasury.

The whole amount which goes to education. One-fifth of native taxation still goes to the Trust for other purposes.

The natives contribute a very small amount towards the costs of their education.

No it is not a small percentage.

What is it?

The Trust last year gave to Treasury an amount of £1¼ million as that portion of native taxation which had always been used for native education.

But it also has to cover other expenditure in connection with services to natives like for example the police.

Yes, but we have always had that expenditure in connection with natives, just as we had it in connection with other sections of the population. We must not forget that we also receive indirect revenue from the natives, such as for example customs duties.

The £1¼ million is not only intended for education but for all services.

Formerly that £li million was used only for education. It was made available to the Native Trust for native education and now it is being paid to Treasury.

Is that the total amount of contributions we receive from them?

Yes, for that specific purpose. That is correct. In any case, as far as this item is concerned it is only additional provision in connection with cost of living allowances. It is something we cannot escape. According to the basis laid down, the Provinces had to pay additional allowances to native teachers, and we make good that amount to them.

When the Provinces have received this amount from Treasury, are those Provinces free to spend additional amounts on native education?

I think that in theory that may be the case. In practice I think it is correct to say also that in the Cape Province there is still a small amount of Provincial funds being used in connection with the inspection of native schools. That may also be the case in the Transvaal, but in practice the Provinces do not contribute much.

Vote put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—70.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—30.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Vote No. 19.—“Native Education”, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Vote No. 20—“Transport”, £15,250,

I think that we have reason to be anxious about the manner in which this Vote has increased from year to year. I have before me the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1944-’45. In that year our expenditure on this Vote was £229,000.

On which page?

Page 107. Just imagine, only one year or so later we are asked to vote £663,000. We should like the Minister to tell us why this amount in such a short period of less than twelve months rose from £229,000 to £663,000. Perhaps the Minister can give reasons. In the second place I should like to know from the Minister why he performs this service to other Departments of State, and why he performs this service at 25 per cent. below cost. In the report of the Auditor-General I see on page 108 that the average cost per mile was 5.784 pence, and if you look at the previous page, where the balance sheet is given, you will see that the revenue was 4.7 pence a mile, viz. the revenue which you derived from the various departments. You are thus performing the service at 1d. below cost, or 20 per cent. under cost price. I can well understand that this Department should not charge too much and have money over with which to play, but neither is it good to provide a service below cost. It therefore means that for example in the case of Posts and Telegraphs, where travelling amounted to £65,000, in reality it is 20 per cent. more, and we do not receive a correct impression of the expenditure of each Department in connection with motor transport. I should like to have a reply on these two questions.

I should like to ask whether the number of motor cars also includes the motor cars of the Department of Defence. I see that last year there were 1,284 motor cars in use. Then I notice that in the last financial year, while there was a great scarcity of motor cars, the number of Government motor cars increased by 79. In the difficult times when the public found it very difficult to acquire a motor car, the number of motor cars used by the Government increased by 79. If this includes motor cars for the Defence. Force, I can understand it, but otherwise I should like an explanation from the Minister. Then I should also like to know whether the expenses in connection with the Kalahari safari are included in the amount asked for here. If not, when will we have an opportunity to discuss the expenditure in connection with this safari?

When we discuss the salary of the relevant Minister.

Will we then ascertain what amount was spent?

You can ask him.

But portion of the costs falls under this item. If no provision is made for it here, we should like to know under what vote this expenditure falls.

I would like to explain as I have explained before, that there is nothing on the Transport Vote at all which has anything to do with the Kalahari expedition, which was financed from beginning to end by the Irrigation Department, and under the appropriate vote the hon. member may get the information.

Did you repair the motor cars and lorries when they returned from the expedition?

If that was done, it was done by the Irrigation Department. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), I would like to explain that as the hon. member knows we have had a system of buying cars for a pool for various destinations, some going to the Government, some to the Railways, etc. During the war we had to buy cars whenever and wherever we could get them and actually £300,000 has been spent in the purchase of motor cars. In regard to the question of an increase in the number of vehicles, it must be remembered that a good number of our vehicles went out of commission. Some of them were old and some had to be scrapped. But for the very reason that ordinary people could not run their cars Government business very often involved that the Government Garage put a car at the disposal of officials and others. That may have involved an increase, but it is a matter appropriate to the discussion of the main estimates, and I shall be glad to give the hon. member full information when we come to that point. As regards the immediate estimates the increases are simply explained. The total increase is only £15,000. Salaries, wages and allowances account for £6,400. Tyres and tubes, which have gone up very much in price and which possibly have not been as good in quality as they were before the war, account for £7,000, and incidental expenses total £3,000, but there has been some saving, leaving a nett balance of £1,850. That accounts for the vote as we have it in front of us now.

Does that include Defence cars?

We do not touch Defence cars. In the ordinary way the Government Garage does no work for Defence, although it might do so in an emergency.

The hon. Minister has stated that part of the expenditure refers to the purchase of tyres and tubes. Would the Minister tell us whether these tyres were acquired at the same price as the Department of Defence pays for them? We have repeatedly mentioned this matter in the Select Committee on Public Accounts over a series of years. We took the view that the tyres were supplied to the Department of Defence at exorbitant prices.

These are controlled prices. We do not pay any more.

Before I am prepared to approve this vote I should like to know whether the Government Garages obtain the tyres at the same prices as Defence, or do they pay more? At first the price fixed for Defence was cost plus 10 per cent. We then brought that down to cost plus 8 per cent. I consider that an adequate profit, but I should like to have the assurance that the Government Garages pay no more than the Defence Department. On the last occasion that I brought this matter up I pointed out that almost 100 per cent. profit is made on tyres sold to the public. What profit is made on the tyres; is it between 8 per cent. and 100 per cent.?

I would like to make it clear that the point raised by the hon. member if he wishes to have information, will require a little investigation. The fact remains that for the most part our tyres are quite different in size and weight from the great bulk of Defence tyres. You cannot say merely that their tyres cost so much and our tyres cost so much. With regard to the percentage paid, I have no information at the moment, but I will look into it and see that the hon. member is properly informed as to the basis on which we buy our tyres.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, £159,600.

I should like to know from the Minister whether the item “Miscellaneous Expenses” includes telephone connections.

No.

In connection with this Vote I see here subsistence allowances provided for. I want to ask the Minister of Finance one or two questions, firstly, whether he or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who is absent this afternoon, are in a position to make a statement on the go-slow strike of the telegraphists at Johannesburg, whether the question of subsistence allowance to employees of this Department on the Rand has anything to do with the strike …

Order! The hon. member is out of order in asking that question.

No, that has nothing to do with this Vote.

And therefore the Minister is not in a position to make a statement.

I cannot make a statement on a matter which has nothing to do with the Vote.

I take it that the item Salaries, Wages and Allowances includes overtime pay to telegraphists. If so, may I ask the Minister to tell us what rates of pay are allowed to telegraphists? I ask this question because as a result of the statement in the Press, quite a number of people are under the impression that these telegraphists are called upon to work long hours without remuneration. I do feel that the Minister should make it clear that the expenditure for Salaries, Wages and Allowances includes the overtime pay for the telegraphists.

Yes, it is quite correct that the general heading Salaries, Wages and Allowances does include overtime payments, but there is no specific provision here in regard to any change with regard to the question of overtime payments. They are paid overtime. About that fact it is quite impossible for me to make a statement in dealing with this particular Vote. We are now merely concerned with the reasons for the increase asked for.

Is the Minister concerned handling the position at the moment?

Yes.

I am sorry to intrude in this. It is not only a question of overtime payments, but also a question of excessive overtime. Working excessive overtime does not conform to our usual principles. These men are excessively tired, and cannot carry on their work properly, and over and over again they are getting more and more congested with work. They were quite willing to tackle the extra work whilst the war was on, and they were shortstaffed due to the war, but that is not the position now. And now the question of salary comes into it. They complain that the salaries of telegraphists are not sufficient to induce new recruits in any great number, which further accentuates this excessive overtime.

Order, order! May I point out that the Minister has already explained that this increase in the Vote has nothing to do with that question.

The Minister said that it included overtime pay. I understand that he cannot go into detail, but the Minister of Finance has confronted us with a globular sum with which is included overtime. I said in the beginning that it is not only a question of overtime payment, but of excessive overtime, which is a different matter. One thing above all other things has caused them to take this drastic action, from which they have since resiled at the request of the Minister, and that was the fact that this Commission enquiring into the pay and conditions of the Public Service generally is taking so long to bring out its report. They do not know where they are and when they will get an increase, if any. My frank opinion is that there was no need for a commission to enquire. It should have been a matter of policy, the policy being to aim at making the Public Service attractive.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that question. The hon. Minister has already explained that that has nothing to do with the increase.

I beg your pardon. I am traversing that explanation, and what is more, I am expressing my strong opinion with regard to the method adopted by the Government in connection with the Public Service generally, including telegraphists. The telegraphists are the spearhead. All the rest of the Public Service are upset by the position. I do urge upon the Minister that expedition is required now, and not only that, but expedition to improve all the conditions surrounding the salaries of public servants, and as far as possible a reduction of overtime.

I also have something to say in regard to salaries. I do not, however, wish to talk about telegraphists but about the women in the telephone service. It seems to me in regard to the telephone service that there are so many resignations of women that those who remain are simply unable to cope with the work. The position is that if you want to speak to a place 30 miles distant from here you can almost walk there and back before you get the connection. They throw up their shoulders and say, “Last month another eleven women resigned”. Their remuneration is so poor that as soon as they are half trained they find other employment. The result is that those who are left have to work overtime. Is this why the vote is being increased — because more overtime must be paid? It represents a waste of the public’s time which amounts to more than the increased pay. One has to sit for hours waiting for a call, and there must be an end to that. I do not know whether the Minister has less time to wait than us, but the position has become impossible. Then I should like to point out that we now have the second estimates of additional expenditure, and here we come to a vote for the conveyance of mails which has risen by £106,000. The first amount was £106,000 less. What was the cause, because it is a tremendous sum. I assume it is for the conveyance of mails from stations by the Railways and other people.

There are two reasons for the increased provision for the conveyance of mails. In the first place as a result of the cessation of hostilities we receive a greater quantity of mail from overseas in ships from various countries, and payment must of course be made to them. In the second place we are no longer in a position to despatch mails to our troops in the Mediterranean area by our own aircraft, because these aircraft are all being used to bring our soldiers back to South Africa. Consequently we had to pay the B.O.A.C. £60,000 for the conveyance of mails to and from the Mediterranean.

I have just a few questions. In the first place I should like to know whether the Minister can state that the listening-in to telephone conversations has entirely stopped?

There is nothing on this vote in connection with that.

The expenses in that connection must in any case be covered by money that has been received. I understand, however, from the Minister that there is no further listening-in.

So far as I know there is absolutely none, but I am not the responsible Minister.

Will we receive a clear answer from the Minister concerned? Then I should like to ask something in connection with spare parts for telephones.

That does not fall under this vote either.

“Miscellaneous Expenses”.

These are expenses in connection with third party claims arising from motor accidents.

Then I should like to know whether the holding up of telegrams a few days ago as a result of the go-slow strike of postal servants in Johannesburg is covered by this.

These estimates were drawn up before the strike occurred.

I have been impressed by the discourtesy extended to me by the Minister of Finance in not dealing with the subject when I brought it up. I have not put it in the form of a question, but I do refer to the fact that these people are getting very much annoyed at the delay of the Commission in reporting. I am going to put a direct question now. When does the Minister expect finality in this matter in the improvement or otherwise of the conditions and pay of the public service, including telegraphists? He will remember that the main object of the go slow strike of the telegraphists was their objection to the delay in reaching finality, in the delay in getting a report from this Commission of Enquiry. I now ask the question: When does he expect to compose the differences which are worrying the telegraphists and the rest of the public service resulting from the delay in bringing out the report?

I cannot discuss the matter in detail, but I can answer the question, and the answer is that the Government has pressed the Commission to expedite the matter, and we expect to get a report on the general question of salaries in the public service at the end of next month, and we will deal with this matter with the least possible delay.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—“Interior,” £1,700,

I should like to record my objection to this vote and to be informed whether the medals are for European school children or for non-Europeans. I should like further to know what form the medal will assume. Will it be the sort of thing to justify the war policy in the eyes of the school children? Will it not be better to apply the money to bursaries for school children than to use it for the distribution of useless medals?

It was intended to issue a peace medal to all the school children in the Union, and this expenditure was incurred preparing for it, but we have decided to abandon the idea of issuing a medal. I hope that explanation will clear the position. The reason for it was this, we had V.E. Day and V.J. Day, but technically we are still at war.

The children will be very disappointed, because when we got medals after the last war we used them to get chocolates out of the machines.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 23.—“Public Service Commission,” £1,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 24.—“Printing and Stationery,” £15,274, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25.—“Public Works,” £88,000.

When I was speaking on the second reading the Minister of Finance tried to explain to me that this additional amount was incurred to provide extra staff in order to expedite the issue of permits. The expenditure for the financial year is £27,000 and in this revised estimate we find additional expenditure of approximately £6,000. My argument is that there need be no increase here. There is no justification for an increase, and I have two reasons for saying that. The first is that the work the Minister said would be expedited, has not been done. It is proved by correspondence, wires and telephone calls I get from Johannesburg, and I protest against the employment of such people and the expenditure of so much money. The other aspect of the case is that there is no necessity for the existing staff. I am not attacking the Minister of Finance, I should like to help him. But I would ask him to have a thorough investigation made into this business. He may save a lot of money. I say there is no justification for the existing staff.

The hon. member cannot argue that question. May I point out to the hon. member he can only discuss the reason for the increase. The hon. member very correctly did that, but now he is going on to the principle of control.

I am pointing out there should be no increase in expenditure because there is no justification for increasing the staff. My justification for that is that instead of the issue of permits being facilitated it is retarded, and there are many more difficulties. Secondly, my submission is that these people are not necessary in these times, and instead of having extra staff we could have the work done by local authorities. It appears to me we will be saddled with these fellows for whom we are providing £36,000 not for a few months but for twelve months. I appeal to the Minister of Finance.

You can now appeal to the Minister of Public Works.

Yes, I see he has now come in. But the question primarily affects the Minister of Finance. We know what happens; if you want to justify your existence you ask for extra staff, and that is why I am appealing to the Minister. That Old Empire Building should be investigated. I sincerely hope when we come to the end of the next financial year it will not be a question of spending an extra £6,000 but of a considerable saving.

I did not think much of the hon. member as a politician before, but I am beginning to think more and more of him. He is showing definite signs of development. He is now starting to criticise his own Government. It might be a very small thing, but it is a bright spark in the darkness of that corner of the House. I cannot quite decide whether I agree with the hon. member or disagree with him. I agree with him when he attacks the Government no matter on what grounds. I agree with him because there are practically no grounds on which he would not be correct in attacking the Government. But before you rule me out of order, Sir, I want to say I have mixed feelings, I do not know where I am, I am like the building controllers: they do not know where they are. I think I ought to base this on the general grounds of incompetency of the building controllers. Instead of spending £6,000 on more building controllers it will be better to sack £6,000 worth of them, or better still practically the whole lot. But on the other hand there is something to be said for this, because I think what is at the back of the Minister’s head is that he is going to appoint controllers to control controllers. That is highly necessary. The hon. member has perhaps in mind the idle rich of Cape Town who go to Hermanns to enjoy a well-earned rest. I think it is time some of these people spending the £6,000 should be sent to Hermanus to take a count of the bathrooms and the palatial residences put up there. I may tell the Minister that in one of the Cape Town dailies three months ago there was an advertisement of the sale of a house at Hermanus. They said in the advertisement they could guarantee this house, which was new, was built of the very best material available and they could guarantee that because it was built by the late Controller of Building Materials. They have been advertising. I think it might be advisable to send one of these people down to Hermanus to investigate the house which was built by the late Controller of Building Materials of the best building material available. We could not obtain the best material. We could not even obtain rotten material. But this house is advertised as one of the best houses in Hermanus. There are other people who could be investigated, the people at Hermanus who put up these palatial houses. The Building Controller should be asked why he allowed them to put up these houses. If they said they were going to live permanently at Hermanus he should have investigated that. Many of them are business people. The Building Controller never asked them whether they were going to come into Cape Town every day or whether they were giving up their business. If they are going in from Hermanus to Cape Town every day to attend to their business there must be another racket in the Petrol Controller’s office, but seeing we are not dealing with that you will rule me out of order if I pursue it. But I think this Hermanus racket should be investigated, and I hope the Minister will use the people he is appointing now to control the controllers, the controllers of Hermanus, and especially the late Building Controller who built houses guaranteed of the very best material available.

I should like to go into this matter a little further. The point is that we are here dealing with an increase of expenditure. If it was the last increase there might be something to be said for it, but for next year there is another increase of £10,000. Can the Minister tell us whether this will be the last increase of expenditure in connection with building control? In the second place we should like to know from the Minister whether he intends to abolish building control altogether. We should not vote money here for people who we know in our hearts are unfitted for their work and who throw that work into confusion. I am glad the Minister has now come in, and I shall sit down to give him an opportunity to speak. I trust that we shall have a reply from him in regard to building control.

I am sorry I have not been able to listen to the whole of this discussion, but I am very interested in it. First of all let me deal with this £6,000. Hon. members will, of course, understand that expenditure of this kind has occurred, but not by my consent. These, however, are naturally matters I have to investigate, and so far as I have investigated this extra expenditure I am perfectly satisfied it had to be undertaken. Last year this Committee and the House generally were asking for decontrol. Why— they asked—should everything go to Johannesburg; why should we have to wait for consent from there for a new tap for a bathroom; why can we not have local committees to deal with such matters? So we took the advice of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), for example, and went in for decontrol; we appointed these local committees and today you can go to Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town and you will find the local committees my hon. friend asked for during the last two Sessions of Parliament.

They have no power; they send recommendations on to the head office.

In some cases only. We have spent no money better than this £6,000. We have certainly given more than £6,000 worth of satisfaction. I have a profound respect for the hon. member for Humansdorp, and I was so innocent as to believe what he said was the gospel truth when he talked about Hermanus. So one day when I saw the picture of a house in “Die Burger”, and it looked to me to be a palace of a place, I said to the controller, Col. Holdgate, who happened to be down here at the time, that it might be well if he had a good look at the picture. I requested him and three other technical men to go down and make a thorough investigation of the whole thing. We only allow, as you know, 2,000 square feet for a house, and this very house that appeared in “Die Burger” and made such a beautiful picture was found to conform absolutely to the regulations. Col. Holdgate, who is himself an architect, admitted it was one of the finest pieces of work he had seen. The space had been so ingeniously used that he himself was surprised to find that the footage was within the regulations. This palace with the three bathrooms had one bathroom, and in every other respect it was a perfectly legitimate house built, I understand, by a man who under no circumstances would have overlooked the regulations, let alone defy them. The house was actually built in accordance with the regulations.

Is he living in it?

I am glad you made that point. Men like my hon. friend call on the Building Controller and when they say they are going to use the house all the year round it would hardly seem to be a case of asking them to swear an affidavit. You would believe them.

Have they to swear an affidavit?

Yes, that he will use the house all the year round.

Not when these permits were granted.

When people of standing, of the same type as the hon. member for Humansdorp, make that statement you naturally believe them.

If you find these statements are untrue, what would you do?

What we do now is to make them swear an affidavit. This was long before I took over, and these gentlemen were asked if they were going to use the house all the year round. Many of them did. They made that house available for their friends; many of them used the house for returned soldiers, for officers coming back in poor health. A great deal of charity was done through these houses built at Hermanus, and in many cases I found out after investigation these houses were occupied the whole year round.

In many cases they were not.

In those cases where they were not—well, you always find that sort of thing. But we are today making this a matter of our very special concern. I will not name him, but an hon. member on this side of the House wanted me to give him a permit a little while ago. I asked him whether he was going to live permanently there and he replied: What has that to do with it? The regulations now require that the applicant must swear an affidavit that he is going to live in that house or to occupy it during that year. Otherwise he will not get a permit. This member has not got his permit and he is not going to get it. Then there is a matter of this advertisement. I think my hon. friend knows about this house just as well as I do. We had this controller, and I may say here it is a great pity that members of this House so constantly hound and kick the controllers. They are doing a good job of work. There are dozens of these men that from the start of control have been working in committees, giving up nearly the whole of the day to this work, every day of the week and every week of the month. They have been doing that job of work for the country. Paid officials are in many cases carrying out the instructions of these committees who are comprised of the best men we can find to do the work. The Cape Town committee is represented by certain master builders, two of the most reputable architects in Cape Town, trades union people representing housebuilders, bricklayers, carpenters and so on; and by two ex-Government officials. I defy you to get eight or ten better qualified men in the whole of Cape Town, and these men do their job of work for nothing. They are not paid, they are not in the Government’s employ. They do that work conscientiously and well; and I can tell you if I as Minister even attempted to interfere —I sometimes would like to interfere—I would be told, as Minister, you must not interfere, we have done our job, we have certain regulations, we have certain instructions, we have carried out instructions and regulations, and we will not have Ministerial interference, in other words, political interference. That is my experience, and I can only tell you my experience in the last few months. A finer class of men than are serving on these committees I have never met. I have met the men in Johannesburg, in Pretoria, and I have met them in other places, and they are a fine type, they are doing a job of work for land and people just as any member in this House is doing a job for land and people; and all they get is kicks. Some of them have been down here on these municipal congresses in Cape Town, and they have been asking me when they are going to be relieved of the job; they say they are sick and tired of it, of all the criticism, and they would like to finish the job at the end of this month. In the circumstances I take the opportunity of paying my tribute to these men and of asking them to please carry on and help me. What is this job of work? Last year we issued £40,000,000 worth of permits. My friend there asks: What do they do for their money? Forty million pounds worth of permits have been issued; and the scrutiny and the care that has to be taken in the investigation before one of these permits can be issued is something you have to see to understand how difficult and how complicated and how wearisome the work is. Yet these men carry on with that job in that fine spirit.

With regard to the one matter the hon. member for Humansdorp raised with reference to the building controller who started on his own house at Hermanus, he did so; there is no doubt about it. As far as I know 13 cases have been brought to the court against this man. All this has been done in defiance of the regulations and the permits where granted. That is all we can do in the circumstances. There are several prosecutions in Hermanus at the present time. People who are considered honourable men somehow think that when it comes to building regulations they can take liberties they would not take with the ordinary laws of the land, and to make these people understand we mean business and that they must conform with the law we have had to institute proceedings.

It seems to me that the Minister is a trifle touchy. He stood up here and said that he would deal with the member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). We know that he is an industrious Minister, and it is heartening for us to see that there is such an industrious Minister in the Cabinet. We are glad to see that he takes his department seriously, but although he is a hardworking Minister he must not resent it should we criticise him.

I welcome it.

We shall criticise him a great deal more. The Minister stated further that I have been speaking all these years about Hermanus, and he has now found out I am wrong.

No, I did not say that.

He said that all these years he believed what I said, but now that he has become Minister, he does not believe everything that I said about Hermanus. He set up a definite defence of building controllers in respect of everything that happened in Hermanus, but in the end he did tell us that twelve or thirteen people at Hermanus will have to appear before the court for infringing the building regulations. Allow me to say that I am not referring to the Building Controller in Johannesburg. I do not know what his name is.

Col. Holdgate.

Nothing that I say refers to him in any way. I have the very greatest respect for him. I have already worked with him on public bodies, and he is an honourable man. I am dealing with the people at Hermanus. Let me tell the Minister what sort of houses were agreed to there last year. I take the figures for houses in respect of which building permits were granted: £2,300, £3,000, £2,000, £3,000, £3,300, £3,500, £3,000, £2,500, £2,250, £2,500, etc. That is the class of building for which permits were granted last year. Apparently my action has borne fruit over Hermanus. Every year I told the Minister’s predecessor that people were building these houses as holiday houses. They accepted the word of people that they would live there the whole year round. Of course they were there almost every week-end. The Minister is a Scotsman and he did not readily accept their word. He wanted their signature on paper. I am glad to hear from him that these people must now make a sworn declaration that they are not only going to live there in the week-ends, but that. they will live there permanently. This is good. But what about the other people who gave their word to the controller that they were going to live in these houses and managed to build these small palaces in which they are not living except during the weekends? They have done this while hundreds of other people are running round in Cape Town unable to get a roof over their heads, and even in Hermanus itself people are living in garages. A small number live there permanently, and there is also a small number who allow other people to live in their houses. But I am referring ’ to people who obtain permits under false pretences from the building controller, and I want to know from the Minister what he is going to do about them. Where people infringed the terms of the plans and the permits that were granted them is the Minister going to prosecute them? And what action is he going to take against those who declared falsely that they were going to live in these houses themselves? It is perfectly right that the Minister should take steps against them, but what about those people who obtained permits by falsely pretending that they were going to live in these houses permanently. Is the Minister going to take any steps against them, or is this “suburban society, the idle rich of the Cape Peninsula” going to be allowed to use as holiday palaces these houses for which they obtained permits under false pretences? Why is the Minister not bothering tp eject these people from those houses while right throughout South Africa there are people who have not even a roof over their heads? He should do that. I do not blame him for this mess at Hermanns. It occurred under his predecessor, but I ask that he should rectify what his predecessor did wrongly or what his predecessor allowed to be done wrongly. I know that the present Minister of Public Works has not as many friends who spend their weekends at Hermanus as the previous Minister. I want to say now that the Minister’s predecessor, “the darling of the suburban aristocracy”, is supposed to have given permits to people who only wanted to spend weekends there. I want to say that I looked very sharply at the other side when the permits were obtained. My information in regard to the houses at Hermanus is now correct.

I have never had anything to do with permits.

Thank heaven for that, otherwise the position would be even worse. The Minister knows of the wrongful things that were done. I should like now to know whether those people are going to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their dishonesty or whether he is going to take measures against them.

I also want to strike a note of praise and thanks, following the example of the Minister of Public Works. I, like him, want to express my gratitude to these devoted men who offered and are keeping on with the execution of their services in this very important matter. Perhaps the system of control might have been simplified with advantage but as for the effort of the individuals concerned, I think no praise is too high, and I agree entirely with the Minister on that point. But I do particularly want to pay tribute to Col. Holdgate. Great many people have found fault with Col. Holdgate. I think it was largely because he was determined to do the right thing. He kept along the line and I think that accounts for a good many complaints. I have had the almost ineffable pleasure of being associated with Col. Holdgate, and I have come to the conclusion that a more honourable and a more honest man determined to carry out his duties properly it would be very difficult to find and I sympathise with this gentleman in the fact that his health has been shattered by his devotion to duty, and I think it is only fair to him that a man of my experience should express myself as I have done with regard to him. My memory goes back in this matter quite a few years. I remember when Col. Holdgate was deputy controller. Actually he has been controller of building all through the war period. My memory goes back to the time when for my sins I was still a member of the Cabinet, when the Minister of the Interior, or the Minister of Public Works ….

You were there for your virtues.

May be The present Minister of the Interior, and I think, the Minister of Social Welfare—of course we have chopped and changed so much that we do not know where we are today—but Mr. Harry Lawrence, I think you will permit me to say that, and one other Minister were present at a conference. We were getting very alarmed at the sky-rocketing in the price of building material. We were getting very alarmed at the price of building material and the building material representatives, the builders’ representatives, the Union’s representatives and last but by no means least Cabinet representatives were called together and Col. Holdgate and I shall never forget the way he stood up to all those speeches. I complimented him in retrospect upon his attitude. I think it is only fair for me to say that.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 26.—“Public Health”, £1,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 27.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded”, £40,750, put and agreed to.

Vote. No. 28.—“Social Welfare”, £117,655, put and agreed to.

Vote. No. 29.—“Directorate of Demobilisation’” £97, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“Labour”, £42,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Mines”, £57,900,

I should like to have a little information from the Minister in connection with the increase of £50,900 under the item “State alluvial diggings”. When the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) was talking just now I made an interjection and he then said that I could only talk about diamonds and nothing else. I would only say that it is nevertheless better to know something about diamonds than to know nothing at all. I shall be glad to know why this amount is necessary.

This vote is for the State Alluvial Diggings, and the increase is due to the policy of trying to increase the production of diamonds on the State Alluvial Diggings to meet the large demand which exists at the present time. The increase is made up of rations and allowances on the salaries and partly increased transport, which is due to the fact that the little ship which used to take the supplies up the coast was wrecked last year, and a good deal more stuff has had to go by rail and road transport, which is more expensive than going by sea. But the whole amount is due to our endeavours to increase the output at the State Alluvial Diggings and to the increased staff which has been taken on in consequence.

I should be glad to have an explanation from the Minister of Item O, “Investigation of the natural oil possibilities in the Union of South Africa.” It is a small amount of £9,000 that is being asked. The Minister can inform the Committee whether he intends to proceed with boring with the same object; and perhaps he could also inform the Committee of the results hitherto obtained. In the end South Africa will not always be able to obtain its requirements from overseas in view of the affliction of the world, and we should like to know what the prospects are in this connection.

On the general question of South Africa being able to produce more of her own oil supplies, the hon. member is probably aware that there is a motion on the Order Paper which will give us an opportunity of discussing that more fully. But this particular increase is in connection with the boring programme which we undertook some years ago and which we have not yet completed. The original amount voted was to complete certain bore-holes in the Orange Free State and in the Eastern Cape Province, and later on it was decided to sink another bore-hole in the Aberdeen district and to deepen certain other bore-holes with the idea of obtaining further geological information in regard to the strata at greater depth, and for that reason an additional £7,000 is required during the current year. I am bound to say that up to date the result of our borings in different parts of the country has been very disappointing and we have not yet come across any concrete indications that we are likely to strike natural supplies of oil in the country.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Lands”, £43,773,

I wish to put a question to the Minister in connection with Item G(3) “Probationary Lessees”. It looks to me as if the vote has been almost doubled. The original estimate was £41,500 and the revised estimate is £85,000, while the additional amount asked to be voted is £37,273. Can the Minister tell us why the estimating was so poor, or why the larger amount is now required?

Before the Minister replies I should like to put the following question to him. An additional amount of about £37,000 is being asked for here. Have more settlers been placed at Vaal-Harts, where I believe there are many holdings that could be allotted. Then I should like to know whether the department is still inviting applications. Every day I get letters and today I received some from returned soldiers who say that they are being suspended between heaven and earth and they do not know when the land will be allotted; and seeing this amount is on the estimates I should like to ask the Minister when this land will be given out.

Then I should like to put a question in connection with the contribution to the National Parks Board as an additional amount of £6,500 is asked for. Does this represent salaries to members of the board? I should like to have an explanation on this point. Is the increase to be ascribed to the appointment of additional members, or what is the reason for it.

In connection with this amount of £37,273 I would just say that it is for placing settlers on the Vaal-Harts settlement. When we drew up the previous estimate of £41,500 we did not know how many settlers we would get, and consequently we said we would ask for further funds in proportion to the increase in the number of settlers. Seventy-five have already been settled there and we are trying to place more. More holdings are being given out, and this amount is for the settlers who are now coming and is in proportion to the applications received. I think that is the answer the hon. member wants. Then I wish to say in connection with the increase of £6,500 it is not a question of the appointment of further members to the National Parks Board. The hon. member will recall that during the war there was virtually no revenue from tourists visiting the parks. The result was that the board’s revenue was almost wiped out, and it is in order to help them over this difficulty that the amount is being asked. They have not the necessary funds to continue the administration of the board because their revenue has come to an end.

Will the National Park be opened this winter?

I understand it will now be opened. As soon as this is done it will not be necessary to vote an extra amount. I want to point out that even in normal times we placed a sum of £13,000 on the estimates every year for national parks, but we reduced it during the war because they had a considerable credit balance. But that amount has now been utilised and the result is that we have to set this amount aside to assist them to cover administrative costs.

In reference to the reply of the Minister of Lands in connection with Item G (3) I should like to ask what his policy is in connection with the placing of settlers. I come across many cases where the people ask me whether it is necessary to make application for holdings because the (holdings (will in any case be granted to returned soldiers. Will the Minister tell us what the policy is?

I regret that the hon. member may not at present discuss the question of policy. He can only discuss the reasons for the increase. The hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss the policy later in connection with the main estimates.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 33.—“Deeds”, £1,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37.—“Surveys”, £12,500,

It has been stated frequently in the public Press and also in various places that the officials concerned with this department state that the staff is totally inadequate to do the work and that the department is getting into a state of hopeless confusion. It is not good that this office should fall into that state. If there ever was an office where attention should be paid to accuracy it is this, and we cannot allow the work to pile up there. In today’s newspaper it is stated that at the trigonometrical survey at Mowbray there are numbers and numbers of diagrams lying there that cannot be completed. Will the Minister please tell us why provision is not made for additional staff, and what he is doing to improve the position? Trigonometrical surveys assume ’large dimensions and it is all the more important that that department should be administered as perfectly as possible, and I should like to learn from the Minister what he is going to do to improve the position.

Before the Minister replies I should like to confirm what the previous speaker has said. In the Transvaal there is the same complaint and grievance that months elapse before the diagrams are dealt with and approved, whereas formerly it took only a few weeks. But I wish to refer particularly to the scientific instrument branch. I should like to know whether provision will be made through that branch to assist farmers and others to obtain scientific instruments in connection with soil erosion. It is most necessary to obtain scientific instruments in order to combat soil erosion properly. I have received no less than three letters from farmers who write that though they have tried they have been unable to obtain scientific instruments. As there is such a branch I should like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for this branch to regard it as one of its duties to provide scientific instruments to farmers so that they may have the necessary instruments from the department, and particularly from this branch.

I should like the Minister to understand what is entailed by delay when one purchases a farm and then transfer and diagram have to be put through the office. The briefest period in which the department is now able to deal with the diagram in the Central Mapping Office is between three and four months. I know of people who have waited six months. The position is this: If you buy a farm or sell a piece of land the purchaser does not pay for it before he receives diagram and transfer. He may have possession of it for four or five months, but the seller receives nothing because he is not able to give transfer to the buyer. One might almost say that hundreds of thousands of pounds are being lost in interest because diagram and transfer are not furnished within a reasonable time, and it is simply because there are not enough clerks to approve the diagrams in the Surveyor-General’s office. It is a serious problem. I do not know whether the Minister realises the position. People come along throughout the day to complain to you about the delays that are occurring. In the course of last week I had a letter from a man at Riversdale who wrote to me that six months had passed before the diagram was ready. The purchaser took possession of the farm. He is living in the village and he receives no interest on his money. I should like the matter to be investigated and if there is a shortage of staff more people should be appointed, or if the difficulty is that they are not paid enough let us pay them more.

I thoroughly realise that there has been difficulty and delay in the Surveyor-General’s Office and in the Deeds Office. The difficulty arose through a shortage of staff. During the war a large number of officials joined up and, as you can understand, you cannot just put anyone in there to do the work. It is work of a scientific character, and must be done by a trained man. We have had to contend with a shortage of staff and the result was that we fell into arrears. The position is, however, much better than has been described. On a certain occasion it was stated that the position was in a state of absolute chaos. This is not so.

It took me thirteen months to put through diagram and transfer.

If my hon. friend will give me the details I will go into that case and explain the real facts in that connection to the House. It is not so. There has never been a delay of thirteen months. There was a shortage of staff in the various offices, and there was of course delay, but it was not so bad. We did everything in our power to make up the shortage of staff. But you cannot just put anyone in that office. In Maritzburg there was a complaint that the work had piled up and that it would take months and months to put all the work through. I personally went to Maritzburg to make an enquiry and I met all the parties concerned and thrashed cut the position with them. I asked them to make suggestions with a view to improving the position. I sent the Secretary for Lands there to meet these people and they admitted that the position was not at all chaotic though there was a shortage of staff. But it did transpire that the delay was not nearly so bad as had been made out. The position is today very much better and there are no complaints, and I hope there will be no complaints in the immediate future. In regard to the question of scientific instruments I think those instruments will also be made available to the farmers. I think that will be done. I have no definite information on that point.

Will you make enquiries and let us know the position?

I shall make enquiries, but I am almost certain that scientific instruments will in fact be made available for the farmers just as for any governmental department. The various departments of the Government make use of that department, and I can tell hon. members it means a very great deal. The Department of Agriculture orders thousands of instruments from us just for their erosion works. So I think the instruments will also be made available for farmers, and what is more, we shall not require them to pay for them.

I cannot understand why the Minister is so unreasonable. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said that it took him 13 months to obtain transfer and diagram, and the Minister denied this. He said it could not take so long. Why does the Minister always want to cause trouble? When we bring to his notice what the position is in his own office—and his own people are complaining about it—the Minister says that our information is not correct. It is our duty to bring these matters to the attention of the Minister. His own people are complaining about it. Go to the surveyors on the platteland and one and all will testify to the fact that they cannot get their work through. Now the Minister wants to tell us that this is not the position. We maintain there is delay and that it is to be attributed to the fact that there is a shortage of staff.

There is not a delay of thirteen months.

The Minister must not put the case as if these people were not sustaining any damage. I know of cases where people are waiting for transfer and diagram, and only when they receive it will they be able to get their money. They have been waiting for six months, thus losing interest on their money. Now the hon. Minister wishes to make out that it is all a very easy matter. It is not such an easy matter. Here is a prominent man in Cape Town who, as a result of the delay in that department, is sustaining loss. He cannot obtain interest on his capital. He has bought land and he wants to get his transfer and diagram through, but he cannot manage it. The result is that he has been losing interest for four months. This has been going on, and all we ask the Minister is to try as hard as he can to get these trained people out of the army to do the work. Try to put the offices in a position to obtain as many trained men as possible. This is all we ask. But when an hon. member says from his own experience that he has waited 13 months the Minister should not immediately jump up and say it is not so. This is all we desire. We hope as a result of this debate the department will now see that the pace of the work is accelerated compared with what it has been in the past.

I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) to pass without comment. The hon. member states that I always want to make trouble when they bring matters to my notice and ask me to give them my attention. He says there is delay and that it is to be ascribed to the shortage of staff. I admitted that. I say that I know there is delay and I gave the reason, but I maintain there is not a single instance where there has been a delay for 13 months, and if the hon. member for Humansdorp will give me the particulars I shall have the matter investigated and then I will give the information to the House. There has been no case where the delay ran to 13 months.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 36.—“Justice”, £350,

In connection with the increase of this Vote I shall be glad if the Minister would avail himself of this opportunity to give more information to the House. An additional amount of £350 is being asked for the repatriation of Italian internees. The original estimate was £710,000. I am rising to give the Minister an opportunity to make a statement on the matter. The question is whether this extra amount will be expended in expediting the repatriation of the Italians. The Minister knows what the position is. Many farmers are at their wits’ end. They understand, of course, that the general policy of the Government is to return the Italians gradually. On this point the Minister can tell us how many Italians are still in the country and what the position is in connection with them. What I wish to emphasise is this: Many farmers are in difficulties. They still have some of these Italians on their farms, but now they are in this difficulty that when these men have been taken away they will not be able to get labourers. I wish to ask the Minister whether he cannot, in consultation with other departments, devise a plan so that when the Italians have been taken away the farmers will be able to get labourers. I hope he will take the opportunity to take the country into his confidence and to inform us how many Italians still have to be sent back.

This is the first vote of this kind There is no general policy of repatriation of all Italian internees. The policy has been that internees who were still under internment up to two or three months ago should be released from internment. That policy has been carried out. We no longer have Italian internees in custody. My hon. friend has referred to Italians who are used for farm labour. Those, of course, are not internees but Italian prisoners of war, and that is something quite different. This money is put down in respect of certain Italians who we were able to get back to Italy. We were able to make the necessary arrangements for them to return to Italy. They had no right of residence in this country, and the opportunity presented itself to make shipping arrangements for them, and it was decided that that was the best way of dealing with the matter.

Do I understand that there are no Italian internees under restraint at present?

Yes.

That is very surprising. In my constituency there is at least one who must have been lost. Representations were made to me several times for his release, but I always took up the attitude that if the Government saw fit to intern him he should be interned. Last week I was asked to make representations to the Government for his release. Is the Government holding any internees for deportation?

If the hon. member would privately give me the name of the internee I will have the matter investigated. My information, was that all Italians had been released from internment camps. It may be that the formalities in connection with the release of some of them have not yet been completed, but it is not the intention to retain any of the internees any longer.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37.—“Superior Courts”, £37,800,

Under Item F money is being asked to meet expenses incidental to the production of exhibits in the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts. I should like to bring to notice a case that occurred in the Free State where the litigants were ready with their case, where the advocates appeared in court and were ready to go on with the case, but there was no judge to hear it.

May I point out that this matter has nothing to do with the increased expenses.

We are here dealing with increased expenses; and when the parties appeared there was no judge, so that the augmented expenses had been incurred in vain. The Minister gave me the reply in writing, which is rather peculiar. I asked—

1. (1) How many judges of the Orange Free State Provincial Division of the Supreme Court are at present available for the hearing of cases in Bloemfontein;
2. (2) whether there is a sufficient number of judges to deal with appeal cases.
3. (3) whether it has been brought to his notice that litigants appeared in court with their appeal cases prepared but that there were not sufficient judges to hear such appeals; and
4. (4) whether he will recommend the immediate appointment of at least one judge to such Provincial Division in order to avoid any expenses and inconvenience to litigants.

The question was to have been answered on Tuesday last. Then the Minister asked for it to stand over, and on Friday he replied—

I really think that the department should bring the matter to the notice of the Minister as quickly as possible. It was a contested action, and after long consultations, both parties appeared, the plaintiff and the defendant with their advocates. It is an important matter and the claim runs into thousands of pounds but when the parties appeared there was no judge to hear the case.

I regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to enlarge further on that matter.

The position is this, that the Judge-President of the Orange Free State Provincial Division. Mr. Justice Fischer, is on six months’ leave owing to ill-health, and unfortunately another member of the Court had to go off suddenly owing to illness, with the result that for a time the Court was left with only one judge. Apparently there was some slight delay in making the necessary arrangements. I understand that attempts were made by the Department to obtain an acting judge, an official who would be able to act and who has acted before. These attempts did not succeed, but the matter was eventually adjusted and a former judge has come back to act. I agree that it is unfortunate that litigants were delayed, and I shall certainly ask the Department to ensure that so far as is humanly possible such a delay will not occur in future.

In regard to Item (q), the increase of £6,000 for Deputy Sheriffs, I would very much like an explanation from the Minister with regard to that amount. Why has that increase been so big? I should also like to know whether the Deputy Sheriff is supposed to pay the necessary respect to our judges when they arrive at the different centres.

In regard to the latter point, I do not think that is a matter which really arises out of any increase in the vote. I have always understood that as a matter of courtesy the Deputy Sheriff does pay respect to the visiting judge of the Circuit Court, and I hope that that does happen. I am not able to give reasons for the increase. The fees payable depend on the amount of work done. Obviously there has been an increase in the work, which has led to the increase in the vote. What the funda mental causes are I cannot say.

I understand that the Deputy Sheriffs in Natal get considerably less for the same work than do the Deputy Sheriffs in the other Provinces. If the same fees were paid in the other Provinces that are paid in Natal there would hardly be any necessity for paying this £6,000. I should like some information on the point.

I shall look into the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 38.—“Magistrates and District Administration”, £15,050, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Prisons and Gaols”, £33,000,

In connection with Item B, the increase in regard to salaries, wages and allowances, I should like to know what the position is in connection with gaolers and prison warders. I understand that they did not receive an increase when the police got theirs, and there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst these people. They feel they also have to bear the increased cost of living, that their work is equally important, and that it is unfair they did not receive increases at the same time as the police. Now I should like to know what the Government’s intention is. Has this matter also been referred to the Public Service Commission? We shall be landed in big difficulties if we lose these people and later on there is no one to look after the inmates of the gaol.

Yes, the position is this, that the rates of pay, etc., of the Prisons Staff form the subect-matter for consideration by the Centlivres Commission. The increases made in respect of the police do not at present apply to the prisons staff. The two staffs are separate and fall under different administrations. I can, however, tell the hon. member that the Director of Prisons, Mr. Hoale, who was formerly the Secretary for Justice, has given evidence and handed in papers before the Commission in which he asks that the prisons staff should be treated on the same basis as the police. Whether that is done or not is a matter for the Commission to decide. The Government will have to await the recommendations of the Commission. But the House knows that the Minister of Finance has already given the assurance that any increase agreed upon will be made retrospective to 1st January, 1946.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Commerce and Industries”, £1,500,

I should be glad if the Minister would state why this amount has to be voted. I understand it is a new amount, and I am asking this because at present there is a great surplus of salt in the country. New companies have been created in order to exploit the saltpans, including companies with considerable capital. Why is it necessary to vote an amount of £1,500 as a subsidy on the importation of salt? We can really manufacture enough here.

This amount remains over from 1944, when there was an acute shortage of salt and we had to get some from South-West Africa. We then estimated that we would suffer a loss of £35,000, but in finalising the accounts there are a number of accounts which came in, mostly from Railways and Defence, who paid for the transport, which brought it up to a little over £25,000, and so we need £1,500 to square the thing off.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Agriculture,” £150,980,

I should like to have an explanation from the Minister in reference to the grant to the international board for the control of the red locust. I should be glad to know whether this House can also make an enquiry regarding and make provision for combating the commando worm which is just as serious a menace as the red locust. We hope that we shall not have another plague of locusts, but the other threat is there. Can it be combated in the same way by this board.

I am sorry and no doubt other members too, that the Minister of Agriculture is away ill, but I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been put here. In regard to the international board for control of the red locust the position is that it is necessary to take drastic, action in Central Africa to prevent red locusts swarming into South Africa. This International Red Locust Control Board is comprised of representatives of the governments of Southern and Northern Rhodesia and the other British territories there such as Kenya and Tanganyika, as well as the Belgian Congo and the Ruanda-Urundi territory. The governments are working in co-operation through this body and the purpose is, of course, to stop the locusts at their breeding places. This body has expenses, and these countries contribute to the extent of £35,000. Our proportion of that is £10,000 and that is the reason for it being asked. As far as I know the commando worm is really only a pest within our borders, but in the other cases we have to deal with an international board, and I do not believe that that board can be used for this purpose.

I should like to know from the Minister whether he can give any information in regard to the £50,000 for the purchase of a steamship. I trust the Minister will be able to say from whom the boat is being bought and for what purpose. But it is also curious that the amount should figure under “Agriculture”. Hitherto all shipping has fallen under the Minister of Transport, as indeed all transport has.

This boat will be employed for the conveyance of guano from the Guano Islands which fall under the Department of Agriculture. In the past the Department has made use of the steamer Otavi which belongs to the Thesen Steamship Company. The Department chartered the vessel but I understand this boat is no longer available. For this reason the Department of Agriculture decided to provide a boat itself. It was possible to take over the Gamtoos from the Department of Defence. The Treasury went into the matter and is convinced that from a financial standpoint it will be in our interest to do this.

Why is guano sent overland by means of the transport available to the Minister of Transport.

There will be enough work to keep the boat occupied the whole time. The Department of Agriculture can utilise it fully.

I see there is an increase in the amount provided for chemical services. I presume and I hope that this has reference to Onderstepoort.

No, this is for chemical services.

Then I should like to know whether the Minister can make a statement in regard to lumpy skin disease.

I am sorry but that does not fall under this.

I want to return to the steamer. In view of the fact that this steamer will only ply in South African waters, around the coast, I would like to ask that the opportunity be taken to give training in both languages. Last year I put a question to the Minister of Transport as to whether full provision could be made for training as far as the boats are concerned to be given in both languages. He then replied in the negative. Here now is the opportunity. I can give the Minister the assurance that I can give him a list of nautical terms that can be used. This ship will have no contact with other countries, and here is a fine opportunity to train young South African lads in both languages.

The point will be brought to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture.

I should like to know the history of this steamer. Is it one of the boats that was commandeered from Irvin and Johnson? Where does it come from?

It comes from the Department of Defence.

Yes, but they did not have boats which cost £50,000. The one they had was sunk in the Mediterranean. There were some small craft which were worth £4,000 to £8,000. I am only afraid that if a high price is fixed, then when the price of guano is being fixed the capital expenditure on the steamer will be taken into account. If the price is now too high, the farmers will have to pay for it. They may have to pay interest on £50,000.

The boat originally was the property of C. P. Smith and Co., and I can give the hon. member the assurance that so far from the purchase of this ship resulting in the price of guano being increased, it will have precisely the opposite effect. We reckon that on the basis of the present freight tariff there will be a saving of at least £5,000 a year.

Will guano be cheaper in future?

I hope so, but in any case the purchase of this ship will not increase the price.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 44.—“Agriculture (Education and Experiment Stations)”, £12,443, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Agriculture (General)”, £401,600,

The large amount of £250,000 is being asked here for a subsidy on imported barley and oats. It is a large amount, and we should like to know whether it has become necessary just on account of the drought? Is the shortage of barley and oats to be attributed to the drought alone? From personal knowledge, I can only say that in my opinion the drought alone is not to blame. A very important reason is that inadequate encouragement was given farmers to produce barley and oats. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry whether at this stage he can give a promise to the farmers with reference to the price of barley and oats, so that it will not again be necessary to import these products. Last year the prices were such that they offered no encouragement to the farmers to produce barley and oats. Especially in regard to oats the price was brought down, and the price of barley was also unsatisfactory. Instead of producing oats and barley, the farmers will cultivate other crops, unless the prices are improved. I think it is necessary that at this stage a statement should be made by the Minister so that the farmers may be encouraged to produce more barley and oats. Otherwise, next year a further subsidy will have to be voted for the importation of barley.

I rise to ask for information in connection with the same item. I should like to know how the amount of £250,000 is arrived at. How is the subsidy paid and to whom? What is the basis of calculation? In the second place, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn when he says that the price today offers no encouragement to the oat grower. I want to put a further question: To whom will this amount now being voted be granted? On what conditions will the farmers or other persons who wish to obtain the barley and oats be able to get it? I happen to have before me now the papers for making applications for seed-oats. I have here one, two, three, four, five, six decuments. Good heavens, what red tape! I most honestly say that after looking through the papers I did not understand them. Perhaps I am stupid, but people will still look on me as a member of Parliament; perhaps they will say that because I am a member of Parliament there is so little I understand. This thing quite confuses me.

However will a Sap understand it then?

This thing is enough to send you to Valkenberg. You feel like leaving the whole thing alone. I do not know yet whether I should send cash or what I should do. I consulted an attorney. He is equally stupid. Perhaps the Department can give me the information. Should I go and ask them, they will of course draw up another document in connection with our conversation. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, but cannot a simple system be devised?

I am sorry I cannot throw much light on this matter. I can merely explain the financial provision. I am sorry, too, that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is absent, and I cannot make any statement in regard to the price of barley in the new season. Nor apparently will the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry be able to do so. I understand that the Wheat Control Board is meeting within the next week or two, and the object of the meeting is expressly to fix the price of wheat and of small grain. Consequently, in any case it would not be possible at this juncture to say anything definite in that connection. We, of course, are only concerned with barley and oats that are bought during the current financial year. Further purchases will probably be made in the year that lies ahead, but as far as the current year is concerned we have found it possible to purchase certain quantities of barley and oats from Australia and the U.S.A. We had to do that in the interests of the country and we had to pay a rather high price. Prices fluctuate somewhat, but the average price of what we purchased in Australia was 30s. a bag, and we also bought oats in the United States, the price running to 36s. a bag.

And you pay our farmers 12s. 6d. a bag.

The selling price is 14s. 6d. Thus it is virtually tantamount to a subsidy of £1 a bag.

That is a massacre of the innocents.

Had we to manage without the quantity imported?

You should have paid a better price here.

It would not have helped at that juncture. It was necessary to import additional barley and oats, and as we could not get it at a lower price we had to pay the higher price.

What was the price of barley?

I understand that barley has not yet been imported. Up to the present only oats have been imported.

A fortnight ago the farmers in the area I represent had a meeting. In Robertson district a great quantity of barley is produced, and the breweries get much of their barley from there. About 100,000 bags of barley was turned yellow and spoiled by the rain, and was used for fodder and the farmers asked me to tell the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry that he must not expect them to grow barley again. They got 12s. 6d. for the barley that they could not sell to the brewery. Now oats are being imported at 36s., and the barley will without doubt cost about £2, though we farmers are receiving only 12s. 6d. If that is the position they would rather grow tomatoes and carrots and cabbage which they can send to the canning factory. You cannot produce barley at that price. They told me they learned that the Government wished to import, and I must in fact say to the Government they should really import more, because if the price does not pay the farmers they will not sow any. I should be glad to learn from the Minister whether some of the imported barley will also be sent to the breweries. What will the breweries have to pay?

They will have to pay the usual price.

Will they get the subsidy?

No.

Does the Minister realise how the farmers have worked for the breweries for 20 or 30 years? They received an average price of 12s. 6d. The breweries have always been top-dog. However, they have never imported a bag of barley without the consent of the barley farmers. The breweries buy the farmers’ barley on contract, but it is a one-sided contract, because, though the farmer is obliged to sell, they are not obliged to accept the barley. The price has been fixed at 16s. for first grade, 13s. 6d. for second grade and 12s. 6d. for third grade. The breweries determine the grade. If the farmer is not satisfied and calls in a Government expert the breweries simply say they will not buy the barley. If they want to import first grade barley they must obtain it from Canada and not from the Argentine or Australia. They cannot buy it cheaper than 21s. and 25s. The breweries do not know what to do with their money. There are two overseas companies, Ohlsson’s and the South African Breweries. They make their purchases through one agent, and he simply lords it over the farmers. They have simply trampled on the farmers. Something must be done to assist the farmers against the breweries. There is another area in the Transvaal where they can produce brewer’s barley. The representative of that area came and talked to me. I simply told him that he was powerless against the breweries. They have the money and they trample the farmers underfoot, and now the Government wants to come and help them.

Nobody is more righteously indignant if unjust charges are made against the K.W.V. than the hon. member.

I am not talking about the K.W.V.

I am. He has made charges against the breweries and he has stated they have been unfair to the barley growers. The breweries, as the hon. member should know, have gone out of their way to encourage the growers of South African barley. He referred to the price at which they bought barley this year at 16s. 6d.

I did not say this year.

The hon. member gave that figure to the House and he is misleading the House. The figure that brewers paid for barley is in the neighbourhood of 22s. 6d. for brewer’s barley, and I think in one case it was slightly higher. So all this talk of brewers buying barley for 13s. 6d., 15s. 6d. and 16s. is not a fact. Brewers have always maintained high prices for barley, and when barley for feeding was being sold at 5s. 6d. a bag brewers were paying 16s. because they wanted to increase production. The hon. member has made unjust charges against them that have no foundation in fact.

With regard to oats, there may be a case where the producer of oats has not received the full price he was entitled to. It may have been a matter of 1s. a bag. I am not prepared to argue the merits of that case. But here we were faced, because of a drought in the Free State, with no proper oats for human consumption and very little for feed; and the country has to be fed. The hon. member complained that the country should have to pay 30s. for oats. But we have not the stuff here; what must we do? We must bring it in. It would be absolute madness if we did not pay 30s. and 36s. to bring food into the country. One realises we have the idea that it is necessary to increase home production, but that was not the point here. Fixing a price at that time would not have prevented the drought from destroying half the crop. If you had put the price 2s. higher perhaps on a few outside farms you might have got a farmer here and there to grow more oats, but on the whole it made no material difference to the crop. The crop was less than half the normal crop, and the country was faced with the necessity for importing.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat does not know much about the price that is paid for barley by the breweries. I am a barley farmer myself. He says that the breweries have encouraged the production of barley. But they often will not buy the barley. I am not talking of the war period but of pre-war days. I have sold barley to the breweries for less than 12s. a bag and they have made tremendous profits on that. Because there was a surplus they paid a low price. It is only of late, since the price has been controlled, that it has risen somewhat. The fact is that the price of barley has not risen enough, just as in the case of oats. We cannot expect the farmers to cultivate barley and cats at the price that has been fixed for them. The fact is that barley and oats are cultivated where wheat cannot be grown but the increase in price, compared with the increase in the price of wheat, has been so small that they have decided to try to grow wheat instead on those lands. It is necessary that we should encourage the production of those two sorts of grain, and I trust that the control board, when they meet again, will make a recommendation that will have that effect. Through an interjection the Minister informed me that the breweries will not receive the subsidy that will be paid on imported barley. I should like to have that point made quite clear. I can understand that on account of the drought, and the great need in which some people are, they must have barley and oats for their stock and it is right that the Government should pay the subsidy, but the brewers in the country do not need a subsidy paid to them. We should like to have an assurance on that point.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 19th instant.