Why not now?

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I have no objection to take it now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Does the hon. member move that the report be now adopted.

No, it is not in the least my intention to move that. I only intended to move that the report be considered.

The motion to consider the report has already been agreed to.

I move—

I would just like to say it was the unanimous agreement of the committee this morning to ask the House to give us power to have this evidence. I feel the committee is entitled to such evidence, because our terms of reference distinctly state that we are entitled to all the papers. We are at a deadlock, and we cannot proceed with the case, which I think is very urgent. I therefore move the adoption.

I second this. I would like to give the House a full statement of the facts which have led up to this very unusual report from any select committee of this House. We had a petition, which this House referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, put up by one McTaggart, an engine driver, asking that he might be granted a pension. This man claimed he had been dismissed because he had overrun the points. The committee deliberated very fully, and although we came to no decision there was a feeling of sympathy among certain members of the committee. The railway department put in a report in which they suggested that in view of the serious nature of the offence, overrunning the points, the petition should not be agreed to, but in discussion some further facts were elucidated. We suggested that overrunning the points was a very good reason for dismissing this employee, but it was rather severe to take away his pension rights as well. The railway representative said " Ah, but the question of this man being drunk comes into the picture." We said " We cannot accept that this man was drunk. You do not suggest in your report that this man was drunk. You accuse him only of overrunning the points." " No," said the railway representative, " this man was charged with being drunk, but the charge was not sustained." " Well," we said, " you have no right on earth to bring a charge or a suggestion before this committee to say this man was drunk." It was then suggested to us he was not found innocent, but the charge was not sustained, which is a very different thing. " We submit," said the railway, " that the fact that he was at an hotel until 2 o'clock in the morning lends colour to his being drunk." We said, " If you are going to charge this man now with being under the influence of liquor when you do not make that charge in the official report placed before the committee, there is no alternative for us but to ask you to produce the papers and the full evidence in the enquiry when he was charged." That is most important. When the department, outside the report they make to the committee, make insinuations that a man was drunk, it is not fair to the man himself, when the charge was not upheld, and it must be very evident to all hon. members that it is only right and fair that the department should produce all the evidence which was led and the report of the enquiry, and let the select committee appointed by the House to consider the matter, judge for themselves whether this man was under the influence of liquor or not. It is only after perusing the evidence that the committee can hope to come to a satisfactory decision on the subject. That is the ground on which we come to this House and ask that the papers should be produced. I want to make one or two points clear. I want to point out the difficulties which your committee has sustained in dealing with the railway department. I want to point out the very difficult position we find ourselves in at times in dealing with railway reports. When this question of McTaggart came up, two days afterwards another petition was put up by a man named Clapham. This is the Railway Department's report—

I may say that the distance is 10 miles, and he ran without a staff for this distance, reversed his engine and went back over the same distance without a staff. Yet the Railway Department comes to us with the recommendation that, whereas no damage resulted, and there was no record against him, this break is to be condoned. How is it possible, when the Railway Department puts in reports with regard to two different men, both of whom have committed the same offence, and reports as I have stated, for the committee to decide unless they have access to the papers in both cases? I want to elaborate briefly the utter inconsistency of these reports with which the committee has to deal. The first one is the same man, Mr. Clapham, who petitioned on two previous occasions. In 1925-'26, he puts in a petition for his break to be condoned, and each time the Railway Department comes forward and says that, in view of the circumstances of the case, and the difficult precedent which would be created, the committee is asked not to condone his break. This year, on the same petition, they say that in view of the fact that no damage resulted, there is no objection to the condonation of the break. I have the case of one, D. Wilson, a railway surveyor. It is not a disciplinary case, but it is equally illuminating as to the manner in which we have to deal with railway reports. He petitioned that a break in his service way back in 1902 should be condoned. In 1925 a report was submitted signed W. W. Hoy, general manager, which states that in view of an undesirable precedent being established, if the petitioner's request is complied with, he was unable to recommend the prayer. The same petition is put in, and we have another report, signed J. R. More, general manager, who states—

How is it possible to deal with these two petitions, I ask, in the way in which they should be dealt with if you have two contradictory reports—unless the committee has access to all the papers and the evidence. This is a clear case of the extraordinarily contradictory reports we are constantly getting from the Railway Department. We get another case, that of Mr. Gibson, who overran the points, and the report states that there is no legal authority that such a break can be condoned. Only this morning we had a case in which an electrician asked for the condonation of a break.

The hon. member should not refer to other cases which are still before the committee.

I think I have said enough to indicate the difficulty we have in dealing with these cases and the impossibility of doing so unless we get full access to the papers. There are other aspects of this principle. The Railway Department comes to us and says: "You ought not to want evidence of reports of these inquiries; you ought to be perfectly content with the report we give you. Why should you want to investigate? " The position is the railways set up a commission of inquiry, pronounced its judgment, and put in a report in terms of the judgment they have voiced, and they say: " You ought to accept the report and act on the report we give you." That is tantamount to saying to the committee: " You are nothing but a rubber stamp; we ask you to impress yourselves on the report we give you.' I honestly believe the committee has the sympathy of this House. This matter in our committee was absolutely unanimous, and there was not a dissentient voice. Last year the Minister of Railways and Harbours brought up the Railways and Harbours Regulations' Control and Management Act, 1917, Further Amendment Bill, in which he moved the following clause in select committee. [Clause read.] That is exactly the position in which we are to-day. The House refused to accept a clause of this sort, and the Minister dropped it out of his Bill. The Railway Department is asking that we shall be put in a position inferior to the courts of the country; we are the highest court in the land, and they say we shall not have the rights the other courts of the country have. This House said the reports should be available, yet the department wants the House to be placed on a lower scale than any court in the Union, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament is the highest court of appeal in the land. I am told that this request for papers is something new, but last year a memorandum was submitted to the pensions committee in connection with a railway disaster in Natal. We were asked to give the widow of the driver an annuity. The committee said it wanted to see the papers, but the department refused to submit the papers, Sir William Hoy writing that if that were done " a new principle would be established which would hamper the Administration's freedom of action in court cases ". The committee replied to the general manager refusing to admit his contention and ordering that the report be laid before the committee. The papers were duly forthcoming. Therefore, I submit that in this request of ours we are not asking for the adoption of any new principle. I hope the House will make an order that we shall have access to the papers, for we consider that absolutely necessary if justice is to be done. The department says the committee should not interfere in disciplinary cases, yet the department comes to us and asks us to do it. In Clapham's case the department asked us to condone his action, yet the department says the committee has no right to alter the department's decisions, or interfere in any action the department may take. This shows that the department is not logical in the position it is taking up. There is another important issue, but I rather hesitate to deal with it, because it involves big constitutional questions, so I will merely outline it. The department adduces the argument in the McTaggart case that Parliament has no right to deal with any question dealt with by the executive committee, but I maintain that in effect the executive committee is appointed by Parliament, so that the Railway Department's contention that the case having been dealt with by the executive Committee cannot be reviewed by Parliament, is null and void. It is the inherent right of every citizen in the Union to appeal to this House if he has any grievance; that is one of the constitutional principles of the country. It is quite possible, although I do not say that it has happened in this case, that a man may be tyrannized over and unjustly convicted, and may have his life ruined, but when he appeals to this House our action is stultified because the department refuses to give Parliament access to the papers, even when it is only by an examination of the papers we can arrive at a just estimate of a man's case. The House should support the committee which it deputes to deal with these matters, and should give it the right of access to all necessary papers to enable it to come to a decision. Another point. Evidently the idea of the department is that something might be divulged in its departmental report which should not be published for fear of being detrimental to the department. That fear is groundless, however, as no records are kept of the deliberations of the select committee on pensions, only its decision being minuted. Once our decision is come to the records are wiped out of our memory, and out of the proceedings of the select committee. I think I have kept the House long enough on this matter. [Cheers.] Big principles are involved, and hon. members on the cross-benches, who sit on the committee, and should be the first to support us in defending the claims of men who they claim to represent; certainly the hon. members on the cross-benches should be the last to give vent to these ironical cheers. The committee is at one on this matter, and those hon. members who have cheered should be the very first to support me in my action. The House will make it impossible for select committees to arrive at just decisions if it refuses to give committees access to papers. I believe the Ministers and the members of the House will support us. At any rate, they should uphold the action of the committee in fully investigating matters which the House has submitted to its judgment.

I agree with the hon. member that a very important principle is involved in this matter. He has been at great pains to try and enlighten the House on the point, but he has introduced a good deal of altogether irrelevant matter. He has been trying to show to the House certain alleged inconsistencies of the Railway Administration in dealing with petitions before the select committee. He has discussed the attitude of the Railway Administration in regard to the application which came before the select committee for condonation of break of service. He has also discussed another case where a petition came forward from relatives of a certain member of a family who lost his life in a railway accident. If the hon. member wants to debate each particular case, I am prepared to give the House the necessary facts, but I submit the issue raised in connection with those matters is totally different from that which the House has here to deal with. I have a good deal of admiration for the excellent work which that committee is doing. It is very thankless work, important and difficult work, and it is not very often appreciated by members of this House, but I submit that in the discharge of their duties they should not exceed their powers, which they are undoubtedly doing in this case. They have to inquire into all the facts which will enable them to come to a right decision, but when they make the demand that we should place before them matters altogether irrelevant to the issue before them, and absolutely unnecessary—

Are not they the only judges?

What are the facts in this case. It is not the first time the matter has come before the House. Hon. members have raised this particular case, and the Minister, from his seat here, has explained all the circumstances. This is a petition from a railwayman who was recently dismissed from the service on a disciplinary charge, and an application for a pension. The prayer is that an award be made of a pension of £13 10s. per month, because, under all the circumstances, he considers he is entitled to it by reason of length of service and salary received in terms of the new Superannuation Act. What are the facts in regard to the disciplinary charge in connection with which this committee has ordered the Railway Administration to produce the necessary papers. It appears that on the 2nd September, 1927, McTaggart was charged with negligence in the discharge of his duties. [Charge read.] A few days later a further charge was preferred of being under the influence of intoxicating beverages. [Charge read.] McTaggart admitted the first charge, but denied the second, and as he was on the fixed establishment an inquiry was ordered and held. In his reply to the first charge he made the following statement—

The inquiry was proceeded with, and he was found guilty on the first count and not guilty-on the second charge of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was dismissed on the first charge, which, I admit, was of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant the Administration in taking those steps. Note the date when this took place. It "was last year when, as now, we were having a succession of unfortunate accidents in the railway service, in several cases traceable directly to unfortunate lapses on the part of individuals working our trains. Then, as now, I was in charge of the railways for my colleague, and in discussing these accidents we laid it down that in those cases traceable to lapses on the part of our officials, in order to maintain discipline, there was only one punishment. If a man on the running staff did not carry out his duties and endangered the life of the public, we could not retain the services of such a man. Accordingly he was dismissed.

That is not the question.

The hon. member is too impatient. Hon. members might say the man was not found guilty on the second charge, but I submit the first charge was sufficiently serious to warrant the action taken. In regard to the second charge, let me say that quite recently, when very strong representations were made to the Railway Administration by certain hon. members of this House to take a very lenient view, and if possible re-employ McTaggart, the case was given very careful consideration, and we were then informed by head officials in that section, who knew this man very well, that prior to this lapse he was under supervision in connection with taking too much drink. Hon. members know we have to be very careful about these things, and certain members of the staff are watched if there is any suspicion, and this man was one of them. It was for this reason that the members of the railway board and the Administration did not see their way clear to re-employ the man on the running staff, although we could not prove he had been guilty on a particular train of having taken too much liquor. I come to the question of the relevancy or otherwise of these papers which the committee desire. Here you have a railway servant dismissed on a disciplinary charge. He petitions for a pension. Surely there are certain facts which we are called upon to disclose, but I submit that this committee seeks by getting these disciplinary papers to have a new trial. I agree with the hon. member that this is a very important point. We have troubles enough on the railway, and if anything should be done by this Parliament to create the impression that we are not out to obtain discipline—that people, by coming to the House, can have a second trial before a committee like this, we are not going to secure the best results from the railways. The hon. member says it is the inherent right of everybody to come to the highest court of appeal. I admit that, but let the hon. member table a motion condemning the attitude taken up by the Administration in this House. Let us debate the whole point here. Let him move a vote of no-confidence if he is dissatisfied with the action we took In this case, but do not let him try to have a committee of this House enquiring into disciplinary proceedings of the Administration. I considered the matter, and I came to the conclusion that these disciplinary proceedings were altogether irrelevant to the enquiry which this committee had to institute, which was to find out whether the man was entitled to a pension or not.

Are we not the best judges?

That is altogether outside your functions.

I deny that. If he was dismissed properly, he won't get a pension.

On the facts this man, I submit, was not entitled to a pension.

Why keep the facts from us?

Even if the Railway Administration came to a wrong judgment in the matter, the man would not be entitled to a pension. I hope that is not the line on which this committee goes in awarding pensions to people who come before them. How could the hon. member justify the grant of a pension to a man who has ' been dismissed from the service and who, because it is said he was dismissed illegally, runs to the Pensions Committee and obtains a pension?

We do not decide cases like that. Give us the facts and let us judge.

If the hon. member or any other member wants to challenge the action of the Administration in dealing with this case, it is open to him to put a motion on the paper, but I say it is interfering with discipline if a committee of this House should have the right to call for papers and enquire into such matters and go behind the finding of the Administration, a finding which went to the Minister, and which had to be confirmed by the Governor-General-in-Council. I deny the competency of the Pensions Committee to enquire into a matter like this, and I must persist in the refusal to disclose these particular papers on the grounds I have stated.

It may be of some assistance to the House if I state the practice of Parliament in such cases:

From the foregoing it seems clear that as a rule, when the Minister states that papers are of a confidential nature or that it would be against the public interest to publish them, a motion for their being tabled should not be persisted in. The House, however, is the ultimate judge, and may decide, on sufficient cause being shown, to make an order for the production of the papers or such other order as it may think fit. Such a course, however, would be tantamount to a motion of no-confidence in the Government.

I do not understand that the Minister, in this case, has said that the papers are confidential, or that there is any reason in public policy which they should not be put before this select committee.

I thought I said it would interfere with discipline.

That is an inference by the Minister. He is assuming that this committee desires to interfere with the disciplinary action of the Railway Department, and that is where, I submit, as far as I can follow the case, he is mistaken. This committee has no intention, as far as I can understand, to interfere with the discipline of the railways, but I must say this is one of the most remarkable discussions that I have heard in this House. First of all the Chairman brings down a report from this committee, a unanimous report of the committee, but he does not move its adoption. He moves that it be considered, but not that it should be adopted, and it is left to a member of this side, a member of the committee, to move its adoption, and no sooner has he begun to move its adoption than you hear a chorus of derisive "hear, hears," which show, to my mind, that the question of confidence in the Government, which the Minister stated it might have to come to, had already been carefully considered. I wonder why these jeers came from that side of the House before the case had been put before the House at all? I am sorry, because this is a very important question. It is not a matter of the guilt of innocence of this unfortunate engine driver. He made a mistake, he overran the points, and of that he admitted his guilt.

Another charge was made against him, which he did not admit, and which was not proved.

Is not the first one serious enough?

Quite serious enough, but if it is, I want to know why the Administration told the committee that there was also this second charge. Why was that necessary? He applies for a pension, but the Railway Department states he was dismissed from the service for overrunning the points. Well and good. But they also say he was under the influence of drink. That was not proved against him. Why did they say it? I do not want to argue the point as to whether this man deserved a pension, or whether he did not deserve a pension. The question, to my mind, is this—we appoint here in this House a select committee to enquire into petitions for pensions, and give them power to examine witnesses and call for papers, and, to my mind, unless there is some grave objection of public policy why the papers of a public department should not be put before them, they are entitled to have those papers, if they ask for them. They may come to a wrong decision, and they may decide without seeing these papers that they think this man should have a pension, and they may report to the House accordingly, but they may report that without seeing the papers at all. It is in their power to do so if they come to that conclusion. What is the Government going to do then? Is the Government going to adopt their recommendation, or is it going to refuse it? If it is going to refuse it, it is equally in its power to refuse the recommendation if they make it after the committee had seen the papers. This committee is a committee of this House, and should have all the information it desires.

This House does not always get all the information it wants.

Unless there is some grave reason of public policy why it should not have it. I submit the Minister is entirely wrong when he says that a finding by this committee for this particular petition would be interfering in the slightest degree with the disciplinary powers of the Railway Administration. If the committee sends for the papers and recommends that the man should have a pension, it is in the power of the Government to say: " We ask the House not to accept this recommendation, it would mean an interference with discipline." But they are not within their rights in saying: " You shall not inquire into this thing. We refuse to allow you to inquire into these facts."

We did not say that.

Well, you say: " You may inquire into it, but you shall not have the material."

They have got all the facts.

No. There I ask the Minister to take a calmer view of the situation. They have got the report of the department, but I submit that a committee of this House is entitled to form its own judgment as to whether the report of a department in a particular case is well founded or not.

To say whether he was guilty or not guilty?

It has nothing to do with the question of whether he was guilty or not guilty. He has been found guilty and dismissed. No one wants to go back on that. The committee wants the papers because this man has put a petition before the House as every citizen is entitled to do. It may be ill-founded, but he has the right to do it, and this committee is the body that sits upon these petitions and this committee, if it thinks any facts may be relevant to the question of whether they should or should not recommend a pension, is entitled to have those facts. It does not interfere in the least with the disciplinary powers of the Administration, because the Government, have always the right to come forward and say: " Don't accept this recommendation," It has been done over and over again. That is where the Government should step in, and not in the way of saying: " We refuse information." If you are going to do that, you might as well abolish this committee altogether. If this committee is to be refused information by the department as to the grounds on which they have treated men who have been employed by them, and who have petitioned Parliament, it might just as well not sit. This is not a question of confidence or no-confidence. This is a question of the powers of committees of this House, and I say we shall be doing a very bad service to the country if we decide that a Government department on its own initiative is entitled to say to a committee: "We refuse you this information, not because it is confidential, not because it would disclose any matter of public policy which ought to be kept secret, but because you may come to some decision which might interfere with our finding." We are here to interfere with the findings of Government departments if necessary.

Yes, Parliament, but not a special committee.

This special committee is the instrument of Parliament to inquire into this question. The committee had no idea or thought of re-trying this case. The man has been tried, convicted and punished.

What do they want the papers for then?

To see whether the application of this man for a pension was one which should be granted or not. And why should they not? The department is not the ultimate body to decide this thing. This House is the ultimate body.

The previous speaker said they wanted the papers to see whether the man had been treated fairly.

You can deal with the previous speaker, but you are now dealing with me. I say this committee was not intending and could not possibly have intended to have anything in the nature of a re-trial of this man. They are here to inquire into his claim for a pension, and if the circumstances under which he was dismissed are such as might influence them in recommending a pension, they are entitled to go into that matter. If they come to this House with a recommendation that he should get a pension, and if the Government thinks that recommendation would upset discipline in the service, then it is their duty and their business to ask the House not to accept the recommendation. I admit that if the House, over that, accepted the recommendation, it would amount to a vote of no-confidence, but it is here that we should decide whether a recommendation is right or not, and it should not be decided in advance by the Minister by refusing to give them access to these papers. I have had a brief period of experience of office, and I know how easy it is to say: " You don't want to see these papers, they will do you no good," but it is the committee which has to decide that, and not the Minister, and not the department. The department is not, the body to say whether a committee of this House needs information or not. It is for the committee to say. We shall be doing a bad service to parliamentary government in this country if we say a committee of this House, asking for information from a Government department, can be refused it on the mere statement of the Minister that he refuses it. If the committee are foolish enough to bring forward a recommendation to this House based upon considerations that are entirely irrelevant, it is for this House to throw it out, but it is not for the Minister to say to the committee: " You have no business to inquire into this thing." If they make fools of themselves it is for us to put them right. The Minister is sitting in that seat now. He may not be there always, and he had better be careful how he limits the power of Parliament to inquire into matters of the kind where the rights of humble citizens are concerned. The committee asked for these papers, and unless there is some grave objection of public policy, they are entitled to have them. They may make bad use of them; well, it is for the Government to ask the House not to accent the recommendation, but it is not for the Government to fetter their inquiries from the beginning by saying: " You shall not have the materials, because we think you are incapable of using them." That is not for the Government, it is a matter for this House.

I wish at once to object to the last words of my hon. friend who has just sat down. He says that the House must be very careful before it allows the right which anyone or the public have of appealing to Parliament to be curtailed. Well, I say that there is not the least reason for stating, as has been done this afternoon, that the rights of anybody are being curtailed or affected in the least. The hon. member, just before, said that Parliament was the place where such a question must be dealt with, but it is a very different thing to say that the place is the Select Committee on Pensions. Parliament has that right. This House is the proper place for such a matter to be dealt with, and permission has been asked this afternoon for the select committee to call for documents. An opportunity is now given to the House to consider whether the documents shall be furnished to the select committee or not. That is why it is before the House. This House is not being deprived of the least of its rights, nor is the petitioner, and it is for the House to decide this afternoon whether the select committee can call for the papers or not. I want to say at once that if the right is to be given to the Select Committee on Pensions, when they meet to consider whether a pension shall be granted to a person or not, to decide whether a man who has been dismissed, as is the case here, was rightfully dismissed or not, then I am sorry for South Africa, and especially for the railways and the travelling public. Much has been said recently in and out of the House about a number of accidents which have occurred on the railways, and if there is one thing which is constantly being pointed out and referred to, directly and indirectly, then it is that the railway staff are incompetent, or, if they are not incompetent, then anyhow the accidents must be attributed to them. We know that these insinuations have constantly been made against us, e.g., from the backbenches in this House. And now, as to measures. It is said: " If you have neglected your duty there is no longer room for you on the railways." Then we hear this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and other hon. members, saying that the Select Committee on Pensions must have the right to examine those papers to see whether such a man is guilty or not.

I did not say that.

My hon. friend says that he did not say it. He denies it, but what is the result of his action? He wants the select committee to be authorized to examine all the papers. What is the object of that? The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) made no secret of it. He said clearly they must get to the bottom of the tiling, otherwise they could not decide the question whether the man had earned a pension or not. If the hon. member doubts the justice of the decision then he must get up and say that the decision is wrong, in order that the matter may be dealt with in Parliament. If Parliament decides that the documents are to be handed over to the select committee, then it means that the select committee will be enabled to decide whether the person was unjustly convicted, and whether such person is to be given a pension. I cannot understand how an hon. member can deny this inference from the words. It has been said so clearly this afternoon that the railways are on their trial. How can they be on trial if it is not on the ground of their right to say whether the person was rightly convicted or not. The railways are tested by the committee, said the hon. member for Griqualand. It is very clear. I say the House can, of course, decide that the papers must be handed over. What the consequences will be is another matter. I think the public, just as little as I myself, can be satisfied if this House entrusts a select committee with the decision whether the discharge by the railways of an official who has neglected his duty is just or not.

The decision of this House is final.

What is the position of the select committee? Here comes a man and says: " I ask for a pension." On what grounds? He replies: " I worked on the railways and was dismissed, but there are extenuating circumstances, and, therefore, you ought to grant me a pension." So far, so good, but what is the Select Committee on Pensions to do? They go and do something which even the person who was seeking exoneration did not ask for, or claim. The select committee says: " You were possibly unfairly dismissed, therefore, we must have the papers to see whether you were discharged fairly or not. What would have happened if the person had come to them and frankly said what had happened? They would immediately have said: There are two ways open to you in such a case—you can go to court, and prove that you were unjustly dismissed, or if you do not want to do that, then you can go to Parliament and have a petition presented, and see if Parliament will listen to you, but you cannot go to the Select Committee on Pensions. But the man did not deny that he was guilty. He admitted that it was so, but all he asked was a pension. The Select Committee on Pensions has in such a case nothing else for it but to accept the fact of the dismissal, and if the man says that there are extenuating circumstances then they must ask whether that is so, and they have further to decide whether the man shall get a pension or not, but to come and say: " Give us all the facts about the accident," as the hon. member for Griqualand has said, in order to decide whether he was actually dismissed rightly or wrongly, cannot be expected from a Government department. The department will say: " No, if you please, you as select committee must, accept the facts, and if you do not want to accept the facts, then go to Parliament as has been done this afternoon and if Parliament says that all the papers are to be handed over as the hon. member for Griqualand wishes, then they will be handed over." The hon. member for Griqualand wants to make out that, by refusing the documents, an injustice has been done to the select committee. I want to ask the hon. member what the injustice is. If the House gives permission then they have the right of calling for the documents, but it is for this House to decide whether they are to get the documents or not. Therefore, the select committee has no cause for complaint. The procedure adopted is quite right; other courses could have been taken, but this one is just as good, namely, that the House should decide whether the documents are to be furnished to the select committee or not. I want to say again that if it is the object to get the select committee to decide whether the dismissal of such a person is right or wrong, then I feel sorry for South Africa, and I do not think anyone will be found in South Africa to undertake the control of the railways in such circumstances.

I regret that the Prime Minister has discussed this matter with so much heat.

There was no heat.

We are busy with an important point regarding the rights and privileges and the procedure of the House, and the Prime Minister says it is a matter for the House to decide, so I do not know why we should import all this heat into this debate. We should discuss the matter entirely apart from all this heat which has been engendered. We should not be influenced by the railway atmosphere which is existing to-day in the country. It is quite easy to say to the country: "There is so much feeling over railway accidents and so on, that the Government is justified in taking a most serious view of the matter and deciding on a certain line of action." We have to deal with this matter quite apart from all this feeling which exists inside or outside the House on railway matters. We have a perfectly simple question to deal with. We have appointed a Pensions Committee which has the right to call for papers. It can, within its jurisdiction, call for any papers from private individuals or Government departments. There is, however, one exception which is well recognized in our procedure; that is where the Government declares that certain documents are confidential, and it would be prejudicial to the public interest to disclose them, the matter drops and the papers are not disclosed. What is the position here? The Pensions Committee, in the ordinary course of its work, calls for certain papers. There is no matter of the public interest—it is a trumpery matter of whether a certain individual was to receive a pension. There is no question of confidence and no question of confidential papers; from the public point of view, it is the most trumpery matter possible. If we say in this House to-day that under those circumstances the department can maintain that it is not going, to produce the papers, and if the House endorses the attitude of the department, we shall be laying down a precedent which will be very dangerous for the future. A private individual could not take up that attitude; if he were subpoenaed to produce his books and papers, he would be obliged to do so, otherwise he would be committing a contempt of Parliament. If we differentiate now between a private individual and a public department, and say that the latter has that privilege, we are laying down a new precedent and embarking on a course which may have very far-reaching results. I hope the House will not do that. There is no question of re-opening the matter.

Then why do you want the papers?

The committee wants to know the facts. An individual applies for a pension, and the select committee, before deciding whether he is entitled to it, naturally desires to be in possession of the facts.

If the select committee decides he is to have a pension, then it passes a vote of no-confidence in the department.

The committee makes a recommendation which the House has to deal with. All that the committee has before it is a report by the Railway Department, but the committee says: " We want to know the facts."

The committee says: " We want to test the facts."

The Minister is a lawyer. Supposing a case comes before a judge, has he to be satisfied simply with a report, or is the judge entitled to say, I want to hear all the facts? That is all that is wanted in this case. The committee says that before they come to a decision, they want to know the facts. They are not going to reverse the judgment of the department; they have nothing to do with the decision of the department, but they are busy in deciding whether a man is entitled to a pension.

Whether he should he given an ex gratia pension.

The Minister can put it that way. If this matter is not dealt with now, in future, whenever there is an inquiry by a select committee, a Government department may say that it is not going to disclose papers which may be asked for. We are now concerned with a question of the rights of the House and of committees of the House. I do not want the House to make a wrong decision here.

Or to divide on party lines.

I do not know why the Minister takes up this attitude in a matter of very far-reaching constitutional importance. Let us decide the matter on its merits, and let us say here is a case where, if it were not a Government department, but a private individual, the House would not for a moment hesitate what action to take. If it were a private individual refusing to disclose this information, the House would not hesitate for a moment in coming to a decision. I do not think a Government department should set itself above the law, and adopt the attitude it has adopted here, unless it can allege the confidential nature of the facts and that the public interest is going to suffer. Here there is, and can be, no such allegation. Under those circumstances I hope the Government will not take up this attitude, which makes this a matter of confidence. It means that instead of doing the right thing we are going to give a party decision in this matter, and lay down a precedent which is going to be dangerous for the future. I hope the Government will not persist in this attitude, and that the House will say, apart from all party consideration, that the committee is entitled to this information whatever use it may make of it. The ultimate decision is in the hands of this House, but the committee is entitled to the information.

I am very sorry that we must take up the time of the House with this matter, but it is a very serious matter, especially for the members of the Select Committee on Pensions. If I were to express my personal opinion, I would say that the sooner the Select Committee on Pensions is abolished the better, but while it exists I should like to know where we stand. The House must not forget that the committee has to do with illegal, and not with legal matters. All the cases do not come under the law, and the committee has to decide to what extent they can grant petitions. I have the petition before me, and the reply of the Railways Administration to it, and I should like to quote it. [Petition read.] When this petition was being dealt with there were members of the committee who were not satisfied with the railway report. They wanted to enquire into the matter further.

Into what matter?

They wanted more information about the report of the Railway Administration, but the representative of the railways said that, without permission he could not give us the papers. Now I only want to say how the misunderstanding arose at the commencement of this debate. On the presentation of the petition I asked that the report should be dealt with on Monday. I did not hear that the Speaker asked whether I moved that the report be adopted. That was not my plan. I want to know where we stand, and I very much want to know what decision the House is going to take. The railways, the officials of the railways, have certain boards to which he can appeal, namely, the Court of Appeal, then next the general manager, and finally, the railway board. Undoubtedly, the deprivation of pension is part of the punishment of a railway employee, and if the Committee on Pensions departs from this and grants a pension to such a person, then it goes without saying that the Select Committee on Pensions over throws all the work of the other board. I should very much like to know if it is right of this House to send such petitions to the Select Committee on Pensions any longer. Is it not the duty of this House to look into petitions for pensions, and to see whether, when a judgment has been given, it is a case of discipline, so that the House can deal with such cases? Otherwise I cannot see how we can continue to deal with them. We always have to do with illegal matters, and if they concern discipline and we go and grant a pension where disciplinary steps have been taken against anyone, then we upset all the other work. We can do nothing else than pay, or refuse the pension, and if we want to grant it, then recommend the House to do so, but why should we recommend a pension if we know the House will not pass it? One does not want to make a fool of oneself, and undoubtedly if we grant the pensions, then we are upsetting the decision of the boards referred to. I am, therefore, curious as to the House's decision. It will obviate many unpleasantnesses. As a matter of fact, a similar case came up to-day, and if I may do so I just want to point out to the House how difficult it is—

It is not yet before the House, and the hon. member cannot discuss it.

We have brought this matter before the House to get a decision. I am going to move nothing, but to await the decision of the House. Such matters should not, in my opinion, be actually referred to the Select Committee on Pensions.

I certainly cannot understand the attitude of my hon. friend, the chairman of the Pensions Committee, because, as far as I could understand, when Mr. Speaker was reading the report of the committee, it was distinctly stated that the Pensions Committee desired an order from this House that the papers should be produced for their information. I understood from what the hon. member has said that this was the unanimous report of the Pensions Committee, and their request to this House was—

That is signed by my hon. friend as chairman of the committee, and it is not a minority report. It is the report of the whole committee, and under the circumstances, signed by the chairman, and the unanimous report of the committee, I can hardly understand how he avoided moving the adoption of the report. As chairman of the select committee, he comes to this House and asks for an order from this House that these necessary papers should be produced. I was very sorry, Mr. Speaker, because, as you have stated from the chair referring to the conditions of affairs that occurred in this House in 1913—and I held the same views then as I hold now—I say I was very sorry that the acting Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister should have addressed the House on this very important question in the manner in which they did. The acting Minister of Railways really stated that if this House was to adopt the recommendation of the committee, it was for this House to move a substantive motion in that direction. That was supported by the Prime Minister, the leader of this House. What does that mean? It means that a question of this sort, a question of right and privilege, is going to be made by this House a party consideration, and I maintain that would be the most unfortunate attitude, and I regret exceedingly the attitude the acting Minister of Railways has taken up.

I certainly did not question this procedure, which is perfectly in order, but the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) spoke of the inherent right of any man to come to Parliament—

You are making it a question of confidence.

Does the hon. member think that, having given this decision, which I think in the interests of the country, if this motion is passed by the House I shall remain here?

Now the acting Minister of Railways makes the position much more serious than it was before, because he has now threatened the people who support him. He has told them distinctly that in a case where a man appeals to this House for right and justice, if that is given, then the Minister will not remain in the position he now occupies. I say that is a most unfortunate thing, and it is certainly not an attitude that we should have expected from my hon. friend, because as my hon. friend (Mr. Duncan) reminds me, what has been made a party question in this House—and was never made one in the old Cape House as long as I knew it—is the question of the privileges of a select committee appointed by this House.

How are their privileges questioned in this case?

If my hon. friend will allow me, I will try and put my point of view in not quite so heated a manner as that in which he put his.

Well, answer my question.

We are discussing a very important question. Every person within the Union of South Africa has an inherent right to petition this House as the highest court in the land.

Hear, hear.

Owing to the number of petitions it is found impossible for this House, as a House, in the ordinary discharge of its business, to inquire into every individual petition. Is that agreed?

Quite right.

Therefore, this House has appointed a select committee which sits in a room upstairs for the purpose of examining every individual petition that is presented to them, and in examining those petitions they are supposed to have the right of having the officials of every department to come before them, and calling for any papers they consider necessary for the purpose of arriving at a right conclusion. Because on that committee also rests a great responsibility. The responsibility is that having inquired into every circumstance in connection with these petitions they should conscientiously report to the House what they consider it is right to do in that particular case, and I understand it was on that ground that the Select Committee on Pensions considered it necessary to have certain papers and documents laid before them, and there is no good in trying to throw a red herring across the scent by saying that committee in doing so are anxious to go back on the findings of the Railway Department and the termination of the services of an individual. The Prime Minister knows the Select Committee on Pensions does not deal alone with Acts of Parliament and with regulations, but that they have been appointed for the purpose very often of going further than Acts of Parliament and regulations and making recommendations to the House—which are constantly adopted by the House—as to sympathetic treatment which individuals should receive, not alone by way of condonation of breaks of service and things of that sort. I maintain the select committee would not have been discharging their duties properly had they not adopted the attitude they have done now, and before they can make a report to this House on this case they have a perfect right—and I say more than a right; it is their duty—to get all the information they consider necessary before they make their recommendation to this House. When they make their recommendation to the House, it is then for the responsible Ministers to say whether they are prepared to accept the recommendation or not. It is then for the House to decide whether it agrees with the Government or not, but for a responsible Minister to say before the committee have had an opportunity of having placed before them the papers they desire, that if this House insists on giving these papers, they will make it a vote of confidence! How are the members of the committee, the majority of whom are supporters of the Government, to vote on a matter of this character when the Government tells them beforehand that they do not expect them to do their duty by supporting this report which they have unanimously, brought to the House, but that they are to support the Government in an attitude which I am perfectly certain the chairman of the select committee and the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) believe is an unjust attitude to adopt. There is a tendency in this House, and there is a very strong tendency latterly, to have government in this House, not parliamentary government, but executive government, and that is a very serious departure.

Where have you seen it?

I have seen it today in the threat that has been issued that this is going to be made a party question, and I have seen it from day to day that there is a tendency of executive government to usurp the functions of Parliament, and if ever there was a case in which the functions of Parliament should be exercised outside party consideration of any sort whatsoever, it is in a case of doing justice to an individual, no matter how humble his position may be, who petitions Parliament for redress.

What about the deportations? That was executive government all right.

Evidently I am getting between the shafts of the armour of the hon. member, who, I understand, always likes the people of this country to consider that he is one of the great upstanders for the rights of the poor people outside this House. I was surprised at the beginning of this discussion at the attitude he took up. But when I found the Government were making it a party question, I was not surprised at the attitude the hon. member took up, because the last thing in the world that these hon. gentlemen will desire is anything in the nature of a crisis at this particular period of time. I would not say what my hon. friend has said, but I do expect in a matter of this kind, which is not a political matter, but simply asking as the committee asked that, before they give an opinion, they must have placed before them all possible information to do justice to the applicant, nobody would be more strongly in support of a petition of that character than hon. members on the cross-benches. I hope, notwithstanding the position the Government have taken up, that they will reconsider the situation, and that the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), the chairman of this committee, having signed this report, will insist as far as he possibly can on the House adopting it in its entirety. *

I think that we are all agreed that all information must be given to such a committee, but there have already been rulings from the chair in such matters. Mr. Speaker has said that a refusal can be given in two cases, namely, when the papers are confidential, or in the second place, if it is against the public interest to give them. I cannot understand the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Standerton (Gen. Smuts). They say it is not a matter of public interest. If there is one case which is especially of public interest it is this one. The petition has been read out, and the petitioner himself admits that he did something for which he deserved dismissal, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions also says that he feels that, if a pension is given to the person, it would amount to an alteration of the disciplinary measures of the Administration; in other words, the question is a proper enquiry whether the man was guilty or not. The question whether the man was guilty, and properly punished is the great factor in the enquiry, and it will depend upon that whether the select committee gives him a pension or not. What would be the result if the House said that the papers must be furnished? In the first place the select committee will, as a second course sit upon the decision of the Railway Administration in a disciplinary matter, and it will certainly be against the public interests if the committee claims that right. Now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort comes and talks as if the person comes to this House demanding a right, and as if we would not acknowledge it. It is, however, not a question of right at all, anybody can come to this House, and this person has come, but not to claim a right. This is a case of privileges of a committee in so far as it can get information, all the information it wants. In the circumstances, however, of the papers being asked for in order to find out whether the man was properly convicted or not, it cannot be in the public interest.

The papers are not being asked for on that account.

But they are. I asked the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) the question: " Is guilt or innocence the deciding factor?" He said that the committee must decide. He thought that the committee decided about the man's guilt or innocence in connection with a request for a pension.

Not whether he is guilty or innocent.

But they want to find that out first before they grant a pension. Thus, in your opinion, they want to make a thorough investigation to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the person.

No.

But how then can they decide, when the deciding factor is guilt or innocence? Then surely the guilt or innocence must be properly investigated.

They can surely recommend a pension?

The chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions said that the deprivation of the pensions was a part of the disciplinary measures, because they do not take it away before they know whether a man is actually guilty or not, so the papers were asked for, and I agree with the Minister of Finance, now acting as Minister of Railways, that it is against the public interest to supply the papers with the object of constituting a second court of appeal from the decision of the Railway Administration. The Prime Minister, and the acting Minister of Railways, have given their views, and said that it was against the public interest to hand over the papers, and the motion ought, therefore, to be withdrawn. If the hon. member who moved the adoption of the report does not do so, it amounts to a motion of no-confidence. We, on this side of the House, must so regard it, and the Minister of Finance also regards it as such. I, therefore, think we are entitled to refuse to pass the motion.

I also do not wish to regard the case from the point of view of the man's conduct in the railway service. I regard it from a parliamentary point of view, and if we do that, then undoubtedly it is a serious matter. It is a parliamentary point, and I consider that a select committee appointed by us fully represents the powers of the House with reference to all matters referred to it, and we specially give such a select committee the right to call for papers, and to hear evidence. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) is right that the same rulings which can be applied in this House can also be applied in the select committee, namely, that the Minister can only refuse public documents to a committee asking for them, if he declares that it is not in the public interest to make them public, or if he says that the documents are of a private or secret character. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Finance has said either of those two things.

I think that was my whole argument.

They must directly state, that, for one of the two reasons, they have to refuse to give the documents. What is the position? The officer of the Railways Department who heard the case, heard the evidence and gave judgment, is fully acquainted with the facts, but refuses to allow the House, through the select committee, to see the documents. It is refused by an officer of this House. We are going very far if we are going to decide that the officer has access to all the papers, and decides on the matter, but that this House has not the right of inspection of the papers. The more we consider the matter from a parliamentary point of view, the more serious it appears. Mr. Speaker, in his ruling, has quite clearly stated the position. Our parliamentary practice practically amounts to this—that, when a Minister gets up in the House and quotes a public document it is his duty to lay it on the Table. He can say that it is of a confidential nature, or that it is not in the public interest to lay it on the Table. Now I ask what public interest, can be in question if the Minister hands the papers over to the committee for inspection. The chairman of the select committee made a remarkable statement here to-day, namely, that, in his opinion—and I attach much value to what the hon. member says—the deprivation of a pension must be considered as a part of the punishment. If that is so, then I ask the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) whether the committee in such case has not a right to ask for an inspection of the papers, if the man asks for a pension of which he has been deprived. They ask for the papers in connection with the taking away of the pension. That is surely the least they may ask for. The committee may come to a wrong conclusion, but then it remains for this House to decide. The committee must surely have the right of saying that, according to the evidence before it, and after considering everything, it thinks that the man had the right of asking that his claim should be reconsidered, that he had not been fairly treated—not by the Minister, but by an official of Parliament—and we feel that we can recommend that a certain amount of pension be granted to the man. Then it is for this House to say whether it will adopt the report or not. The position now is that the committee may possibly submit a report recommending a pension, and the House may possibly decide to refer it back to the select committee for further enquiry. I do not regard this as a party matter. I do not even feel inclined to vote on it. It is a matter of parliamentary rights, and I do not think it is one where a Minister can say that the papers are of a secret character, and that he cannot hand them over. The official said this, and refused to allow their inspection. The official decided the matter, and refused to hand over the papers, but this House, which represents the people, and also the poor man who comes to the House, has not the right of investigating anything in connection with the petition. The matter to be considered is practically whether the man must be re-instated in his pensions rights of which, according to the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), he was deprived as a part of his punishment. I am sorry the debate has taken this turn, and that on an important parliamentary matter we have to vote on party lines this afternoon. I think the Minister has taken up an unnecessarily strong attitude, and I hope that in the circumstances the House will order the papers to be given to the committee, and that the committee will have all the data before it.

As a member of the select committee which has to bear the responsibility, I must also say a few words, seeing the chairman has spoken. I am glad this debate has taken place, because the Pensions Committee wants to know where it stands, and we now know, after the explanations of the Prime Minister and the acting Minister of Railways. After their explanations, and the ruling of Mr. Speaker, we know where we are, and I am going to submit to the Government's decision. I do not want the House to be under the impression, however, that the Select Committee on Pensions intended to give the man who committed a grave offence a pension. Unfortunately, we did not have all the information which the Minister of Finance has read out, but after what we have heard, it is more than certain that the pension would never have been granted. I should like to explain to the House how the committee does its work in order to obviate a wrong impression. The committee is appointed with the right of calling for papers and hearing evidence when a matter is not quite clear. When there is a difference in the committee before we come to a decision, and one of the members wants more information, wants the papers or witnesses, then we usually take steps to obtain the further information. We have already had cases where we have called for certain papers from the court. I never thought that any papers could be refused, and, therefore, I am glad of the information which we have now been given that they can be refused. If that is so, though we have always thought that as a, section of Parliament we could get all the information, then the Select Committee on Pensions ought no longer to exist. We have always considered that we could get all the information, and could then report on the various petitions, and that Parliament then had the right of approving or disapproving of our recommendations. If the House delegates the work to the Pensions Committee, then it ought to get all the information it wants. The House can decide when the report is received. If the committee cannot be trusted with all the information they need, then I say the committee ought no longer to exist, and I feel that I can no longer sit on it. Then the petitions ought not to be referred to the committee. If they do go to the committee, we ought to have all the information before we can make a recommendation. I, however, agree with the Government after the explanation that has been given, that if they think they are confidential, or that it would be against public interest, or undermine discipline, then they can be refused, but if such a committee is to continue to exist, I hope petitions of such a vital nature will not be referred to it, because I have never yet considered that we would express an opinion on the previous decision given, whether it was right or wrong, but the committee should have full information so as to decide if they will do anything for the person. We have another matter before us, which might involve still greater difficulties, and, therefore, I say if the committee is to continue, I hope that similar petitions will not be referred to it, because if it cannot get all the information, it cannot come to a decision.

The more one considers the question the more one realizes of what far-reaching importance the question is. It is a matter that affects every individual member of the House, the actual working of the committees of this House, the rights of this House, and more than that, it affects every person, rich or poor, humble or otherwise, who desires to come to this House for redress on compassionate grounds. It is a committee appointed by this House, with express power to call for papers. The petitions which are referred to that committee are sent there by this House, because they are petitions to this House. It refers them to the committee after they have been examined to see that they are in order and proper to go before the committee. It has always been understood that the work of that select committee is confined to matters which are not matters of legal right, but matters for compassionate assistance in some form or other. You, sir, in your ruling this afternoon, pointed out that there were certain classes of papers to which the House could be refused access. Whatever the House can be refused access to, the select committee can be refused access to, but I submit that short of a restriction which would prevent the papers coming before this House nobody has any right to prevent a select committee from having any papers it wants. On what grounds have you, sir, pointed out the papers could be refused? On the grounds that the Minister stands in his place in the House and tells the House as a matter of public and personal responsibility that he guarantees that the matter is one of such public interest that the papers ought not to be before the House, or that the matters are so confidential that they ought not to be before the House. I listened carefully to see whether either the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister made the requisite statement which would prevent those papers from coming before the select committee, and I ask you to hold that no such statement has been made. But the Minister, who is mostly responsible for the refusal, said: " This is an attempt on the part of the committee to have a re-trial," and the second thing he said was: " These papers are not relevant to the petition before the committee." Those are the two points which he took and which are entirely independent of the points you, sir, raised in your ruling. That petition being properly before the committee on an order of this House, I ask you to rule that that committee in the first place is the sole judge of what is relevant. I ask that as a constitutional position.

I am quite prepared to accept the Speaker's ruling, but I understand this is a matter for the House.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister misunderstands me. The Speaker will give guidance to this House when he is required, and the House, no doubt, will act upon it. I am putting before you, sir, as the head of the House, a proposition which this House will have to decide on, but I ask you in the capacity of Speaker to hold that the propositions I have advanced are absolutely sound in constitutional law and practice. Take the point the Minister made so much of, that the select committee desired to have a re-trial. I am not making any admission, but supposing they do, what right has the Minister to object, in the particular limited way in which alone they could deal with it?

It is not in the public interest.

That the Minister has not said.

That was my whole argument.

What right has he to charge the select committee with an intention to do something that is ultra vires? He is making an assumption which has been denied. This should not be made a matter of confidence in the Government. It is on those two points that I mainly wish to address the House, that the Minister has elected not to state on his public and personal responsibility that this is a matter of public interest and, therefore, he refuses to give it, and he has not elected to state that these papers are confidential. Having failed to elect to do that in the terms of the practice of the House as set out by Mr. Speaker, he has not established any right whatever to refuse the information to the committee which they desire. On the question of whether it is in the public interest or these matters are confidential or not—

I do not claim that they are confidential. I say it is not in the public interest to go and give these documents to the committee.

You have not, said that until now.

I said that it was contrary to discipline.

I ask the House to look at the personnel and constitution of the committee. Three members are Nationalists, two members belong to the Labour party and four members belong to this side of the House. Is the Minister going to say when these hon. gentlemen come here with a unanimous request that the House shall order the production of these documents, that there is any party question involved in that select committee? Were they doing it on party grounds? Were the majority of that committee, his own followers, looking only at the interests of the House and not questions of confidence? Is the Minister going to say that his followers behind him there were doing it on party lines? Is he going to say that they, his own followers, were going to do this from ulterior motives which were objectionable? The refusal of the general manager of railways, when called upon by the committee to produce these documents, states that in view of the important principles involved, it was desirable to refer the committee's request to the acting Minister for instructions, and the communication added that it was regretted that the disciplinary papers asked for by the select committee could not be furnished Not a word about their being confidential. I say that it was probably inconvenient for some reason to produce those papers, but, whatever the reason was for the refusal, it was made on grounds which had nothing to do at the time with public interest or the confidential character of the documents. For these reasons I say that the Minister has made a grave error of judgment, and he is a strong enough man to withdraw from the position in which he has placed himself, and I ask him, after the discussion which has taken place in this House, to withdraw the question of confidence which he has made this, and leave it to the free vote of the House, and let the House decide for itself what its privileges are.

It is very difficult to give a silent vote on a matter of this kind and I therefore, would like to say a few words because I consider that very improper principles are at stake. It has already been emphasized by previous speakers that Parliament, as the highest court of the land, has been supposed from ancient times to be the proper body to come to when all other forms of redress have been tried and there is no legal remedy open to an individual. The whole basis of the constitution of the pensions committee rests upon this, that if you have other means of relief you have no right to come and ask Parliament, through the pensions committee, to deal with the matter. There can be no question of any re-trial, because if the Railway Department or any other department has dismissed a man because he has been found guilty of some misconduct according to the particular regulations of such department, then he has a right to come to Parliament, not in order to have his case re-tried, because the Railway or other Department having dismissed the man, have no right to grant him a pension. The pension committee have the right to recommend that man on other than legal grounds for a pension. There have been quite a number of cases where it has been shown long after a man has been dismissed that a mistake has been made, the man having been pensioned under a wrong section. None of those cases are cases of re-trial at all. The pensions committee, in dealing with petitions for pensions, deals with them on quite different grounds from what the Government would do. The Government is concerned to know, first of all, whether it has got the power to give a man a pension and, secondly, if it is in the interests of the State to give him a pension. The outlook of the two bodies is entirely different. When that man was tried the question before the trial body was, has he broken the law, has he violated the statutory conditions of his service and is he liable to dismissal If he is liable to dismissal, then they have no right to grant him a pension. When the case comes before the pensions committee other considerations come in. They do not go into the question of his being legally entitled to a pension, but in the interests of the State and in the interests of common justice and fair play they consider whether they should recommend possibly some compassionate grant in the case of this man or that man. In order to be able to arrive at a decision they must know all the circumstances of the case. There might be two men found guilty of a breach of the law. One man might, in face of the circumstances, be found guilty, but he plight be regarded so much as a victim of tragic circumstances that they would say that, although he had been found guilty in a court, on other grounds, grounds of a compassionate nature, or on the ground of having dependents, they would recommend him for something that the Government could not have done because he had been found guilty. On the other hand, they might have another man found guilty of the same offence under circumstances where, we will say, he was drunk at the time, he was guilty of grave conduct after the event, and he conceded what he had done and so forth—well, in those two cases, although both found guilty by the court, you would have a great deal of sympathy with the one man and no sympathy with the other. Unless you know the circumstances of the case, you do not know whether the man belongs to the one category or the other. It is a question of the circumstances which would entitle the man to be treated compassionately or not. I cannot understand why, because they want to consider the circumstances of the case, to decide whether they should make a compassionate grant or not, that should be regarded as a question of confidence. If that view were taken, I suppose 90 per cent. of the petitions before the Pensions Committee would not be considered at all. I cannot understand how this can be considered a question of confidence. I cannot, on this occasion, support the Government, because I do not consider they are right to treat, as a question of confidence, something which has nothing whatever to do with confidence. It is purely a question of principle as to whether Parliament is going to insist that all possible light should be thrown on this particular case. The Pensions Committee only recommends. It does not give pensions. The matter is still entirely in the hands of the Government, but there you are preventing the Pensions Committee being able either to recommend or to say they cannot recommend, because they have not got the facts. They have got the statement put forward by the Railway Department, but they want fuller information and that information has been refused and they unaimously come to the House and say they cannot get the information and they ask the House to give them the information. The Pensions Committee has always been conducted on a purely non-party basis and I submit it is quite wrong on the part of the Minister to take this matter as a personal matter as the acting head of the railway department, and not leaving the House perfectly free with unfettered minds to consider this important constitutional principle. For these reasons, I shall support this motion. This is one of the committees which does not require a Governor-General's warrant. There is still a difficulty in regard to other committees. We had the Corderoy case, but it does not apply to the Pensions Committee. Their recommendations come up for this House to deal with in one way or another. An important constitutional principle is involved, whether the people of this country, who have the right to come to Parliament, are going to have that right rendered useless if any particular Minister at any time says " I refuse to give the committee the information they require in order to deal with the matter." Under these circumstances, I submit the matter should be considered, not as a matter of confidence or no confidence, but on its merits as a constitutional principle of great importance, whether the freedom of the subject is going to be coupled with the freedom of the committee to have free and unfettered access to all documents it requires.

Great play has been made by a number of members on the fact that the report presented to the House was a unanimous report.

It is.

Perfectly correct. It is unanimous and that report was unanimously agreed to simply because members of the committee were under the impression they were justly entitled to the papers they were asking for. It has been reported to the committee that we were entitled to those papers, and therefore there could be no alternative to a unanimous decision that they should be asked for—but—

But?

It comes to this, that the way this matter is being treated by members of the Opposition makes one begin to wonder if a trap has not been set, and also when one realizes that the McTaggart case has been more lobbied by members on that side of the House than any other I know of.

What do you mean by lobbied?

We have had the gentlemen from Natal lobbying. The McTaggart case has been lobbied.

Name?

You know the names as well as I do. I think it happens to be a South African party provincial councillor. I do not think I can he accused of being unsympathetic to any case that is dealt with by this committee. I am unsympathetic to this extent in the McTaggart case, that I have opposed it, and I shall oppose it when it comes there again. I disagree with the statements made by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) when he tells the House that it is rather peculiar that you have other cases similar to this case, but those cases are dealt with differently in the reports from the railway department. To my knowledge, we have no case similar to the McTaggart case. We have recently dealt with two cases that may have a certain amount of similarity, but neither of those cases contains the same charges. One feature that has been stressed very forcibly—I myself was prepared to give a lot of weight to it was the fact that McTaggart five years ago had an accident while on duty and his over running the points is being attributed to a lapse of memory due to that accident. The evidence led by the department goes to prove conclusively that since that accident happened five years ago McTaggart has not suffered one day's illness.

We are not discussing the merits of the case.

I am giving the House the facts as laid before the committee by your responsible officials. If you are prepared to doubt the statements made by those officials, it is time you got some new ones.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to discuss the merits of this case?

To a certain extent hon. members have been discussing the merits.

Cases have been quoted by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) Which have not yet been reported back to this House, and the way he handled the case did no justice and placed no credit to the individual he was trying to defend.

On a point of order, I asked for the papers.

There is also not the least doubt in my mind in asking for these papers we were certainly influenced by the statements that were made by the representative of the department on the one hand, and on the other hand by statements contained in the petition which were certainly conflicting. Although the representative of the department dealt with this matter, we were certainly under the impression that more justice, or proper justice could be done if we had access to the papers dealing with that enquiry. I made up my mind on the facts already led that, as far as the McTaggart case goes, he has no hope as far as I am concerned. But that certainly does not prohibit me from supporting hon. members When they ask for the production of certain papers when they think that by the procuring of those papers it may lead them to form a better judgment—we are all willing to assist them as far as we possibly can. As far as making this a matter of no confidence in the Government is concerned, I take it that the railway workers and McTaggart himself would be the last to anticipate this move. I, for one, am quite satisfied; we were quite satisfied in asking for these papers ; we had a ruling given by Mr. Speaker what the position is, and an explanation given by the Minister—and I do not intend casting my vote against the Government on this incident.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I do wish to stress the point made by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I was the chairman of this committee for several years, and I agree with the chairman it is a very tragic committee to serve on. The Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Prime Minister does not realize that the Pensions Committee has not set itself up as a court of revision, but if I may say so, it is a court of equity. It is not a committee which questions the facts put before it by whatever department is concerned, but a committee which deals almost entirely with compassionate cases, and if it is to go forth that no citizen can come to this House for mercy and on compassionate grounds, it is an unfortunate thing. The committee takes into consideration the human factor. It is not a re-trial, and before you can deal with the human aspect you must have all the dossiers. Otherwise you cannot come to any conclusion. You cannot go on the departmental report, because it is a bald summary of the legal position, and the applicant himself does not appear before us. The legal statement is a cold-blooded statement of the legal facts. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) told us much the same thing, and I agree with him. If this House is going to lay down a hard and fast rule on the Pensions Committee more particularly, that its members are not entitled to these more human details, it means in future that no railwayman can come to this House on merciful or compassionate grounds—and I hope the House will realize it. This matter goes further. If the Pension? Committee is debarred from calling for papers, other committees will be debarred, and it will have a great psychological effect on the departments. This country is sufficiently bureaucratic in its leanings already. There is another aspect which has struck me; I do think at this time it is an exceedingly ill-advized thing for the higher command of the railways, including the Minister, to set themselves up above the House. To-day they are refusing a minor thing, but it is possible one day we may want far more important information from the railways and the Minister himself, and are we going to accept a proposition that the Minister is going to set himself above the House and have the power to say " No, I think such and such information required by you is confidential, and not in the public interest." Above all at the present juncture, it would be establishing a dangerous precedent. The Minister tells up it might sap discipline, which is the last thing we would do at the present moment; but there is such a thing as the discipline amongst the higher command of the railways too and I ask where would that discipline go to if they are not within the jurisdiction of this House? I would put it to the House to pause and think very seriously whether we could adopt that attitude.

It is rather premature for the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) to say that the petition will not be granted, seeing that the select committee has practically no information before it yet with regard to the issue whether or not the man was under the influence of liquor. The sum total of the evidence was that the petitioner had committed an offence—a breach of the regulations—by passing the points. It was admitted that this man had been in the service for 27 years, and had a good record. There is no question that the committee indicated that they had a great deal of sympathy with the petitioner in view of his long service and good record. Apparently the representative of the railway department noticed this and then brought up a charge of drunkenness against the petitioner, saying that although he was not found guilty on that charge the department felt that the verdict which was what is known in Scotch law as a verdict of "not proven" which had been found against him was not an acquittal. That is what gave rise to the request for the papers. The departmental representative was asked what evidence there was to show that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor when he passed the points. The reply was that the evidence showed that the man had been in an hotel up to two o'clock that morning, but no evidence of intoxication was adduced before us. I said, " Let us find out if there is any truth in the charge that the man was under the influence of liquor." We were not concerned with whether he was guilty or not guilty on the main charge, but whether he was entitled to any relief in regard to the disallowance of his pension. To my mind the question whether petitioner was under the influence of liquor or not was one which it was our duty to clear up as it might easily have been the determining factor as to whether he should or should not be deprived of his pension rights. To suggest that the committee was going to decide whether the petitioner was or was not guilty on the main charge is absurd; we were not concerned with that. We wanted information regarding his character and whether there was any grounds for the contention that he was under the influence of liquor when he passed the points, and the only evidence available to us was that taken by the Departmental Board of inquiry which was why we asked for its production. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) says that he has already made up his mind on the subject. I, as a member of the select committee, shall never make up my mind on the matter unless the papers are produced. If the railway department is going to ride rough-shod over the committee in the way it has done in this case by withholding from the committee material information, let us abolish the committee. I have had nearly four years' experience on that committee, and I am not going to submit to dictation from the representative of the railway department, who when he indicates what he thinks we should do, is exceeding his functions. There is a disposition to dictate to members of the committee. I hope the Minister will now see the relevancy of the papers to this very important question, for it is essential that we should know whether the petitioner is blameworthy by being under the influence of liquor as that is going to influence the committee a great deal in deciding whether they shall or shall not grant him relief.

It is difficult to give a silent vote on the matter, therefore I want to say a few words. It is clear to me that the punishment inflicted on McTaggart was quite just. With me it was never a question whether he deserved the punishment or not. I make bold to say that, if I had not opposed it in committee when it was discussed the first time, the pension would have been granted to him. From the beginning I was convinced that it was a hopeless case, and that the pension should not be granted, but the Opposition members on the committee strongly urged that the matter be carefully investigated, because it very often happens that a certain punishment is imposed and that it is subsequently revised. It even happens that the railway administration imposes a penalty and dismisses a person, and that he is thereafter re-employed and it was possible that this was such an exceptional case. Hon. members from the other side made a special point of the fact that the man, as the result of an accident while he was on duty was so affected mentally, that he could not always perform his duties properly. That was a point on which the other side on the select committee were anxious to have more information. I was satisfied, but I wanted to convince the other side that there was no reason for re-opening the matter. But, as the Government cannot supply the documents, and Mr. Speaker ruled that it amounts to a motion of no-confidence if the documents are still demanded, I shall vote against the motion.

A section of us on the cross-benches have been waiting all the afternoon for something of a lead on this subject which appeared at one time to be of some importance. My mind has been changed in a moment. It seems to me an utterly absurd proposition that the House should sit all the afternoon discussing this and a most important measure concerning the country should be postponed to listen to an altogether unnecessary discussion Here is a committee with power to grant pensions to this gentleman or at least to recommend to this House that a pension should be granted, if a majority of them so decided Apparently the members belonging to the South African party on that committee were unanimously in favour of such a thing.

Nothing of the kind.

That committee had power to recommend to this House that a pension be granted to this petitioner. We have a member of that committtee speaking for the Labour party on that committee and saying he has no intention of supporting that petition. The point is that the minority of that committee apparently were anxious to get certain papers. According to what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) has just said, his mind was made up that no pension should be recommended by his vote. I would assume his colleagues of the Labour party agree with him. I suppose we would be safe in assuming that the four Nationalist party members were opposed to the grant of this pension, otherwise they would have opposed the recommendation but these gentlemen, having made their minds up that this petitioner is not to have his pension recommended, come to the House and ask for papers. I am at an utter loss to understand why they should have wasted all the afternoon on such a futile matter. Until a few minutes ago I was in absolute sympathy with them and intended to vote against the Government. The absurdity of the whole position became apparent when the hon. member for Turffontein spoke. People come to this House wanting information, having made up their minds without that information being available. When the Minister referred to the day at which this over-running of the points occurred, a thing which might have had serious consequences, but owing to the prompt action of this man did not have serious consequences, he said that occurred in September of last year at a time when there was a continual recurrence of railway accidents. The Minister might just as well gone on and said that this man was made an example of because there had been a series of accidents. That is what is happening in the Railway Administration to-day. There is not the slightest doubt there is a great deal of demoralization amongst the running staff today because of the fact that penalties are far too drastic. I want to put this to the Minister. I do not know a cabinet minister who has not made a mistake. Cabinet ministers are not relieved of their duties immediately they make a mistake. It is a cumulative process, but it is not cumulative with the unfortunate railwaymen. I would like to see the House get on with more important business that is waiting. I do not know whether the matter contained in the papers is relevant or not, but it is evident that whether these papers are produced or not the petitioner is not going to get any greater consideration from that committee.

How do you know? Have you seen the papers?

The members representing the majority of the committee have declared it is already decided. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) said that the action of the Minister was tantamount to declaring he had no confidence in that committee. I would say by the antics of the members of that committee in the House this afternoon, the no-confidence of the Minister is thoroughly justified. I have never seen anything so absurd.

I think this debate has served a very useful purpose. It has served to show what the protestation of hon. members on the cross-benches are worth. I have never seen such an attitude of stupidity among the hon. members on the cross-benches. I do not know anything about that. I am not a member of the committee. All we have got before us is that the committee unanimously asked that they might have these papers. Presumably they wanted to see the papers, and presumably inspection of the papers would have helped them to come to some decision on the question of a pension. From what I have heard of the case, I should be inclined to think that the pension is not deserved. But that is not the point. The point is whether this committee, having unanimously asked for an inspection of these papers to help them to come to a decision, the Government were entitled to withhold the papers. You have quoted, Mr. Speaker, a ruling which was given in 1913 which I remember very well, but I think the circumstances at that time were somewhat different. At that time the Minister concerned stated that the papers were of a confidential nature, and it was not advisable that they should be placed before the committee. In this case, as far as I have followed the be-bate, the Minister has not said at all that the papers were confidential. All he said was that the papers were not necessary to enable the committee to come to a decision on the question before them. I must say I think the committee is the best judge of that. This discussion has taken up the whole afternoon, and if the Minister had handed these papers to the committee, we should have heard nothing whatever of this case. I must say I think the Government have been very ill-advised in withholding the papers, but the real thing that has struck one is the value of the protestations we hear from time to time from the cross-benches as to the rights of free speech, the right of the poor man, etc.

Like the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), I think this debate is most instructive. We are learning a great many things as we go along. No doubt you remember in your experience that, whenever any point of importance was brought up against the Government, it was met by the cry of racialism. That was considered to be a complete answer. Later on we know that the mention of the wicked South African party press was a complete answer to any allegation made against, the Government. Now we have come to another phase. We have the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) assuring us that the whole debate is simply a development of certain lobbying that he has seen going on. Whether that be the case or not, it does not deal with the merits of this case, and we are dealing with a matter of very great importance to this Parliament and to this country. If this sort of thing is going on, it will infallibly have the effect of weakening the prestige of Parliament in South Africa. That is the last thing we want, because our constitution makes this the highest court of law in the land, and if the people of this country know of these things and read some of the speeches which have been given here to-day, it cannot fail to have the effect of bringing Parliament more or less into the contempt of the people of this country. That is very undesirable, and we, as members of this body, are bound to protest against it. We are bound to show that Parliament does not deserve that opinion of the country, and we are bound to show to the people the reason why we think so. It has been said that because one member of a certain party voted in a certain way on select committee, the whole of the members of that party must have voted in that way. It has also been said that, because one member of a party voted in a certain way, the members of the party of which they were political allies, would also have voted that way. Surely that detracts from the principle, if not expressed, that we have always believed in, that, in select committee, the members, as far as possible, left party behind them and judged matters on their merits. It is a disillusionment to find we were mistaken in that particular. I regret, too, that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) found it necessary to make most disparaging remarks about one of the largest and most important committees appointed by this House. Those remarks I do not think will be endorsed by many. But there is another matter that the country ought to take notice of. We have been told, in season and out of season, that hon. members who sit on the cross-benches, representing Labour as they do, representing that portion of the community that is not well protected owing to its circumstances, are always prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of the oppressed, and yet we find that when a member of that community, occupying a comparatively humble position, seeks redress from this House, they are unwilling to give him reasonable opportunity. We have the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) telling us he has no intention of supporting a pension. Surely if he is at all logical he will admit it is possible his mind may be changed if other and fresh evidence were brought before him. It is thought by the committee, of which he is a member, that it is necessary, or desirable at all events, to have certain documents placed before them, so that they may come to a decision as to whether this individual may be recommended for a pension. The Government will have themselves to blame if people draw certain inferences from their conduct. I know, as an old soldier, that when I see a very stiff rearguard action being put up it means those people have something to conceal, something they are anxious should not fall into the hands of their opponents. I do not know if that is the case with the Government, but they certainly are lending great colour to the belief that there is some reason behind this objection they are putting up to the production of these papers. I hope hon. members, as they are expected to do, will vote according to their convictions, and not in a case of this sort, according to party exigencies. It will hamper our proceedings very greatly if every case is made, as it were, a matter of no confidence in the Government. I hope, when the vote is taken, all members will vote according to their convictions.

I am not prepared to give a direct vote in connection with this matter, because I think when the committee asked for these documents it was entitled to have these documents. I regret the attitude of the Minister in making a trifling question of this kind a matter of confidence, although I think the people to blame for the attitude of the Minister are the South African party. They have created a halo round the head of the Minister, and held him up to the country as perhaps the strongest and soundest man in the Cabinet. When they tell him that he shows how strong he is. I think he might have followed the example of his colleague, the Minister of Defence. I am placed in the peculiar position of not being able to vote for the motion as the attitude of the select committee is more foolish than that of the Minister. The select committee have told us two facts which were not known before; in the first place, that had their members known that the information was to come from the Minister and not from the department they would not have made that recommendation, and secondly, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) told us very clearly that it does not matter very much whether they have the papers or not—he has already made up his mind that he will not grant it. Why make a crisis of the foolishness of the committee? I move, as an amendment—

I second that.

Question put: That the words proposed by Mr. Kentridge to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

as chairman, brought up the third (final) report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

as chairman, brought up the third (final) report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Schemes.

Report and evidence to be printed, and considered on 16th May.

moved—

"One of those measures, humble though not ungenerous, whose aim it is to soften the hardships of poverty for the aged, who while unfortunate are not always undeserving." These were the terms which were used to describe the Old Age Pension Act which was placed on the statute book of New Zealand in 1898, and now thirty years after, the same terms might well be used to describe the measure which I have the privilege to introduce tonight. Thirty years ago old age pensions were a novelty. A few years before Germany had introduced a compulsory scheme of contributory pensions and Denmark a system of old age pensions for those whose means were inadequate. In a few countries schemes on a voluntary basis had been tried but they were not a success. In most countries at that time the poor were dependent mainly on their children and in the case of those who had no children they were dependent on charity or on poor relief. In the intervening thirty years the subject of old age pensions has been dealt with by a large number of countries so that to-day there are about forty such schemes in operation in various parts of the world. In South Africa hitherto there has been no statutory provision for old age pensions. Our law, as hon. members know, placed the duty on children for maintaining aged and indigent parents. Those who have no children are dependent on the poor relief votes of the various provinces. I want to describe briefly to the House the steps which have been taken here in regard to the matter during the last few years. From time to time, practically ever since Union, the matter has been brought forward in this House. Hon. members will remember, for instance, the late member for Three Rivers never missed an opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the House. About six years ago the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) moved that an old age pension fund should be established and requested the Government to appoint a commission. The motion was withdrawn at the instance of the then Prime Minister (the right hon. the member for Standerton) who suggested that the matter should be left to the Government to appoint a commission. Sometime afterwards my predecessor instructed one of the treasury officials to go into the matter, to investigate and report on the subject, preparatory to the appointment of a commission. On assuming office in 1924 one of my first duties was to present to the House the very able report which had been prepared by that officer. During the 1925 session the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) moved that a select committee be appointed to go into the matter. Although I was not satisfied that the matter could be adequately dealt with by a select committee I had no very strong objection and such a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). After a few sittings it reported that the matter could not properly be dealt with by a committee and recommended that a commission be appointed by the Government. As soon as possible after the termination of the session a commission was appointed, with the hon. member for Wonderboom as chairman, consisting of five members drawn from all parts of the House. The terms of reference to that commission were " to consider and report on pensions to necessitous, aged and permanently incapacitated persons who are unable to maintain themselves and for whom no provision at present exists." This commission was also asked " to investigate and report upon a question of national insurance as a means of making provision for the risks of sickness, accident, premature death, infirmity, old age, unemployment and maternity." As, hon. members know, that commission issued its first report last year and in that report they set out the conclusions arrived at in regard to the first of the two terms of reference mentioned by me. That report has now been in the hands of hon. members for twelve months, and I have no doubt it has been read by them with much interest. It is safe, therefore, to say I think that all parties are interested in the matter and are of the opinion that the time has arrived for us when this very important matter should be tackled in real earnest. If there are any hon. members who have any doubts on the point I would advise them to read the 1926 report and especially to re-read the memorandum prepared by Mr. Collie to which I have already referred. I submit that that report and the memorandum fully justify us in accepting the recommendation of the commission that it is the duty of the State to come to the assistance of our aged poor. I can understand that there might be a difference of opinion as to the extent to which assistance should be given and on other details, but on the general principle I think it is safe to assume that we are all agreed that the poor should be assisted in the manner proposed. The commission has not yet reported on the second term of reference—National Insurance. Hon. members will recognize that it is a very important subject and one on which it would be a mistake for the commission to make any recommendations until it had very carefully studied the whole matter, and I think it would be equally wrong for us to suggest that the commission should expedite their investigation. I understand that we may expect a report from them at no distant date. Another point is we do not know yet whether that commission will report in favour of a scheme of national insurance, but even if they so report hon. members will see it will be some years before such a scheme can become effective, and it will not assist those who are already aged. In every other country in introducing an old age pension scheme it has been necessary to make provision for those who have already reached the pensionable age and for those who will reach ft before their contribution will have reached such a sum as would provide for their needs. The duty is still on us, and it is a pressing one, that we should take steps to provide for those people who are in need and would not benefit under a contributory scheme. I mention this matter because there might be some hon. members who might think we should defer the matter of old age pensions until we have a recommendation in regard to the larger scheme. In my own opinion it would be a mistake. The Bill does not make provision for pensions for everybody. There are several limiting clauses; in the first place, there is an age limit, and there is a means limit. The age limit debars people under 65 years of age, and the means limit debars people whose means are above the rate laid down. There are nationality and residence in the Union as other limitations. I may point out that there is no scheme of Old Age Pensions that embraces everybody. Contributory schemes are usually limited to employees, and more often than not to a special class of employee. Then there is the position of the natives, which we discussed during the budget debate. They are not embraced. The commission came to the conclusion that it would be impracticable to include natives, and that the duty should remain with the provinces, to grant assistance in needy cases in the case of aged and indigent natives, from their poor relief vote. Seeing that the provinces will be relieved of a considerable responsibility in regard to people who will now benefit from the old age pensions schemes, it is thought that they will give on a more generous scale, food and other necessaries to indigent natives. Before I deal with the other clauses, I wish to bring to the notice of the House that the number of old persons will increase rapidly in future years, and that the number of old age pensions also will increase fairly rapidly for a considerable time. Hon. members will see that attention is specially drawn to that in the report of 1926, and I therefore, do not propose to go further into that; but I wish to point out that is a subject that deserves our very careful attention. Countries which have neglected to make an allowance for the progressive increase in the number of old persons have found they have incurred a very much heavier liability than they originally expected.

You will find that out too.

I am afraid we shall; whether we approve of the scheme or not it is necessary for us to see that if we initiate a scheme we shall not be very much disappointed if we find later on that we have incurred a very much heavier liability than we originally anticipated. It is necessary for us to take every precaution to determine the liability not only for ourselves but for those who come after us. Although we may be in general agreement in regard to the principle, there is a certain room for difference of opinion with regard to the details. One of the commissioners has dissented from his colleagues on the rate of pension. The commission recommended 10s. all round per week, whereas that member considers it should be £1 per week. Some may think that the amount we lay down here is either too high or that it is too low. I think that if all the circumstances are taken into consideration it will be agreed that the figure is fair and an equitable compromise. As far as the other details of the report are concerned, we have given very careful consideration to them, and I think the House will agree that we are indebted to the commission for the painstakinig manner in which they have dealt with the matter, and the interesting and valuable report they have presented. We may not agree with them in all the conclusions they have arrived at, but we can all recognize the value of their work and the assistance that report will be to us in legislating on this very important question. After careful consideration we decided it was impossible for us to adopt the recommendations of either report as far as the rate of pension was concerned. It must be recognized that the standard of living amongst whites is not the same as that of coloured persons. There are, of course, exceptions and there are doubtless many coloured people who live on a higher scale than some whites, but, on the whole, there is a well-marked distinction. No good purpose is to be gained by ignoring this question, and we should recognize it by fixing the amount of the pension for coloured persons on a reasonable scale, and give a slightly higher figure to whites. For some considerable time we have been paying the Oud Stryders £2 10s. a month and, as far as the whites are concerned, we came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to adopt the same scale of pension. We shall not continue granting pensions to those of the Oud Stryders who are eligible under this scheme; they will be transferred to the old age pensions scheme. The pension rate is not as high as that of Australia and New Zealand, but it compares very favourably with those of other countries. Our proposals are more generous than the recommendations of the commission, in that we do not propose to make any deductions from the pensions of those whose incomes are below a fixed amount. The commission recommended that the pension of £26 should be diminished by 10s. for each £1 of income. Under our scheme persons will receive the full pension so long as their incomes do not exceed £24 a year. This should prove a great incentive to thrift, and it is very desirable that we should continue to encourage people to save, even if it is only for the purpose of eking out their pensions. There is also a difficulty in connection with the commission's recommendation in regard to the assessment of income of each claimant to the nearest pound. That would not be a light task when you deal with 30,000 people who are not accustomed to keeping accurate records of their receipts. The scheme of the commission would not have been a very easy one to administer. We should put these old people to as little trouble as possible to satisfy us as to their age, nationality and residence. Another advantage of this scheme is that it will not be necessary to appoint a very large staff.

What do you think the administration will cost?

Probably about 3 per cent., but I hope it will be very much less. We propose to utilize existing machinery and also the services of magistrates in regard to detailed information which will be required concerning every pension. Efforts will be made to keep down the administrative costs as much as possible. Our scheme is also very generous in regard to the deductions which are allowed to be made from incomes to entitle a person to a pension. Gifts, funeral benefits, sick allowances and other benefits paid by friendly societies or trade unions, shall not be regarded as income. Thus we encourage other members of the family to do as much as possible to assist their aged parents. Another very necessary provision is that pensions will not be assignable. Pensions will not be paid when the recipient leaves the Union for more than two months unless reciprocal arrangements are made with the country to which the reciment is going. This follows the lines of the British Act.

What is the object of that?

To have reciprocity between various parts of the dominions. In these cases they will pay pensions to our people and we will pay pensions to their people. Another important provision is that which lays it down that under certain circumstances it will be open to the Government to recover from children pensions paid to their parents. That was a question which gave a good deal of trouble under the Oud Stryders' scheme. I shall leave it to the opinion of the House whether we should incorporate a provision empowering the Government to recover payments from children. It is not the intention of the Treasury to harass children unnecessarily, in cases where they do not possess sufficient means, but there may be many cases where children do not recognize their duty to their aged parents, and it may be salutary to have such a provision in the Act. Hon. members will see that although it is proposed that the Act shall come into operation at once, it is not proposed to pay pensions before January 1st, 1929. It will be appreciated that it will take a fairly long time to get the necessary administrative machinery in order. Even after that date it is possible there may be a number of pensions not yet properly investigated in regard to which payments cannot be made. In all cases where it has been proved that the claimant is entitled to a pension, then the pension will be payable from January 1st, 1929.

That will be near the election.

This is not a party matter at all. I never had in mind the matter of elections at all. I have already dealt with the question of the invalidity pensions and I want to repeat that, althouvh the commission reported that it would be advisable to institute such a scheme at once, I think we should wait until we can see what liability we have incurred in connection with the old age pensions scheme before we take the important step of dealing with the subject of invalidity. I hope we all realize the necessity for legislation on the lines proposed here, and that the Bill will speedily be placed on the statute book.

I was a member of the commission which the Minister appointed to enquire into this question and, as he has explained to the House this Bill follows in most, though not in all respects, the recommendations of that commission. I think we can now take it for granted that the question of old age pensions has ceased to be a matter of controversy. The fact is that we, in South Africa, are in this matter rather behind the rest of the world. It has been recognised in South Africa for some years past that this was a matter that would have to be dealt with as soon as the Government of the day felt it was in a position to find the necessary funds. As the Minister said, the late Government appointed an official of the Treasury to go into this matter and get together information as to what was done in other parts of the world. I would like to endorse very sincerely the tribute which the Minister paid to that official for the enormous amount of information which he got together, and for his ability in bringing that information into a form which makes it easily understood by the members and the public. There are one or two outstanding questions connected with old age pensions which may lead to a certain amount of controversy. In many parts of the world you have systems of national insurance which provide for contributions to be paid by the persons who are insured, and these contributions are made up to a certain point by the State as a rule, and by the employers. They are entitled at a certain age to receive old age pensions, and sickness and invalidity payments and so on, and it may be argued that we should have waited until we were in a position to institute a contributory system. I agree with the Minister and with the report of the commission that it is not desirable to wait until we are in a position to put before the country a contributory system of national insurance. First of all it is going to take some time, and the needs of the old people are with us now. No contributory system that could be introduced now would deal with the needs of the people who are now 65 years of age or over. Just as in England, I think we shall have to introduce a system of non-contributory pensions at once for persons who are over the given age, and possibly, in future, if we find ourselves in a position, to establish a system of national insurance to deal with old age as well as other causes of indigence, we may be able to put the old age pensions of the future on a contributory basis. Another consideration is that in a contributory system you are limited necessarily to people who are in permanent employment. You cannot collect contributions except by means of deductions from wages, and that can only be done where people are in permanent employment. Particularly in this country which is not fully industrialised, there is a very large number of people who are in need of help in case of old age or invalidity who could not possibly be brought into a contributory system. So that for many reasons we are bound to deal with this matter now on the basis of a non-contributory system. It has sometimes been argued that a system of old age pensions will discourage thrift on the part of the persons concerned, and will discourage children and relatives from helping people when they come to years when they cannot help themselves. I think experience has shown that both these contentions are not well-founded. It seems almost irony to talk about thrift in connection with persons whose incomes are round about the figure which these people have been able to draw even when they were working. As regards maintenance by children or relatives it has been found by experience and it is in accordance with what one would expect, that instead of discouraging children from looking after parents or aged relatives, the possession of a small pension rather encourages them to help the old people. If the old person is in a position to bring something into the common fund he or she will more likely continue to be maintained in a family than if he or she could bring nothing into it. Another question is that of the income or means limit. A simple thing with regard to old age pensions would be to say that everybody over the age of 65, whatever his income might be, should draw a pension. That would simplify the administration very much, but it would, add a quite unjustifiable burden to the Treasury, and I do not think that anyone will seriously maintain that we in this country should adopt an old age pension system without any means limit. There is one thing the Bill might have provided for which it does not provide for. There is a large number of old people in this country of an age which prevents them from being able to maintain themselves by work, who are not in a position even with the assistance of a pension really to look after themselves, who have got to be provided for in one of the many old age persons' homes throughout the country. There are a number of institutions of that kind, old men's homes and old women's homes throughout the country which are supported from charitable sources, and I think in many cases the old persons would be far better in those homes than left to fend for themselves with the aid of a pension such as is provided for in this Bill.

But they will get it.

How will they get it?

If they are in a home they will get their pension.

Yes, they will get their pension in a home, but would it not have been better in a case like that that the pension should be payable in the home so as to help the home to continue to maintain them? I think in a case like that where an old person receives the pension it might have been desirable that the pension should have been paid to the home that was looking after him so long as he was provided for in that home.

Section 19 (f) will provide for that by regulation.

One never knows what may be done by regulations. I see that it is there. This really important matter in connection with this Bill is the amount of the pension and that I suppose is the one on which there may be some element of controversy. I am in favour of beginning a scheme like this, which must be largely experimental in its character, at a stage which will not throw an undue burden on the Treasury. I know quite well what the process will be in the natural course of things. It will be a constant movement upwards. There will be no movement downwards, and therefore I think the Government are justified in saying that as this whole scheme is to a large extent in this country a matter of experiment we should begin at a figure which will not, at any rate, cast too great a burden at the beginning on the State. The commission recommended a pension of 10s. a week for Europeans and coloured, no discrimination. I must say I am sorry that the Minister has departed from that. I am sorry that another colour bar has been introduced into this country in this Old Age Pensions Bill.

The Minister says it is well recognised that the standard of living among the coloured on the average is lower than that of the white man on the average. So it is. But here you are not dealing with a standard of life. You are dealing with a very small contribution towards the maintenance of the people concerned. What is £30 a year compared with the standard of life in this country? It is nothing near it. It is not a maintenance grant. It is a grant which will help people who, when they have got it, will still have to look to others to keep them going. When you are dealing with amounts like that I think it is unfortunate that we have introduced this colour bar into the Bill. I would have much preferred seeing a uniform payment to all the persons concerned, because when you are going to deal with amounts of £25 to £30 a year you have got down to a level where the needs of the people concerned, whether they are white or whether they are coloured, are very much the same, and I am sorry that the Minister has departed from the principle of uniformity in this matter. Why is the Indian excluded? Why is the aged Indian not to receive an old age pension? He belongs to this country; he has got to be supported somehow; he must live. If you threw him out of the country, there might be something to be said for the arguments for my hon. friends here.

We are inviting him to go and helping him to go.

Yes, of course, but they are not all going to go. Don't let the Minister deceive himself on that point. There will be many that will remain and the Government have entered into a solemn obligation to see that these people are treated on lines of fairness and equality.

Why Indians and not natives?

In my opinion the native at present cannot be dealt with under an old age pension system. When you have such a system, you have, first of all, to limit it to a certain age. How are you going to determine what the age of a native is? The mass of the natives have no statistics whatever as to when they were born or how old they are. But it seemed to the Minister—and I think he was right—that in regard to the native, you must deal with indigent natives in quite a different manner from what is provided under this Bill. The vast majority of the natives at present are living under a system by which the old people who are unable to work are supported by the rest of the community. When they come into the towns and become indigent and unable to support themselves, then I think the proper way to do it at present is through the means which have already been adopted, that is to say, through grants made by the magistrate. But I certainly do not see how you can possibly apply the machinery of an old age pension system to natives at their present stage of development. Later on it may be different, but I certainly do not think you can do it now, but as regards other people I do think that it is a pity to draw these racial lines, that people belonging to one race shall receive smaller pensions and people belonging to another race nothing at all. As I said, the question of national insurance is a much bigger one, and I doubt whether we shall be able to arrive at any finality in regard to that for some time, but in the meantime I think this Bill will meet a widespread need, will provide assistance for a large number of people who are no longer able to provide for themselves and whom the community in one form or another have got to support. It seems to me all to the good that we have a system by which these people can be helped, which does not impose upon them the slight or taint of charity, which gives them some help towards maintaining themselves in that independence which is still a dear possession to many of them under that extent. I think that this Bill will be of their greatest possible service. It will help these men individually, and it will relieve our charitable institutions of a heavy burden which is now upon them and it will relieve their relatives and friends of these people also of burdens which sometimes they are, not able to bear. For these reasons I welcome this Bill. There are one or two points which in committee will have to be discussed still, but on the whole subject to these criticisms, I think this Bill is the beginning of a big subject. It is a beginning which naturally I think, has to be accepted as being on a small scale. We cannot plunge into a thing like this on a big scale. We have to begin on small lines. It is an experiment. We do not yet know how the figures and statistics of other countries will work out when they come to be applied to South Africa, and I think the Minister is justified in his caution in beginning this thing on a small scale, and resisting the claims that will be made to level up the rates which will be in force in this country with the rates in force in countries where the system has been in operation for many years.

On the motion of Mr. Sampson, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 14th May.

I would like to say a few words on this vote. I pointed out the other day that the votes of my hon. friend are always steadily increasing. Here is one in point. Public Health in 1926-'27 went up by £22,000; next year by £4,000 and this year by over £21,000. It is the same right through.

Take a previous vote—mental hospitals. In 1926-'27 it went up £31,000; in 1927-'28, £35,000 and 1928-'29, £33,000. That is the mental hospitals. The statement I made that he is perhaps the most extravagant Minister is in some degree justified. There are others which will come up later on, all steady increase year after year. I see here he is spending on leprosy £136,000. I would like to know what he is going to do with these buildings at St. Raphael's which were used for leper purposes. I know an offer has been made to him. I would like to ask also what is the position in reference to Nelspoort Sanatorium. Is that being fully used in the way we hoped for and is it full at the present time? Then on page 107 there is an item medical aid in outlying areas £2,500, a new vote. What is the meaning of that? I would like some information on that point.

I will just reply at once to these questions. The hon. member has repeated his charge against me that I am the most extravagant of Ministers. I am glad to see he rather admits to-night that he was not quite correct on the previous votes, but I think in any case he has not made out a good case as far as this vote is concerned. In the first place, I must point out that up till 1919 really very little was done in this country as far as public health was concerned. It was very generally and rather painfully admitted throughout the country in 1919 that public health measures generally in this country were very much neglected. I think there was one province where there was not even a Public Health Act. In 1919 a new department was instituted and the Public Health Act was passed. Surely a good deal of leeway had to be made up during those years. That explains the increase there has been. I think in spite of that the Department of Public Health is one of the departments that is working very economically, and so economically that it is rather an accusation throughout the country that we are spending too little money on public health. As far as the increases of last year and this year are concerned, the hon. member must know that there was quite a considerable sum on the estimates of last year and also this year accounted for in this way; certain expenditure which was made formerly on the loan vote has been transferred to this vote. For this year we have no less than £12,000 accounted for in that way, that is the refund by the Union Government to local authorities for the building of isolation hospitals in connection with infectious diseases. That alone accounts for £12,000 of the increase and the increase above that is really very inconsiderable. We come to the other points raised by the hon. gentleman in connection with leprosy. As far as the expenditure on leprosy generally is concerned it must do the heart of the hon. gentleman good to know that the expenditure under this head has decreased very remarkably. In 1920-'21 the expenditure for leprosy in the country was £204,000; in 1921-'22 it was decreased to £174,000; in 1922-'23 to £154,000; in 1923-'24 to £144,000'; in 1924-'25 to £135,000; iti 1925-'26 to £139,000; and in 1926-'27 to £134,000. This year it is £136,000. The expenditure has gone down in those years from £204,000 to £136,000. That is certainly a great improvement. That is very largely due to the policy which was initiated a few years ago of discharging arrested cases. As far as St. Raphael's Home is concerned that institution has been existing for some years. Of course, it is not a Government institution. It is just an institution which got Government aid for the care of discharged arrested cases. The number of lepers accommodated there was very small. I do not think the expenditure there was justified under the circumstances, and these arrested eases could not be sent to their relatives—in some cases the relatives did not want them back in their homes or to take care of them. Those cases which could not be sent to relatives have been re-transferred to Robben Island.

Hard lines !

Yes it is, but, at any rate, that was the best we could do in the circumstances. St. Raphael's is to be closed down as a leper institution at present, but there are negotiations with the governing body of the Athlone School for the Blind, who have approached us and asked whether we could not assist them to make that home available for their school, which would be an improvement. The negotiations are still proceeding, and at this stage I cannot say anything more to the House. As far as Nelspoort is concerned, it is progressing very well, and made use of by local authorities sending their patients there. During the first few years, municipalities sent cases which were rather far advanced, and to whom no good could be done there; it was impossible to cure them; but the department impressed on local authorities that they must send hopeful cases there, and that is being done largely now. The European wards are quite full, and there is a waiting list for Europeans. The coloured wards are not quite full. I will not say that is due to apathy or lack of interest, but on account of there being less interest on the part of local authorities in coloured persons, less than in Europeans. That is unfortunately so. I will not say " all municipalities," but there are municipalities where I am afraid this lack of interest is certainly discernible. As to medical aid in outlying districts, we are just bringing into operation that particular clause in the Act of last year to make it possible to make arrangements in some districts, especially malarial districts, for district surgeons to visit certain out stations under certain conditions. We are asking Parliament for £2,500 for that purpose. This system of out-stations has been introduced more particularly In the north of the Transvaal, the Rustenburg district and also in Kuruman. It was specially provided in the Act of last year that the money to be expended under this Act should be specially asked from Parliament, so that Parliament can control that expenditure.

What is the position with regard to malaria?

†The MINISTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH: I may just give the House the information, more especially in connection with the report which was published yesterday or the day before with regard to the position which is very bad in some parts of the Transvaal. I have received a telegram from the headquarters of the department in Pretoria; Mr. Stubbs, the magistrate of Rustenburg, who was asked by the department to make an investigation there, handed a long report to the press and last night the " Star '" published it in to, and it was also published in the " Cape Times." Mr. Laing, assistant health officer of the department, has been specially sent to those parts. The telegram states that in case questions are asked in the House—

The unsatisfactory position as to venereal disease in my district compels me to lay a few points before the Minister. I find here that about £18,000 of the £450,000 is put down on the estimates for venereal disease. That is about one-twenty-fifth of what the Department has at its disposal. In the first place I am disappointed that so little interest is taken in the matter by the Department of Public Health, as well as by the Native Affairs Department. I have here one of the latest reports of the Native Affairs Department which, in section 4, deals with the health of the natives. I see that in the report only half of one line is devoted to venereal diseases. It says that the percentage of those suffering from venereal diseases is high. Therefore in the Native Affairs Departmental report half a line is devoted to venereal disease. I naturally expected more detailed information in the annual report of the Public Health Department, but I was disappointed in that case as well. There only a page and a half is devoted to the terrible disease, and the combating of it. Therefore I had to look for another source where I could read about the position of venereal disease in our country, and I found it in a copy of the " Medical Journal of South Africa " for 1926. It contained an article by the district surgeon of Witbank. He mentions in it a large number of tests which have been taken, and inter alia, the Wassermann test. The report is, however, so scientific that I do not dare to analyse the figures, but in any case I find that a large percentage of the prisoners he examined were suffering from syphilis and similar infectious diseases. In any event the conclusion to which he comes is that it must be admitted that the existence of syphilis is a great danger to the coloured population of our country, and in that way also to the European population. One page further on I find in the " Medical Journal " a lecture by Dr. Mitchell, given at a congress on the occasion of the Imperial Exhibition at Wembley in 1925. Dr. Mitchell is certainly well known, and well informed about the various diseases amongst the South African population. It seems to me that he is a little bit optimistic. The conclusion to which he comes is that the native population as a whole in South Africa can be said to constitute no real danger in so far as venereal diseases are concerned, so that there is a big difference between the report of the Witbank doctor who puts the percentage of venereal diseases very high, even at 21 per cent., and the lecture of our chief medical officer, who puts the percentage merely at 3 per cent. for natives, and 2 per cent. for Europeans and natives together. I do not want to go into it further, and I now come to the conditions in my district. The natives there can be divided into those who come from the eastern, and those from the western area. In the western area provision is made to a certain extent for the treatment of venereal disease. The English Church has established a hospital there—the Jane Furze Memorial Hospital—which is given a grant of £200 a year, and also enjoys other benefits, such as free medicine. I held the view that the support was too small, but the chief officer informed me that that was quite good support, and that there was no reason for increasing it at present. In any case a hospital that is doing good service exists. In the eastern area, where there are about 80,000 natives, the position in practically the whole of the eastern Transvaal according to reports is extremely bad. It is said even by doctors that 30 per cent. of the natives are infected. It happens that a native has a venereal disease, and nevertheless works in the houses of Europeans on the farms, and on the mines, and he may be a source of contagion everywhere. I believe it is the duty of the Public Health Department to take steps to combat venereal diseases in the eastern areas of my district. There is indeed at present a hospital at Pilgrim's Rest which belongs to the mines, and is therefore a private institution, and another small hospital at Sabie, but in the actual native area there is not provision. Briefly, there is no means of fighting venereal diseases in those parts. Possibly, as I have said, there may be differences of opinion amongst the doctors. I do not know whether our chief medical officer is right when he looks upon the danger as small. The general opinion of the country is that contagious venereal diseases among the natives are alarming, and that they may be communicated to the Europeans. I shall be glad if the Minister will have an enquiry made into the actual condition of things, and particularly into venereal disease among the natives in the Transvaal, and especially in the eastern part of my district, and I do not doubt that he will find that it is certainly necessary to take better steps to combat this terrible and dreaded disease.

I do not think it is necessary to institute a special inquiry in any part of the country. We have a good intelligence service with reference to the prevalence of venereal disease in the country, namely, the district surgeons who exist all over the country, and the Public Health Department continually receives reports about the general condition of health in the districts. The reports do not only deal with what they themselves find in their practices, but also with enquiries they make on behalf of the department. Moreover, we have passed an amending Bill to the Public Health Act this year which makes it compulsory for ordinary practitioners to report cases of venereal diseases to the department when they are convinced that the sufferers are not having themselves properly treated, and are thus forming a danger to the general public. Our intelligence service is thereby further increased, and I do not think a special inquiry is necessary. The hon. member thinks that the department, and other departments give too little attention to the matter, and his reason for thinking so is that so little is said about the subject in certain reports. I do not think we should test the interest of the Department in the matter by that. The hon. member appears to proceed from the assumption that the Public Health Department is responsible for the direct fighting of the disease. That is not the case. Under the Public Health Act the duty rests with local authorities, municipalities, and other bodies, but the law also provides that for all expenditure in connection with venereal disease, they shall receive compensation as to two-thirds from the Treasury. That we have to pay, and if it not paid in any district, it is simply because the local authorities are neglecting to take action.

Does that apply to all local authorities?

Can the Minister compel them to do their duty?

Yes, we have certain rights under the law. Now let me just say what the Public Health Department does directly. There is a hospital for venereal diseases near Johannesburg, which comes directly under the Department; then there are certain centres mentioned in the estimates like Pretoria West, Pietersburg, Elim and other places where the Department does direct work. The hon. member therefore sees that a good deal is being done directly by the gratuitous supply to medical men of remedies for the disease. It must also not be forgotten that the disease is diagnosed free. All doctors can have the disease gratuitously analysed in our laboratory. Generally I want to add that, according to information, the disease is certainly decreasing in the northern part of the Cape Province, and in the western Transvaal, but is increasing in the eastern Transvaal, and in the Transkei. In the Cape Peninsula the position remains as before, very bad.

I want to say a few words about the Sanatorium at Nelspoort. The Minister is perhaps right in certain respects when he says that local bodies do not make enough use of the Nelspoort Sanatorium, but it is not alway the fault of the local bodies. For the most part the blame must be attached to the class of people, coloured and native especially, who do not understand the value of, and the necessity for, hospital treatment for sickness, and are accordingly disinclined to go to hospital. Only a few are convinced that it is the best thing for them to go to Nelspoort, and the result is that you cannot always get the consent of the people. Thus it is not always the fault of the local bodies that insufficient use is made of it, but also of the people who will not use it. Another serious matter in connection with Nelspoort is that it is not nearly large enough to meet the demand for the treatment of tuberculosis. There is far from sufficient provision for all the cases of tuberculosis in the country. We find that it is urged that as many people as possible be sent to the institution who have a chance of getting better, that is people who are only slightly affected. People do not always visit the doctor betimes. The complaint has generally already developed seriously, before they go to the doctor. This is especially the case with coloured people and natives, but also with Europeans. They do not go to the doctor at once, but wait until their condition is very serious. Then, if they are sent to Nelspoort, they are kept there six months and then sent back before they have had a chance of being cured, because room has to be made for other applicants. In this way many people are sent home before they are cured, and it is due to the fact that the institution is much too small for South Africa. Many more institutions are necessary if we would supply the demand. I cannot say it is my experience that the disease is decreasing; according to my information it is increasing. As regards venereal diseases the Minister has said that the department can make treatment compulsory, but unfortunately his administration is not efficient. He has the power, but I think he cannot exercise it. We find that many people do not consider the disease as seriously as they ought to. It is of course thought that the contraction of venereal disease is a disgrace. That idea is fortunately decreasing, but many people get it in an innocent way and still think it a great disgrace to have it. In most cases the disease is not acute. People do not die within six months or so from it. The result is that they are easy in their minds and lull themselves into security and that it is considered less necessary to give immediate notice. The result is that the disease is increasing in families without a stop being put to it. There is the further obligation, and the people imagine that in as much as those places where they can be treated exist, they will have to pay for the treatment, and they are nervous about notifying the doctors of the disease. The doctors will send the people to the magistrate, and they are afraid of that, and the result is that they do not report the matter. Owing to the various ways of notification the people try to hide the occurrence. I cannot say what is to be done. What is necessary is that the people should understand that it is not always shameful to have the disease, that it is not always the consequence of bad conduct or immorality. Sometimes it may be got in an innocent way, and if the public understood this more they would hesitate less to report cases to the doctors. If then more clinics are established such as there are in Cape Town and other places it will help greatly in combating the disease. We must not forget that it may often occur that we ourselves, and our own people contract it. We may be infected in a way we do not expect, and the danger is particularly great because the people who are infected usually continue to live with other people, and do not take care of themselves, so that other innocent people become infected. If the Minister did not merely have that one large hospital, but other establishments in other parts of the country in the large towns, and possibly also in the large villages, and encouraged the local bodies to build clinics and give people an opportunity for treatment and for getting hold of sufferers we should do a good deal towards reducing this dreaded and terrible disease

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is in possession of information in regard to the health conditions in the Herschel district. Herschel has a population of about 40,000 natives. There is only one medical practitioner in the whole of the district. That area has very frequently been subjected to epidemics and on more than one occasion my attention has been directed to the inadequacy of one practitioner for all the cases that occur there.

You mean the district surgeon?

Yes. I would like to know from the Minister whether the one man already there is sufficient to meet the requirements of the district and, if not, will he take steps to remedy the position?

In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) on the question of tuberculosis and venereal diseases, the hon. member complained that Nelspoort is not able to cope with the position of tuberculosis in the country and that there ought to be other establishments. I think that what we ought to be rather ashamed of is that we have got so much tuberculosis in South Africa and I believe a very large amount of that extremely serious position is due to the gross ignorance of the mass of the population in regard to sanitary and health conditions. You find houses with their windows permanently shut up. They seem afraid of fresh air, and that all these sorts of safeguards against the spread of tuberculosis are not used in this country. With our sun and our climate we ought to have the minimum of tuberculosis in this country, and less than in any other country that I know of. The Department of Public Health might do a great deal more by educating the general public throughout the country as to the benefits of fresh air in houses, and open air and cleanliness and all the things that go to make for healthy living. I believe we would reduce the amount of tuberculosis very largely if that were done. Then the question has also been raised of the prevalence of venereal diseases in this country. We know the seriousness of the position in that regard. The hon. member for Paarl has said that we should induce people to come in for treatment and not to conceal its presence, because the disease might be acquired in other than a disgraceful way, and he advocates the establishment of more clinics and so forth. I want to put in a plea for the man living in the veld, in the back areas away from hospitals and from clinics, where the health of a whole farming community can be endangered by one family with this disease rife amongst them. Unknown to the farmer and his family these people who are infected come and work on his farm and in his house. In one case of which I have details it was discovered when the woman concerned was examined that she was in a most dreadful state of contagion with the result that her whole native family was affected and God knows whether the white family which those people were serving have not also contracted the disease, innocently and without their knowledge. I think something ought to be done to see that local authorities carry out their obligations under the Health Act. I believe it is a notifiable disease with a special section to itself and throws the onus upon the local authority which, I am sorry to say, very many of them evade. The evaders do not take any interest in the subject, they do not perhaps realize the great danger to the general health of the community through that disease and they, therefore, rather shirk their responsibility. I think the Minister might go into that matter and see whether something cannot be done to bring it home to the local authority. There is a vast amount of this disease amongst the natives of the northern Transvaal. It is becoming a very serious matter. These people go into domestic service, they go into the towns, they perhaps contract the disease there, but, whatever the cause, the disease is very much on the increase in this country and I am sorry to say it is not looked upon with quite the same amount of opprobrium that it used to be when I was a younger man. I would like also to know whether the Minister is prepared to tell the House and the country what the position is to-day in regard to hospital accommodation throughout the Union. We know that a commission was appointed and reported very fully in a most valuable report which I hold should be carried into effect. The whole position is very serious indeed throughout the country as far as hospital accommodation is concerned. I do not speak with intimate knowledge of the Cape Peninsula, but I believe it is very much accentuated down here. I would like to know what has been and is being done to meet the shortage of hospital accommodation not only in the big centres but in some of the smaller towns of the Union. We all know that it is becoming more and more difficult for hospitals to raise voluntary funds. I suppose it is part of the modern trend that the State should do everything and that individual responsibilities should be reduced. Whatever the causes may be, there is no doubt it is becoming more and more difficult for the hospitals of this country to raise the voluntary funds which they were accustomed to have. I think it is all credit to those voluntary supporters of the hospitals to-day that they are still able to carry on as well as they are doing. It comes down, except for street collections, to a comparatively few people in the various centres who are public spirited enough to subscribe to these hospitals. It is heartbreaking for those who collect. It is becoming almost impossible to get enough funds to make up the difference required. I quite agree with those who say there should be State control in this matter. The health of the community should primarily be the concern of the State, and therefore the hospitals, which are instituted to cure disease and promote the health of the community, ought to be the direct charge of the State and the contributions to these hospitals ought to come from as wide-based a source as possible. I think the hospitals ought to be taken over by the State, and the sooner some provision is made whereby the relations, as regards hospitals, between the Union and the provincial authorities are adjusted, the better for all concerned. I hope the Minister will take into very serious consideration this question of the hospitals and see if he cannot take some steps to get them under the control of the Union authorities and the upkeep of them being the charge of the Union authority and not of the provincial authorities as now. It is a question of accommodation, it is a question of staffs and equipment, it is a question of reducing, perhaps, the number of small hospitals and providing more central and district ones. All that is fully set out in the report of the Hospital Commission. There is another question I want to raise which perhaps will not please local members very much. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister a difficulty which I have already mentioned. It is in connection with infectious diseases on the countryside. If an infectious disease breaks out among the workers on a farm, the farmer notifies the magistrate and asks for a doctor. The magistrate refers the person to the divisional council which refers him to the magistrate, and in this way not only is there delay, but sometimes the death of a person takes place before medical help arrives. I was informed that negotiations were in progress in connection with this matter between the Government and the provincial administration of the Cape Province and I should like the Minister to say whether this is so, and how far the matter has advanced.

Before I deal with the next point I wish to raise, would the Minister mind telling me whether Union funds are contributed towards the building of the new hospital on the spur of the mountain above Observatory?

No. The loan monies might come from the Treasury, but through the provincial administration.

It is purely loan money and the charge comes on the provincial administration only? There is no Union Government contribution at all?

Yes.

Then, as it is purely provincial I have nothing more to say.

I would like to support what has been said by the last speaker in regard to hospitals. I would like to know where we are about this matter. We had a debate in the House, I think last year, in which the needs of the Union for hospital accommodation were very strongly put forward and we are up against this old trouble again about the provincial councils. The hospitals at present are under the control of the provincial councils. The provincial councils deal with the matter on all sorts of different footings. In the Transvaal the hospitals are maintained directly by the provincial council. In the Cape, they are maintained by an indirect system whereby the public have to contribute so much, and the provincial council so much. But the result of all this is that the hospital accommodation provided throughout the Union is far below the minimum which we are told is necessary. We appoint commissions. The provincial council appoint committees. The Union Government appoint another commission, and so on we go, and all these bodies that are appointed tell us the same thing, that our hospital accommodation is lamentably short of the minimum requirements of the Union. But nothing is done. The provincial councils are still considering the matter, and while they consider the matter the needs grow and nothing is done. The Union Government say, "It is not our affair, we cannot do anything in the matter." There you have another instance in which, owing to this ridiculous division of functions between the Union Government and the provincial councils, you have a national requirement of the highest importance simply neglected. The needs grow and the accommodation diminishes. When that debate came on in this House, the Minister of Finance, by way of trying to satisfy the requirements put forward by hon. members, said the Union Government was going to do something. They were going to put at the disposal of the provincial councils in the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal, very large sums to enable them to proceed with the building of large hospitals in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town respectively. That is being done I suppose. I do not know what is being done in Pretoria and Bloemfontein.

They are going on.

But we know what is happening here. Thousands of pounds are being poured into the ground in levelling the ground. A site has been selected and I think the estimate is £50,000 before a penny can be spent on building. When that hospital is finished, according to the estimates which I have seen, it is going to cost £1,200 per bed or perhaps more. Can we afford that kind of thing when the country elsewhere is crying out for accommodation? People are sick. They can get no hospital accommodation and here we are spending colossal sums in building a hospital when the needs of the people could be provided for far less. I think this is another case which shows us we are simply continuing a system of wanton extravagance, of inefficient provision for our needs by this ridiculous division of functions between the Union Government and the provinces. I do hope the Minister will be able to tell us he at any rate will try to do something or has some hope of being able to bring some kind of pressure to bear on the people concerned to see that something is done to meet the need for hospital accommodation throughout this country. At present it is not being done and the money that was put at the disposal of the authorities down here is being spent in what seems to me to be a needlessly extravagant manner. Money is being spent here which could be far better used on some more economical system.

The Minister gave us some interesting figures with regard to the maintenance of leper institutions. We want the Minister to give us the ratio of the number of patients to the expenditure. Has there been a decrease in the number of patients, and if so, what is the cause?

I see at the bottom of page 103 refunds and advances to local authorities £35,000. Will the Minister give some information regarding that item. I would also like to know what is the result of the enquiry into the maladministration of the stores in the Pretoria asylum.

I see on page 116 there is an amount of £3,500 for special plague measures. Perhaps my hon. friend can give us some information; whether he has been able to stop or to check it.

Last year we referred to the fact that certain medical students were being trained at Fort Hare. Provision is made for a two years' course, which is not sufficient.

That comes under Education

I would like to utter a few words in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) in connection with medical provision for native areas. I have a letter from a native in the Herschel district—

I think it is a well-known fact that there is a tremondous mortality in these native areas in the Ciskei—from typhus and enteric—and in view of the extra taxation imposed by the Government in the last year or two on natives, I hope the Minister will take into serious consideration appointing medical officers in these areas. The matter was raised last year and the year before, and the Minister promised to take it into consideration. I hope he will provide European doctors and nursing facilities. Tuberculosis is also spreading very rapidly in these areas. Natives contract silicosis, or phthisis, in the first instance on the mines, and come back with pneumonic trouble. This will mean that in the next 15 to 20 years, instead of having large masses of natives able to work on the farms or mines, we may find they will not be physically able to do the work. I hope the Minister will take this matter into very careful consideration and see if nothing can be done to improve the facilities for medical inspection and control in these areas. The matter is one of vital importance.

I do not see the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten) here, but he asked an important question which I want to answer. He asked what was being done to solve the great difficulty existing in recent years in connection with medical treatment of poor people by district surgeons in the Cape Province. The Cape Provincial Council passed an ordinance by which permission was given to district surgeons to treat poor people on the request of a municipality, if the poor people lived within its limits, or at the request of a Divisional Council if they came within its jurisdiction. This legislation, of course, led to much inconvenience. In cases where the request had to come from the Divisional Council, which possibly only met once a month, the sufferer heeding medical treatment died in the meantime. Although the district surgeons are appointed and paid by the Union Government they do a part of their work amongst the poor people and the provincial administrations are liable for that. The money can be recovered from such administrations. It is arranged between the Union and the provinces, and without the Auditor-General having questioned it, the Union Government, through its district surgeons is doing more for the poor people than is authorised under the constitution. By virtue of an ordinance the Cape Provincial Council has dedicated its powers to the local bodies but it goes without saying that the Union Government has difficulty in dealing with all the local bodies. This was brought to the notice of the Administrator and he undertook to introduce an ordinance to rectify matters, an ordinance to lay down that the poor people can indeed be treated but not on the request of the local bodies, but of the magistrate, as was the case before. The Administrator did so, and the ordinance was passed by the Provincial Council. The matter is therefore now in order.

†The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) and the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) have spoken of the inadequacy of the provision for medical attendance especially to natives in their particular constituencies. District surgeons are appointed by the Department of Public Health in the native territories just as well as in other parts of the Union. The general rule is to appoint district surgeons to do Government work. If we appointed them merely to have doctors in certain centres, we would come in conflict with the Auditor-General for there is no law under which I could do that. The appointment must be justified by the amount of Government work. There are quite a number of centres desiring to have a district surgeon and the general rule is for them to make representations to me, and I refer the matter to the local magistrate for inquiry and report and if the amount of Government work to be done justifies it, and if there are funds, I appoint a district surgeon.

We want district surgeons for visiting far off centres.

I will go into that matter when it is represented to me. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has raised the question of tuberculosis. A very important step has been taken in that matter during last year. It was arranged in collaboration with the Public Health Department and the League of Nations to have an inquiry into the whole position in South Africa and to undertake research work. The money is to be found in this way. The Union will contribute £2,000, the Chamber of Mines will contribute £2,000 and a similar amount will be given by the board of control in connection with the native deferred pay fund. So in all £6,000 will be available.

To enquire into miners' phthisis.

No, tuberculosis generally. As to educating the public quite a number of very useful pamphlets have been published by the department for distribution throughout the country. These pamphlets are doing excellent work by bringing general health matters to the attention of the public generally.

They do not reach the class that requires instruction most, as it cannot read.

The departments distribute the pamphlets very largely throughout municipalities. We cannot undertake to distribute them ourselves. As far as hospitals are concerned, I met the four Administrators and discussed the whole position with them. It was agreed that we should try and review the whole position, by the Union taking upon itself certain responsibilities which in the ordinary course would have devolved upon the shoulders of the provincial authorities. In order to obtain uniformity as much as possible throughout the Union regarding hospital instruction and administration the Union Government undertook to inspect all hospitals throughout the country. We appointed an Inspector of Hospitals and he is doing very useful work. In that way we have a much more unified and effective system of hospital administration than existed before. For the guidance of Provincial administrations in formulating their policies for the future, a hospital survey was undertaken by the Union Health Department. The commission for that purpose has reported and the report has been sent to the provincial administrations. That report lays down a policy for the future—not necessarily the immediate future —so that money spent on hospitals will be disbursed in the most economical way. I daresay the provincial administrations will be guided by that general plan which has been placed at their disposal. Further, the Minister of Finance has undertaken to place at the disposal of the provincial administrations loan monies for the erection of hospitals where they are most necessary in certain important centres, and some of the provincial administrations have availed themselves of that offer. I think that is certain a considerable step forward. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) has asked whether there is a decrease generally of leprosy in the country. The information we have shows that there is generally a decrease of leprosy especially in the Union itself. I cannot say there is a decrease of leprosy in the native territories. It is very difficult to discover cases in the native areas and according to the report I have there are quite a large number of lepers there at large. As I pointed out the other day the policy of discharging the arrested cases has had this good effect, that the leper institutions are considered now by lepers more in the light of hospitals, and this has facilitated very much the discovery of cases. In many cases they come forward voluntarily now to these asylums. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Giovanetti) has asked what the meaning is of a certain item on the vote. It refers to a refund by the Union Government to local authorities for capital expenditure in connection with isolation hospitals and infectious diseases.

Is that the total amount they have spent?

We pay half of the expenditure, and in the case of venereal diseases two-thirds. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked about plague. I made an exhaustive statement to the House a few weeks ago which was printed in the papers. The only new thing I can add is that while in that statement I indicated that there was very strong suspicion of plague in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth, that suspicion has been confirmed now. There has been an outbreak of plague among rodents in the immediate vicinity of Port Elizabeth.

A paper written by the secretary for Public Health and read before the Imperial Social Hygiene Congress at Wembley in October, 1925, has been referred to by the hon. member for Lydenbnrg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). I wonder whether the Minister could account for some of the extraordinary statements made in that paper, that seem to be widely at variance with one's observation of the spread of venereal disease among natives. The secretary for Public Health said—

This was a paper that received a wide publicity. It was read before the Imperial Social Hygiene Congress. The secretary for Public Health estimated that the highest rate for natives in any part of the Union was under 3 per cent. It seems to me that without a very much wider survey, authoritative statements such as this should not go out to the world. From a very intimate knowledge of the native districts I venture to say that nobody yet knows even the approximate extent to which venereal disease is spreading amongst the natives, because the natives do not come under clinical observation at all. The number of natives who come under any observation at the hands of European medical officers is only a tithe of the total. I quite agree there is a good deal of exaggeration on the part of people as to the alarming extent to which disease actually does prevail, but on the other hand I think it is dangerous for our responsible health officer to make the statement that the highest rate reached by the natives in any part of the Union is under 3 per cent. I am sure further examination of this subject on any methodical scale would prove that statement to be altogether too optimistic. In the Medical Journal for November, 1926, Sir Edward Thornton publishes a paper on the French medical services for natives and draws a comparison between the diseases that prevail among natives there and the diseases that prevail in South Africa. Could the Minister tell us whether he has carefully considered the desirability of introducing native medical services in this country somewhat after the pattern of the French medical services? Can the Minister tell us who has been appointed to succeed Dr. Fernandez as port health officer at Durban?

I cannot at the moment say who has been appointed in his stead or whether any appointment has been made, but perhaps I can give the information in a moment. Let me say that the statement made by the Secretary for Public Health in a lecture overseas was based on investigations that have been made and are continually being made, in this country by practically the only means at the disposal of the department, and that is in prisons, where the inmates are drawn from the lowest and the most criminal classes. It is to be expected that if there is some incidence of venereal disease in the population generally it would be worse among that class. It is not to be expected that venereal disease would be worse among other classes of the population than among prisoners. I think that is a reasonable conclusion. Now, investigating the position amongst prisoners everywhere in the country, it has been found that the percentage of prisoners suffering from venereal disease is not as large as people generally think. On these figures, which have been published in the annual report of the Department of Public Health in 1922, that statement I believe was based, and there are no other figures available upon which any other statement can be made. With regard to the successor to Dr. Fernandez, as port health officer in Durban, his successor is Dr. Batchelor, who was for some time, I believe, district surgeon or additional district, surgeon of Pretoria.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 24, " Native Affairs," £334,612,

I would like to raise one or two questions on this vote. First of all, we have had no report from the Native Affairs Department. My hon. friend, the Minister, has got here three native commissioners and yet we have had no report. Then I want to raise the question that I raised last year, and that is why the Minister does not have an economic survey made of some of the native areas, for instance, Herschel. We have reason to believe that the natives are going back from an economic point of view. I see the Minister has got on his staff one ethnologist. We have had no report from him and I would very much like to see a report by an ethnologist on the native people. Another matter is that I see the Auditor-General, on page 207 of his report, states—

How did the Minister come to buy separate farms in these other districts? I thought he was going in for a segregation policy and that, in the circumstances, he would buy farms in one district, more or less.

The Minister of Native Affairs will remember that two or three years ago we passed new taxation measures in which provision was made for a native development fund. The natives throughout the country are complaining that they have no means of ascertaining how this revenue is expended. The natives are asking that they should be given some means of ascertaining exactly what revenue accrues and how it is expended. The Minister will reply that the Auditor-General's report gives the details, but I think, perhaps, he might attach some statement to the estimates he places before the House showing the natives they are getting a certain amount back out of this revenue which they contribute. I put that forward as a suggestion. At present the native seems to think that the only function we carry out is to tax him. I noticed a few days ago in a Transvaal paper an account of a local council established up there. A sum of £995 was provided by the Native Affairs Department for that council. A native writer says—

Apparently the natives realise what a benefit it is going to be to the natives in the Transvaal. The natives in other parts of the country should be told that this money is ready for expenditure by them. Take the Herschel council, for instance. It seems to me it would be the simplest matter in the world to tell the natives: " the taxation is available from this local tax and it is for you natives to form a council to spend this money, of course under the control of the Native Affairs Department." If something on these lines were done the Minister would find a local council would be established very quickly indeed. Some method should be arranged to let the natives see exactly what happens to this money. There is another point I wish to raise and this is becoming an annual sort of complaint, but I think it is a serious one. The Minister two years ago promised that he would make provisions for divorce cases in the Transkeian territories. He issued a proclamation doing away with the courts that had been established for the last 40 years. He knows the native cannot afford to go to Grahamstown and pay approximately £50 to obtain a divorce. The result is that to-day the natives are complaining. A resolution was passed again this year by the native council that provision should be made. If the Minister does not want the natives to get married according to Christian custom and to get a divorce in the same way as we do, let him tell them so, but as he promised he would make provision I think the time has arrived when it should be done. No provision has been made at all. I hope he will take that matter into consideration and bring about some amelioration of the position as soon as possible. The third point is in connection with the appointment of the chief inspector of schools in native areas. The mater was raised in the Provincial Council a few days ago. In 1917, a commission sat to deal with native education in the Cape Province, of which I was a member; Europeans and natives sat together. It is the only instance of which I know in which there were Europeans and natives on a commission. There was a unanimous recommendation that a chief inspector of native education should be appointed in the Cape Province. An appointment was made which has given great satisfaction, and they look upon the Inspector, Mr. Bennie, as a connecting link between them and the Department of Education. He is, I understand, retiring very shortly, and a successor should he appointed. It was stated recently that owing to lack of funds the position would he done away with; if that is done it would be the worst day's work that could be done. The natives appreciate the appointment. I do hope that the Minister, through the Native Affairs Commission, or whoever is responsible, will see that the appointment is maintained. A point that seems to me rather strange is the reduction in the amount for the relief of distress in native areas. Last year £7,250 was provided, but the amount is reduced this year to £1,250. I do not know what the Minister's advice is, but he must realize that there is much more distress this year amongst natives in the Ciskei than ever existed before. It, is much more likely to be an amount of £12,500 towards the end of the year. Recently I saw a statement in one of the papers that in one location they had lost 5,000 head of cattle, 25,000 sheep and 15,000 goats. The position is very serious at the present time.

I wish also to emphasize that this amount voted for the relief of native distress is very small for the present time. If the distress which was prevalent last year demanded an amount of £7,500, to-day, I can assure the Minister, the condition of the natives in our Eastern Province areas is a most deplorable one. I do not think the Minister realises to what an extent the impoverishment and distress amongst natives has attained to-day. For years the natives have gone steadily back in maintaining themselves. To-day you will find poverty and distress which are almost incredible. The native to-day can just make a bare existence and they are helping each other in this distress. I hope the Prime Minister will investigate the position and do what he can to alleviate the distress. In what way is the £200 put down for grants for industrial purposes for the benefit of natives to be spent? The sum seems a very small and insignificant one to have any practical effect. I assure the Prime Minister that the distress among the natives needs very careful investigation, for the position is a very serious one, the crops of the natives having failed for the last three years.

With reference to the native divorce court, in the Transkeian territories, it was an institution which was thoroughly appreciated by the people concerned. For some reason or other, I believe owing to the stress of work which fell on the chief magistrate, the court was discontinued and every year since we have had a promise that the court would be restored. At first it was to be restored by proclamation and then we were given to understand that provision for its restoration would be made in the Native Administration Bill. Subsequently it was stated that the matter would be out of place in such a measure and again the promise was made that the matter would be dealt with by proclamation. Then it was stated that under the Native Administration Bill an appeal board would be appointed, the president of which would be the divorce officer. We thought that would settle the matter, but still no appointment has been made, although it is a very urgent necessity. I do hope that the Minister will see that there is no further delay.

This subject has not been forgotten but we hope it will he dealt with very soon. The Native Administration Bill is throwing a tremendous lot of work upon the shoulders of the department. Fortunately the department has now almost finished with this very great work, and as soon as that is done we shall know exactly how to deal with the native divorce court. I think the best way out of the matter will be to entrust it to the president of the native appeal court. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) raised the question of the relief of distress by £1,300. I know it is quite likely that it will not be sufficient but it may also be that it will be sufficient, and if it is not, it has been arranged with the Treasury that we shall get as much as is necessary. There need be no fear with regard to that, but we would rather put down too little than put down a large sum and use only a small portion which you may almost say creates a tendency to spend unnecessarily. The Treasury has found this and because of that it has laid stress that we should rather put down the minimum and then come for anything more that may be required later.

What is being done at present?

The magistrates have full instructions that wherever there is any relief required, they are to see that relief is given in the way of employment wherever the man can be made use of. I may say, amongst other things, in the districts where you have to-day the jointed cactus these people are employed, paid, and supplied with food and put to the job of eradicating the jointed cactus.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee to-morrow.