I move, as an unopposed motion—

This is simply a matter of certain words having been omitted from the title of the Bill.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

As hon. members are aware the estimates of expenditure for the current year totalled £27,620,000. I am now asking the House to go into committee on the additional estimates of expenditure totalling £1,004,085 making a total appropriation of £28,624,000. There will, of course, be the usual savings on a number of votes. These, as far as we can see at present, will probably amount to about £167,000, giving a revised estimate of expenditure of £28,457,000. That is a net increase on the original estimates of expenditure of £837,000. Hon. members will see that in this amount is, of course, included the sum of £435,000 in respect of reparation receipts which, in terms of an Act which we passed last year, will be applied towards debt redemption, but which have to be appropriated in this way, being a receipt of public moneys and in terms of the principle of our Exchequer and Audit Act. I do not propose to discuss the actual revenue receipts. It is still too early to do so and hon. members will agree that the appropriate occasion to do that will be when my Budget statement is delivered shortly. I only wish to state here that the receipts have been very good during the current year. There are large excesses in the estimates on nearly all heads of revenue with the exception of a few heads of diamond revenue where there will be decreases. The net result at the end of the financial year will probably be a substantial surplus. I do not propose going more fully into this position beyond saying that the figures will probably disclose a substantial surplus. If hon. members will turn to the estimates of additional expenditure before them, they will see that if you make provision for savings and if you exclude the item of £435,000 in respect of reparation receipts, the estimates will show an approximate increase of about £400,000. In that amount hon. members will find several large items for which provision has to be made as a result of Government policy and as a result of legislation at present existing in this country. I refer hon. members to a few of the largest items. In the first place, we have a sum of £100,000 in respect of interest on Union loan certificates; a sum of £100,000 for the aircraft replacement fund, which is a contribution towards defence in respect of aircraft replacements; then a third big item included is £87,000 in respect of pensions; a sum of £50,000 in respect of repatriation of Indians and £30,000 in respect of the final amounts payable as compensation in connection with the flour settlement,—the cases we had to settle as a result of the arbitration proceedings. These five items mentioned give you a total of £367,000, so that really a very small sum remains over to be divided amongst a number of other votes which I shall proceed to discuss. I will go through the various votes and explain shortly the reasons for the excesses on the votes. Votes 1, 2 and 3 are Governor-General, Senate and House of Assembly. All the excesses here are due principally as the result of the special session of Parliament which we had in October. Under the Senate and House of Assembly additional provision had to be made for temporary staff and also the expenses of Hansard were considerably increased as far as the House of Assembly is concerned. Under House of Assembly the gross excess was £7,000, but against that, we have been able to put a saving of £2,500 as the result of the full amount not being required for the purchase of the Jardine collection of books. Putting these savings against the excess, we get a net excess of £3,610 on this vote. We come to Vote 4, Prime Minister. This amount is required under the Governor-General’s warrant, obtained to cover the salaries and expenses of the new department of External Affairs and also certain increased charges in connection with the Union representation in Angola. Then we come to Vote 5, Public Debt. This amount is required in respect of interest on Union loan certificates. As hon. members will know, these certificates mature in series after periods of five and ten years, or earlier, and the rate of interest increases with the period for which the certificates run. Of course it is impossible to estimate accurately what amounts will be required from time to time for interest, because the item of withdrawals is an uncertain one. In the past, provision was made annually for the payment of interest on these certificates. From this amount, provision was made for the withdrawals and the balance was paid to the Public Debt Commissioners and used ultimately when the balance of the certificates matured. In 1926-’27, however, we reduced the actual contribution which was made in respect of interest, because we were informed at the time that we had already probably made a sufficient provision to meet the full amount required when these certificates ultimately matured. Since then a full investigation has been made into the position, and we find our provision at the present moment is probably short to the extent of about £150,000. We now propose in this vote to make provision for £100,000 for that, and for the balance in subsequent years so that the amount will be available when the certificates mature. Some years ago an intensive advertising campaign was started as a result of which quite a large number of people invested in these certificates, and this period will expire shortly, so that we anticipate quite a large number of withdrawals and we have to make increased provision. Having regard to the interest which we pay to investors, and the actual cost of handling these certificates, we will have to consider whether we are not giving, by means of this investment, too favourable benefits to the investor. If we make a comparison of the interest we pay on these certificates, with the interest we pay on our long-dated loans, both those raised in this country and abroad, we will see that the cost to the country of these certificates is really higher than in the case of the long-dated loans.

Not much.

It is a considerable increase if you consider the working costs of the thrift committee, which has been doing incalculably good work, and the cost to the post office in running these certificates. We shall have to consider whether we should not follow the example of England a few years ago, when they dealt with the matter and put it on a footing more favourable to the Treasury. I am now looking into the position to see whether the present terms should be allowed to continue. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who is a valued member of the Thrift Committee, knows we have had a departmental enquiry into these certificates—as well as the Post Office Savings bank. We have a valuable report, and are now-considering the matter. Then we come to the next item—public debt on the same vote, reparation of receipts. That is done in terms of the legislation passed last year.

Several years?

Yes, I shall give the hon. member particulars how that amount is arrived at. We received from the British Treasury in respect of recoveries prior to the Dawes scheme, £312,000; receipts up to March 31st, 1928, under the Dawes scheme, £199,000; interest, £3,000—a total of £514,000, from which is to be deducted claims which we have paid to Union nationals in respect of losses sustained through enemy action. A committee was appointed to go into individual claims against the Government in connection with these losses; quite a large number of claims were received; a number were rejected, but a number were bona fide and admitted by the Government. Sums under this head amount to £75,000. We are retaining a further amount of about £1,200 to meet further claims which we are expecting and the cost of assessing these—£1,800, leaving £435,000, which we intend to appropriate. Of this sum £400,000 has already been received by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the balance is payable before the 31st of March next. We now come to pensions (£87,000) which is under three heads. Generally speaking, the excess on this vote is due to the unforeseen large commutations of the pensions of officers who retire. Under legislation passed in this House in 1923, when an officer of the public-service retires, he is entitled to have one-third of his pension commuted, and as a large number of these officers reached the retiring age they left the service, and these payments had to be met by the Treasury, which are invariably made, and the result was that insufficient provision was made under this head.

Does this not come from the Pension Fund?

Not commutations. These retirements are largely in the police and prison services where you have had numbers of officers retiring. There is a further deficit of £20,000 under sub-head (g)—contributions to pension and provident funds. A large number of non-contributing persons are retiring and are being replaced by younger men, who have been a certain number of years in the service and are entitled to contribute; the Government has to make provision on the £ for £ principle. We have made insufficient provision for grants to old, aged and infirm ex-soldiers—these oud-stryders’ pensions. They are men who have taken part in wars in this country, on both sides. We have to provide a further amount. We have 3,870 on our books, who are getting £30 per annum. Then we come to the provincial administrations vote. The amount—£600—is very small and is for the payment of leave gratuity to the former administrator of Natal—Sir George Plowman. The grant is to be made on the basis of six months’ leave at the rate of salary he was drawing when he relinquished his post as Provincial Secretary of Natal—his services were continuous after having acted as Provincial Secretary. During that period the pension to which he was entitled was in abeyance, and when he retired he had substantial vacation and other leave to his credit. The Government, taking that into consideration, decided to give him a special leave gratuity and to treat him on the same basis as Mr. G. R. Hofmeyr, the former Administrator of South-West Africa. Then we come to miscellaneous services. There have been various savings on this vote under various heads, and excesses of other heads, with the result that we are left with about £200 under “contingencies”. Several large payments have been made during the year in connection with the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva, the tour in the Union of the Dominion Chamber of Commerce, and the visit to South Africa of the Secretary of State for the Dominions. The balance of £30,000 is in connection with the flour purchase. I gave to the House the other day, in reply to a question, full particulars of the amount spent in this connection. The matter is now being finally closed, and we have met all claims. The total amount paid in connection with these claims is just over £99,000, to which have to be added the legal costs. This unfortunate chapter is now closed. Vote No. 14, Justice—the excess of £14,400 is due to the costs in connection with legal proceedings over the flour case, and is a re-vote. A further amount is required in connection with litigation against the contractors for the new Government printing works at Pretoria. Judgment has been reserved, and it is just possible that we shall have to meet a bill in connection with these proceedings. The amount required for Vote No. 15, Superior Courts, is £6,000, and includes witnesses’ and jury expenses, which it is impossible to calculate at the beginning of the year. The same remark applies to Vote No. 16, Magistrates and District Administration, there having been an under estimate of the cost of subsistence and transport and witnesses’ expenses. As to Vote No. 18, Police, £18,140, this is, mainly the result of the severe cut we made at the beginning of the year. The Treasury asked the Police Department _to provide the police for a certain definite amount. They have done their best, but it was found impossible to meet all the demands, especially in connection with police protection on the diamond diggings and the native locations at Langa and Port Elizabeth. The town councils made an appeal to the Government to help them to get the natives to go to the locations and to afford further police services, which the Treasury very reluctantly had to concede. With reference to Vote No. 19, Defence, £100,000 is required for the replacement of aircraft and for the construction in South Africa of aircraft machines. If hon. members desire more information on this point, I think the Minister of Defence will supply it. Under Vote 20, Interior, £60,745, we have the sum of £50,000 for the repatriation of free and destitute Indians. The number for which provision was originally made was 1,500, and although the Indian agreement has been in operation only during a part of the financial year, I understand that the number which will approximately benefit under this scheme will be 3,000, thus necessitating extra financial provision. With reference to Vote No. 21 Mental Hospitals and Institutions for the feeble-minded, £29,900, the amount is spread over a large number of sub-heads for salaries and supplies and services. Fort Napier, which was opened during the year, is responsible for £15,000 of the increase. The construction and equipment of that institution was accelerated, making it possible for the department, during the year, to carry out its policy of transferring to Fort Napier a large number of mental patients. As to Vote No. 22. Printing and Stationery, £17,000, here again is a case where a cut was made by the Treasury, and the department was told to come out on a certain amount, but, unfortunately, the Government, from time to time, gets the reply that the vote is exhausted. The demands of the public and members of Parliament are very insistent. We have gone into the whole matter and certain steps have been taken which, I hope, will result in considerable economy, but the position at present is that we find, on all sides, the printing bill is going up. The sum of £12,967 required under Vote No. 25, Mines and Industries, is set out under various heads and is due to under estimating, and to the Treasury declining to agree to a saving of £30,000 being made available to meet excesses on other votes. Provision is also made for the expenses of Mr. de Villiers, who is proceeding to Europe to succeed Mr. Pienaar. Vote No. 26, Union Education, £14,137, is for statutory grants to various universities and colleges, and although we have a considerable saving on the vote, but, owing to the operation of Column 2 of the Appropriation Act, we are unable to make these savings available to meet excesses on other portions of the vote. Under Vote No. 27, Child Welfare, £4,500, we have to deal with the payments of increased grants to institutions as the result of more and more children being committed to them. Under Vote 28. Agriculture, £100 is required to supplement the grant of £400 to the South African Agricultural Union. £500 were earned, but owing to the provisions of the Appropriation Act, no saving can be made available to meet an excess. Under Vote No. 29. Agriculture (Education). £250 are asked for to make provision for scholarships and bursaries which the department is giving to students qualifying in tobacco and cotton growing. We have lost a number of our young fellows, who have gone to Central Africa.

And America.

Not many of them leave to take up positions there, and the department finds it necessary to make further provision to induce young fellows to take up this career and to be employed in our own agricultural department. Under Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones, the excess is £23,000 and is the result of increased establishment and general expansion of business in the post office. When we deal with revenue estimates, hon. members will see that the earnings show considerable expansion, and the staff naturally increases. Under Public Works the increase is for rent, rates and lighting and increased assessment rates and additional charges for electric light in connection with new buildings in various centres. Also £4,000 is required under sub-head “O” for statutory holiday pay of artizans on departmental work in the Public Works Department. Land, £8,500, a special grant for the National Parks Board. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Tagger) is, I know, dubious about the necessity for this grant, but I think the Government has interpreted the wishes of the majority of the members of this House. I must point out that it will be a non recurrent item, and it is urgently required for fencing, road-making and boundary marking. The hon. member was under the impression we were spending £12,000 a year, but the annual grant is only £4,000, and, in addition, there is £3,000 provided by the Transvaal Administration, making a total of £7,000.

It is not sufficient.

That is as far as we have agreed to go up to the present. Under Labour there is a small excess due to the provision for relief distress in the drought areas of the Cape. The Minister of Labour has contributed to the relief of distress, to the fund of the Provincial Council and other funds raised by public subscription. We spent in the last four or five months just over £20,000 and, through that, the Minister had to exceed the vote for ordinary unemployment. In two of the loan votes there are excesses due to the acceleration of work for which provision was made on the original estimates. That will decrease the provision to be made in subsequent years. The work advanced quicker than was anticipated. There are large savings on the loan votes generally, but, here again, we cannot make those savings available for expenditure of this nature. I am just informed, regarding the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), the amounts required for commutations, are, in this case, to be provided from the revenue vote, because the annuities are payable from revenue and not from funds. I take it no exception will be taken to the four or five big amounts. They are on questions of broad policy, and there is very little in the smaller sums required for the present financial year.

seconded.

Notwithstanding the pains-taking explanation of the Minister, one cannot help having the feeling that had it not been for the big surplus he has in view, a lot of these sums would not have been in these estimates. Even Ministers are only human beings, and when there is a prospect of a big surplus, the Treasury is rather inclined to slacken the control which it ought to exercise, and undoubtedly other Ministers are always inclined to spend more money. With the prospect of a big surplus they are inclined to become extravagant, as these Votes show to some extent. Every Minister and his department has some pet scheme or pet expenditure which they always want to bring forward. I have no doubt the Minister of the Interior has a great number up his sleeve, that he brings them forward on an occasion like this. I shall have a few words to say on that on another occasion; it is sufficient to say what I have said for the present. Take the Defence Vote, £100,000. Would the Minister have agreed to that if he had been short of money? Then there are Hospitals, £30,000, in round figures; Mines and Industries, £12,967; Postal Vote, £23,000. If we had been short of money, these would have been further considered. Public Works, £9,000, and there is also £4,000 in that Vote to which I do not think he would have agreed if he had been short of money. Then the National Park Vote. Would he have agreed to that if he had been short of money? I am just reminding the House of these amounts. The Minister has a big surplus in view to dispose of, and every Minister prays for an increase of grant. It is difficult, when the Minister has a prospect of a surplus of £1,500,000, to put his foot down and keep it there. He got the Printing Vote reduced, but could not keep it there. He has had to raise it. The police, exactly the same. I sympathize with the Minister of Finance, I know the demands of the other Ministers, and he has ten men up against him. It is difficult to resist these colleagues in a case of this kind. I will only just refer to the redemption of debt, £435,000. Leaving that out of account, the total expenditure this year is going to be £28,000,000, an increase on last year’s expenditure of £640,000. That is the amount of the increase. This is an increase of close on £4,000,000 on the expenditure of 1923-’24, when my hon. friend took charge of the Treasury. The increase amounts to 16 per cent. in four years’ time. In the same period the population has only increased 8 per cent. against an increase of expenditure of 16 per cent., at least double the rate of the population increase. It is only right, in connection with increased expenditure, that we should take into account the increase of population which has to bear the burden. At the same time I want to point out also that the country goes merrily on piling up the debt. This year, taking into account the £1,000,000 savings which he anticipates making, and £2,500,000 receipts for mining leases and loan recoveries, we are spending of borrowed money £10,000,000. We spent last year £9,500,000, and the public debt at the end of this financial year will amount to £241,000,000 against £208,000,000 in the year 1924, an increase again of close on 16 per cent. In fact, in four years’ time, under the regime of my hon. friend, we have increased the public debt by £33,250,000. I do not see very much signs of the economy which we were promised when this Ministry took office. We were denounced in fairly strong terms about our extravagance. I have been looking for economy all the time I have been sitting on this side. I have not seen much of it yet. There are one or two votes I want to mention. The department of the Minister of Labour, I see, asks for an increase of £9,186. On the main estimates the vote was £195,000, so that that vote is now over £200,000.

It is reduced by the savings.

All right, let us look what the savings are. When my hon. friend took office along with his colleagues, we were promised that all unemployment was going to disappear.

So it has disappeared.

Make a clean confession, a clean breast of it, you have not been able to make it disappear. It is existing to-day in large numbers in Cape Town and on the Rand. The other day 200 able-bodied Europeans went round to the Minister of Labour to get work. I understand that he is appointed for that purpose, and he runs that office for that purpose.

I am afraid the hon. member is rather inclined to go into the policy of the matter.

I am only quoting the figures. Here is an item of unemployment expenditure and advances £9,186. Surely on that I can discuss the conditions in the department.

The hon. member can only discuss the increases. He will be able to discuss the whole question of the policy on the Part Appropriation Bill.

I want to point out to the Minister who deals with these matters—

That vote is for the drought-stricken areas only.

I take the word of my hon. friend. About 200 male adult Europeans went round to the Department of Labour the other day to find work. They were referred to the Board of Aid, which is really a charitable institution for the relief of distress amongst women and children and the poor who cannot work. The Board of Aid could not, of course, assist them. As they said, they were not there to pay out doles to able-bodied men. They went back to the Department of Labour. Since then—and this took place only about a week ago—my hon. friend has found work for about 160 of them. They have got a move on.

The railway department found it; I did not.

Why did you not find it before? I have not the remotest doubt that if there had not been this pressure on the part of these people, this work would not have been found. Yesterday 100 adult coloured people went to the Board of Aid to get assistance. They were refused. Has my hon. friend found work for those men? My hon. friend, when he was sitting in the corner there, used to lay great stress on “delivering the goods.” That was a favourite expression. I have not heard that expression yet. I am the only one who uses it nowadays, as far as I can see. I want to know whether he has “delivered the goods” in these particular cases. Why has he not put into operation the Labour Colonies Bill which was passed a year or two ago? Nothing has been done in regard to that.

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I quite agree. I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Industries a question in regard to the increased vote of £12,967 on page 9. I see an item, “diamond diggings expenditure,” “benevolent grants to diggers.” There exists an extremely serious state of affairs on the Lichtenburg diamond fields. The diggers there, according to the papers, are actually starving. As far as I can judge, since the passing of the Precious Stones Act of last year, the position there has been very disastrous. I want to take the opportunity of asking the Minister of Mines and Industries for an explanation of the position. This is the first time the opportunity has occurred.

I thought the matter was fully discussed the other day on the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay).

There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Finance. It will be noticed that in these votes there are certain provisions for leave of officers. I will take an example, Vote 20, Interior. The original estimate for leave gratuities was £100, and an additional £1,800 is now asked for. These leave gratuities are provided for the purpose of paying out in regard to civil servants who may be retrenched, or who may die, cash payments in respect of leave due to them. They are always very much too small. Let me give my hon. friend a few examples. On page 35 of the Auditor-General’s report, he will find that in 1926-’27 we voted for the various departments a total of £3,000, while the amount actually paid was £70,010. Surely it ought to be possible—I know the difficulties of the Treasury in this matter—to make a better estimate than £3,000 against £70,000 actually paid. Take the year before, 1925-’26.

The hon. member knows it is voted under salaries. This is just the total.

No, I do not know that, but there is still a discrepancy in any case. If it is under salary, then why are you coming to ask for a further £1,800?

Because it was not sufficient.

Well, it seems to me to be very strange. The Auditor-General does not consider it a very satisfactory method, and I certainly do not. Some method under which Parliament can see what they are voting, and for what purpose, should be in the power of the Treasury to provide. I think it should he shown better.

While agreeing entirely with my hon. friend in regard to the growth of expenditure, I want to confine my remarks to a criticism of the way these things are put forward. The Minister has explained the amount and, as he says, it is not an unreasonable amount he is asking for, but I take it these estimates ought to be a provision for expenditure which could not be foreseen. Such, for instance, as expenditure on the aircraft. There are many items here which I contend could have been and should have been foreseen by a capable Minister and a capable Treasury. I will mention some of the items. The Minister refers to Vote 9, the question of the losses on flour. The Minister knew at the beginning of the year that this litigation was in hand. He knew he would have to make a payment on account of that, and why could not provision have been made before that? This cannot be regarded as unforeseen expenditure. With regard to the legal expenses, the Minister said they were largely in connection with this business, and provision had been made the year before. If one looks at the Auditor-General’s report, one sees that the department itself says that the non-delivery of certain bills of cost by the 31st March, 1927, resulted in the saving in question. They knew these bills had to come in, but they made no provision. This should not come in as unforeseen expenditure, because, according to the statement here, it was known that amount would be required. The same thing applies to leave gratuities. In connection with Vote 21, Fort Napier, the Minister’s explanation was that the hospital had been opened earlier than was anticipated, but if you look at the vote, you will see that £19,000 was asked for, and the total vote for the coming year is only a little over £20,000. It is evident the hospital must have been opened early in the year, and it seems to me it would have wanted very little prevision to have made the necessary provision for that. On Vote 26, there is the University of the Witwatersrand from £83,000 to £94,000, which seems also a considerable under-estimate. When you come to the loan votes, you find there is £12,000 extra required for the Port Elizabeth Technical College. The Minister of Education will remember that when the loan estimates came up last year, I called attention to the fact and produced correspondence which showed that this extra money would be required. Provision could then have been made in these loan estimates. My criticism is not of the amount of the estimates, I think they are reasonable—that is, the percentage increase on the estimates we passed last year is not unreasonable—but I do say that many of these estimates could and should have been foreseen, and should have been included in the original estimates.

I should like to make a few remarks about these additional estimates. We were told in regard to Votes 1, 2 and 3, that the total expenditure of over £5,000 was incurred in connection with the special session held last October. I put it to this House and to the country whether the result of that session was worth this expenditure. With reference to Vote 19, in which an additional £100,000 is asked for, I would draw attention to the fact that only £100 was placed on the estimates last year. I want to draw attention to the fact that it does not come under (g) 7; but it comes under (g) 8. You find that the contribution to the Aircraft Replacement Fund in 1927-’28 was £100, and in 1928-’29 was £100, and now we find we are asked to vote an additional £100,000. I would like to know who directed the policy for this expenditure. It is extraordinary to deal with so comprehensive a matter by way of supplementary expenditure instead of through the ordinary annual estimates. They do not ask it for expenditure to be incurred, but for that which has been incurred. I think it is monstrous. I hope the Minister will give this House the best possible information on the policy of the air grant. I do not know where we are going to with this expenditure, and when we have it what we are going to do with it. I want some information with regard to Vote 22, Printing. We are asked to vote an extra £17,000. Recently I, and I think every honourable member, received a very important telegram asking us to restore a certain report. How many more of these reports have been printed without being sanctioned? Who directs the policy of the Government with regard to printing.

The “Cape Times.’”

Is it the Government, the Minister or the Government printer?

I think it will be convenient if hon. members will keep in mind that they can ask for and get all the information they require when the House is in committee.

I do not think such a damaging attack as that of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) should go unanswered for one moment—particularly one on my department. He began by calling attention to a falsification—(g) 7. instead of (g) 8. I feel almost shattered, but I confess it appears to he a mistake, and then in the £100,000 we have not foreseen there is a sudden increase of £99,900 merely on account of the service. I can assure the House that the surplus is only responsible for this £100,000 appearing this year I think the House will agree if we have a programme involving £100,000 or £108,000, and we have the money at hand we should make contracts ahead for the whole matter and save a good deal of money. I may remind hon. members, as I stated on a previous occasion, we have this large gift from the Imperial Government. About two years ago, I think, in looking forward, we wanted this to be deferred as long as possible. Re-equipping eventually has got to come, and for that purpose we increased the workshops’ staff and brought into commission D.H. 4’s and Avelons for training. We thought that about 1930, probably, we should have them entirely re-equipped. Hon. members who visited Pretoria are aware that the workshops are a very great credit to Sir Pierre van Ryneveld and those under his command, and they rebuild every machine that crashes. We are able to make these machines last much longer after rebuilding. We are going on with the D.H. 9 with the present engine power and falling behind. The D.H. 9 was originally designed to carry 420 horse power, and equipped with 230 horse power. We decided to make an experiment, which has been quite successful, by putting more powerful engines into them—a 430 horse power, and to get the requisite cruising speed 20 miles per hour faster than we are getting now, and to continue to use these craft for from four to six years, and gradually replace them ourselves. Although they appear in the log as No, so-and-so, they are like the Irishman’s gun—which got a new stock, a new barrel and so forth. The first proposition put forward was that the expenditure should take place over three years. The sooner we can get all our craft of the same speed the more efficient we are, and we propose to make contracts with the suppliers saving money over that and to re-equip them within as reasonable a time as we can, when they come into the shops, so that within two years or a few months longer, we shall have our fleet equipped with higher engine power. This order we placed took a long time in coming out. If the right hon. member (Gen. Smuts), prefers, I prefer certain details not to be stated in public. We shall have a fleet of very well-equipped general service machines, which is the type we want in this country. We are taking the best advice we can get, and I am certain that the programme we propose to adopt is one which will commend itself to the House. When we go into committee I shall endeavour to give further details.

I am highly gratified at the very favourable reception which these estimates have received from the House. There have been a few general criticisms with which I propose to deal. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) makes the point that these additional estimates, modest as they are compared to what we have been accustomed, would have been still more modest, but for the fact that the departments knew that we were to have a surplus. Really, the fact that we were to have a surplus has nothing to do with the amount of these estimates. On many of these items the expenditure was granted long before there was a prospect of a surplus. Take the National Parks Board. Quite early in the year a good case was made out for that at a time when we did not know we were going to have a surplus. Take the postal vote. The post office is a business department.

Is it?

If increased business comes along, they want an increased staff, but we have the benefit reflected on the revenue side. As a result of the general expansion in the business, naturally the expenditure always increases, but that has nothing to do with the fact that we are going to have a surplus. Again, take the mental hospitals and child welfare institutions. We have very little control over this source of expenditure, unless the Government, the House and the country are prepared to refuse people admission to these institutions when they are committed there by the magistrates. Naturally when the children are committed to these places we have to take them in. I agree with my hon. friend that we are admitting people to these institutions for whom other provision should be made. Take the police. I though the money we were spending on the police was sufficient, but the hon. member knows the pressure that was exercized from Johannesburg and the diamond diggings for additional police. If I get the support of this House in curtailing the vote that will be the policy, but if people are crying out for more police all over the country, we cannot keep the expenditure down. People cannot have it both ways. The other item my hon. friend mentioned was the payment of artisans for statutory holidays. That matter came up towards the end of the financial year, and we are merely bringing our employees into line with the employees of municipalities and other large employers which give their employees these benefits, and naturally the Government cannot withhold them. It is not a fact that this extra provision is being made because we have a surplus. Only when it is necessary in the public interests do we agree to these increases. The hon. member pointed to the large increase in our expenditure generally. That is a question we will debate when we get to the budget, but 16 per cent. increase over a period of four years is not very alarming if we compare that with annual increases over previous estimates. I welcome the hon. member’s remark in regard to our administrative expenditure, and also when he pointed out we were incurring heavy expenditure on capital works. I hope the House will assist the Government and me to try and curtail the expenditure we are annually incurring on capital works. We are a young country and must expand, but we will have to look into this question of capital expenditure. We cannot go on spending £10,000,000 to £13,000,000 annually. Unless, however, you have a healthy public opinion on this question, what can you do when every hon. member has his own pet scheme? Unless the House and the country take up a different attitude, I do not think this or any other Government will be able to do much in this direction. Then the hon. member referred to a matter which was dealt with in the Auditor-General’s report in regard to the inadequate provision for leave gratuities. So far as leave is concerned, provision is really made for that under the salary vote. The £100 mentioned in the supplementary estimates is a token vote to get the principle agreed to by the House so that we can pay for leave. If we adopt the suggestion of the Auditor-General it will lead to more extravagance, as the departments will be only too glad to have more money for leave purposes; at present they must try to find the money for this purpose from savings on the vote, and it is only when they are unable to do so that they come to us. I think the present method leads to economy. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the question of the necessity of closer estimating. He says that some of the items could have been foreseen. Again I may say that if we compare these estimates with those which we have been accustomed to have in the past, the present estimates display remarkably close estimating. The hon. member mentioned the £30,000 required in connection with the flour purchases. Last year, one large claim was outstanding. This claim was, I think, something in the nature of £250,000, but the company were prepared to settle for £100,000. What amount was I to provide? I was trying my best to save the taxpayers’ money. If I had made provision to pay £250,000 there would have been very little chance of settling the case for £25,000. Although we knew there was a prospective claim, we did not know what amount would be required, and the best course was to try and settle for the lowest sum possible. On the basis of the hon. member we might have been asked three years ago to provide half a million for claims which we knew were coming along. Although half a million or more was claimed, we eventually settled all claims for £100,000, and I think we followed the right course. The hon. member also referred to the bill of costs. We did provide in the additional estimates last year for the amount, but it was not paid out until the end of the year and the estimates are framed long before that. We felt it could eventually stand over as it was only part of the bigger amount. The question of aircraft replacement has been dealt with by the Minister of Defence. Here again it was a token vote to retain the principle. If necessary, we could make payments and find the money either by a Governor-General’s warrant or other provision. It might have been necessary to find it during the year, but the policy was not settled and that is why provision was not made when the original estimates were prepared. I hope the House will now pass the vote.

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

House in Committee:

Vote 1, “His Excellency the Governor-General”, £571, put and agreed to.

Vote 2, “Senate”, £875, put and agreed to.

On Vote 3, “House of Assembly”, £3,610,

I want to refer to the item for Hansard. It has gone up to the sum of £19,946, which, we are told, is due in a large measure to the fact that we had an extra sitting last year. I wonder if the Minister of Finance does not ask himself whether this expenditure is justified or not. I have sat under both systems, and I cannot say that we are much better off with a Hansard than we are without. We can discuss it under the main estimates. Even though we spend this very large amount, I have grave doubts if we are getting value for it. Hon. members have said to me that Hansard reports are lacking in accuracy.

The hon. member may object to any increase of expenditure, but he cannot go into the merits.

Let me point out it is a question of policy laid down by the House. If the House wants to do without Hansard, or make any other arrangements, it is for the House to decide. The Government has never sought to interfere with the House of Assembly itself so far as internal arrangements are cencerned.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has made a statement which should not be allowed to go out in fairness to Hansard. That is the statement that Hansard is lacking in accuracy. That is an unfair statement—

On a point of order, if you do not allow me to continue to make my statement in justification of what I said, you should not allow the hon. member to continue making a rebutting statement.

If the hon. member would curb his eloquence, there would be no need for Hansard in this House.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister”, £2,714,

What is this amount for the Department of External Affairs? Is it a new vote? Further, with regard to this consul for the Union in Angola. What value do we get out of this? Surely we don’t get £1,000 of value. There is very little trade done up there from here.

I understand that the Portuguese Government have refused to recognize this official. He was appointed to look after the interests of the trek Boers, but the Portuguese Government refused to recognize him in any way. Can the Minister of Finance give us any information on this point?

I should like to support the inquiry with regard to this consul. He was to get £500 a year on the original estimate, and now he gets £1,000. Does that mean his salary has been increased to £1,000. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Do we get value for the money? With regard to the secretary and staff of the Department of External Affairs. Is that a new vote, and, if so, ought it to crop up in this way, because, by putting it here, we are admitting it is a right thing to have. It is a matter of policy, and should be introduced in the original estimates, and not in the additional estimates.

Now that the Prime Minister has come in, I should like to put a few questions to him on this Vote No. 4. I should like to know in regard to the Consul for the Union of South Africa in Angola whether he has been appointed and whether he has been recognized by the Portuguese Government. There is a rumour that although we have made an effort to appoint a Consul, he has not been recognized by the Portuguese Government of Angola. The other point I would like to ask is for information in regard to the rumour that Union subjects or supposed Union subjects who are in Angola are to be transferred to South-West Africa. I understand that the consul had been appointed largely to look after the interests of these trek Boers who went to Angola a generation ago, but more recently there has been a rumour, and there have been some discussions in the papers, to the effect that it is the intention of the Government to bring these people back from Angola to South-West Africa and settle them there. We have heard no official statement from the Government. I think it would be useful if the Prime Minister would tell us what the position really is in regard to these people, and, if they have to be transferred to South-West Africa, whether it is necessary for us to have a consul of our own in Angola, because there would be no work for him once this transfer has been made. It is a question of very grave policy, too, whether it is in the interests of this country to bring back these people who have been for a generation and more in Angola and who have carried the heat and burden of the day. There is no doubt that these people from the Transvaal have in a large sense saved the situation for the Portuguese Government in Angola. They have settled, not on the coast, but in the interior. They have been a buffer there between the turbulent tribes of the interior and the Portuguese settlement on the coast. The complaint now is that in regard to land questions they are treated unfairly, and they can get no title, and there is a further complaint in regard to the question of schooling. Their own language is disregarded and, in fact, is ostracized, and if they send their children to school, it can only be to the Portuguese schools with the Portuguese language as medium, and they are not assisted in any other way. I was under the impression when the Prime Minister told us a year or two ago, that this consul was going to be appointed, that these matters were going to be put right, that that would be the work of the consul. I was informed that he had been very successful in his work, that titles are being given to our friends in the north and that the school question is being settled. Now there is this rumour abroad that so far from being successful, he has been eminently unsuccessful and that our friends are to be transferred and some refuge is to be provided for them in the Union. This would be the first occasion where our people in South Africa have come back. We have always progressed, we have always moved north, we have never come south again, and this would be the first occasion where we would have to admit defeat and our people would have to come back, and I feel very greatly concerned about this matter. I have always looked upon the presence of our friends in Angola as a guarantee that even there white civilization, as we understand it in the south, will be upheld, but if they are to be brought back it will be to admit defeat in this movement that started a generation ago, and I think our Government may be making a great mistake. I may be arguing in the air. I am speaking from newspaper reports which I have seen, and I think this is a matter on which the Prime Minister should make a statement to the House. The Prime Minister might also tell us about this increase of £2,200 for the secretary and staff of the Department of External Affairs. This is a department which was started recently. I believe the appointments to that body have been made since the last session of Parliament. I would like to know what has been the justification for this department and this additional staff which is now required. The Prime Minister’s department for a number of years has been carrying on and administering the external affairs of the Union. That has been done for a number of years, and done, I hope, with a fair amount of efficiency. The only changes which have taken place in the administration are the appointment of the consul in Angola and the trade commissioner in America. To found a department to carry on such puny expansion seems to me a pure waste of money. I think it requires a statement from the Prime Minister and an explanation why this country should be put to the expense of the establishment of a new department and an increase of thousands of pounds when really there is no change at all, when things are going on just as before, when his secretary is also appointed as Secretary for External Affairs, and his assistant secretary is appointed as Assistant Secretary for External Affairs. I think this is a matter which also requires explanation, and, in view of the spirit of economy which the Minister of Finance displays, and which I am glad to see, though it is somewhat belated after four years, I think the committee is entitled to hear from the Prime Minister why this new department has been founded in this way, without any necessity whatever for it, without any call for it, without any work for it, and what is the reason for this additional expenditure.

Of course, if I took up the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that the Department of External Affairs is unnecessary, then the vote is also unnecessary. Then everything ought to be deleted, but the Government, unfortunately, follows a different line, namely, to transact its own business, and that is why the department is created. I always thought the hon. member agreed with us, but to-day we learn for the first time that the hon. member objects to the Department of External Affairs. I always differed from the hon. member, and it looks as if we are still differing. The hon. member wants us to continue considering ourselves subjects, but we have said that we are going to be free people. I am much surprised that he should now ask why such a department was created. I just wish to add that this department does not add a single pound to the previous expenditure. If the hon. member had gone into the matter properly he would have known what took place, what was announced in our debate here not so long ago. In other words, he would know that one of the changes made is that the Governor-General is no longer the representative of the British Government in South Africa, but solely and only the representative of His Majesty the King. Therefore, all the work of the office of the Governor-General for the British Government, all the communications between that Government and ourselves no longer takes place between him and the British Government, but between this Government and the British Government, that is between Government and Government, with the result that the work of the office of the Governor-General has merely been transferred to the office of the Department of External Affairs. On the 1st July last the advice of the Imperial Conference was put into practice. There is, therefore, no new expenditure. A great part of what the Governor-General’s department paid before is now paid by the Department of External Affairs. I now want to say a few words about the consul in Angola, and the Union subjects there. Let me say at once that I again differ entirely from my hon. friend. There is no question of a “defeat” when people come back from there. Who would it be a defeat of? The Government did not send them. I hope, too, that it is not thought that they were sent by any Government, because then it would only give much cause for the suspicion, which we, I think, have not the least right to encourage, that the Union Government was, or is, engaged in interfering with the affairs of a neighbouring friendly power. There can be no question of a defeat in that sense. Possibly, however, people went there to seek their fortune in another country, and did not make it. Now I just want to say a few words here about the consul for whom provision is made. Provision was made for this 18 months, or two years ago. The matter actually started before we came into office, when it was brought home to us that the people there were very unhappy, that they were not getting the treatment which would give them a chance of progress. Our Government then thought that it would be best to appoint a consul there with whom we could be in communication, and who would be able to do what was necessary for the people. We also asked the approval of the Portuguese Government to appoint a certain person who was living in Angola. Unfortunately, we were notified that the Portuguese Government could not agree to the appointment of that person. Well, he was the only person living in Angola whom we could use for the purpose. When we could not get his appointment approved, we saw that it would be necessary to send someone there from the Union, and it goes without saying that we could not get such a person for the £500 that we wanted to give to the person living there. We could not possibly get a capable person for that amount, and we accordingly put an extra sum of £500 on the estimates.

Have you sent a new man?

Before we could do so, the position in relation to the Union subjects (let me call them that, although Portugal contends that they, the people who went there from the Union, are not all Union subjects) was such that we could not immediately carry out our plans. Before I could make an appointment we were informed that the people had practically all decided for themselves not to remain there any longer as the treatment was so extremely bad. I have nothing to do with how much of this is true, but that is simply what is said, and the people according to the reports regarded their treatment as such that they decided to stay no longer. Let me say that their decision was accentuated by the fact that the person was refused permission to act as consul; they then practically became desperate, but we immediately took steps, and told the people that they must not be so precipitate, and that we would try to send someone from here. The Government tried to ascertain if that would satisfy them. After waiting a few months-because it takes time, the country being very big, and the people living far apart—we received information. It came from the person whom we wanted to appoint there. He travelled round the country to find out what the people thought. We asked him to recommend the people, if they could make a living, to stop there. We found however that whatever we might do they could not stop there any longer. The result was that no consul has yet been sent from here, because in the meantime the people simply inspanned their waggons and trekked towards the Kunene. Although many of the people have been there for long, some over 50 years, they have never vet been able to get titles to land. We can, therefore, understand that they are practically indifferent as to where they are; one piece of ground is as good as another. They inspanned, and are now practically all on trek, or have already arrived on the other side of the Kunene. During the last four or five months they have been threatening to enter South-West. The people have plenty of stock. Their possessions consist mostly of stock, and the cattle, unfortunately, have lung and other sickness. The Administrator of South-West is much afraid that the people will burst in with their stock, and then, of course, the question will be so much the more difficult. I may add that the latest information is—rightly or wrongly—that the people have been told by what are stated to be Portuguese officials, that if they are still found there in a year, they will all be declared Portuguese subjects, and be liable to military service. The result is that, not only those who are still on farms, but also those who are outside on the land, are all making preparations to go back, and they are packing up. Even the people in the villages are doing the same. We are informed by the Mr. Meyer who went round, and, I understand there is even a deputation in Cape Town, although I have not yet seen them. According to the report the people can no longer be stopped, and they represent the treatment as so utterly bad—I do not know whether this is true, but it is so reported—that they want to get away. Now the question is what is the Government going to do? Are we going to treat these people who are clearly not being treated on the lines of Europeans in the Union—I mentioned the fact that they cannot even get title to ground—in an unfriendly way? If the facts are as stated, can it be expected that they shall continue to live in another country? They are now on the other side of the river. We can say that we shall not worry about them at all, and that they must look after themselves, or we must—and I regard this as our duty—give a helping hand and assist them to live again a decent and respectable life. We are constantly corresponding with the authorities in South-West Africa, and the intention was that the Administrator should accompany Minister Grobler in May, or thereabouts, to go and see the people themselves, but in the meantime they have got in such a hurry, and they regard matters as so urgent, that they are coming over to South-West, and there is already a deputation here as I understand. Now the question is, what must be done? Of course, it is a matter for the Government to decide after proper enquiry has been made, and a proper investigation about what is actually going on, because, as I have said, I have no adequate proof as to what the position really is. We have only reports as to why the people are acting in this way, and say that we must come to their aid. Of course, I am just as sorry as the hon. member for Standerton that the people, after having gone north from South Africa so long ago should, after all they have done there, reach the pass of having to come back again, and ask us for assistance. We must see what we can do. As I see it, it is not only the Union, but also South-West which must do something for these people, i.e., I feel that if their cause is just, it is a moral duty to do what we can, and what South-West can. It will have to be discussed between us and South-West, and the first thing when we come to the point of making provision is how many of them there are. As far as I can ascertain, there are about 3,000, including who are about to return. It will depend upon the number of needy persons how we can estimate the difficulty of the question, because all do not appear to be in need. I understand that there are about 150 families who are fairly well off, but there are approximately 70 families who are poor and needy. I can only tell my hon. friend that this is, unfortunately, a matter for which we have no provision, and all we can do under the circumstances is to try, not only to alleviate their lot as much as possible, but also to see that when they come within the borders they are given an opportunity of again becoming citizens of the country. Hon. members will, therefore, see why the consul has not yet been appointed. It is still possible that, after the interview of Minister Grobler and Mr. Werth with the people, we shall appoint someone to assist them, but whether it is necessary I cannot say at the moment. In the meantime the question of a consul is still pending, but I wish to say that a part of the money voted was, of course, spent in connection with the journey of Mr. Meyer. The distances are great, and he went all over to investigate conditions. But whether money is necessary depends upon the question how far it will be-necessary to send someone to assist the people-further.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt”, £535,000,

I am very sorry to hear from the Minister of Finance that he is even thinking of doing away with the Union Loan business.

Not doing away—I did not say that—I said I was considering whether we should not do something on the lines that the British Government had done—decrease the rate of interest and the benefits we are giving, so that it does not cost us quite as much and brings it more or less on a par with our long-dated loans in this country and in England.

We are out, not so much to raise the money as we are out for encouraging thrift. Our whole efforts are in that direction. The biggest thing is in connection with the schools.

That will be carried on.

At present we have our man at Port Elizabeth, working not so much amongst the schools as in the factories. My hon. friend has already reduced the interest slightly.

No, we have raised it.

I would urge my hon. friend to leave the matter as it is, as the more we encourage thrift the better it will be for South Africa. We pay practically 5 per cent. on the money we raise in London. It is worth paying a little extra to encourage thrift amongst the poor people and the younger generation.

How does the Minister come to get hold of so large a share of the reparation funds? I thought we in South Africa had not gone into the general pool, but we took the property of enemy subjects and out of the proceeds we were going to defray any claims for losses caused by the war, and that being so, we would not be entitled to a share in the general fund. What are we getting reparation money for? We have defrayed all the claims by our nationals for losses caused to them by war action on the part of the enemy, and we have also put £435,000 into our pockets. It seems a very profitable business. I wonder the Minister does not pay a dividend on the war.

There is an arrangement under which the various allied countries received a certain fixed percentage of the reparation funds. Reparations were payable not only for damages done to our nationals, but other items were included, such as pensions and war expenses, and we are getting our share.

Does the Minister really recognize how much he is indebted to the Imperial Government for this? We were supposed to be in a different position from the other dominions. We had a share of the £10,000,000 loan, but the Imperial Government was generous enough to treat us on the same terms as the other dominions.

That does not affect the position. We dealt with the claims of the German subjects resident here, and we gave them certificates of credit. They thus fared very much better than enemy nationals in countries which became members of the clearing house system.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions”, £87,000,

With reference to the item of £26,000 for grants to aged or infirm ex-soldiers or their dependants, will the Minister tell us how the money is administered, and what precautions are taken to ascertain whether the claims are genuine?

We have not gone to the expense of instituting elaborate machinery for this purpose. Applicants have to fill up a form stating whether they took part in the war, and whether they had dependants who could reasonably be expected to contribute to their support. These forms are returned to the magistrate, who makes a report on them, and the Treasury decides what amount shall be paid. We have had complaints on previous occasions that we are not making these grants to old people with practically nothing, as they are supposed to have children who could contribute to their maintenance. The position we have taken up is a temporary measure to deal with urgent cases, but it is not a substitute for old age pensions. We are only dealing with the most urgent cases.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations”, £600, put and agreed to.

Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services”, £30,200, put and agreed to.

Vote 14, “Justice”, £14,400, put and agreed to.

Vote 15, “Superior Courts”, £6,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 16, “Magistrates and District Administration”, £6,700, put and agreed to.

Vote 18, “Police”, £18,140, put and agreed to.

Vote 19, “Defence”, £100,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Interior”, £60,745,

The additional amount of £50,000 in connection with immigration of Asiatics is high, and it is an important matter. Perhaps the Minister can give us more information.

As I said at the commencement of the debate, we provided last year for about 15,000 Asiatics who, according to our ideas, would be repatriated as a result of the agreement with India. As a result, however, of the increased bonus and other steps taken, and the co-operation of the Indian Government the repatriation is progressing very well, so that although the agreement has only been in operation for six months, we shall find that about 3,000 Asiatics have been repatriated in the year. As the number is so much larger than we expected, further provision must be made.

Is there any reason to expect that many of the Indians repatriated in recent years are likely to return to this country?

It is considered both by the Government of India and our own department that the number of Indians likely to return to South Africa is very small, probably not more than 5 per cent.

I am informed that some of these Indians after returning to India and receiving their monetary allowance there, make their way to Beira, thence into Rhodesia, where they watch their opportunity to come back to the Union over the Limpopo. If that is so, we shall be finding money for repatriating Indians for a considerable number of years. I would like to know if our money is being wasted in this way. Knowing the Indian as I do, I can say he is only excelled in ability to impersonate by the Chinaman. One would be delighted at the expenditure of this money if the Indian cannot get back, because it is economically cheaper in the long run to get rid of them than to have them here. We know the police force is inadequate, especially on the border, where they cannot properly patrol the whole area, and the repatriated Indians have only to watch for a chance to get back again into the Union after being paid to go home and to stay there.

I see that the extra amount put down is £50,000. I should like to know whether the bonus has been further increased since the last estimate, because, according to the Minister, provision is being made for 3,000 instead of 1,500 Asiatics, and the additional amount is more than twice as large as the amount put on the estimates for 1,500 Asiatics.

I see there is a provision for a commissioner of Asiatic affairs. I fancy that is a new post. I do not remember seeing it in the estimates before. I should like to know what this official does, what his duties are and what salary he receives.

I would like the Minister to give the committee some information on the question of repatriation of Indians. I have been told, and I should like to know if there is anything in it, that so far the overwhelming majority of these Indians who are availing themselves of these grants are old men and women who would probably have gone away in any case. They are now getting facilities, but so far as the Indian population competing in commerce and industry is concerned, I understand not many are availing themselves of the opportunity of getting away.

In reply to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) as far as the type of Indian is concerned, who avails himself of the repatriation scheme, I can only say that not long ago it was reported to me that over 33 per cent. of the Indians going as repatriates are south African-born, and these are mostly minors. That shows those leaving the country go with a family. In any case, if anyone is paid a bonus now, he must take with him his whole family when he goes. What has been said, therefore, about those people availing themselves of the grant being old people, cannot be true. With regard to the numbers of those leaving, it has been stated that 3,000 is the number we estimate to leave during the coming year. That is not the case. I think the correct number of those who actually left in the past calendar year was over 3,200. That is 200 above the highest number ever reached before in spite of the fact that the agreement only came partially into operation on the 15th of August. I saw a report purporting to emanate from the emigration office in Durban that the number which left under the scheme during January was 699. I have not got the official report yet, but if that were so, it would be in agreement with the official figures I received towards the end of last year. The number of applicants wishing to leave under the scheme amounts to about 170 a week, working out at about 700 per month. If we get away 700 a month, then the number for the coming year would be about 8,000 instead of 3,000, which would be very satisfactory. The scheme during the latter part of last calendar month was only partially brought into operation because arrangements on the other side were not quite complete and therefore we have not felt to the fullest extent yet the effect of the arrangements the Government of India is making on the other side, and we expect it to increase in the course of the next few years. We have sent the commissioner for Asiatic affairs to look into those arrangements and to advise the Indian Government as to what steps should be taken. We know more or less what steps the Indian Government proposes to take, but they want expert advice. The question has been asked with regard to control of illicit entries into the Union, and whether that control is effective. Of course it has never been absolutely effective and it is difficult to see how it could be made absolutely effective. Illicit entries into the Union are found continually, but I have never heard any complaints of illicit entrance via Beira or Rhodesia. That would be difficult because the journey to be made would be a long one and expensive, and prohibited Indians going that way would be easily traced because the number of Indians in Rhodesia is very small and there is every reason to think Rhodesia will legislate on this question in much the same way as we have legislated in this country. If that were done it would be a protection for the Union against illicit entry that way. Complaints have been received that there are a good many illicit entries coming into the Union via Delagoa Bay. That is difficult to control. They leave by train for some places in Swaziland and then cross the Transvaal border, and most of them seem to settle in Cape Town or in the neighbourhood of Cape Town. Several cases have been brought to my notice where they have entered in that way, but there is one very important step that has been taken recently, or is being completed now, and that is to get the co-operation, the moral support, of the Indian community resident in South Africa against illicit entry into the country. I must say that, to a very large extent, we have succeeded, and are succeeding in getting the Indian community generally in this country to set their faces against illicit entry into the Union. If we completely succeed in that, as we have succeeded very largely so far, I think that would be a very important step in the right direction.

I would like to ask the Minister one or two further questions. I am not quite clear now as to the amount we pay these people going over, whether we pay minors and whether there is a fixed amount for the whole family. I would like the Minister to tell us whether minors can return either before or after their majority, or whether they are bound by their parents having once left the country. I would also like to know whether, if a single man leaves the Union, he can marry in India and bring back a wife here. I think it is in the agreement, but I am not quite clear about it. Perhaps the Minister can also give us some estimate as to how many have left from the Transvaal and how many from Natal.

While the Minister is answering the questions put by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), I would like him to tell us what classes of Indians these 700 consist of. Are they the labouring classes, or what proportion belongs to the trading classes? That is a very important point which interests us in Natal.

I would very much rather like hon. members to put all these questions on the ordinary estimates, because I have not got all these figures at my fingers’ ends.

We understand that.

I will just reply to the best of my knowledge. The hon. member (Col.-Cdt. Collins) asks whether there is any fixed or maximum sum for a family. According to the agreement, there is no maximum for a family. So much is paid for an adult, so much for his wife and so much for each of his minor children. There is no maximum fixed for a family, as was formerly the case.

How much do you pay an adult male?

I think £20, and £10 for children. As far as minors are concerned, the family must go as a unit, all must go when they want to benefit under this scheme. If they want to return, then the whole family must return, too. If they do return within three years’ time, they have to pay back the money that has been paid by way of bonus, and other expenses.

Free of interest?

Yes. I think that is the position in regard to minors. The figures of those going from the various provinces I have not got at my disposal just now. If the hon. member will put a question on the paper, I can get the information and give it to him. In regard to the various classes of Indians leaving, that is a question that is continually asked, but I think I can inform the House that, while the number of those leaving under the old repatriation scheme was restricted or ly to the labouring classes, others are increasingly being included now in those who leave the country. One proof of that is the fact that from the Transvaal so many left the country under the repatriation scheme last year, I think to the number of about 1,000. The Transvaal Indians, as hon. members will know, belong mostly to the trading class.

You have not answered my question about a single man going over, whether he can marry there and bring a wife over from India.

I think he can, but if a daughter marries belonging to a family going over under the repatriation scheme, she cannot return. In regard to the salary of Mr. Venn, his salary is £1,300, increasing by £30 to £1,450 as the maximum.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 21, “Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded”, £29,900, put and agreed to.

Vote 22, “Printing and Stationery”, £17,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 25, “Mines and Industries”, £12,967,

I would like some information as to the figure of £2,500, additional amount voted under head “J”, district mining development. Will the Minister tell ns something as to the objects of this expenditure, whether it is in consequence of that report which was referred to last session?

The increase is in connection with the proposed State alluvial diggings at Alexander Bay, in Namaqualand, for road construction, etc.

Will you give us some information about that?

We propose declaring Alexander Bay a State alluvial diggings. We have not completed our scheme yet.

Cannot the Minister give us some information about this scheme? The public are very anxious to know about it.

Alexander Bay area is now a well-known area, and the Government propose, in the immediate future, to declare that area a State alluvial digging under section 75 of the new Act, and we propose employing a staff of about 60 people. It will have to be staffed, of course, on a comparatively small scale. If the diggings come up to their reputation, it would not require many people there to extract the abnormal, almost fabulous, wealth. We propose taking the great majority of these 60 or 70 people from people in Namaqualand. There are a large number of poor people there, and we intend giving them employment so far as these new diggings will give it. This sum is intended to cover or to go towards covering the preliminary expenses, road-making, and so on.

Will they get houses?

Yes, we propose putting up decent dwellings.

They will be State servants?

Yes, they will be State servants.

And their diamonds will he State diamonds?

Certainly. On a portion of this ground there will be these hundred discoverers’ claims. That will be private.

Will they be worked by private people?

They will be worked by private people, but the State has the right to limit this to such output as the Government may decide. These matters are still undecided. They have not been finally decided.

I hope the Minister will think very deeply over this question of starting this experiment of a State diggings. If it were something really important it might be justified, but he is going to lay down the precedent of a State digging without really achieving anything at present. I do not see in what way the 60 men you are going to employ there will be any relief of the distress or unemployment as it exists in Namaqualand or elsewhere in the Union. The only effect of this step will be to lay down a precedent of State diggings, and I am very much afraid that the Minister is making a small beginning of something which, in the end, may be a very serious business for this country, so I hope he will not start light-heartedly on this little experiment.

There is no light-heartedness about it at all.

It looks very casual, judging from the Minister’s attitude, and the scanty information he gave us. He seems to have been pushed by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) into this thing. He is going to lay up for himself a rod in pickle, because he may be certain that the rest of the country will not agree to these State diggings being confined to men from one particular district of the Union. He will find that for the 60 friends he makes in Namaqualand, he will make 6,000 enemies elsewhere, and you will undoubtedly start an experiment which you will be pressed to follow up in other parts of the country. The Minister knows the parlous state of this whole diamond question, and he is now opening a loophole which, in the end, may become a very serious rent in the whole position. I hope he will consider the matter very seriously. He says this vote is for a few roads, but I would counsel the Minister very seriously to go slow with this thing. Why coniine it to Namaqualand? Why not the Witwatersrand? You see, you are simply opening a door and beginning a movement which you will perhaps not be able to control afterwards, and I would counsel very grave caution about this matter. The Minister seems to be acting in a very casual spirit, and most light-heartedly. It must be against every instinct of his own, and against the whole policy that he has been laying down in the diamond Act. I think it is a very dangerous thing. He may say the baby is a very small one, but it may grow up a giant. I hope he will think over very carefully this policy of employing 60 Namaqualanders. They are very deserving people, and I have every sympathy with the Namaqualanders, but you are going in for a principle as the result of which in the event of something rich being discovered in Lichtenburg tomorrow, Lichtenburg will say “Not a single man from any district shall come in here.” The Transvaal mines have been the magnet for everyone in South Africa, but if the Transvaal find they are being treated in this way they will say—“Very well, we will stick to our own. If we are to be excluded from Namaqualand, why should others not be excluded from Lichtenburg, or from Wolmaransstad, or any other place?” You are starting a differential system here, a system of local favouritism, which no Government can carry through successfully. It must break down, and I hope the Minister, who has evidently been rather thoughtless in this matter and has probably been driven into it, will retrace his steps before it is too late.

I am very sorry that the leader of the Opposition is opposed to the Namaqualand diggings, and a State digging. He says that it is something new. Well, he himself wrote a book in which he says the world is progressing, and that we must not lose sight of it. In this case, too, we must bear things in mind. There are many necessitous people in Namaqualand. The people in there were oppressed under the former Government, who now come and say that we may not do anything for them. It is only in my constituency that the people are so patient. There is no doubt that the Government can make money by this venture. I can understand that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) would like to make thousands of pounds out of it. His people have already come to Namaqualand, and I told them: You have already made thousands of pounds out of diamonds. They replied: Yes, but we want to make more. I do not know whether the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) employed the leader of the Opposition this afternoon as his agent. I believe the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has already made enough money. The hon. leader of the Opposition must know that we have had no rain in Namaqualand since 1924, and that the people are having a very bad time. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says he sympathizes with the people, but it seems to me he is lost to his people. Namaqualand will always be grateful to the Minister if he opens the diamond fields to them.

Yes, of course.

The hon. member for the Paarl (Dr. de Jager) says yes, of course, but he is growing olives for the people, and he does not know what a bad year we have had. Namaqualand is the very part which the previous Government neglected so badly.

Hear, hear.

Yes, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) now ironically says, hear, hear, but he did not even see to our getting a little railway line. I never thought that the hon. the leader of the Opposition would make a speech giving me such a lever, but I can assure him that I shall make use of it.

I am very glad indeed that this question has attracted some attention, and especially from my hon. friends opposite, who, with the exception of one member, walked out and disappeared when the question of the poor diggers came up on my motion the other day. It proved that the digger has few real friends in Parliament, the big interest many. No, the South African party is still the humble servant of big finance! I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that his Government is doing all it can to relieve the distress which it itself created?

Created by the Government?

Yes, by the action and policy of the Government and of the Minister himself. Surely he realizes it is his policy that has led to this distress—there can be no question about it.

What nonsense!

If the Minister had done something to secure the welfare of these people and to advance their prosperity, we would naturally claim credit for it. If his policy took that shape, he would be a most popular man on the diggings. I have here a letter just received from the secretary of the Diggers’ Union at Elandsputte on the Lichtenburg diggings which states—

The amount provided—£650 for relieving want and starvation, an increase of £450 on the year’s original estimate—is wretchedly inadequate. The writer of the letter is a prominent man, occupying a responsible position on the diggings. I want to remind the Minister of Mines and Industries, and the Minister of Finance also, of the half a million export duty which is directly derived from the product of these diggers. Every tax or other cost put on diamonds is paid by the consumer, but if the digger did not produce six millions a year, half a million of revenue would not accrue to the Government from that source, and this sum is irrespective of the considerable revenues received from licences and various other things. While the Government is thinking about further claim proclamations, and preparing for the lottery system, these unfortunate people cannot afford to wait—they cannot smoke cigars and drink expensive wine whilst they are waiting, as the big producers can.

I think the Minister must be very careful about this principle of State diggings. The hon. member for Namaqualand with all his selfishness is very pleased about it. The Minister says that he wants to start in a small way, and I think it will be wise to do so. The hon. member for Namaqualand said that there were very rich areas. That is right, but I also have a little experience of diamonds. It happens that you find a lot on one spot and on an adjacent one there is nothing.

What were you doing on the diamond fields?

I did not go to the Namaqualand diggings, but my children did. The hon. member for Namaqualand and the Namaqualanders will be glad if people go there, not to steal, but to assist the development. It is a mistake on the hon. members part if he wants to keep the diggings for merely a group of people. Then the country will not develop, but remain as it is. Why is the hon. member so afraid of people from outside? He does not want any strangers there, but I will tell him that I have already heard of his own people who are not satisfied with him because he will not give them a chance either. It is a dangerous experiment by the Minister. It has been said that few people succeed on the diggings. Now the Minister himself wants to control diggings. Is he not afraid of failure? Is it not dangerous for the State to make such an experiment? I have nothing against the Minister’s trying to do good to the country. I know he is a sensible man and will take care it does not go too far. I am so tired now of the personal attacks of the hon. member about the interests I have in diamond digging that I say that it is only my children who are working in the Transvaal as honest diggers. It seems to me the mouth of the hon. member is watering, and that it is only that the grapes are sour. The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) also made remarks.

It is a shame that the children of a rich man should go and dig.

Then it is certainly also a shame to sell so much liquor in the Cape. I ask hon. members who make so many comments whether they would not also have bought claims if they had an opportunity. It is a wrong attitude for the hon. member for Namaqualand to take up, wanting to keep the diamonds only for Namaqualand people. Our view is that when such things are discovered they ought to be given freely to the people, and they should not be preserved. The hon. member for Namaqualand now wants to make State diggers of his constituents. Does he want to convert them into hirelings of the Government? It is quite wrong to take away all independence. The Minister and the hon. member will see that it will lead to many difficulties. Let us adopt a broad standpoint. Let the people who want to spend their money there, and run the risk of losing it, do so. I can assure hon. members that if such discoveries were made in Johannesburg I should have no objection to people coming from other parts of the country. Capital is required everywhere in South Africa, even in Namaqualand. The hon. member for Namaqualand wants to make his people slaves working for a fixed wage. I believe that the complaints about hunger and distress on the alluvial diggings are a bit exaggerated. There are indeed cases of distress, but there are also many people on the diggings who have become happy there. I do not agree with all this shouting about the diggings. On the other hand the Minister can always interfere, because, according to the Act which was forced through the House last year, he can do what he wishes. I know the Minister is sensible and will be careful, but he must not follow the hon. member for Namaqualand. As Providence has put those valuable things in the ground, we must develop them in some way or other. It was always the principle in South Africa to mine for minerals. I do not want to criticize the Minister for keeping the diamond fields closed, because I know it was necessary to regulate the trade. That will not always do though. It is also wrong that a man who does not wish to, can prevent digging taking place on his ground. Who will have to pay if the proposed State diggings are a failure? It will be the taxpayer of the country who will have to do so.

I just want to answer certain statements that have been made here. I think the Minister is acting rightly in seeing that the rich resources of our country do not go into the pockets of a small number of private individuals. Although my district is interested in the matter, I approve of the scheme of instituting State diggings to open up the wealth for the large mass of State citizens. I feel that it is not right that, as in the past 20 to 30 capitalists subscribe a sum of money and in that way cause the other farmers and diggers to get very little. Where it is true that great wealth exists in diamonds, it must not be allowed to a few private persons, but the mass of the diggers must have an opportunity. The objections of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) are unsound. Let us try here to make a fresh start. A beginning must be made, and this is the opportunity. I feel it is not reasonable that the resources of our country discovered at a certain spot should be reserved for the population there.

I am only speaking of 60 people.

I felt the objection decidedly, but it has now been removed. The general impression is that it will only be for Namaqualand diggers. I have no objection to their being preferred, but there is a large number of diggers in the Cape Province suffering great deprivations, and they ought also to be assisted. If the Minister bears their needs in mind as well, I have no objection.

The diamond market is so very sensitive that this debate may have a very disturbing effect, unless the Minister is good enough to state in his reply that the Government intends controlling and regulating the output from Alexander Bay. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) is always condemning or making some sneering remarks at capitalists. In this, however, he is not doing any good either to the diamond industry or to the diggers. After all, who buy our diamonds? It is not the poor person, the carpenter, the bricklayer, the stonemason, or any other member of the working classes. Diamonds are bought by capitalists, and if there were no capitalists there would be no diamond industry. The hon. member in his envy of the capitalists has lost his sense of proportion.

I am very glad that the Minister said he would not reserve it for the people in Namaqualand. I hope he will especially remember the people in the drought-stricken districts. I just want to say a few words about the roads to the diggings. Some of these roads in my district badly need repair. £2,500 more has now been made available, and I am glad, because the sum of £4,000 was ridiculously small.

What vote are you speaking on?

Mining development, subhead mining roads. The Provincial Council and the Divisional Council make no grants. The money must come from the Treasury.

The Minister has just told us it is partly for roads.

I understand that this vote only refers to particular roads, particular diamond fields.

I am speaking about roads to diamond fields, but I notice that on next year’s estimates the vote is entirely deleted. Why? Where is the money to come from?

I should like to ask the Minister a question about sub-head J, District Mining Development, but I would first like to direct his attention to a difference between the Afrikaans and the English version.

It is a printer’s error.

Last year the vote mentioned was estimated at £4,000, and now a further £2,500 is asked for—

To a point of order, I hope we are not to have a general debate on the provision of roads to diggings. The Minister has already explained that the amount is intended for a road to the Namaqualand diggings. The general debate will be in place on the main estimates.

I am afraid the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) may harden further the heart of the Minister, and he may not listen to the appeal to support the poor digger who is also providing precious stones for the aristocracy. Evidently my hon. friend is not up-to-date in the diamond trade. The great bulk of the diamonds are not purchased by wealthy capitalists. To-day the housemaid wants a diamond engagement ring, and generally gets it, jewelers guaranteeing the diamonds, saying that if they are not real the ring may be brought back and the money returned. Consider the large number of marriages which take place every month. There is an engagement for every marriage, and every girl expects a diamond ring, and that is what comprises a great part of the steady middle-class trade which the big capitalists do not want us to talk about. They always speak as if only extremely rich people buy these gems, but it is the steady demand I have suggested, throughout the world, that is depended on, and that output is steadily growing greater. The hon. member for Beaconsfield complains that whereas De Beers once supplied 80 per cent. of the gross output, that company is now cut down to a 30 per cent. quota; but he carefully refrains from explaining that the increased price of diamonds brings the value of that lessened quota to a higher sum than the previous percentage of the whole. The value of stones put out to-day by De Beers is greater than when they supplied 83 per cent. of the entire output.

Which item is the hon. member now discussing? He must confine himself to items in the vote.

I think the amount put down in the vote is worth supporting. It is indeed very small.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the manner in which these figures in the vote are placed before the committee. We have “district mining development, original estimate £4,000, revised estimate £6,500,” an additional amount to be voted of £2,500. I do not think anyone in the committee suspected that under the words lay a proposal of first-class importance, namely the institution of State diamond diggings. In Vote 25, head 7 of the main estimates, there is district mining development £4,000 for 1927-’28, and nothing whatever for the current year to which these estimates relate. The Minister has said this is only an instalment of the expenditure the Government will incur in starting the diggings. It is difficult to understand why, if the Government is going to start a large industry of this kind they have made no provision on the main estimates for the coming year. The additional expenditure for this year now expired is only £2,500 on to the £4,000, and nothing is said whatever on what that £4,000 has been spent. The Minister might say whether any part of this £4,000 has been spent on the encouragement of diamond diggings. What is it for—“district mining development?” I thought when I saw it that it was something for the encouragement of mining in outside districts. We know that that course has been recommended by a very well-informed committee which was appointed by the Minister himself two years ago, and we had from the Minister, if I mistake not, various references to the possibilities of something being done to carry out some of the recommendations of that committee. Here we are brought up face to face with a sum of £2,500, which we are told is merely an instalment of an expenditure of which the limits are not hinted at even to us for starting a new policy of State diamond mining. Probably you would rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, if I tried to discuss that policy. We discussed that in connection with the Precious Stones Bill some time ago. Personally I am entirely opposed to anything of this kind. It does seem to me that, apart from the question of the way in which these figures are presented to the committee, when the Minister passed his Precious Stones Bill, which was welcomed by people who are in a position to speak on the diamond trade, it was welcomed and passed through this House because it was recognized that the Government were going to do something to limit the production of diamonds, and thereby protect the whole diamond industry, on which the finance of this country so much depends. Now we are going to have a State diamond diggings started, apparently, and, as my right hon. friend said just now, if you are going to start it in one place, what is to prevent it being started in another? What is the policy of the Minister in starting these diggings? He says he is going to employ 60 men. If he is going to employ 60 men it is perfectly useless as a relief work. He might put them into some of these colonies which were to be established under the Bill passed last year. If this State digging is to be limited to the employment of 60 men from one district, it is not worth doing from the point of view of employment.

Who said that the object was employment?

What is the object? If the object is not employment, but to produce as many diamonds as possible, the Minister is going back on his own policy and is going to initiate a policy which is going to do an infinite amount of harm. If he does mean to employ large numbers of people either here or in other places, and if he means to spend a lot of money on it, the only result will be that there will be a large increase in the production of diamonds and that is a thing which, by common consent, with the exception perhaps of the hon. member there, everybody in this House would deprecate.

I am sure my hon. friend will deal just now more fully with what the Government really intends here, and I am sure hon. members will see that the whole thing is justified in the interests of the State. I just want to refer to what the hon. member (Sir Drummond Chaplin) stated about making provision in the main estimates for this very important step which we are taking. The position simply is this, that when we framed the main estimates this matter had not been decided on, but the Government wants to undertake preliminary work and for this work we are taking a small sum here, and making provision in these additional estimates, but supplementary estimates will be introduced later on when the full provision for the Government’s scheme can be debated. I am only sorry that I had not made a note of this, or in my opening remarks I would have drawn attention to the fact that we are embarking on this important step.

It was just an accident that we found it out.

I want to explain. Unfortunately, it appears under this head of District Mining Development. That is the proper head. It escaped me at the moment when I introduced the estimates, that it was for this purpose, or I should have drawn the attention of the House to it. In due course provision will be made on the main estimates for the full requirements of the Government. This is merely to start the preliminary work of road construction, but, of course, hon. members can now debate the whole subject on this vote and my hon. friend will explain the Government’s policy.

I am not surprised that the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) seem very perturbed at this experiment and at the important principle in respect of which this provision is made. I hope the Minister will really deal with the matter seriously. I agree with the right hon. member that once this principle is accepted it will be futile to say you are going to confine it to Namaqualand. The question of the right to work is a question which should be taken into consideration. I want to quote a statement on that question made by the Minister of Labour in a wire which he sent to “Forward—”

I am sure the Minister of Mines and Industries will accept the principle mentioned there and that instead of limiting it to 60 men in Namaqualand, he will say, “We are starting this; we must use it as a means of providing work for hundreds of diggers who have been thrown out of work.” The next point is: I would like to know whether in making this provision of £650 any estimate was made of whether this sum is going to cope with the distress on the diggings. In the light of the statements in the press and from hon. members in this House and the statement of the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) it is quite clear that to provide £650 to deal with distress on the diggings is really playing with the matter. It is not, in my opinion, a matter of any importance for the purposes of this vote as to whether this distress has been caused by the policy of the Minister or not. Because the Minister resents that suggestion. I think I might quote something else, because I do not think it is fair that the hon. member for Pretoria West should be alone blamed for that suggestion. I want to quote from the same wire from the Minister of Labour—

The hon. member is now discussing the general question of unemployment.

No sir, I am pointing out that the £650 provided seems to me to be wholly inadequate, and is playing with the question. The Minister, in dealing with the matter, should not resent the statement whether this distress is caused by his policy, or—

I may point out to the hon. member that unemployment falls under the Labour vote; and as far as the £2,500 is concerned, it is for district mining development, in connection with certain specific roads.

May I say that I am not discussing unemployment. Charity becomes necessary on account of the unemployment. Has the Minister satisfied himself that the amount is sufficient to deal with the distress that exists on the diggings?

I should rather like to go back to the principle contained in (J). The item seems to me to be mis-described, and it ought to be—“district mining gambling.” It seems to me that diamonds will be the ruin of the Minister as they have been that of many other people. In the previous sessions he has treated us to the nationalization of industries, and we have now got down to the nationalization of gambling. There will be no greater misfortune than there will be if this is successful. If it is not successful, £3,000 may be lost, but if it is successful, nothing will prevent the public from insisting on the Minister going on with these diamond ventures of his. The history of alluvial diamonds in this country does not lead us to suppose that in the long run people will be able to make a success of these alluvial diggings. I would like to go further and say that these deposits were discovered by private enterprise, and now they are going to be filched by the Government.

Who put them there?

I do not know; the hon. member seems to have more knowledge about that than I have. You are not going to get prospectors devoting their lives to discovering minerals, and when they make a good discovery, the Government is going to forfeit it. Private persons peg these claims perfectly legitimately and are also going to be sequestrated. The whole scheme is bad and is a gamble; the Government is supporting the nationalization of a most unsatisfactory industry. I add my voice to those who have asked the Minister to pause before taking this step. If he does take it, it will be one of the most disastrous steps which this Ministry has ever taken, and they have already taken several disastrous steps.

For the life of me I cannot understand hon. members opposite endeavouring to impute improper motives. The trouble the Minister has brought upon himself is this—that, instead of spending £10,000 every year on the construction and repair of roads, bridges, etc., in mining areas, he has failed to do so. This grant originally figured in the 1921 estimates under the heading of “K”. What I object to is that the Minister has not taken power to spend £10,000. This amount is due to the mining industry annually. The intention was to open up new mining areas. The sum of £10,000 has been on the estimates, but the mistake the Government made was in not spending the money on that development. I cannot see what hon. members opposite are making all this fuss about.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) does not understand what he is talking about. The vote we are discussing is for the purpose of starting a State diamond mine in Namaqualand. This is quite a new departure, as the country has never yet gone in for State mining, and the taxpayers should know the extremely important departure that is being made in policy. We have already embarked on iron and steel manufacturing, and now we are going in for State diamond mining. That is the reason we are discussing the matter. I understand the Minister intends to employ 60 men, but I doubt whether that will be sufficient if he wishes to give work to all the unemployed men in Namaqualand. If he does, his proposal to employ 60 men will be futile and childish. If the Minister starts diamond mining it will simply be the thin end of the wedge, and thousands of men from the drought-stricken districts will flock to Namaqualand. Will the Minister be able to resist the demands of these men to be employed? Drought now exists in an aggravated form in Ladismith, Calitzdorp, Oudtshoorn and Prince Albert districts. There are hundreds of men who want work, and why should they not be employed on these State mines in Namaqualand? It is futile and childish to say they are going to find work for 60 men. It cannot be done. This is an extremely important departure, and the Minister will find that his hands will be forced. My hon. friend behind has shown that you cannot confine it to 60 men. I should like to know what the Minister of Labour has got to say on the point. I am against the scheme entirely. I ask the Minister if he has really thought it out. Has he thought out the whole of the conditions that will arise out of this? I do not think he can have done so, otherwise he would fight shy of starting this State mining. It is a great blunder in which they are going to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds. I warn the Minister and the Prime Minister that they are taking a wrong step. I think we understand what the consequences will mean.

Do you wish us to throw it open?

No, I don’t, though I am not interested in diamonds.

Well, do you wish diamonds worth millions of pounds to lie about there where the public can pick them up?

No, I don’t want you to have a hand in it, because I think you will mismanage it.

The extraordinary thing about this discussion is the way it has cropped up. The almost timid manner in which the Minister of Mines mentioned it, as if it was the most indifferent thing in the world that the Government was going to adopt a policy of State mining. If we left it over for discussion until the main estimates we should be told that the principle had been accepted.

I mentioned the matter here for the purpose of having a discussion.

You shall have a full discussion on this question, I assure you. Before we embark on a fresh enterprise, committing the State to a new departure in policy, there should be a full report before the House telling us what the scheme it, what are its merits, who is to be employed, and who is to be in charge, the rates of pay, and the conditions of service. Why, we do not impose a new customs duty until we have had a report before us. This may be a small thing in its inception, but carried to its conclusion, it will be one of the biggest departures in this country, and yet we hear about it fortuitously in reply to a question put by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). Considering the importance of the question—the State setting up as a diamond digger in this manner—the House has reason to complain it has been badly treated by the Minister of Mines in this regard.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.