I move—

I do not think that it is necessary to say anything now; I think all hon. members feel that the time has come for the step. I may also say that I hope to finish the work at the end of May, or if that is not possible, during the first week of June in any case.

seconded.

We are all very pleased to hear that. It is very good news. The Prime Minister has been keeping us here with a short interval since the middle of October, I believe, and we are all getting very tired, and I hope this means we shall shorten the proceedings as much as possible. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to give the House any indication of the legislation which is considered necessary, and which we must put through, because I do think we have had an awful time this last year and this year, and we really ought not to prolong the session unduly. It is not in the interests of the country. I hope he will be able to tell us the minimum programme that the Government is anxious to carry out, so that we may get home as soon as possible, and to our constituencies, and attend to the affairs of the country generally.

Yes; I should like to do so as far as I can. Beyond the ordinary financial measures there is no intention of adding anything to the four or five matters which are now on the order paper. There is, in the first place, the Liquor Bill; I think all hon. members would like to see this Bill disposed of now. Then there is the Electoral Amendment Bill, which is not very contentious, and the Naturalisation of Aliens (South-West Africa) Bill, which is a small and unimportant matter, I think. Further there is the Factories Further Amendment Bill, and the Industrial Conciliation (Amendment) Bill. Those embrace practically the whole Government programme.

The Food, Drugs, and Disinfectants Bill which is now in Select Committee.

Oh, yes, that also is not contentious. With regard to the Native Bills, I do not, in accordance with the feelings of all members of the select committee, I think, intend to go further with them than merely get them out of the select committee, and leave them for further consideration by the public until the next session.

And the Irrigation Bill?

No, that will also merely come out of select committee and be before the public until next session. I think that is very advisable because it is an important matter.

What about old age pensions?

It is included amongst those of a financial nature. Then there is still a small amendment in the constitution of the Reserve Bank, but that is also of minor importance.

And Order No. 11?

Order No. 11 will stand over until I have succeeded in doing what I always said I hoped to do.

Motion put and agreed to.

For the convenience of the committee I think it might be as well if I briefly summarise some of the rules and practice which govern debate in Committee of Supply. I think it is already understood that the main principle which governs debate in Committee of Supply is relevancy to the items contained in the Vote proposed from the chair. I do not think, however, it is generally realized that under our rules questions of policy can only be discussed on Votes containing a Minister’s salary and that only details of administration can be discussed on other Votes. In this connection I should add that while members are ordinarily limited to speeches of ten minutes, two members may each speak for forty minutes if they each specifically and bona fide challenge a Minister’s salary on some specific question of policy by way of amendment. When a Minister holds more than one portfolio, members who desire to avail themselves of the “forty minutes” rule should move a reduction of the Vote which contains the Minister’s salary. Questions of policy on the Prime Minister’s Vote may range over every Government department, but questions of policy on other Ministers’ ’Votes are confined to matters for which they are personally responsible. It should also be borne in mind that matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee and that it is irregular to continue the “budget debate” when the House is in Committee.

On a point of order, may I ask you to make clearer the position of a Minister holding more than one portfolio; take for instance, the Minister of the Interior, who is also Minister of Public Health and Minister of Education. If we want to discuss a question of policy on public health and on education, we can do so only on “Minister of the Interior.” Is that so?

On the Minister’s vote; of course, that is as far as the forty minutes’ rule is concerned.

I know that is so as far as the forty minutes’ rule is concerned. I understood from you, Mr. Chairman, that no question of policy could be raised on those votes, but they can be raised while the vote for “Interior” is being discussed, because there the Minister’s salary is discussed.

Is that a fair thing to the committee—that a general question of public health, and policy in regard to public health, should be discussed in connection with a vote on some other portfolio? I submit that before you, Mr. Chairman, give a definite ruling on that point, the opinion of the House be taken. It is quite usual for one Minister to hold more than one portfolio, and the work of these has nothing to do with each other.

If hon. members wish to avail themselves of the forty minutes’ rule they can do so only by moving a reduction in the salary of the particular Minister concerned; as far as other votes is concerned hon. members will be permitted to discuss policy, but not avail themselves of the forty minutes rule.

On Vote 2, “Senate,” £39,755,

May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is possible to take some precaution with regard to safety in regard to the grounds surrounding the Senate. Recently I was the witness of what might have proved a very serious accident, but for the presence of mind of the parties concerned. A motor car was being driven from Parliament Street into the entrance gate to the Senate grounds when Mr. Speaker was about to make his exit by motor car from the grounds into Parliament Street by the same gate, and the absence of view made a collision almost inevitable. Is it not feasible to reserve, and mark by notice board one gate for exit and the other for entrance to the grounds?

Does the hon. member mean the entry and exit to the motor ground in the grounds of the House? I am afraid I have nothing whatever to do with that.

It is the committee.

The hon. member had better address his question to “external plus internal arrangements,” to get the satisfaction he desires. I am quite willing to do it, and to take action, if it comes within my province. At the moment I am perusing correspondence between myself and the city council and certain legal people in Cape Town with regard to the " illegal closing” of Parliament Street. An order has been requested of restraint, and it has been suggested that we should accept a curtailment of the hours of closing that street from 2 to 5 p.m. I have just made notes on the point, but my reply is that the times we are closing now are too short, because you have the House sitting until 11 o’clock at night.

On a point of order, is the Minister in order in discussing matters outside the Estimates?

Oh, I do not want to discuss it.

The question has been put; I think the Minister might reply.

I would like to ask the Minister for information about the reported widening of Parliament Street. I do so because it affects both the Senate and the House of Assembly. I understand there was some intention on behalf of the Public Works Department to take off a slice of our ground, so as to improve Parliament Street. I saw a sketch in a newspaper a short time ago giving information about this. Is this going on, and if so, will it be open to hon. members or the committee of the House to see the plans before the work is put into operation, because I understand it will take off a large portion of land that is now enclosed, and I think Parliament ought to be consulted before anything is done in that respect.

Do I understand that Mr. Chairman rules that we cannot discuss the question of regulations regarding traffic approaching Parliament?

There is no item on the Vote in connection with the matter, but in connection with joint parliamentary gardens I think I could allow the hon. member to discuss it.

I don’t want to discuss the question of the gardens, but the question of how I can get into the parliamentary gardens. It appears to me that the restrictions which have been placed on traffic in Parliament Street are entirely unnecessary. I do not see that the House is inconvenienced by traffic going down Parliament Street, but a great deal of inconvenience has been caused to the public and to members of the House by the traffic restrictions, for which I do not see any justification.

I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that. Last session I saw the Mayor and I said to Kim “It is very clear to me that one of these days shortly you will have a member of Parliament killed in Parliament Street.” I also told him “The moment that happens, you may be absolutely sure no-one will object to the moving of the capital from here.”

Then Cape Town will keep it.

Hon. members may laugh, but I tell them this, that twice already I have been on the point of being ridden over. As to my hon. friend here, if it had not been that I caught hold of him by his shoulder and pulled him back, he would have been killed by this time.

What time was this?

In the middle of the day.

Was it after dinner?

This is the most dangerous street you can come across for traffic. I take it that it is in the interests of Cape Town especially that something be done, and I am only too glad to see that measures have been taken to curtail traffic in this street. I do not know why, but people travelling in motor cars coming down the street always seem to think they have the right to travel twice as fast as those coming from the other direction. As far as I am concerned, the moment a member of Parliament is killed, that will be the moment when I will say I am no longer going to be a party to keeping this Legislative Assembly in the centre of danger as it is at present.

We have heard many extraordinary statements from the Prime Minister, but I don’t think I have ever heard a more extraordinary statement before from a man in the Prime Minister’s positron, to say that the question of the removal of the legislature from Cape Town depends on whether Parliament Street is closed from 11 to 5 p.m.

He did not say that.

The Prime Minister also seems to think that the life of a member of Parliament is far more valuable than the life of any other of his Majesty’s subjects. I suppose he refers to lives of members of Parliament sitting on his side of the House. He does not mind so much whether the lives of members of Parliament on this side are taken away. There is a very strong feeling in Cape Town about the closing of Parliament Street. I recognize the disadvantage caused by the noise, especially in the forenoon, but if proper regulations were carried out whereby motor cycles and cars would be obliged to have efficient silencers, there would not be such a noise, and there would not be the same danger if the traffic were regulated. There is a great deal of danger in this street, and also in other streets.

No.

The place where the barrier is placed across Parliament Street is not nearly so dangerous as the corner near the old Supreme Court buildings which, to my mind, is one of the most dangerous corners in Cape Town. The barrier is not for the saving of the lives of members of Parliament, but for the convenience of Ministers and Government officers, so that there shall not be such a great noise of traffic in the forenoon. As far as Parliament is concerned, we don’t hear the traffic when we are sitting in this chamber. I don’t think the Prime Minister is doing himself justice when he says the determination of whether the Act of Union shall be carried out in its entirety so far as the legislative and administrative capital is concerned depends on whether the Corporation of Cape Town legally or illegally closes Parliament Street to traffic.

I support the Minister of Public Works in his endeavour to have Parliament Street closed to vehicular traffic. I am sorry that Ministers are subjected to a great deal of noise in their offices in the morning, but I hope to see the whole of Parliament Street pulled down and a new street of parliamentary offices erected in its place, the area to be brought into the parliamentary zone. I agree with the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the most dangerous place is the corner of Bureau Street and Parliament Street, but that danger can quite easily be obviated. You have only to pull down the old Supreme Court building, which should be done, and it is up to the city council to provide some other means of exit for the traffic. Traffic is constantly growing in Cape Town and as the traffic increases it will be very necessary for easier access to be provided from the main part of Cape Town up to the De Waal Drive. As to the Prime Minister’s remarks regarding the danger members of Parliament are placed in when they cross Parliament Street, I agree with him that Pretoria is a very nice quiet place, but if that is the reason for removing the Parliamentary capital from Cape Town, then remove it to Pampoendorp or some other place where there can be no danger from motor traffic. But surely we are not going to take up the position that because the city and the traffic are increasing that is a reason for shifting the legislative capital from Cape Town to some other place. However, I do not take the Prime Minister’s remarks on that point seriously. I am satisfied that Cape Town is so much the more comfortable and pleasant place for Parliament to meet in that there is very little liklihood of Parliament leaving this neighbourhood. At the same time, we should not try to prevent the Minister of Public Works carrying out a reasonable alteration.

I hope the Government will not go the length of making any further improvements in Parliament Street. I think we should look at it from a broader view-point, of what will be the best for the Union in future. For a long time there has been talk about the removal of the parliamentary capital. I do not say it must be removed to Pampoendorp, as the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has argued.

The hon. member cannot continue a discussion as to which town should be the parliamentary capital.

I am very sorry, but I do not know what the hon. member meant by Pampoendorp. I want to go to Pretoria. I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s warning that, if certain things do not take place, Parliament will be removed from Cape Town. My difficulty is, which of us members of Parliament we must sacrifice to have the seat of Parliament removed. I think the greatest scapegoat is the Minister of Labour. I thought that he grew up in a workshop where hard things were hammered, and that he was not much worried by noise. If the Government makes the alterations in Parliament Street, it will interfere with us later on in connection with the transfer.

I suggest that the time has come when it is necessary to devote the whole of the space of the Parliament grounds adjoining Parliament Street to an area for parking motor cars. The congestion already is very considerable, and I think most hon. members will agree with me as to the difficulty there is in taking their cars in and out of Parliament grounds, especially in the evening. Many, indeed, have suffered damage from cars being so congested and so close together that it has been almost impossible to avoid their coming into collision. Again, we find very often that some delay occurs in getting one’s car out, because there is no recognized system nor arrangement for the proper parking of cars. After the next general election we shall have an increase of 14 members, which will tend to increase the congestion. Personally I can see no good reason for delaying to place the whole of that space between the old Supreme Court buildings and Government House grounds abutting on Parliament Street for use for the parking of cars. I, for one, hope this matter will receive attention before we assemble for next session.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) is taking a very painful interest in the question as to who is to be the sacrifice which is going to cause machinery to get to work to remove Parliament from here to Pretoria. It is obvious it will have to be one member from this side of the House, because he is going to be killed by a motor car and most of the motor cars are owned by members on the other side.

What about the Minister of Labour 2

We are endeavouring to take time by the forelock.

What about hiring— £900 in one year?

I will come to that in due course, and I think he will find that the £900 will fall into insignificance when compared with certain sums expended by other persons in this House. The hon. member foreshadows, quite rightly, the addition of 14 members at the next general election, and he deduces from that that there is going to be an increased congestion of motor car traffic. All indications go to prove that those 14 members will be returned on this side of the House, and this being a poor party the probabilities are that there will be no more cars.

Take Government cars.

Of course, if it hurts hon. member’s feelings if they have a little sarcasm poured out upon them they should not intervene in debate. The only matters that do require any serious comment are those points put forward by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). I want to say to the hon. member for Dundee that the boundary between the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department and that of the House is sharply defined indeed, and the question of the closing of Parliament Street and the widening or shortening of Parliament House grounds—the one falls within the province of the House itself, and the other comes under the Public Works Department. Naturally, if there were any question of widening Parliament Street at the expense of Parliament House grounds, it would have to be, perhaps, by our request, but certainly by the decision of the House itself. I do not know where he gets his information from, because I am ignorant of any intention or thought in the direction of widening Parliament Street at the expense of Parliament House grounds. I can tell him that the Government has in contemplation, if, of course, we do not remove Parliament from Cape Town to Pretoria or elsewhere, the idea of doing precisely what the hon. member for Newlands has outlined. That is, rather than restricting Parliament House grounds, to widen it. That bears out the point of view of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), that the whole of this area should undoubtedly be included in Parliament House grounds. Parliament Street should be ripped up. There should not be a vehicular thoroughfare there at all. Certainly there might be a pedestrian right of way. That goes without saying, as you have it in Parliament House grounds anyhow. Vehicles should not be going up and down there. The ground is much too congested, and it ought to be thrown into Parliament House grounds. We will have to consider the desirability ultimately of taking most, if not all, of what is now Government House grounds for Parliament, that is if Parliament remains here. I am throwing this out as a matter for consideration.

Not for a bowling green, I hope.

The hon. member is quite unable to disport himself on the bowling green. But if there were anything he had an interest in, he might consider it much more favourably than he does a bowling green. I was accused a little while ago of levity. Why that interjection when I am endeavouring to outline what may possibly happen? Of course, it will mean provision for his Excellency of another place in town, but you will sometime or another have to face the necessity for taking in that portion of the grounds and limiting Parliament House grounds to that boundary. Certainly Parliament Street must be torn up, and I have already tentatively dealt with the matter with the Mayor and a certain deputation that came with regard to Parliament Street? It also includes the possibility, certainly the desirability, and I subscribe to it, of removing the old Supreme Court buildings, which cause a danger spot.

You will not be there to do that.

My hon. friend is wonderfully optimistic.

There is no doubt about it.

There are a lot of things my hon. friend has had no doubt about that have fallen to the ground. However, that is quite by the way. That is the suggestion that has been made, the idea being to make an exchange of Parliament Street and some other concessions that we might require for the State, to make an exchange of that for the old Supreme Court building. Then the city council can do what it likes with the old Supreme Court building. They can pull the building down or leave it there as they like, but if they are well advised, they will rip the building out, especially as you are perpetuating something that is not altogether desirable in that particular portion.

Oh !

That is the position. I cannot decide, the Government cannot decide and does not wish to decide upon curtailing the grounds around Parliament House. That is for Parliament to decide. No such project is in view, but we have considered the advisability of increasing the area by tearing up Parliament Street, making gardens all round the House itself, flanked by a row of up-to-date offices which will house the whole of the Government departments

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 3, “House of Assembly,” £129,249,

With some reluctance, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance. The salaries of members were fixed by Act 57 of 1926, and the point I wish to ask him about is this penalty of £6 a day. I have felt personally, and I know that a good many members feel with me, that this penalty is a very savage impost.

No, the hon. member can ask a question.

I want to ask the Minister a question, and I hope I shall be allowed to state the case in order to put the question.

Then I should not allow the question at all, because what the hon. member appears to suggest is some alteration in legislation.

I do not suggest at this moment any alteration in legislation. I merely wanted to ask the Minister his opinion upon this matter. I do know that a great many hon. members feel as I do that this impost is a very harsh and savage one.

I am sorry, I cannot allow this to go on.

In connection with our telegraph and telephone service I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, owing to the abolition of free calls for members of Parliament outside the urban area, the State has very much benefitted. According to the Estimates before us there is only a difference of £100 compared with last year. If I remember rightly the prohibition in question commenced at the end of the previous session, and, although it is not very important to our finances, it is of very great value to the country for members of Parliament to be given facilities for free calls. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has, I understand, no objection to it, and as far as I can find out no extra staff is required. It is just a question of keeping account of how much is, and how much is not spent. Another point in this connection is that hon. members inside the town area are entitled to free calls, in other words, members inside the town area, or who have their business inside the town area, have privileges which hon. members outside of it do not possess, and they make very frequent use of them, while hon. members outside the town do not have similar facilities and advantages. It is said that the privilege is sometimes abused; that is possible, but that does not obviate the fact that, in consequence of the abuse by some members, the members who live far away, such as those from the Free State, pay a great deal for a six minutes’ conversation, and members living close by do not have that expense. Then I think it is a slight on the representatives of the South African people to deprive them of free telephone service. They represent the whole people, and they ought to be able to fill the position with dignity, but it looks to me as if they they are being treated like schoolchildren who may not do this, and must leave the other undone. When hon. members want to telephone to the Transvaal they have sometimes to wait for hours at the Post Office to get a connection, and this causes much inconvenience and loss of time. In asking this, I think many hon. members will agree with me, and I want to ask the Minister to meet us and remove the restriction.

I hope my hon. friend won’t agree to this at all. There is always some extra perquisite wanted. Now you want free telephones. It has been abused, so I am informed. That is the reason why it was taken away. One member of this House used frequently to telephone some hundreds of miles down the country. I hope my hon. friend will stand firm on this, in fact, I understand it rests with one of the committees of the House. Put the responsibility on to them.

This question has been dealt with before, is still being dealt with, and will be dealt with to-morrow again by the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Oredrs, and I think it ought to be left in the hands of that committee. Honestly, I say straight out that I have not been in favour of it. There are great difficulties in connection with this matter, and so far I have not felt that I was justified, and I do not feel at present justified, in supporting anything of that kind. My hon. friend (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) forgets this that when, a few years ago, the honoraria of members of Parliament were taken into consideration, this was one of the questions which it was felt that it was necessary to take into account, and it was actually taken into account when the honoraria were fixed on their present scale. Honestly I did think that no further attempt would be made to insist upon this. We have seriously discussed the thing in select committee, and the difficulties in connection with it are so many that everybody, although really in some measure sympathizing with the idea of giving every facility possible to hon. members, felt that we could not go as far as that. That is how the position stands to-day. As I have said, we shall again consider it to-morrow.

I hope the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders will not agree to restore the privilege of long distance telephone calls. I can remember waiting, for a considerable time while an hon. member was conversing with a place as distant as Pretoria, in fact, by the way he raised his voice he might easily have been heard in Holland. I wish to raise a more serious question, and that is the right of the Government to remit penalties which an hon, member has become nable for, through absence from Parliament beyond the period permitted by the Act. The matter was raised by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) by question, and there were revealed two cases in which hon. members who had incurred a considerable penalty through their absence from this House—and we can only assume to the neglect of the interests of their constituencies—had had the money refunded to them by the Government, notwithstanding the fact that the law imposes this penalty upon them for absenting themselves for a longer period than the days of grace allowed by the Act. This involves a very serious principle. It involves the independence of members of Parliament. It might well be that if the Government went in for this practice on a grand scale a number of members would have their independence undermined. They would avoid the legal penalty against neglecting the interests of their constituents and virtually be in the pay of the Government for absenting themselves from Parliament. I think it is a matter we should raise a strong protest against. It is highly irregular, and I hope we shall have some explanation as to the extent to which this practice is going to be employed in the future. I am not discussing the merits of the cases referred to. They may be entirely justifiable although up to the present they have not been justified. I think in one case the remission amounted to £100 or more.

I think the hon. member is mistaken. There has been no remission of penalties by the Government. The penalties were exacted in terms of the legislation, but what happened was that the Government remitted or rather compensated the hon. members who were employed on commission work for the penalties which they had to pay, or rather the allowances which they would otherwise have been entitled to and which had been forfeited. There is no intention of extending this practice at all. I do not like the practice, but, in the particular cases referred to, the hon. members were not appointed by the Government while Parliament was sitting, but they were sent as the result of the special resolution passed by the commission on which they were sitting, that is, the Old Age Pensions Commission. The two hon. members proceeded to Europe to the Geneva sitting of the League where this matter was being discussed, and during their absence they became liable to this penalty, and in terms of the arrangements they were reimbursed for the amount they had forfeited. But I hope this is something which won’t occur very often. It was quite a special case.

Out of what vote were they reimbursed?

Out of the Treasury Miscellaneous Services Vote. Of course, if the Government cannot justify it they will have to account to the House.

I am very much surprised to hear of this disclosure, and I am very much surprised to hear the Minister of Finance defending this as an exceptional case, because it is these exceptional cases that build up a record of wrong in the end. We have passed an Act of Parliament imposing this penalty of £6 a day, and the Government have now taken it upon themselves in a special case to evade this Act

No, it was part of the arrangement with the hon. member appointed.

You cannot make an arrangement with an hon. member or anybody else to get out of an Act of Parliament. We passed this Act imposing a penalty of £6 a day, and what has happened now is the Government for their own purposes have got round the Act and have, out of other votes, restored this penalty which was paid by these members. I am very much surprised to hear of this. When the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was framing his charge I could scarcely believe such a case could have occurred, and to hear it not only confessed but defended by the Minister of Finance seems to me to point to a very serious lack of appreciation of the inwardness of this case. I have felt all along that this penalty of £6 is in essence an injustice. The penalty is much too big.

The right hon. member cannot discuss that.

I am not discussing it, I am simply putting the merits of the position. But the harshness of the thing ought not to blind us to the legal aspect and the rights and wrongs of the matter, and the Government has no right to do a thing like this.

Supposing the House sent a delegate would it be fair for him to be penalised?

But these emissaries were drawing both their parliamentary pay and whatever else they were getting for this commission work.

No, you are wrong. It was included as part on the commission.

I make no charge against these gentlemen who were sent on public service, but the Minister will see it is not right that we should evade the legislation of the House in that way, and it would have been far better for us to amend the Act than for the Government on its own account and without any information given to the House to do this thing and to have it disclosed in this way, almost accidentally. I think that reflects upon the House and upon the Government, and it should not happen.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the right hon. member at all, and I cannot accept his exposition of the matter as being the correct one. There is no question as to the correctness of the legal position. The members paid their fine, but the Government, of course, reimbursed them this penalty. They did not get payment for this commission work, they were only reimbursed their actual out-of-pocket expenses. It was their contract. Hon. members do not want to suggest it was not within the administrative rights of the Government to make a contract with members of the commission when sent in that way.

It is trying to evade an Act of Parliament.

Not at, all. The penalty was exacted by the accounting officer of this House, but the Government, in order to obtain the services of these members, naturally had to make certain conditions with them, and one was that they would not be out-of-pocket. That is the position. They were not paid anything.

Did they not get three guineas a day?

No, they did not. They were remunerated only to the extent of their out-of-pocket expenses.

Did they get their parliamentary allowance while they were not here?

Yes. If that is the suggestion you will not get anyone to go. It is all very well to talk about a thing being desirable or undesirable, but if the Government specially wants the services of a member of Parliament, of course they will have to lay down the conditions on which that member will go. There is absolutely no question of illegality. The right hon. member says that the information is being extracted in this way from the House. I informed the House just now that all such payments are on the Miscellaneous Vote and are reported on by the Auditor-General, and the committee upstairs investigates the matter. There is nothing hidden in this way.

I am rather sorry that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and also the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) have raised this point. Their idea is, if carried out, that no poor man can undertake work for the Government, and only the rich man can do so. Surely the hon. member does not want that. The right hon. member once pleaded that the majority of members of Parliament, were poor men. If an hon. member had to pay his expenses if he went overseas, how could any member of the Labour party go? It is all very well for some hon. members on the side of the Opposition. I am glad to hear what the Minister has said on this point. One of the men who went over is a man who has taken an enormous amount of interest in the particular question since he has been in Parliament., and has given most valuable advice. He has pro-ably given more of his time to sitting on commissions for nothing in South Africa than anybody in this House. I hope the country will take notice that this is an attack on the poor man.

Rubbish.

The hon. member is an extraordinarily good judge of rubbish. The hon. member just now was trying to get his £6 a day safe. Does he want to lay down that only the rich man shall go and not the poor man, because that is what it will come down to.

He should not go when Parliament is sitting.

It happens they had to go when Parliament was sitting, because the League of Nations was sitting at the same time. One hon. member is hardly out of his seat in the House and takes a great interest in its proceedings. He did not run away, and has never done so.

I think the hon. member will find that no member of this committee is desirous of preventing poor members of the House from rendering service to the country. That is not the question we are discussing. But what I would like to know from the Minister is, when these gentlemen agreed to serve on this commission, did the Minister make an agreement with them that they would be reimbursed the amount of deductions from their parliamentary salary, or did the Minister readjust the account when the Parliamentary Accountant debited their account with this £100, or whatever it may be?

What moral difference does it make?

It may not make a moral difference to my hon. friend. The Minister of Finance said nothing has been given them but their out-of-pocket expenses. Is it the practice, while they are travelling, to allow them three guineas a day as out-of-pocket expenses, and if so, did they draw their full parliamentary allowance plus three guineas a day when on board ship: if so, they were better off than when they were in their places. It was the intention of the Act of Union that hon. members should not be paid for this, and we got round that by paying them out-of-pocket expenses. I have no objection where the services of any individual are required, and where that man is absolutely required and has to make great sacrifices, and you must make an arrangement, but everybody must know of it.

The right hon. gentleman has put two quite fail-questions. Before they proceeded to Geneva the question of their allowances was discussed with the Treasury. Ordinarily a member of Parliament gets paid three guineas a day. They were paid an allowance which barely covered their expenses; it did not, because the complaint was made when they returned that their expenses were not covered. But before they went, the question was raised, and they were informed that they would not suffer a penalty. That was not an arrangement with the accounting officer, who cannot take cognizance of that at all. If that had not been done, we simply could not have got these gentlemen to go. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) was a member, and I know, as a matter of fact, that he has complained that the allowances to the delegates sent to Geneva did not reimburse them for their out-of-pocket expenses.

I am not questioning the legality of what is done; I approve of it, and I think it is not more than fair that members should be reimbursed. But here we have a case where the Government, having admitted that members have sometimes valid reasons to absent themselves from Parliament, have come to the conclusion that it is unfair that this matter of £6 a day should be enforced against them. But it is not only on Government work that hon. members have to absent themselves. Many of us have to go off on private business, and cannot come to the Treasury and say, “Please absolve us.” That shows how unfair the law is.

We are not discussing that.

I bow to your decision. I am discussing this particular case, and using this as a moral to prove how unfair the whole thing is. I am moving to-morrow that this be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders. I see the Prime Minister is smiling—I hope that is a sign he will support us.

I raised this matter in January last, in the form of a question, when I asked what the total cost of sending the members in question to Europe was. The Minister told me that the remission of fines for not attending the House was made in accordance with an undertaking given to the members before their departure. In my opinion these hon. members were generously treated. They had a subsistence allowance of £2 2s. a day in addition to travelling expenses, the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) received £3 3s. a day in addition to his parliamentary pay, with travelling and other expenses paid. As they were sent away while the House was in session, they should not have been allowed a subsistence allowance additional to the subsistence allowance they are paid as members for the time Parliament is in session. They had no right to draw double subsistence allowance while the House was sitting, and in view of the fact that they were receiving their parliamentary pay, it cannot be said that they were not generously treated. In fact, I submit that they were more than adequately remunerated.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister and External Affairs,” £51,541,

Will the Prime Minister tell the committee what changes have been made in the system of communication with the Imperial Government since July 1st last, and how it is working? When the additional estimates were before us I referred to the increase in the Prime Minister’s vote, which seemed a fairly large one. The Prime Minister then explained that it was not really an increase, but the apparent increase meant that officers had been transferred from the Governor-General's staff to the Prime Minister’s staff. I am doubtful whether that is the correct explanation.

I am very sorry, it is not quite correct.

The Prime Minister must have made an error there.

I did.

Another point is the very large expense in connection with the work in America, where our diplomatic representative costs us over £7,000. It is a new service and the cost is rising every year. Naturally, I don’t for a moment assert that we should not have a representative in North America, yet this is a very large amount to pay, especially in view of the fact that South Africa’s trade in the United States is comparatively small, and is of a nature that would be carried on in any case. Then there is the item of a consul in Angola. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give us some information regarding the transfer of the trek Boers in Angola to South-West Africa. I understand from the statement the Prime Minister made last time that the Portuguese Government had declined to recognize our nomination of a consul in Angola, and I gather that the expenses we voted had been incurred, but would not be continued. It was meant to serve the interest of Dutch-speaking people in Angola, but if they are coming to the South-West it may be quite unnecessary to continue this consular service in Angola. But I see that, notwithstanding the transfer which is apparently going through the consul is intended to remain-in Angola and his salary is practically double.

I think these matters require some explanation. I hope the Prime Minister will give an explanation. I see the commercial posts on the continent and in America are going to be raised to a diplomatic status. What is this status? Is it going to be in any way helpful to our commercial interests to have diplomatic status for purely commercial representatives? I understood from the statement of the Prime Minister that it was not intended that the representatives of the Union abroad should exercize any diplomatic functions whatever, but for the purpose of their commercial work it was advisable that they should have a more defined standing. Could they not be called consuls, or given some representation which is known to international law? I admit their status may have been somewhat undefined before, but a position like that of a consul is well-known in international law. Are they going to be consuls or consuls-general? What is meant by diplomatic agent? Are they going to be anything more than consuls or consuls-general? I think it is necessary for us to know what their status will be, because it affects the question whom we shall send. If we are sending diplomatic gentlemen who will represent the Union in its dignity and international status, we will have to select our men very carefully indeed.

I would like to ask a few questions in regard to the consul at Angola. It has already been pointed out that the consul’s salary was in 1927-’28 £500, and it is now proposed to increase it to £950. Apparently there is no staff there, therefore the consul, I presume, does all the multifarious duties. It would be interesting to know what these duties are, and what he knows about South Africa. My friend suggests that I should ask if he can speak Portuguese. I think it would be interesting to know, too, how many subjects there are there from the Union of South Africa. Then I see in addition to the salary of £950 proposed he gets subsistence, a new vote of £250, and an entertainment allowance of £100. I would like to know if the Government has a report from the consul there, and if that report can be made available to the members of this House. Furthermore, I would like to ask what the necessity is for having a consul there? Surely these gentlemen whose interests have to be looked after are Britishers, and as such, do they not fall under the jurisdiction of the British consul there, who could well perform the work? Is it necessary to have a consul in various parts of the world when there are likely to be British consuls on the spot to look after the interests of the British subjects?

I think I may as well answer at once. There is no consul there at present, but it was contemplated to have one last year, when a small sum was put on, but, as indicated by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), objection was taken by our neighbour, the Portuguese Government, against the person whom we wanted to appoint. He was residing in the territory. Then, of course, we felt that if we had to have anybody we should have to send him from here. My hon. friend will understand why there are not many people who can perform a task like that in Angola, and, naturally, we have to send somebody from here and pay him more than twice what we contemplated paying the man there.

Did you send someone from here?

No, we have not sent one for the reason that, with a movement on foot of these people coming back, we thought it was not advisable now to appoint anybody unless we find that difficulties arise which may be best solved by having a man on the spot. So we are leaving this money on the estimates in case it may be necessary to send somebody there. We do not know how long his presence may be required there. It is possible that the people who want to come back may not succeed, and eventually may decide upon staying; then we shall require somebody who can be sent from here to assist them while they are there. It is only, therefore, in case we have to send somebody that this money is on the estimates, and the reason for the increase is now plain to my hon. friend.

What is happening about these people?

Let me say what is taking place at the present moment. Only yesterday I received a letter from one of their chief men saying that no matter what happens they are determined to leave the country; so dissatisfied they are with the treatment they have received there. Let me say that one of the main grievances which I think every hon. member will immediately appreciate is that, though they have been there now up to 50 and more years, and though they have assisted even in military matters and in defending the country, I believe there are almost none—I will not say none, but so few, I think they could be counted on the fingers of the hand—who have really received land to their names. The others have been constantly refused, with the result that these people have all the time been living on expectation and hope, and that, as they go along, that hope is retreating more and more. The result is, as I said, that they say that, no matter what may happen, they are coming back.

What are the numbers?

It is difficult to say what the numbers are. We have been trying to find out the numbers. In the letter which I received again yesterday, the writer differs from what two of the representatives have just lately said to us, and to the authorities in South-West. They said, I think, there were 250 up to 300 families, but I suppose that there are at least 400 families. It may be anything up to 500 families.

Do they all want to come?

They all want to come. These people, a great many of them, have come south in the meantime in order that they may be near the Cunene, to cross it the moment they can do so. We have first the difficulty of getting them established on this side. We have arranged with the Administrator of South-West that the Government of the Union— in addition to the £200,000, which hon. members will remember was advanced to them as a loan from the Custodians Fund, with the right of settling men on certain plots in South-West Africa—shall now make them a further grant of £150,000 provided they take all these people and settle them in South-West. It was so discussed with the local Administrator. He was to see the South-West authorities and try and get them to agree to this, and I have no doubt he will succeed in getting their consent. There is another difficulty which we have to contend with, and it is this—in South-West, north of a certain latitude, no stock is allowed to come south because you have various kinds of diseases. These diseases are also prevalent amongst the cattle of these people across the Cunene. The difficulty now is to get these people south without the risk of infecting our own stock. But we have, in fixing upon the £350,000 taken this into consideration, so that the Administrator will be in a position to deal in such a way with their stock, that, while he keeps the stock as it were north of that line, he can, in the meantime, bring the people in and settle them where they should be. In regard to the Portuguese authorities on the other side, we have ascertained from them that they will give all reasonable assistance to the people to come across. This has been done, because the people themselves were very anxious lest at the last moment some difficulties might be laid in their way. I won’t say that all the difficulties, as far as they are felt by these people, have been removed, but so far we have every reason to expect that within the next year these people will come across into South-West and will be settled there.

What part are they being settled in?

Between Gobabis and Windhoek—I think a little to the northwest of Gobabis. I think this disposes of my hon, friend’s question as to Angola and the consul there.

Are these South African nationals or Portuguese nationals?

The hon. member now puts a question which, I think, is equally difficult to answer for the Portuguese as it is for us. There are some of them who are really South African nationals. A number of them left the old Transvaal republic before the Boer war.

In ’74.

It is doubtful whether they have ever been declared Portuguese subjects or not

All their children are by the law Portuguese subjects.

The original trekkers there who still live do not know where they are, nor do the Portuguese authorities know how to consider them. There are also some legal questions outstanding as far as we are concerned, because of what took place after they trekked up there. In regard to their children, by Portuguese law they are Portuguese, but I submit that the Portuguese will hardly insist upon any claim in regard to these persons, keeping in view really the whole position in regard to all the others. But it does not do away with the fact these questions are agitating the minds of these people, and also the Portuguese and ns here.

They will be the only real republicans in South Africa.

Yes. My right hon. friend has asked what changes have been made in regard to communication with the Imperial Government since July 1st. The great change is this—that to-day all cables and all correspondence between the British Government and the Union Government come direct through the dominion office to my office, the office of external affairs, so that the Governor-General is relieved of everything that affects the British Government, and he is in the position of being merely and solely the representative of His Majesty the King in South Africa. This, I think, is a very great improvement, because, to my mind, if there is one thing that you always felt formerly, it was that, by his being and acting as the agent of the British Government, his position was being prejudiced whenever there was anything unpleasant as between Government and Government. He now stands outside that, and if there is anything to prejudice the British Government, then that prejudice will affect the British Government direct, and its agent here. The British Government has also an agent here through whom they sometimes approach me.

Who is he?

Capt. Clifford. Just as we have, for instance, the High Commissioner in London and sometimes avail ourselves of him, because there are always things which are more easily disposed of through verbal communication. The result has been that, of course, we had to take over all the work that was formerly done by the staff which the Governor-General had with him; for instance, all the deciphering of the cables and the receiving of correspondence and everything connected with communication with the British Government; which, I may say, is a fairly big amount. Almost daily long cables pass between the Governments. All this is what has brought about this increase. Last time I, unfortunately, stated that the staff was taken over from the Governor-General. I believe I was wrong there. However, the staff is one which it was necessary to have, and the additional expenses are incurred because of that. The chief new factor in this was the head of the department, that is, Dr. Bodenstein, whom I got as head of that department. I think somebody the other day said I ought to have had someone from the service. I must say I think that would have been very wrong. Here I had to have undoubtedly a lawyer. At the head of that department a lawyer is absolutely necessary. I make a rule of not depending for legal advice upon my own department, because I think that is a bad thing, and I always insist that the independent opinion should be taken of the law advisers. But the nature of the work is such that a lawyer is absolutely necessary in that position, and I must say I felt we should have a man who could really be relied upon. I won't say you cannot get that from the service—you can—but I do not believe when you have to do with a position of this kind that you must keep to your service, because I think everybody will admit that, if you do that, you will really deprive yourself of getting the best men. If you restrict yourself to the service, your service, after a time, gets very much hidebound. Here I must say I felt I required somebody whom we could not get under the circumstances from the service. This is a position in which not only did I require a bilingual man, but I required a man who had a perfect knowledge of both languages, of the Dutch as well as the English, and I may say this for Dr. Bodenstein that in him I got a man who is well versed in Dutch and English law alike, which, of course, is a very great thing. At any rate, his appointment as such has not been questioned, and I merely make mention of it because, on some occasion, I think in the House, something was said as to the appointment being made from outside. Then the right hon. gentleman spoke about our representation in America. He said it was rather a large sum that was being spent. Perhaps I might answer this in connection with his last question, namely, as to what the status is going to be. I think I have mentioned before that the intention is to have these two men, the one on the Continent and the one in America, appointed charge d’affaires. This is necessary because of the various difficulties to which attention has been drawn ever since their appointment. When in England last, they came to see me specially about this, and pointed out how difficult it was for them to do what they had to do and properly fulfil their functions while they had nothing but the rank of trade commissioners, which, as far as Europe is concerned, is unknown, and in the second place does not give them the opportunity of coming into contact with those men with whom they should come into contact if they are to perform their task well. Since that time, I have been considering and getting all the information possible as to what was the best way of coming to their assistance, and, after investigation, I feel quite convinced that this is the only way of putting them in a position to do their work as they should. My right hon. friend says it is a large sum for America, and that it is questionable whether it is really justified by the results. I would only say that I think it would be wrong to try and judge by results to-day. It is far too soon.

He has been there two years.

I think three years now. Well, there are results no doubt, but when we have to do with objects of the kind which they are there to achieve, then I say we must look far ahead. Take, for instance, Africa. It was only a few days ago that I was speaking to the Minister of Mines and Industries and pointing out we cannot wait and should not wait until Africa has been developed to twice or three times the extent it is at present to try and get our share of the trade with the various colonies, but we should to-day slowly increase our hold upon the Africa of the future. If we want to do that, even if to-day the representation we have does not show that, we must look to the future. It is the same with America and Europe. Naturally, you cannot see everything that is done. There are a great many things that will come to light, but if they are not attended to they would, in the long run, tell very much against our country. I think if you were to ask the British or any Government what their embassy is doing in such or such a country and what it has brought about, they would shake their heads and say they could not tell you, but they do know that it is necessary to have it. Taken all in all, it is a very necessary institution to have all these people about the world, be they trade commissioners or ambassadors. You cannot expect direct, tangible results. Because of the influence these people exercise in trade and other relations, I have not the least doubt we should have them. I quite agree and appreciate that hon. members and the House should always keep a watchful eye on these things, because I do think it is very easy to make mere figureheads out of them to satisfy sentiment; but up to a certain point we require them, and we shall have to have them. America and Europe are two places where we should have them.

I must say I have never yet been able to see what good has attended our representation in America. It has not influenced £1,000 worth of trade. We were sending some fruit—not much—but as soon as America became cognizant of that fact, they passed regulations that all this fruit must go into cold storage, and this has killed that trade absolutely. Does my hon. friend not know that any trade they can do themselves they do not allow us to do?

The same policy we follow. I do not think we can blame them for that.

And paying £2,000 a year.

And he is also our representative in Canada.

That reminds me, it would be far better to keep him in Montreal and to have his headquarters there for solid business. He has gone there several times and has mentioned getting business—dried fruit especially, which he seems to be hopeful about; but as regards New York, it is an extremely expensive place to live at, and it would be more economical and he would have a better chance of doing business if he lived at Montreal.

What about our representative in Kenya—you do not object to that?

You cannot do anything there in secondary industries, but you can do a certain amount of business in primary industries—wine and so forth—and a good many of our people are living there. In regard to Dr. Bodenshaw’s appointment. My experience is it is far better for your service to give an appointment to one of your own men if possible. If you take a man from outside it has a discouraging effect. I, as far as I possibly can, when I nave a post, give it to a man in my own service. Then why does my hon. friend not pay more attention to his representative on the other side? I have a report from Mr. Pienaar sent from Europe, who has grave reasons of complaint. The report has been recalled, but I do not see there is much to be afraid of in this. He had good reason to complain. He says he was not properly posted with samples. His report states that it was no easy matter to obtain samples from South Africa.

May I say that will be dealt with by my hon. friend on his vote—I know nothing about that.

I will give the information to my hon. friend (the Minister of Mines and Industries). Mr. Pienaar also says he has received different instructions from the Union Buildings, and instructed to do certain things which would be a serious contravention of the law.

I will explain it all on my vote, and the House will be satisfied with my explanation.

Mr. Pienaar goes on in his report, to say—

We would be very sorry to have Mr. Pienaar in gaol. He complains very much that one side of the office is not well managed—he admits there is a practical improvement, but the administrative side has not been improved. It is most discouraging for any officer on the other side to find that his letters and telegrams do not get the attention they ought to get. A man struggles, investigates business, interviews people and sends out for information and samples, and then does not get adequate consideration. I sympathize with the man on the other side, who ought to have got attention. We sent a representative of the Government to Geneva to attend the Economic Conference, which was exceedingly important.

Bring it up on my vote.

There has been a lack of information, so I am asking the question. When we adhere to the rules Ministers are not so amicable as they might he.

It has nothing to do with this vote.

I wish to draw attention to our United States Trade Commissioner. Exhibitions and advertising are provided for in the expenditure of our continental trade representative, but there is no such provision in regard to the United States representative. What is the policy of the Government regarding encouragement of tourist traffic from America? The acting Minister of Railways will perhaps be able to give information as to the total amount spent in America by the publicity section of the Railway Department.

Bring it up on the Railway Vote.

The matter is of very great importance, for we are neglecting a wonderful opportunity. The increase in the vote it totally inadequate in view of the possibilities of our opening up trade with America. When the Assistant High Commissioner to the United States came here he could hardly get a hearing from the Government, and I was rather snubbed when I endeavoured to arrange an interview with him. The Minister of Finance ultimately gave him an interview, and I hope he was impressed by that active and virile official. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) smiles at my statement that the financial provision is entirely inadequate, his idea of economy is not to spend money, but I am perfectly certain that he does not carry that principle out in his own business, where if he saw opportunities for expansion he would launch out into further expenditure. Here is business offering in the United States which can be picked up. I promised to bring the matter before Parliament, and I can only deplore the apathy of the Government. Even this year we are having a great increase in tourist traffic from the United States. Many of the Americans are wealthy, will buy our diamonds, and even invest money here.

We have not seen it yet.

If you talk to Mr. Schlesinger and the Anglo-American Company, you will find they have brought a very large amount here from the United States. As the world is largely in debt to the States, and the latter is protectionist and wants little but some raw products like rubber, and a few articles of luxury, and has specie enough for its financial requirements, the world has no way of repaying what it owes, therefore the States must invest capital abroad and take the interest instead of the principal. This may be of benefit to us, and Government should be alive to the possibilities of the position.

I am not very sanguine about the American tourists assisting the development of South Africa. I think there is a good deal of wasted energy in our efforts to obtain trade through means of trades commissioners, and the money might be used to better purpose. Is our trades commissioner in New York there to sell our goods? What is happening is that he is assisting to increase America’s trade with South Africa, but he is not helping in any way to swell our exports to the States. He is able to give information to American manufacturers as to potential markets for their wares in the Union, but he is not able to secure markets for our goods in the United States. Our export trade with the States has remained practically stationary for years past, although it fluctuates slightly from season to season. Our purchases from America, however, are increasing, and naturally so, because of our imports of American motor cars and petrol. In 1924 imports from the United States into South Africa totalled £8,750,000. In 1925 it was £9,414,000: 1926, £11,272,000; 1927, £11,330,000. The trade is increasing from America and will continue to increase from America, but I am afraid trade to America is not increasing. The figures to America are, in 1924, £1,232,000; 1925, £2,118,000; 1926, £1,982,000: 1927, £1,602,000. Those figures have remained stationary during a large number of years. Our trade commissioner in New York forms a social centre for South Africans visiting America. Do not let us delude ourselves that we are increasing trade with America because we have someone in New York. Where we do want to look for trade is in Africa. Africa is the place where we want them, and what have we got? We have a man in Kenya. I do not know whether he is well supported or encouraged to do his busness. I believe he is getting very little assistance indeed from what I have heard. That is to say no one takes much interest in the work he is doing. What are we doing in regard to the Belgian Congo, one of the richest parts of Africa, which is gaining in wealth every year? We have no one on the spot to look after our goods at all. The markets for our manufactured goods are on this continent or nowhere. If we cannot sell them on this continent we shall not sell them in America or in any other continent. I think we ought to have somebody at Elizabethville. I believe that for a very few pounds we could get someone on the spot, a South African, fully qualified to carry out this work, who will do infinitely more for us in the vista of the future to which the hon. the Prime Minister is looking, than you will ever do by looking to the continent of America. I impress upon the Government that we should dig ourselves into these markets, because if we do not start the channels of our trade running in that direction, they will become choked with the trade of other people. If we get in now and start to develop our trade in this direction, we shall do infinitely more than we shall by looking to America for the development of our trade. The Prime Minister has spoken about the flood of documents which comes from Great Britain to South Africa, presumably connected with our foreign policy. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in constant communication with the Imperial Government regarding the foreign policy of the empire, and whether he is in complete agreement with that policy.

That is a tall order.

May I ask this then? Does the Prime Minister get full information upon all matters of empire foreign policy? Is he fully consulted on these matters and on general lines, does he agree with that foreign policy?

Like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I expressed considerable doubt as to the use to this country of having what was then called a trade commissioner in New York, and we were then informed that this commissioner was not for the United States only, hut for Canada also. I see in the vote taken now it has been altered. The vote last year was for a trade commissioner for America, and we were told that that included Canada, which somewhat reconciled me to the vote, because I thought there was more scope for cultivating business in Canada than in New York. I see now that the name of the vote is United States of America, not as it was, America. Does that mean that Mr. Louw is to confine himself to the United States of America only?

No, Canada is also America, is it not?

Yes, but it says United States of America.

That is because his headquarters are in New York.

There is no significance in that.

There is a small item which might be of interest to the Minister of Defence, because I think he is still interested in the Labour party, and I understand he holds some of their tenets at any rate. I think one of the tenets of the Labour party is that every man should be paid a living wage. I see, when I look at these foreign representations on the continent, for instance, we are employing nine clerical assistants, one of whom is paid the handsome sum of £42 a year. Another is paid £75.

We shall have to put the Wage Board on to them.

A messenger is paid £96 a year. I would like to apply the same thing to New York, where we know the highest wages in the world are paid. Here is a messenger paid £98 a year. Is he a white man or a coloured man? Is the white labour policy being carried out in New York, or when the Government gets away from where the eyes of the people are on it, does it employ coloured labour and nay £98 a year? These are small items, but I think it would be interesting to have correct replies.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it would not be advisable having representatives on the continent to abolish the title of high commissioner and instead call him a trades commissioner, and have one of our ministers visiting Europe each year.

One is in Europe now.

By sending a Minister over there each year, the external policy of this Government could be strengthened. At the present time we send a representative to the League of Nations and to committees, with different representatives each year, advocating a different policy. If we had a continuous policy on these different bodies it would be beneficial to the State. We are spending, roughly, £27,000 on the League of Nations, and including our representatives on the continent. That £27,000 we could utilize to a greater advantage to the State by having a representative of the Government visiting Europe each year for five or six months, visiting the different trade commissioners. I think it is a very serious matter for South Africa. We are out of touch, to a great extent, with what happens in the outside world. It is true that the Prime Minister of this country is in communication with the different parts of the empire in regard to the policy the empire is carrying out, by having a member of the Cabinet to visit Europe each year, he would come into direct touch with them and thus obtain a better version of what is happening than he can by correspondence. I believe that would also facilitate cur trade with other countries. At the present time the League of Nations are advocating a free trade policy, or, in other words, the small nations of the world, having the majority of votes, at the League of Nations’ conferences, are able to sway the large nations to a policy which is detrimental to those who are living on a higher civilized standard, as the British commonwealth and America are doing at the present time. Therefore, if we were to send a direct representative of the State to represent us at these different conferences, it would not only add to the dignity of South Africa, but it would also further the policy that we advocate that is not only a civilized standard for the people of South Africa, but also that we should trade with the people who are living on a civilized standard. In fact, I make bold to say that the policy of the League of Nations will mean the lowering of the civilized standard of the people living according to the higher standard for the benefit of those living on the lower standard.

I just wish to reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He has again raised this question of our representation at the Economic Conference. He mentioned it in the budget debate and said that I did not make reference to it. I hope the hon. member will raise the question when the vote of my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines and Industries, is under discussion. My department did not have a representative at the conference. Dr. de Kock was sent there by my hon. friend. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) complained about the small increase in the provision made for our representation in the United States. He thinks there is not sufficient provision made for publicity work. I do not know whether he knows that, on this vote there is no provision at all for the expenses in connection with publicity work. The provision is on the railway vote, £25,000, and on the mines vote, £10,000. That provision is being repeated again on the estimates this year. It is quite true that representations have been made to the Government from time to time to increase the provision for publicity, but we have not been able to agree to that. I think that if the money which is provided by the Railway Department, £25,000. and the £10,000 provided by the central Government, is spent judiciously, it is about as much as we can afford at present for this publicity work. I believe there will be a better allocation of the money which has been provided. The Minister of Mines and Industries has that in hand. There will probably be a little more available for the purpose to which the hon. member has referred.

I join with the representations of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in connection with asking the Government to do something for trade on this continent before they go further abroad. I know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is sceptical as to what can be done in the north. The hon. member for Zululand and I spent some time in the Belgian Congo last year, and to anyone coming from the south who does not know what is going on there, it is perfectly astounding the immense expansion that is going on and the building of roads and railways. These markets are being opened up and they will be opened up by the west if we do not take them in hand. We can do it from here, and do it very well, and I think we shall find that it will be much cheaper than paying out large sums in New York, and that we shall get more for it. That is a field that we should not lose and, unless we take it in hand soon, it will be irretrievably lost to the Union. In regard to the gentleman who represents us in New York, we all remember Mr. Louw as being a very estimable gentleman here. I see he spends his time in lecturing. I see a book has just been published under the auspices of the “University of Chicago Press on Great Britain and the dominions. You find there that Mr. Louw has delivered a long lecture on the problems of South Africa, and I see the name here of a Mr. Fletcher, who is said to have left his law practice in South Africa to accept an appointment as director of information in New York. I do not know if he is one of our servants, but he also contributes another article on South Africa and the empire. Judging by the results of what is going on in New York. I do not think the money we are spending is giving us the return we should get. I do press again this question. Since I have had an opportunity of seeing myself what can be done, I hope the Government will take into serious consideration the desirability of doing something on our own continent.

The question of expenditure on exhibitions is a matter that has been raised, and I wish to quote the remarks of the trade commissioner in New York to show that it is desirable that we should spend more money in that direction. Mr. Louw remarks that he was invited to undertake the participation of South Africa in the Philadelphia exhibition soon after he arrived in America, and that that would have entailed an expenditure of £10,000. The exhibition proved a failure, and he is to be congratulated on having declined to participate on behalf of the Union. He points out, however, that it is desirable that he should have a small amount, not for exhibitions of the standing of the one held in Philadelphia, but for small exhibitions of the kind that he describes here. He says—

In that connection, he is dealing with the Philadelphia exhibition. He continues—

There is another point to which I want to invite the attention of the Prime Minister, and that is the possibility of some conflict of authority between the Board of Trade and Industries and his own department, as to which should be the proper channel of communication with the commercial representative in New York and the commercial representative in Europe. Mr. Louw, in his report, comments upon the improvement which has been brought about in communications since his office came under the Board of Trade. I hope no interference is going to take place with that channel of communication on trade matters, and that the improvement he mentions will be maintained by the continuance of that channel of communication. Evidently prior to that change there was a good deal of confusion such as was referred to by Mr. Pienaar, the commissioner in Europe, as well. These estimates are rather confusing. We have two commercial representatives budgetted for under the Prime Minister’s vote; we have two more budgetted for under the Minister of Mines, and we have the high commissioner under a totally different Minister, the Minister of Finance. Has not the time arrived when these various officers should be put under one ministerial head, and be made responsible to one, and one channel of communication recognized in trade matters for each trade department. I see the trade commissioner in New York submits a very interesting report on the whole of his work, and he complains that he is not being sufficiently supported by South African producers. He complains that communication through London on trade matters is a matter that is losing him trade. He has constantly had to refer to this matter in his reports, and one would like to feel he is being properly supported and given a fair chance. One is impressed with the ability with which he deals with all the matters referred to in his reports.

May I say at once that there is not the least intention of interfering with the channel of communication. He has been very explicitly told that his communication will continue just as before, and there is no doubt that there has been a tremendous improvement. With regard to the money for giving him an opportunity of exerhibiting at small exhibitions, that is a question we shall have to consider. My hon. friend is quite right in pointing out that as far as Mr. Pienaar is concerned on the continent, he had that opportunity, because in Europe we all know the custom of having fairs is a very common one, and at an early stage our attention was drawn to the fact that it gave much better results to have our exhibits brought round to these fairs or small exhibitions, such as Mr. Louw now wants in America. We had the advantage, of course, that some had been exhibited at bigger exhibitions. In the case of America, we shall have to see that exhibits are sent, but that is a minor point. What I wanted to point out, was that this is a question that will have to be considered by us.

The Prime Minister informed the committee that there never had been a consul in Angola. I would ask him, therefore, whether he will not delete this vote. The Minister of Finance may laugh. We do not all have the opportunities that he has of becoming acquainted with the financial administration of South Africa. The Minister might allow some of us to criticize and make suggestions. I again submit the Prime Minister ought to withdraw this vote, as it will mean additional expenditure. With regard to these unfortunate people who, I understand, are now on the South-West border, who left the country some 40 or 50 years ago, or more. Is it the duty of the Union to find occupation for them in the mandated territory, which means that we have to find money for getting these people new positions in the mandated territory, which does not belong to us? Is it our duty? The Prime Minister cannot even tell us whether these people are subjects of the Union, or subjects of Portugal. They have lived for years in that country, and now the burden is thrown upon the Union. I do not consider that right. The children, I suppose, who are born up there, are Portugese subjects, yet we must father them. What subjects will they be when they are incorporated in the mandated territory. I understand the Prime Minister to say that it is advisable to have a lawyer as the representative of this country in whatever country we send him to. Is Mr., de Villiers, who was sent to the continent, a lawyer or a law-agent?

He is an attorney.

Hoes he, in all seriousness, wish to convey to the country that there was not a single man in the whole of the service who could fill that position, and better, than Mr. de Villiers? He ought to have commercial knowledge as well. Where what I might call a plum of this kind is to be had from the Government, they give it to one of their pals— here is a clear case of a job for pals.

I never spoke about. Mr. de Villiers’ position.

I see on this vote—that the retiring diplomatic and commercial representative—got only £2,000, and it is suddenly increased to £2,500 plus an increase in subsistence. Mr. de Villiers will draw £1,000 more than Mr. Pienaar drew. I ask any fair minded man of good common sense, is this a good thing to do in the interests of the rest of the service? We understand that charges d'affairs is going to be the high-sounding title, and what are going to be the duties of the officer on the continent? Is he well qualified? The Prime Minister said he would be quite satisfied if he was well qualified in English and Dutch, but I say he must be well qualified in Afrikaans. Then there is the question of trade with the U.S.A., about which I last Monday asked a question of the Minister, to which I am sorry the Minister of Finance did not reply yesterday in his two and a quarter hours’ effort. I repeat the question. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, “Treasury,” £77,360,

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact of the extent his department goes outside the regulations in getting offers for the goods they are going to buy. If you refer to page 107 of the Auditor General’s report you will see it states that certain purchases have been effected without tenders, unless otherwise stated, and we have telephone small parts amounting to £3,110, automatic telephones, £2,365; telephone equipment, £2,300; telegraph and telephone parts and so forth. In every department there are cases referred to by the Auditor-General, to which attention is called. A lot of stuff was bought without adequate and proper tenders having been called for. Then I want to draw attention to another matter, which is that the profits of the Premier Mine are paid into revenue, while what we are getting from the gold mines goes into Loan Account. Why this difference? I admit it has been in existence for some time. Why could the Premier profits not be paid into loan account?

T wish to deal with the Customs Department. Something should be done to obviate all these delays and annoyances that occur between the Customs Department and the commercial community, the two main points being the difference as to the determination of value, more particularly in regard to home consumption value, and the interpretation of the various tariff items. To take the last point first. I have previously brought up the definition of trek chains. I have to-day received a case regarding the tariff designation for forme trolleys which are used in the printing industry. A forme trolley is very small, being only twelve inches long, two inches wide and two inches high. The customs people, decided that these trolleys are vehicles and therefore must come under the 20 per cent, tariff, and not under the printing machinery tariff, which is free in the case of imports from the United Kingdom, and pays three per cent, if imported from elsewhere. It is only fair to the commercial community to have some board of independent people who could deal with tariff interpretations, because the results which are arrived at by the customs authorities bring the tariff list into ridicule. We are told that trek chains are not chains for hauling, and that a thing a few inches high and twelve inches long is a vehicle. It seems almost as if some, of the customs people really look for trouble in forcing up unnecessarily the amount of duty which has to be paid on certain items. I cannot see why the Minister should not agree to some form of committee to which these matters might be referred. If he will not agree to a permanent committee, will he agree to the appointment of a committee of two or three men with the Commissioner of Customs to discuss and explore the whole matter to see whether we cannot get away from these constant little bickerings between the commercial community and the Customs Department? I emphasize that this is not a question of trying to get around the Customs Act and evading the payment of duties legally due. But we do want some body which will give a reasonable interpretation of the customs tariff. As regards the determination of home consumption value, will the Minister give an undertaking that there shall be a period of prescription beyond which a merchant will know that he will not receive any further claims from the Customs Department unless the department bases the claim on an intention to defraud? In the latter event, I have nothing to say, but when the customs people come down on a man for duty which they say was underpaid three, four or five years ago, they create an impossible position. Unless the Customs Department prove a deliberate intention to defraud, six months are long enough for them to decide what the value of an article is. If they are not satisfied with the certificate from the manufacturers, they can easily obtain evidence to ascertain whether there is any fraud or mistake. I suggest that there is a case for the Minister calling together three or four men with the Commissioner of Customs to see if they can make any suggestion to stop this continuous friction between the Customs Department and I the commercial community, a friction which is of no advantage to the customs, for while the department is wasting its time on trivial points they are probably letting through their fingers a lot of people who are deliberately trying to defraud the exchequer.

I move—

in order to have a full opportunity to reply to the remarks the Minister of Finance made yesterday in regard to the provision for sinking fund purposes.

The hon. member cannot continue the budget debate now.

Naturally, in my remarks I shall have to reply to certain observations the Minister made yesterday, but I am genuinely discussing the whole of our policy in regard to sinking fund provision. The fact that I have already discussed it is irrelevant.

The hon. member may proceed, but I may have to pull him up. It is quite irregular to continue a budget debate on the estimates.

Unless you do it properly on the salary of the Minister concerned. Otherwise if I happen to mention a matter in the budget debate, I am precluded from referring to it in Committee of Supply. I should hate to attempt to continue a technical discussion if I felt the Chair was going to pull me up in the middle of a sentence.

I am afraid the hon. member is not in order. Mr. Speaker has given a definite ruling on the point [ruling read].

It was on this point some years ago that the then Opposition left the House.

That is the whole difficulty in relation to this discussion.

The hon. member may proceed, but he may be pulled up.

If you remember, when that arose in 1922, the late Mr. Fichardt wanted to take advantage of the debate on the first vote to have a general reply to the Minister’s reply on the budget debate. I do not want to do anything of the sort. I want to confine my discussion to this particular point of policy which arises under the Minister’s salary. The Minister’s reply to certain criticisms of mine was made only yesterday afternoon, and most of us were under the impression that the Liquor Bill was coming on this afternoon. I have not, therefore, had the full opportunity I would like to consider the Minister’s speech and figures. I want to thank the Minister for the careful and courteous way in which he replied to these criticisms, but I want to tell him candidly also that in making that reply he mis-quoted me on three serious occasions and based a good deal of his argument on false assumptions. I suggest if he is going to take serious notice of criticisms from these benches, the safest course for him to follow is to take careful notes of what is said, or afterwards to get from Hansard a copy of the speech in question.

The hon. member is now referring to a former debate. If he looks at rule 75, he will find he cannot do that.

I am afraid I cannot do it. If I have no right of reply to the Minister’s statement and cannot show inaccuracies that exist in that statement—

The hon. member will get his opportunity under the Appropriation Bill. I want to assist the hon. member.

The very ruling you read to me said, “Unless it relates to the actual vote” and I am confining myself to the actual Treasury vote, and I want to discuss a policy in regard to debt reduction disclosed by the Minister in his Budget statement. If I am tied in regard to that, it amounts to this, that the Minister can get up in his Budget speech or in the reply to the debate and make statements which no member has the right of challenging, even on the Minister’s salary.

I have been trying to look for a loophole for the hon. member, but I cannot find it.

Unless it refers to votes specifically under discussion.

Under rule 75, the hon. member cannot refer to a debate that has taken, place.

This debate is part of this very discussion.

No, it is not.

Very well, I will not refer to the debate. In his endeavour to prove that certain statements and calculations of mine were incorrect, the Minister went wrong on three occasions. He stated that I ignored the increase of debt through deficits. That is quite incorrect, because hon. members who listened to my criticism will remember that I was most careful in the figures I gave to the House to make a deduction for the deficits which we paid out of revenue. Secondly, he says I ignored the fact that one and a half million pounds of debt redeemed was paid out of cash balances brought into the Union. That again is entirely incorrect. I will read him what I said. In estimating what our Public Debt Sinking Fund has got from surpluses since Union, I said—

I specificially took that into account in the figures which I gave. Finally, he makes a statement, “what is more serious, the hon. member ignored the fact that the Sinking Fund amounting to nearly four and a half million pounds was brought into Union.” Again, that is quite incorrect, because I took it into full account. Leaving that aside, let me state to the Minister that the calculations he has made to try and show that under his new scheme, as if adopted during the 17 years from the time of Union, we could have done better than under the scheme that existed, are based on assumptions that will not stand examination. I showed that under the old scheme we have bettered our debt reduction provision to the extent of £27,500,000. I am not going over those figures again. They are based on the report of the Public Debt Commissioners. The Minister himself admits that the whole scheme bettered the debt position by £24,500,000. a difference of £3,000,000 between us on that.

I have been trying to assist the hon. member, and I have looked up May—

That is exactly what the hon. member is doing. I am sorry I will have to rule the hon. member out of order.

You will agree with me that it certainly places members in an almost impossible position.

It is a ruling which has been given by two Speakers, and it is British House of Commons practice.

I shall endeavour with your help, to try and put the position in another way. In reckoning what this new system will produce, we have to take that sum of £650,000 a year and that loan as paid to debt redemption. If you compound that figure at five per cent., it gives the figure claimed by the Minister of sixteen and three-quarter millions, but during the first 17 years of Union money that we handed over to our Public Debt Commissioners and that was put into sinking fund, never produced anything like five per cent. Some of the securities we had were as low as two and one-half, and others three or three and one-half per cent. When you make an assumption that if the £650,000

The hon. member

I am not dealing with the Minister’s speech now.

The hon. member is doing something worse than that. He is trying to circumvent my ruling. I have been very patient with the hon. member.

I am not endeavouring to circumvent your ruling. I am trying to dis cuss, without reference to a former speech, whether the old system of deb; reduction abolished by the Minister two year ago, would have produced better results than the new system. I was endeavouring to avoid the enormity of referring to anything that the Minister has said. It has been said that the new system, if in force from the date of Union, would have produced at five per cent., £16,750,000. I was telling you that in point of fact the stocks held by our public debt commissioners for debt redemption for the first seven years of Union very rarely went over four per cent. It was only when we reached the time of war that we started to borrow money at five per cent, or the stocks held by the Public Debt Commissioners went to five per cent. I was able to get a fair estimate of what that money would have produced if invested from the time of Union, and handed over to the Public Debt Commissioners and allowed to accumulate at five per cent, compound, but three and one-half or four per cent, is the highest rate of interest you can take, and if you do that you get this result, that £650,000 for 17 years compound at three per cent, would be £14,000,000, and at four per cent., £14,400,000. You notice the jump the minute you take the five per cent. At five per cent, compound it is £16,750,000, so that on the basis of a five per cent, rate there is a jump from less than £14,500,000 right up to £16,750,000, and I say that is quite illegitimate. Hampered as I am by your ruling, which no doubt is perfectly correct, but which certainly militates against the free discussion of this matter which I would like to have, I cannot go further into the points which the Minister made in his speech, but I want to emphasize this, that neither the Minister nor any of his friends will be able to claim that to-day we are doing anything like our duty in regard to debt redemption, especially when you have regard to what was done in bygone years. No attempt was made, or can be made, to deny these facts: The first is that to-day our public debt is double what it was in the years before the great war, that to-day our revenue and our expenditure are double what they were in the years before the great war, and yet not only relatively, but actually, we are paying far less to-day for debt redemption than was done in the first years of Union. I showed that in those days we paid at least one per cent, of the public debt for debt redemption, and I mentioned in my budget speech a figure that has not been challenged or contradicted, that today we are paying one-quarter of one per cent.

Now the hon. member is continuing his budget speech.

I am reiterating one or two points I made in my budget speech.

That is exactly what I want to stop.

Very well, sir. Apparently it is possible for me to make the whole of my budget speech if it is done de novo, if I do not mention the words “budget speech.”

Now the hon. member is evading my ruling and doing it rather skilfully.

On a point of order, we are voting £650,000 towards redemption of debt. Is it not possible for the hon. member to give his views, that he does not think that £650,000 is sufficient, and that if the old system had been followed it would have been much better so far as the redemption of public debt is to be considered in the future, and so long as he does not refer to anything that took place on the budget debate, is it not possible for him to show the consequences of the idea of the Minister in introducing this new system? The hon. member, I presume, would be in order in referring to the fact that he would like to know what actuated the Public Accounts Committee in passing a resolution of this nature. So long as he confines himself to that subject would it not be perfectly open for him to discuss the whole question of the advisability or otherwise of this £650,000 being used as a substitute for the old position?

The right hon. member has put a hypothetical case, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is only continuing the budget debate.

I abandoned the attempt to make any reply to the Minister’s reply to me because it is perfectly hopeless in view of this ruling, but then I was proceeding, possibly de novo, to summarize certain of the points. I had made, and then you stopped me. If the fact that a statement has already been made in the budget debate precludes any reference in committee, we might as well shut up shop and go home. Take the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). He has just been harping on one particular pet grievance about the customs. I heard that ad lib in his speech on the budget. The whole thing becomes absolutely Gilbertian.

I have read the three rulings given by Mr. Speaker Krige, Mr. Speaker Jansen and myself. The hon. member knows what it is.

I have told you I have, given up any hope of being able to reply to the Minister at this stage, but when I committed the offence of saying what I said in the budget debate, I was at once pulled up. It will not be denied, it cannot be challenged, that to-day with double the debt, with double the revenue, and with double the expenditure, we are paying both actually and relatively far less towards debt extinction or rather sinking fund provision than we did in the days of the Smuts regime, and far less, of course, than we did in the normal days between Union and the great war. I claim that what we paid out of surpluses alone amounted to £400,000 a year. That claim has been disputed—I maintain quite unsuccessfully. To arrive at that calculation the only fair thing to do is to take the total sum of these surpluses and deduct from that any deficits. That is exactly what I did. One of my critics said, “Oh, no, what you must do is to deduct also from your total the money diverted from loan account.”

The hon. member is putting the chairman in a rather awkward position. Let me give him May’s ruling again—

The hon. member is just replying to statements, that were made. He is just carrying it on again.

It may be urged that my figures and comparison, are not just, because I have neglected to take into account certain moneys diverted from loan account to revenue account, and I must answer that criticism

The hon. member is only carrying on the budget debate, and this ruling has been made to stop that. I have been very patient with the hon. member, and I should think he would take my hint.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the ruling given in 1922 dealt with this aspect of the question on broad lines: In committee an hon. member cannot make a general budget statement, or, as it were, make a second budget speech, but what the ruling says is he can deal categorically with all the headings in a particular Minister’s vote. If the chairman will kindly refer to the vote of the Minister of Finance, he will find: Debt redemption, temporary debt, stock and debentures and various other items, in regard to the administration of the department of the Minister of Finance. Whatever transpired in that Minister’s department can be traversed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and is not in conflict with the ruling, as long as he confines himself to the department of the Minister of Finance, and whatever is incorporated in the vote of that Minister. He cannot travel beyond the particular Minister’s department.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) will remember when he was Mr. Speaker and gave a ruling on this in 1922—I see he has it before him—it was on the question raised by the late Mr. Fichardt, but since that time another ruling has been given by Mr. Speaker which is rather narrower, and if the hon. member will refer to May, 11th edition, page 619, he will find it even narrower still, and that is the British House of Commons practice, which we have always adopted. I do not want to rule the hon. member out, but I am in a difficult position.

You will remember, sir, that when the former Speaker gave his ruling great exception was taken to it; that it was too narrow.

It was so; but Mr. Speaker defended it very strongly at the time

I abide by it. It is a very sensible ruling. According to my interpretation of that ruling, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is quite in order.

I want to assist the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), but it must not be forgotten that the Minister also may reply, and I will have to pull him up every time.

Suppose. Mr. Chairman, I refer to this vote of £650,000, and I say I consider it entirely inadequate to meet debt redemption charges; am I out of order?

I have not found it necessary to pull up the right hon. member vet. What he is saying is absolutely correct—but that is not what has been done by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

The hon. member, in discussing the vote, would discuss it in that matter.

The hon. member unfortunately does not do so.

It reminds me of a man riding a bicycle on the edge of a precipice, over the edge of which he will go if he deviates by an inch.

You have deviated a great deal. I don’t know how I am going to keep the straight path.

Is the Chairman ruling me out of order?

I will not rule the hon. member out of order if I can help it.

I appreciate that. It may be suggested that the figures I propose to give in regard to the old system are open to the criticism that they should have taken into account monies amounting to close on £3,000,000 which were deflected from Loan Account to Revenue. My answer to that is this: that these monies were the proceeds of mining leases; they used to go to Revenue, but later were deflected to Loan Account. During a period of financial stress they were diverted to Revenue, and to say that you must take account of these monies and take them from the surpluses which were handed to the Public Debt Commissioners and utilize them for debt redemption is a far-fetched argument. One must, however, make allowances for deficits, and that I have done. The result is that the accumulated surpluses from the time of Union and since then amounted to £9,000,000, and if you deduct £2,500,000 for deficits, you get a result of £6,500,000. No one has any right to expect me, in making a comparison between the old system and the new, to make any further allowance. That gives an annual average of close on £400,000.

Do I understand you are advocating the alteration of existing legislation?

No, sir, I am advocating that in addition to what is provided by existing legislation certain other provisions should be made.

It can only be made by this House.

Not necessarily by legislation. Any member can advocate the making of increased sinking fund provision.

Does that not require legislation?

No, not at all. The Minister is doing it in this budget without any legislation, but a complete re-casting of the whole system might require legislation.

Will the hon. member not require legislation to carry out what he suggests?

No.

I take it the hon. member does not want to go beyond the existing law.

I would like something more than the existing law, which does not go far enough.

Does the hon. member wish to alter it?

No, it is a beautiful law as far as it goes.

I think the hon. member indicated something which requires legislation.

No, it does not require legislation. If I convince the Minister of Finance he could get up and say “£650,000 is not enough, and I propose to deflect from my surpluses or put on the estimates another £500,000, and I propose to make the annual appropriation much larger.” He could do another thing without legislation. He could say that the one per cent, sinking fund provision will be over and above the £650,000. It does not require legislation. At the present moment this House votes £650,000 for sinking fund provision. Out of that it provides £400,000 a year towards redeeming the £40,000,000 loan, and he provides one per cent, on all loans floated during the last three or four years. Without legislation he could divert the whole £650,000 to the general sinking fund, and over and above that pay the £400,000 and these extra sinking fund charges.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, sir. I do hope you will have a lenient eye on the clock. I was saying that the total of the surpluses, since the date of Union, is £9,000,000, and if you deduct deficits the total of surpluses is £6,500,000, which gives an average over 17 years of close on £400,000, and if this year’s surplus had gone where it should have gone and where it would have gone any year but this, you would have had an average of debt extinction from surpluses of nearly £500,000 a year. Some hon. gentleman seems to look upon this matter now as if the only thing that we ever used to do for debt reduction was to allocate the surplus. So far from that, we have over a period of 17 years since Union, actually paid out of revenue to particular sinking funds, apart from any surplus, nearly £9,000,000, giving an average over 17 years of £521,000 a year, and at the time the Minister got the House to adopt this proposed new scheme he was actually paying every year towards particular sinking funds £574,000.

Which I built up very largely.

When the Minister came into office be found himself saddled with an obligation to pay £400,000 a year towards the old Transvaal and Free State loan.

And it was increased.

I say he had by law to pay £400,000 a year, and I think £30,000 a year to same Cape loan. What he did was to voluntarily increase his obligation by adding one per cent, sinking fund to his new loans.

I regret the hon. member’s time has expired.

I would like to appeal to you. Do I lose my time because most of it was taken up in discussing points of order? Most of the time I have been endeavouring to defend my position in putting these points.

The hon. member will find that the rules make no provision for that.

I understand that in former ruling in this House wherever an hon. member has a certain time for speaking, should at any time a question arise on a point of order, the period of time taken up with that discussion was always subtracted, and not included in the 40 minutes given to the hon. member. I think it has always been the ruling when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.

There has never been any ruling to that effect.

When the game stops because a player is injured at a football match, the referee always allows extra time.

The hon. member can see me. The House will resume at eight o’clock.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) raised the question mentioned in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in regard to the exemptions from Tender Board regulations, purchases without tenders. It is rather difficult for me to deal with the matter unless the hon. member will pick out specific instances. I think the hon. member can take it for granted, as he knows, that the regulations are very strict in order to prevent abuses in connection with this matter, and the Treasury does not agree to applications from departments to be exempted unless a very good case is made out. The hon. member knows that these matters are inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee, and if any specific point is raised, he will find that there is a reasonable explanation for it. We are very strict. He will find in many of these cases that there was only one supplier, or the articles could only be obtained in this way. Exemptions are not readily granted. The hon. member raises the interesting question of the desirability of laying down in our legislation that in future the receipts obtained from the Premier Mine shall be paid into the Loan Account, as happens to receipts from mining leases. The hon. member knows that, since I have been in office, I have done a good deal in mopping up various things where payments were debited to Loan Account instead of revenue. There is the question of defraying minor works—I am now taking into revenue £100,000 in connection with that. The hon. member knows the position has been very much improved. As far as that particular matter is concerned, of course, it is a matter for the House ultimately to decide. As far as I am personally concerned, I certainly would welcome the day when we would be less dependent on such a fluctuating source of revenue as diamonds are for our general revenue. The position to-day is that at any time when there is a diamond depression we will be in a difficult position because such a large portion of our revenue is obtained from diamonds, but just for the present I do not think we can do anything in regard to this matter. It will depend on whether our revenues increase, in which case we might consider the suggestion. There is certainly something to be said for it. The hon. member was in office in those days. I don’t know why the previous Government did not decide to treat these receipts in the same way as they treated receipts for revenue derived from gold leases. From this point of view, to secure that, we should be less dependent than we are to-day upon diamond revenues, I would certainly not have any objections to the proposal if the financial position permitted. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has raised two customs matters. One is the question of the interpretation of the tariff. I do not think we can find many instances where there have been real difficulties and friction between the department and the merchants. It is only now and then that a difficult question crops up. I am now introducing legislation to secure the interpretation they are contending for, but it is not because the interpretation was wrong. That board, for which my hon. friend pleads, if they did their duty and were out to secure the revenues of the country, would have to give exactly the same interpretation. Now and then you get these little difficulties that no one can foresee. If they do crop up we must apply the law until such time as Parliament sees fit to alter the law. That is the position to-day. I do not think the hon. member will find that the idea of appointing another board will commend itself to the House. I can assure my hon. friend the department is out to have as little friction as possible with the merchants. We must not magnify the instances that do occur.

They are constantly going on.

I am afraid the idea of a board would be impossible from the administrative point of view. Then there is the difficulty about home consumption values. That is a difficult matter. Sometimes the onus is placed upon me eventually, as when an appeal is made to decide this question. I do not like being placed in that position, but I do not see what other machinery you can devise. The hon. member now pleads for a prescriptive time limit. I think we will find the cases where we have to go back for a longer period than six months will become less and less now that we have our investigating officers in America and Europe. Now we are able to find out very quickly whether the values that have been declared are correct. We had no machinery to find out if wrong declarations were made by merchants. Here is the point where my hon. friend and the mercantile community generally go wrong: They seem to think it is the duty of the Customs Department to find out these mistakes. The hon. member knows that the duty, by our law, is cast on the merchants to give a correct declaration of value. You have cases of fraud and you have more cases of inadvertence, wrong declarations made, people not knowing the law on the other side. It is the duty of the merchants to find that out and give a correct declaration. We have to carry out the laws of this country and collect the correct revenues, but it is not only for the protection of revenue, but for the protection of the honest merchant, to ensure honest competition. Only a few words in regard to the matter which has again been raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

You will have to leave me out. I was not able to state my case.

The hon. member, not having been able to state his case, I cannot now reply to it, but in any case, let me tell him I think it is a pretty futile discussion at this stage. He has put his position before the House, and I have dealt with the position from my point of view. We can safely leave it now, not only to the House, but to the people to judge. It is, to a large extent, an academic question, and many of his friends do not agree with him at all. In regard to the general question, the hon. member tried to get in something when the Deputy-Chairman was ruling him out of order and he eventually stated the position generally, and was rather alarmed by the existing position in regard to debt redemption. If the present position gives occasion for alarm to the hon. member with the results we have had under the new system and when we have actually reduced it in the first year to the extent of over a million and a half, I would like to know what the position would be if we carried out the policy adumbrated by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that it is wrong to have a surplus and that only surpluses are available for redemption. What would become of the debt position? That was my concern all the time. I was concerned to find that the position the right hon. member was pleading for, a policy which, if I carried it out—

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the ruling of your deputy in the Chair was that no member of this House, in discussing the votes before the House could refer to a previous debate or to anything that had taken place when the budget debate was before the House. The Minister has now referred to the remarks which have been made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in connection with the budget debate, and I am drawing your attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance will be treated in exactly the same manner as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

I think the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is quite right.

I shall desist, and not try to get behind your ruling, as my hon. friend has done, but this obviously places me at a disadvantage. In regard to the general position, the hon. member expressed alarm about the debt position, but the provision we have made is coupled with the fact, as I stated at the time, that if we have a prosperous year, the minimum contribution will be supplemented. I think if we take this into consideration there can be no question about the position to-day in regard to debt redemption being a sound one, and we are doing more than we were doing formerly. Of course, the House must not forget that for three or four years previous to this Government assuming office, there had been no budget surpluses [interruption]. I am not now discussing the circumstances, but the merits, of the position which I found, and the position which will obtain in future as regards the steps I have taken. I will not pursue the subject, which is not to the liking of my hon. friends, and I shall leave it there.

It is not a question of wanting to pursue it, but having a free discussion on it.

I have no intention of pursuing it.

I just want to make it clear to the Minister that under the scope of the ruling given from the Chair, we cannot discuss this matter adequately. I cannot put my case fully, and I have not had a fair chance of doing so, because of the ruling, and the Minister cannot reply fully; therefore we must leave it. There is a good deal in his reply, to which I would like to reply, and I will do so later.

Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough, if he enlightens the House, and informs it, if this arrangement had not been arrived at, how much money he would have provided under the sinking fund in connection with the £35,000,000 loan, the £5,000,000 loan, and other loans in connection with measures introduced by the Minister himself. I think it is something in the vicinity of £400,000 or £425,000

Yes there is no secret about it; the position is as the right hon. member says. When we took office the contractual liability of the Government was being met—it was about £400,000 odd. Then I started to improve the position by attaching sinking funds to particular local loans, and by the time these schemes were introduced, the redemption moneys which had to be provided were in the neighbourhood of £525,000.

Am I right in assuming that this £650,000 includes the £430,000 which under the statutory arrangement we would have to pay?

Yes.

If the Minister subtracts the one from the other, he will get £220,000, so that the only extra contribution the Minister is making is that, and leaving the whole of the surplus to be disposed of as he desires.

That is not stating the position correctly. There is the minimum contribution, plus the liability of the Government; and also another very important part of this scheme is the cumulative provisions of the Act, to which some exception has been taken by some hon, members, which entails the redemption of more if this is carried out.

What responsibility rests on the Government? No statutory responsibility rests on the Government. The Minister himself acknowledges that all he has done is that he has spent £220,000 more than under the previous statutes he would have had to provide year by year, and there is no obligation on him, no matter how much his surplus may be, to devote this to the obliteration of public debt. The Minister may say that if he continues in office he will continue to do what he has done in the past, but there is no guarantee that the successor of the Minister may not devote a surplus to extraordinary purposes; if the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs occupied the Minister’s office, there is no knowing how they might devote their surpluses.

I think it is a matter of very simple calculation under which method the sinking fund will benefit more, i.e., when you have a statutory obligation to pay £400,000, plus such surplus as there may be (and nothing if there are no surpluses) and the scheme of £650,000 including the cumulative provisions, plus the right which this House has in regard to the disposal of any surplus as it arises.

Let me make this point clear. When the Minister took office, he found a statutory obligation to pay £430,000 a year— he had got to pay that, and he added to that obligation, quite rightly, by attaching a 1 per cent, sinking fund to all loans he issued, so that by the time the change was made in 1926 our statutory obligation was £574,000 a year— the Minister had to pay that, rain or shine, out of our revenue. Then he said we will increase that to £650,000, and of the surplus he would take as much as he thought good and give it to debt redemption, and if he did not think “good,” he would not give it. To-day £620,000 is ear marked specially for sinking fund and special loans, and only £30,000 goes to debt redemption.

What difference does that make?

We have a public debt of £240,000,000, sinking fund provision is attached to £60,000,000, and so for the other £180,000,000 we have £30,000 a year. Of course, it is perfectly true that there is no law to stop this Parliament, or the Minister if ho has the luck to have a surplus, applying it to debt, redemption. Of course not, but we have seen what has happened to-day. We have a surplus of £1,750,000 of which only £500,000 goes to redemption, and the remainder goes to the benefit of a section of the public which is lucky enough to get that relief. That is the case in a nutshell. I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

I have previously complained of the delay in issuing the statistics relating to our imports and exports. We are now nearing the end of April, but we have not yet seen the statistics of January. What I more urgently desired to obtain was some explanation of the statement contained in the well-known report of the trade commissioner on the Continent.

Don’t discuss that now. I have nothing to do with it. It comes under the mines vote. I am surprised to hear of any delay in the publication of the statistics. As far as I know they are got out as early as is humanly possible.

Not as early as they used to be.

Formerly they were printed in one language only, but the House agreed to that being altered, and, consequently, publication in both languages occupies a little more time. I did not know that there was any cause for complaint, and the staff has instructions to issue the statistics as early as possible. Some time ago I suggested that the merchants should meet the commissioner and discuss with him the possibility of altering the form of the statistics in cutting out some of these particulars, but I understand that when the matter was gone into the tendency was for the commercial people to request more information. However, I will make enquiries into the matter.

I am very glad to hear that the Minister suggested that the merchants should meet the Commissioner of Customs to discuss the publication of the statistics, for when I suggested that he should meet the merchants to discuss another matter I was ignominiously turned down.

No. What I turned down was the power to adjudicate on these things.

I suggested the Commissioner of Customs should meet a few business men to discuss generally proposals to prevent friction between the department and the commercial community.

I am quite prepared to do that.

The fact that the trade returns are printed in two languages is no explanation of the delay, for the only matter that is altered every month are the figures, and a nought is a nought whether it is in English or Afrikaans. Will the Minister give instructions that interest on orphan funds shall be credited not only on the capital sum, but that any unspent balance of income shall also be credited with interest?

That is not such a very simple matter—there is the cost of administering the orphan fund. Some time ago the Public Accounts Committee made some recommendations which I accepted, and as a result of which we are paying a higher rate of interest. We might go into the thing in the select committee, and if they make a recommendation I will consider it.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt,” £4,852,000,

There is a new departure in the shape of a footnote to the item “Redemption, £650,000,” which reads—

I wonder what is the idea of inserting this footnote.

Just to give the information to the House.

I am afraid the laudable intention of the Minister results, in this particular instance, in giving misleading information, as anybody reading it may get the impression that from the revenue our contributions towards redemption is not £650,000, but £1,200,000. The facts are that the Public Debt Commissioners receive every year a certain amount for investment, which they used formerly to invest mainly in the stock of other dominions, and sometimes they bought British consols. On that stock they used to receive interest annually. To-day, however, their investments are almost entirely in our own stock, and on that stock we have the same obligation to pay them interest as we do to the rest of the stockholders. The suggestion is clearly made in the footnote that from our revenue we are paying £1,200,000 a year towards debt redemption. Of course, that is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion—it is the interest on the stock the Public Debt Commissioners hold. What we pay to our stockholders in interest is the sum of £4,150,000. I can imagine some other supporter; of the Government addressing meetings in the country and saying: “Look at this wonderful Government of ours. From its revenues alone, apart from surpluses, it is contributing a sum of £1,200,000 a year towards debt extinction.” I cannot understand why for the first time in history of framing our estimates that has been done. If it were only stated expressly that this represents interest on stock held by the Public Debt Commissioners held in common with other stockholders, it might still be misleading, but certainly it would be clearer than in its present form. I would like the Minister to tell us the exact purpose of that footnote.

Let me repudiate the suggestion that this was done with any idea of misleading. Many other footnotes appear for the first time with the idea of giving information to Parliament. If Parliament does not like the information the hon. member can move for the deletion of the footnote, and I will accept it. I deny that there is any intention to mislead, and anybody with the least intelligence would know exactly what this means.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the vote, Land Bank, £480,000, and ask what it means.

That is merely interest received by the Land Bank.

Nobody wants to prevent my hon. friend from giving information to the committee or to the country. All I say in supporting what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said is that if you wanted to give that information you should not have put that “a” against £660,000, and then added it to £550,000, and referred to £1,200,000 as being for debt redemption. We are not all as intelligent as my hon. friend, and I am perfectly certain that if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had not called attention to it, there are some, even of the most enthusiastic followers of the hon. the Minister of Finance, who would have treated this as a contribution to debt redemption, and if anybody had doubted it they would have said to us “Here are the estimates passed by Parliament, and look at the footnote.”

None of them would have been so simple.

I can assure my hon. friend there are many of his supporters in the country who can be more easily gulled even than by a suggestion of this character, and they would very likely be misled. He might have said, “Besides this the investments held by the Public Debt Commissioners brought in an annual income of £550,000 which could be added to the fund.”

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions”, £2,355,000,

This rather exemplifies the want of strict care on the part of the Treasury in regard to some of the expenditure. It appears an official came out from the Imperial Government in reference to pensions, and directed attention to the cost of artificial limbs and appliances. It is not a very large amount. This is what is said in regard to the matter in the report. [Extract read.] This is a comment on the way we manage this particular item in South Africa, and I think it is rather a strong indictment from the taxpayers’ point of view. The Imperial Government could not afford to disregard costs in a matter like this, and we apparently do.

I have taken a note of that. I know about it, but this is in accordance with what I thought when I took office was especially the policy of my hon. friends opposite, to follow a generous policy in regard to ex-soldiers. As far as the artificial limb factory is concerned, I admit that the expenditure, to my mind, is unreasonably high. I have been informed, from time to time, what the policy was and approved of it, that we should give, as far as our crippled ex-soldiers are concerned, the best value in the world, and I am informed that the work carried on by this factory is the very best. It is a question of policy whether we should send a limb from Pretoria without the wearer being measured. I am informed that it is necessary, when a new limb is supplied, to have the most minute measurements if you want to supply the very best limb, therefore we incur the heavy expenditure of getting the pensioner to Pretoria to get the measurements. In regard to the question of getting the opinion of specialists in bad cases, we again follow a generous policy. It may not be in accord with the policy adopted in Great Britain, but I thought I was interpreting the wishes of Parliament.

I think the hon. the Minister is Correct. We have great obligations with regard to people who have been maimed in the service of their country, and I do not think there is any doubt that if you want to have an artificial limb in connection with a limb that has been worn out, you must have measurements taken as correctly and accurately as possible, otherwise the artificial limb will give a great deal of trouble and inconvenience, and very often pain, to the unfortunate person who has it. I agree with him in even going further—that in many cases it may be necessary to have the best specialist’s advice you can get, and I do not think anybody will grudge the Minister spending a little money in that direction to get the very best specialist’s advice in particular cases. I do not think my hon. friend objects to that.

I object to spending more than is necessary.

I want to say a few words about (L) Grants to aged or infirm ex-soldiers or their dependants, £90,000. It was a happy thought of the Minister’s a few years ago to put aside £30 000 for this purpose. It was subsequently increased to £90,000, and last year an additional £26,000 was put on the supplementary estimate, so that for the whole year £116,000 was spent on this service. I can assure the Minister that the persons so concerned appreciate it most highly but yet it seems to me that it is very difficult to make the grant in the way intended by the Minister. I have heard many complaints about the granting of the £2 10s. a month. It seems that in many cases dissatisfaction exists among persons who have applied, but been given no pension.

That, of course, is caused by the tremendous difficulty in saying who is needy and who is not. Cases occur of persons who own ground, but practically only in name. The ground is heavily mortgaged, the owners of about 70 years old cannot of course work it any more, but merely because it is registered in their name they cannot claim the pension. In another case again there are complaints because the grants have been made. Then, of course, they come, not from the people who have received the grants, but from members of the public. In some cases it is said that they do actually have children who are able to support their father or mother, a son or a son-in-law. I do not know whether a son-in-law also comes under the Act, but I remember a court case where a daughter was compelled to support her old father, and the son-in-law had to find the money. Be this as it may, almost everything at present rests with the magistrate, and the question is whether it is not asking too much of him to bear all the responsibility. On a former occasion it was suggested that committees should be appointed in the districts. The Minister would not hear of it, he thought it unnecessary. Yet I think that in view of the many difficulties there is justification for adding one person in an advisory capacity to the magistrate. This need not cause expenditure. There will certainly be one or two persons in each district, outside of the police, who will be willing to advise the magistrate. As for children, I have read the report of the Old Age Pensions Commission, and it continually mentions that assistance for their parents can only be expected from children if the children are not thereby prevented from maintaining their own households and educating their children. I think, however, that in view of the approaching introduction of old age pensions the same difficulties will arise, and it may actually be desirable for the Minister to enquire again carefully whether it would not be better to carry out my suggestion and have the work which is now done by the magistrate done by him, assisted by one or more persons in his district. Then there are various complaints which I do not want to go into. One, for instance, is about the list which has to be filled in. There are sixteen or seventeen questions on it, and it is stated that it is just as difficult to fill it up as the income tax forms, and that the form is too complicated, but I have gone into the question, and think the complaint is unreasonable. All the questions must of necessity be answered, otherwise the information is incomplete. As for (K) Artificial Limbs and Appliances, I know of one person who is already 70 or 71 years of age and no longer requires an artificial leg because at his time of life he does not walk any more. Cannot he be given the money instead of the leg?

No.

I hope the Minister will go into the other points mentioned by me.

The points raised by the hon. member have repeatedly been discussed here. The dissatisfaction, of course, is among the people who are excluded under the scheme. We can easily remove the dissatisfaction by simply voting, e.g., £250,000 instead of £116,000, then the difficulties will disappear, but the hon. member must remember that the thing was started merely as an emergency measure until the old pensions scheme could be carried out, which is now about to be done. The emergency measure was only intended for the worst cases. The intention is to bring the oudstryders under the old age pensions scheme. Then the difficulties, including those regarding children, will disappear, because although, as the commission has recommended, the law has to make provision giving the Government the right, in cases where it appears that a child is financially able to maintain a parent or parents, to demand the pension from the child, yet so far as the parents themselves are concerned the pension will be granted unconditionally. The intention is also not to be too meticulous with reference to the children, but only in cases where it is quite clear that the child is really strong enough financially to support the parent, will the Government have the right to recover the pension from the child. Then, further, the Government is not obliged to do that, but can demand the whole or part of the pension back from the child. I hope that hon. members will now be content to continue in the meantime as in the past, until the old age pensions scheme, which we hope to bring into force at the end of the year, can be applied. As for oudstryders who are invalids, and are not supported in consequence of their ages, they will not fall under the old age scheme, but the intention is to take steps for the Pensions Committee to have a list of the worst cases, and to include them in the ordinary annual Pensions Act.

Without a petition?

Yes, I hope the House will approve of such a measure.

One of the difficulties is that there is, e.g., a person who got £1 or £1 10s. under the old Pensions Act. He was not only wounded in the war, but is very old and needy. Now we are getting the maintenance fund for the old people, and they will be paid £2 10s. The magistrate will possibly refuse to pay the balance to the person—

We know those difficulties. The hon. member must please raise them when the Old Age Pensions Bill comes up. Then we can go into them.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations”, £5,456,445,

There is one matter in connection with this vote I would like some information from the Minister about. I see we provide funds for an auditor for the Cape of Good Hope, for Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. We pay the salaries of these auditors, but they are not under the Auditor-General. It was very clear in a recent unfortunate inquiry at the Cape that the auditing was of a most casual and flimsy nature, no real auditing at all. I would like to know whether we have any say in the matter or any control of it, and where the control comes. It came out most clearly in the evidence that there really had been no auditing in the matter at all. I refer, of course, to the unfortunate stores inquiry. If that sort of thing happens in regard to one thing, it may happen with others. Do we make the appointments, seeing that we pay the salaries?

I think that if a vacancy arose, I would make the appointment. I am taking action in regard to the case referred to by the hon. member. I think it is obvious—it cannot be denied— that the audit probably had broken down. I do not think any very serious blame can be brought home to the Provincial Auditor here, but there is no doubt that some things that should have been found out earlier had not been found out. I do not know whether that could have been prevented if control had rested with the Auditor-General. I doubt it very much. This is a very good officer, with long service, and it is very much regretted that this thing happened.

I am glad that point has been raised. We have all been rather puzzled as to the actual position of Provincial Auditors. They seem to have been seconded from the Audit Department of the Union, and they come under no control whatever, and in the Transvaal when we enquired who they were responsible to, it appeared they were responsible to no one but themselves. When we asked them where they belonged, they said to the Civil Service and to the Union Government, but were seconded to the Provincial Administrations. We said, “Where do you go for your pay?” and they replied, “To the Union Treasury.” When we appealed to the Treasury, they said they paid them, but had no responsibility; so the provincial councils had no responsibility, the Audit Department itself had no responsibility, and the Treasury disclaimed responsibility.

No, we did not.

Oh, yes; we have it in the correspondence. I think the Minister himself was in charge when the Treasury repudiated any responsibility for the Provincial Auditor in the Transvaal.

I do not want to shirk my responsibility at all. These gentlemen are paid for under my vote, and I accept it that, in so far as it is possible to control their work, it will have to be done by the Treasury. That is the position. Although, of course, they work for the provincial administrations and they get their instructions from the provincial administrations, as far as the system is concerned, I think the Treasury must accept responsibility, and I have no intention of shirking that responsibility.

I think under the circumstances the Minister should take not only the responsibility, but should place these auditors under the Auditor-General. It is true that he is only carrying on the system of previous Governments, but, nevertheless, the time has arrived when there should be a change in the control of the auditors.

I do not want to hold up the vote, but I want to ask the Minister something. He has a subsidy here to the Cape of £2,068,000. Of course he knows the Cape are not satisfied with that sum, and the Minister also knows that the teachers are very dissatisfied in regard to the way in which the provincial executive of the Cape are dealing with them. I do not want to go into questions which affect the Provincial Council of the Cape—I understand that they are a very good council; the speeches I read seem particularly good—but what I do want to ask the Minister is—is it right that an administrator who has been appointed by a Pact Government should go dead against what we have been preaching all these years by cutting down teachers’ salaries without consulting the teachers? We have always taken up the line that we have a Whitley spirit, that we should discuss these matters round the table with the people concerned. The Administrator of the Cape, without consulting them, has brought in a new scale. I do not want to make it a party question—I do not think it is one—but I want to know why the Administrator and two of the Nationalist members of the executive should deal in this way with the teachers without consulting them.

But the executive brought this forward.

I do not know whether there are party politics in this particular council. The Administrator said there were none, and I believe the Administrator. There are no party politics in the Free State Provincial Council. Naturally, I do not blame the Minister for one moment. I only want to raise this question, because, just before the election we took it up and we have not broken any of our election pledges yet, and we do not want to start breaking them now. Well, I have not broken any of mine. Cannot the Minister do something with regard to this question? The teachers in the Cape are very dissatisfied about this thing. I know that the South African party in the Cape want these particular salaries lowered.

Why do not the Labour people say anything about it?

They would if they had the chance. This vote would have been through if I had not said anything. I understand that South African party members of the Provincial Council agreed with the Administrator—two members of the executive voted for it. That is what the teachers think. If I thought the Administrator was right I would say so. I have not raised this from the political party point of view. [Interruption.] How can I raise it from the party point of view if it is against my own party? Can the Minister do anything to rectify this in future. If there is any proposed reduction in salaries the teachers should be consulted, just as the civil servants should be consulted. That is what we have preached, and what we preach again. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) introduced that some time ago, and has always been in favour of Whitley councils. Then there is something with regard to their furlough, the teachers say they have not been getting it. There is also something about pensions—when a woman teacher marries and leaves the service she loses the money she has paid into the pension fund. That does not happen in the railway and the public service, and why should it apply to the teachers? I raise it because it has not been raised by Cape members, and I am sorry I had to come all the way from the Free State to do it. As a champion of liberty I had to do it.

I am sorry, I cannot assist my hon. friend. This is a question of provincial policy initiated by the provincial executive, of which the Administrator is a member. Although the Administrator is appointed by the Government, it does not interfere with provincial policy.

The Minister has an overflowing treasury, and I think the whole of the Cape members of the House were looking forward to an act of justice in relation to the subsidy which the province receives from the Union —the capitation grant.

That is paid in accordance with an Act of Parliament.

Quite; but an Act of Parliament can be altered, and I think it is time that this Act should be altered.

I must point out that the hon. member is not now allowed to discuss the alteration of the law.

It might be made possible in the form of a grant, because the Minister must have realized that the Cape Province is suffering from a serious injustice in regard to the school children, because of this capitation.

The Minister may tell me that at Durban an agreement was arrived at which was fair to all the provinces, but when an agreement is put into working, flaws are found. The Cape has put up a strong case for relief in some form or another. The capitation is £14 per head, whereas

Order; the hon. member is now discussing an alteration so far as the law is concerned.

I am discussing an act of injustice to the Cape, and I leave it to the Minister whether he alters it or not. I put to the Minister the difficulty in which the Cape Provincial Council finds itself, owing to the small capitation grant.

Why do they not put on a poll tax, like we do in the Transvaal?

Why do they not tax themselves?

Why does the Transvaal get a bigger capitation?

May I ask the Minister whether the Provincial Council of the Cape has not on three occasions passed an unanimous resolution apprising him of the impossible position owing to the grant they receive, especially as regards education?

I have told the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that no hon. member is allowed to advocate alterations in the law at this stage.

I am not discussing alterations in the law, but asking the Minister whether the Cape Province has made representations. I am asking a question: if they have been made, what were they? If I am out of order I shall sit down.

Perhaps the Minister will kindly tell us whether he has not reconsidered the situation. I am not dealing with legislation at all, but asking whether he cannot re-distribute his surplus in a better manner, and give something to the Provincial Council of the Cape to provide for this iniquity which exists at present, and if he does so, it can be set right.

Perhaps we might leave the matter to be fought out on the other side. I cannot just now recollect the resolutions which have been passed, but I have been interviewed by the Administrator of the Cape and the members of the executive committee; and, of course, I could give only one reply; that is, I think I made fair and adequate provisions for all the provinces, and the Cape was treated as generously as all the other provinces. The proof of that lies in the fact that whereas four years ago they were piling up deficits, and they were proposing to levy heavy taxation, they have been getting on handsomely for four years with surpluses. We never heard about any unjust differentiation before until they came to the end of their tether and had to face their responsibilities, and put their hands into their pockets, as the other provinces had had to do long ago. There is not a single province with the same taxable reserve as the Cape Province. The Cape will not be in any difficulties if it will only face the situation.

The other provinces have no divisional councils.

I have always heard that the Cape is very enamoured of the divisional councils, which are doing very good work for it.

We pay for it.

Yes, but if the matter is gone into it will be found that the other provinces pay taxes which are not levied in the Cape, but which are very much larger than the rates levied by the Cape divisional councils. In the Transvaal and the Free State there are provincial taxes and poll taxes. The Cape has been in the fortunate position all these years, as a result of the very generous provision made for it, of never being in financial difficulties or being forced to place its house in order. I have not been able to agree with the Cape executive committee that they have a very strong case for a revision of the subsidy.

Why is it when we are cutting down teachers’ salaries, the four provincial auditors receive more than their maximum scale of salary, and even in the case of the Transvaal and Free State with local allowance added? If this is the rule in the Treasury Department, is it general right through the service, and, if not, why not?

The Minister stated that the matter had not been called to his direct attention before, but last year I called his attention to the inequity of the capitation tax.

A certain question has been asked the Minister which has been answered. I may point out to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that these subsidies are granted under the Financial Relations Act of 1925, and none of these relevant amounts can be altered without an Act of Parliament. I cannot, therefore, permit the discussion to continue.

Right through the estimates there are individual cases where the holder of an office draws an amount in excess of the maximum allotted to the post, the reason being that all officers in the service before March, 1923, ratained their personal salaries, but all fresh entrants came in under the new scales. That is the explanation why certain officers draw amounts in excess of the scale.

But not railway workers?

When the extra money was granted to the Cape Provincial Council in 1925, it was understood that teachers’ salaries would be put on a proper basis. Teachers generally, including non-European teachers, however, are at present only paid at the same rate of wage given to an ordinary carpenter or joiner. Teachers who mould the character of future generations, and accountants who have to safeguard the business of the country, should be of the very highest type, and I fear that by lowering teachers’ salaries, you will not get the best men and women to enter the profession. For that reason, in other countries teachers’ salaries are higher almost than that of any other profession. In Denmark teachers are paid 172 per cent. higher than the ordinary carpenter or engineer, in Germany 93 per cent., and in Britain 62 per cent.; in all other countries the salaries of teachers are based on a higher scale than those of ordinary mechanics. In other countries teachers are paid on an average 75 per cent, more than the ordinary mechanic. The Minister should bring pressure to bear on the Cape provincial executive to pay the salaries agreed upon at the joint conference held in Cape Town.

As far as I could follow the Minister, he did not reply to the question as to the equity of paying a capitation grant to the Cape Province of only £14 11s. 11d., while he pays the other provinces £16 2s. 7d., more especially in view of the fact that the cost of living in the Cape Province is continually going up, and the sparseness of the population in very large portions of the Cape increases the cost of educational work.

I do not want to go into the matter of teachers’ salaries, because it is a matter with which we have nothing to do. It concerns the provincial council, but the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has been making a great song, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), about the fact that there is a S.A.P. majority in the provincial council, and that that explains the step contemplated in regard to the question of teachers’ salaries. I would like to point out that if the Administrator, who I do not think they will accuse of being a S.A.P. man, had been opposed to this matter, it would never have come before the council. In the second place, if the hon. member and his friends had not repealed the Act we passed in 1924, it would not have been possible for the provincial council to have done this. An Act was passed by this House when we were in office which provided that teachers’ salaries throughout the Union should be on a uniform scale and should be laid down on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and that alterations could only be made on the advice of the Public Service Commission.

That is quite right, but the salaries would not have been reduced now, but reduced then.

How does the Minister know that? The Public Service Commission land down the principle that no change should be made without consultation with the teachers. The first thing the hon. member and his friends did when they came into power was to repeal that and leave it in the hands of the provincial council of any province to reduce the teachers’ salaries without reference to the salaries in other provinces.

The Minister, in discussing old age pensions two or three days ago, stated it was clear that to include natives in such a scheme was impracticable, but aged and indigent natives would continue to be assisted by the Provincial Council Poor Relief Fund, and he thought the councils would have funds available to provide assistance on a much more liberal scale. I wish to ask the Minister if he intends to make provision to compel the provincial councils to expend such funds as they may save from relief under the present system on the relief of indigent natives in lieu of a pension fund for natives.

I cannot enforce poor relief. This sort of relief is, to-day, a provincial question under the constitution, and I do not propose to interfere with their powers. I think they will be compelled by public opinion. I think the opinion expressed in this House is bound to carry some weight. The members of provincial councils are subject to the same pressure from outside.

They have not to look to the natives in the Transvaal or Free State or Natal.

I was not looking to the natives. I consider the question from the point of view of what is fair and reasonable.

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) to the following facts. It is true we voted against his suggestion because we realized salaries would have been lowered to the Cape basis and we realized that the Transvaal was at that period paying higher salaries, but also were giving free education up to matriculation, and free technical education, whereas in the Cape we were not. We were afraid to agree to a uniform basis because it would have been on the Cape basis, not on the Transvaal basis. How do I know that? I know the policy of the S.A.P. It is difficult for this Government to play the game when we realize that the Opposition has a majority in the provincial council and in the Senate. Unfortunately in the provincial council the S.A.P. have a majority, but this House has no right to let either the children or the teachers suffer for the misdeeds of the S.A.P.

I am sorry it is quite impossible for our friends opposite to play the game, but I am sure we are talking to a Minister who will do his best to play the game. With regard to this provincial education subsidy, I take it this is made up of a subsidy of £16 7s. 6d. per child in the Cape for the first 30,000, and after that £14 per head per child. I would like to ask the Minister if he could tell us whether it is correct that the principal reason for the differentiation between the Cape and other provinces was the cheaper cost of living in the Cape than in the other provinces? And, if so, could he tell us whether the Superintendent General of Education in the Cape has made three exhaustive enquiries into the effect of the sparseness of population in the Cape on the actual value of this subsidy, and whether those reports show that the difference in the cost of living is completely nullified by the extra expense due to the sparseness of the population? Is the Minister convinced that the position is really a difficult one for the Cape, and that the conclusions come to by Dr. Viljoen are correct, and the Cape is really the loser under this differentiation?

I also have been going to ask the Minister if he has read a very illuminating report by Dr. Viljoen for 1925-’26.

No.

I recommend that he should read it, because he will find a very great deal of illuminating matter in it. With the greatest respect for the Transvaal and the other provinces, I am prepared to say that if the Minister of Finance will take head for head the amount of taxation actually levied on the white population of this country, the Cape need fear no comparison.

I was dealing with provincial taxation.

I will take provincial taxation. The Minister has drawn special attention to one or two forms of taxation which do not exist in the Cape. There is the provincial income tax. What we do here is to provide a very great deal of local government throughout the whole of the Cape Province which is not provided for anywhere else, the services for which are borne at the cost of the Union Government elsewhere. The divisional councils are doing a very large and important work throughout the country, and the work is being paid for by a levy on the landed properties throughout the country. There is no land tax in the Free State or in the Transvaal for provincial purposes on immovable property. We have had the courage in the Cape here to pass an Act of that sort and at the present moment every bit of land in the whole of the Cape Province on a proper valuation made by the province pays its due share.

That does not come up to the taxation levied in the other provinces through the other forms.

I am not at the moment prepared to give the figures, nor do I think I would be bound to accept, without investigation, the remark made by the Minister. I want to draw attention to this, that it is a great unfairness to the Cape to make comparisons of that kind by picking out two or three taxes which are levied elsewhere without having regard to the fact that there are taxes levied in the Cape Province which are not found elsewhere, and I do say that these taxes and the amount contributed to the divisional councils do form a very large set-off indeed, if they do not entirely counter-balance the taxation referred to by the Minister. With regard to the auditor of the Cape Province, the result of the evidence given in a certain commission brought this out that, as a matter of fact, the auditor was rather the victim of circumstances and that it was partly the fault of the system under which the Provincial Requisite Store was conducted. I am sure the Minister will give a very high testimony to the services of that officer.

I personally can testify to the value of the services performed by this gentleman, but there is no doubt about it, we have to admit, that there was a breakdown in the audit. I do not want to say anything move about that. I can only say in reply to my hon. friend there that I have not seen the reports by Dr. Viljoen referred to by him. I can only say that the basis of subsidy was laid down as the result of a very exhaustive investigation made by the Baxter Commission at the time as to the relative actual costs of education in the various provinces.

That was years ago.

In a certain measure it is based on the same principle as the differentiation which to-day exists in regard to the payment or non-payment of local allowances.

Which is unfair to the Cape.

It has been suggested that in late years there has been a levelling-up going on. That is a point which will have to be investigated. The point I wish to make is this—that the subsidy was based on the actual cost of education, and I do not think hon. members can make out a strong case by merely pointing to differentiation in subsidies, because we must remember that conditions are different in the various provinces. We have a proof of this in that, as a result of the Financial Relations Act the Cape, which was formerly in a bad position, was placed in a very comfortable position. The proof of that lies in the fact that for four years they have been going on with surpluses. Let me inform the House that I think one of the reasons why they are in difficulties to-day is that they have to pay the interest and redemption on their big deficit of the past, which, I think, comes to about £170,000 per annum. They escaped taxation at the time. They are now reaping the fruits of the arrangement which was entered into. I hope our friends in the Cape will be reasonable, and I think they must admit, as they admitted in 1925, that on the whole it was a fair and reasonable arrangement. They have not had the necessity for levying taxation for four years and by a very simple adjustment to-day they can be in a very comfortable position compared to other provinces. I hope they will face their position and balance their accounts, and not go in for a policy of piling up deficits and coming to the Treasury for assistance.

I am sorry to see continuing here votes to Natal and the Free State of the special grant of £75,000. It has been going on for 17 years now, and is in the nature of an insult to these provinces.

Order. The hon. member is not allowed to advocate now an alteration of the law.

No, sir. If the law permits that £100,000 may be reduced to £75,000, as it has been, surely we have the right to discuss whether £75,000 is wrong. If we have to vote the money yearly, and we have voted it in accordance with the Act, it does not make a permanent charge for ever and ever. Surely as it appears as a reduced amount from what it has been, it is within our rights to discuss it. But, of course, I bow to your ruling in the matter.

No.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services,” £171,196

Does not the Minister think it is about time this Rents Act of 1920 should be repealed and the saving of £3,500 made? The circumstances have altered very materially since the Act was passed.

I am very sorry to have to intervene again. The hon. member wants a certain Act to be repealed. The hon. member cannot discuss that here.

The Minister has got here expenses of the mint. Under estimated miscellaneous receipts, we have the mint, £101,000. Up to last year this money, after paying the expenses, was transferred to loan account. Last year, quite arbitrarily, after it had passed through Parliament the whole amount was taken for revenue account, notwithstanding the fact that the House had sanctioned the transfer of the balance of the money to loan account. I would like to know why my hon. friend should have done that. I thought he was rather in favour of putting such amounts to loan account than to revenue. Furthermore; later on it is quite possible he will have to find the money for reconditioning of coinage, and so forth. It would have been better for him to have stuck to the old policy as he did for three years.

The hon. member knows the policy was laid down to use these amounts for loan purposes, until such time as the capital cost of the plant and buildings was paid. After that it came to revenue. The Treasury meets, too, out of revenue, any cost of reconditioning and any loss on minting, etc. I do not think that very much can be said for the suggestion that receipts of this nature should necessarily go to loan account.

I want to ask the Minister why he has reduced the subsidy for Bloemfontein under Item A, while Maritzburg still remains as it was. Mr. Sheridan has reported on Maritzburg, and I understand he has reported it as a very rich city. Natal always gets away with it somehow. They aways have done so from the very beginning. The day before Union they did all sorts of extraordinary things, and passed all sorts of laws. Now we are carrying the burden of this wretched colonial capital. Bloemfontein progresses and says to the country: “We don’t want your money. We will give it back.” Natal hangs on to it. I think the Minister should publish that report of Mr. Sheridan, so that people can see that although Maritzburg has gone ahead a good deal, it is still getting this money. Will representatives of Maritzburg say it is going back? I hope the Minister has that report, and I hope he will give it to us. It seems that if a community stands by the Government it does not get much out of it, but if it does not it gets spoon-fed. Maritzburg is spoon-fed all the time. We stand by the Government and we get nothing.

On a point of order, I want to know whether the ruling applied to me does not apply to the hon. member?

The Act says “Not exceeding two per cent.” I understand the hon. member means too much is being paid to Maritzburg. If he wishes to move a reduction he may do so.

Surely the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) knows I would not break a rule of the House. I want to say everything that is good about Maritzburg. I mean that, because I think it is one of the nicest towns in the country, and I think it is a very nice province, but I do think the time has come when the people of Maritzburg should be a little patriotic and say “We are doing well, and we have done well, and the Government has seen us through. Now is the time when we will give a little of our money up.” We, in Bloemfontein, are in the back rank, and we have given up £14,000. Let Natal show a little patriotism and give up £14,000 to-night. I would like them to move a reduction of £14,000, so as to show they are truly South Africans. That is really something to do, like we have done in Bloemfontein. We have given the country a present of £14,000.

By force.

No, not by force. If the hon. member will ask Mr. Sheridan, he will find out we did give that. He went to Maritzburg and got a very cold reception, in fact they wanted it increased. That is Natal all over. I do not want to do an injustice, but I do feel the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) should get up and move a reduction of £14,000 now.

The hon. member says the only places that can get anything are the places that stand up against the Government. Well, perhaps Bloemfontein will do that at the next election. I want to refer to Head H. contingencies. In the Auditor-General’s report there is a paragraph relating to the refund of duty on aeroplanes. [Extract read. J At the same time there were other people who, I understand, were associated with Maj. Miller under precisely similar circumstances, and they say, quite reasonably, that they should be accorded the same treatment as Maj. Miller. The concession was made to him because he was a pioneer, and I have no fault to find with that at all, but it was the same with the other people, and they should be awarded a refund in the same way. I understand they have made representations, but with no result.

The hon. member has stated the position fairly—that is so. Under previous legislation aeroplanes were subjected to this duty, and when the tariff was revised, the Government considered it would be the correct policy to allow these articles free. Representations were made by Maj. Miller that certain aeroplanes had been imported under the old legislation, and he was a pioneer for the training of young South Africans. He made out a strong case for consideration, and I thought it no more than right to give consideration to what he said, but to my alarm I found out that he was not the only person. The hon. member will admit that these other people are not on the same footing. If I had known that there were more claimants I would not have considered the matter at all. Now a number of people are coming forward who cannot put forward the same claims as Maj. Miller’s.

One case has been brought to my knowledge where I understand the circumstances are precisely similar. I do not know why a differentiation can be made.

Well, the hon. member can renew his representations, and I will go into the matter. There are probably other claimants who will say their position is exactly the same.

We have been listening to the jocose remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in connection with the subsidy paid to Pietermaritzburg under Clause 133 of the South Africa Act. There is no town in South Africa which has suffered so much from the " benefits” of Union as Pietermaritzburg. Before Union it was the capital of an independent colony, and a seat of government, and any progress which has taken place since then has been not on account of but despite Union. Now it is overshadowed by an important town, a port 50 to 60 miles away—Durban, a progressive town. Bloemfontein is the capital town of a province as big as France, and the great town of that province. The only reason why Pietermaritzburg has improved is because it is the heart of a great agricultural district. It used to have a large garrison with considerable spending power. Some years since an examination was made by a commissioner (Mr. Sheridan), who said it was not fair to interfere with the system which had existed since Union. In connection with the report referred to by the hon. member, I have seen it, and the reasons given make for the continuance of the subsidy, but the conclusions of the commission are that it should be reduced. We will be quite willing when the time comes, as we have always been, to meet our obligations, but the debt is a very big one for a small population, and the obligations were entered into because of the conditions which existed at the time. I hope I have given sufficient reason why that subsidy should not be interfered with until the legal time has lapsed—25 years.

The position in regard to this item is as the hon. member has stated. Some years ago, I think it was in 1920, after the expiry of the first ten years as laid down under the Act of Union, an inquiry was instituted in the case of both Pietermaritzburg and Bloemfontein, and, as a result, Bloemfontein has been suffering a diminution of its grant for some time past; but in the case of Pietermaritzburg, the Government of the day decided, according to the report, that it would not be reasonable at the time to make a reduction, and laid down that after the lapse of a further few years the matter would be re-investigated. I sent Mr. Sheridan, the commissioner, to make the second investigation; as the result of the report I have received, I have decided that the grant shall be reduced from this year by one-third. I think it must be clear to the committee that, even on the showing of the hon. member who has just spoken, Pietermaritzburg has no ground to contest this at all. She seems to think that because she has not progressed to the same extent as other cities in the Union, this reduction should not take place. That was not what was laid down in the Act of Union. The compensation was given to them for any loss they might suffer as the result of ceasing to be the capitals of the separate colonies. I do not think it can be proved that Maritzburg still suffers as the result of Union. The point that is being made by the Town Council is that Maritzburg has not prospered to the same extent as other cities in the Union, but that is obviously due to the fact that she is situated close to a seaport, which has over-shadowed her, and not to the fact that Natal entered into Union. I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that Maritzburg was treated very generously in being given the grant all these years without any reduction. I have carefully considered Mr. Sheridan’s report, and have come to the conclusion that this reduction must be made. I do not know whether it is necessary to amend the estimates. The amount will appear in column 2 of the Appropriation Act, and it can be used only for the purpose for which it was voted, and we propose paying out only two-thirds of the grant Maritzburg has been receiving, the balance to cease in 1935, as laid down in the Act of Union.

What is the necessity for the continuance of the subsidy of £27,000 a year to the mail contractors for sending the mail boats from Cape Town to Durban? I understand that when this was first agreed to there was some reason for it, but now the bulk of the cargoes are received at Durban and intermediate ports. In the wool season the ships get filled along the coast, leaving room only for fruit when they reach Cape Town. The ships make their money around the coast ports.

The hon. member (Mr. Brown) has been expressing the opinion of many hon. members that the necessity for this payment probably ceased long ago. I am not sure whether the new freight agreement affects the question, but I do not think so. This payment is bound up with the mail contract and we shall continue to pay it unless we enter into a new agreement.

I am sorry that the Minister has dealt, with the question of compensation to Maritzburg without waiting to receive a deputation from the town council and has prejudged the matter. I saw the Minister prior to the holidays, and he told me that he would receive a deputation after he got the Budget through. I intimated that to Maritzburg, and I think that common courtesy would have demanded that he should have waited until he had heard the views that the deputation might have placed before him. The removal of the capital was a very great thing to Maritzburg with a debt of nearly £1,200,000 which was incurred only on account of Maritzburg being the capital of an independent province.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member. I have a responsibility to this House and there is nothing that the Maritzburg Town Council can tell me which will alter the position in the very least. The whole position is known —we have the report. The decision was taken some time ago and Maritzburg has been informed of it.

Excuse me, you said you hoped they would agree to it.

If the council wish to see me I will listen to them.

That is not your usual courtesy.

The question of courtesy has nothing to do with it. I am responsible to Parliament and I am not going to ask Parliament to vote the money when it is not necessary. The question of receiving the deputation has nothing to do with the matter, for nothing they can advance will alter the position in the least.

I regret that the Minister says that there is a possibility of the withdrawal of the subsidy to the mail company for sending its mail boats to Durban. The visit of the mail steamers to Durban is absolutely essential for the development of the citrus industry, and Durban is the one port in the Union which is nearest to the Transvaal and Natal orange plantations. I was astounded to hear the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) advocate the withdrawal of the subsidy. He, like many other Transvaalers, enjoys the cheap excursions from Cape Town to Durban and back by the steamers of the Union-Castle Company. Nowhere in the world do shipping companies provide such cheap trips as those which are available along our coasts during the holiday season. These facilities are taken advantage of to the full, particularly by the Transvaalers.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London,” £47,047,

I want to call attention to the emoluments of the High Commissioner in London. He draws £4,000 a year. Besides that, he gets a remission of English income tax. Up to 1925 he was exempt from the income tax of the Union. By the Act of 1925 South African income tax was imposed upon him. Notwithstanding that the law was altered for that express purpose of imposing it upon the High Commissioner in common with others

Not for the express purpose.

He was brought under the law, which is quite right. Then the hon. the Minister makes a refund, against the intention of the law, of the income tax paid by the High Commissioner so that he is entirely free from English and South African income tax, whereas his clerks have to pay at any rate one tax. That is not the end of the chapter of emoluments. He used to hire motors and the bill from April to November was £170. I suppose that was not in accordance with his dignity as South African High Commissioner. We must buy a Daimler, costing £1,358. The Prime Minister is content with a £950 motor car.

That is an American car. You cannot do that in England.

“Daimler landaulette de luxe,” whatever that may be, was purchased. From November 17, 1926, to March 31, 1927, the car ran 6,080 miles, £96 was paid for petrol. That is a piece of gross extravagance which the people of this country cannot afford. You first of all remit him his taxation. Why could not he have paid like other citizens of the Union? It is a matter of £400 on his salary.

Why did not you put it on his predecessor?

I am dealing with the present occupant of the post. Two sins do not make a right.

You are talking about altering the position. It is not altered.

I want it restored to what it was intended to be by the Act of 1925.

The present occupant of the post was appointed on exactly the same terms as his predecessor. The law was not specifically altered to bring his under the law. The law was re-drafted when it was consolidated. Formerly, it provided specific exemption. A number of these exemptions fell out. That was after he had been appointed under the conditions which obtained with his predecessors. It was pointed out to us that as a result of the re-drafting of the Act he would now be liable and naturally we could not carry that out as he was appointed on the condition that he would not be paying income tax.

I see in this vote some items under the heading Stores and Shopping Branch. What is the system under which purchases are made through the High Commissioner’s office. Is there anything in the nature of a tender board over there?

Tenders are called in South Africa. There is no tender board in London.

Are not they opened and dealt with in the High Commissioner’s office?

No. I think they only inspect stores there.

I was under the impression that the High Commissioner did, in fact, deal largely and directly with original purchases in England. Can he place orders there? Can he buy apart from any system of tenders at all?

No, the position, I think, is that tenders are always called in South Africa, and the board sits here and they are dealt with here, but I think there are cases where the railway administration specially instructed him to purchase.

Without tenders?

Yes. The case was discussed here in the House. I remember my colleague explaining the circumstances I think to the satisfaction of the House.

I would like to ask the Minister how many of these hundred clerks and officials are South Africans. Australia, I am informed, fills up her High Commissioner’s office with men born in Australia. I have not been to the High Commissioner’s office since the present High Commissioner was appointed, but I am told from a very reliable source that they can get no information about South Africa. The Minister says “No.” We shall be able to tell the Minister something. My friend tells me that the majority of people he spoke to were English people who knew nothing about South Africa. You cannot compare South Africa House to Australia House. If you go to Australia House everybody is round you at once, and they can tell you all about Australia. If you go to South Africa House they cannot do it. I am not blaming Mr. Smit. I am only asking that more South Africans should be sent over there, men born in this country who will go there and take a great interest in South Africa. Why should we employ in South Africa House people who are born in England? I would like to ask the Minister how purchases are made by the High Commissioner’s office, how the buying is done there. Ever since I have been in Parliament I have never been able to find out how the High Commissioner’s office in England makes purchases, whether it is done through a tender board, who opens the tenders and when they are opened, who gives the decision of this tender board. It appears to me that we are spending a lot of money through the High Commissioner’s office, and we know nothing about it. I do not know whether it is the Minister’s province, but I would like to thank the High Commissioner through the Minister for what he did in regard to the last number of cattle that were sent over to England of the Friesland breed, when the English people turned down this Friesland shipment.

Some of them.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows the story of that shipment. It is the most scandalous thing that has been done by the English people to South Africa.

Not the English people.

I say it is the most scandalous thing that has been done by the English people to South Africa.

Say it again.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) knows nothing about the question.

Say it again.

When the vote of the Minister of Agriculture comes up, I shall expose the position from beginning to end. The breeders of England did not play the game with South Africa.

It is not England.

You talk about reciprocity to South Africa. We allow their cattle to come in here free, and only the other day the pedigree cattle of England were sold in Bloemfontein on condition that we cut their throats, they were so bad. We have sent over some of the finest stock the world has ever produced, and they have been turned down by the English people. Every farmer who sent over his stock lost not only the value of his stock, but £11 per animal besides, due to the way in which the English people treated South Africans. I shall bring this matter up and give chapter and verse to the country to show how we were treated. One of the stories was that our cattle were not good enough to be put into their stud book. We proved that the last lot of cattle we sent over, some of their progeny, were giving as much milk as some of the best breeds produced in England. We are allowing their cattle to come out here without any embargo at all. It is not our benefit. They bring their cattle to South Africa, and the South Africans cut their throats as soon as they were sold. They are being ex ported by the English farmers on account of the cheap rates. We sent them one of the best consignments that has ever gone to England, and we could not get into the stud book, because the English people were jealous of our cattle. These are absolute facts which can be proved. The Cabinet went out of its way to issue a proclamation to assist us, but at every point we were baulked by the people of England. And then you talk about reciprocity. This is one of the worst things that has ever happened from the Mother Country to any dominion. I am not making statements I cannot prove. I can put all the signed documents before the House which will prove I am right in what I say. But I only want to thank the High Commissioner for what he did for the farmers of South Africa, because no one worked harder than Mr. Smit, but he was quite helpless. When the Minister of Agriculture’s vote comes on I will bring up the whole thing and let the country see how the South African farmers have been treated by the English farmers.

It is very difficult to know the tack upon which the hon. member is sailing, at present, because one very seldom knows what interests are at work to cause these explosions of the hon. gentleman. Listening to him one would have thought he was intimately concerned with the export of cattle to which he referred, and although that was unfortunate it has been more unfortunate the way he has accused the people of England on account of that exportation. We all know the reasons why he has adopted this stage thunder. He does not believe it at all. He has simply affected it to please certain people in the neighbourhood of Bloemfontein. I regret as much as he does the fact that this, exportation of cattle from the Union to England was not as successful as the previous one.

Why?

I will tell you why, if the hon. gentlemen would just contain themselves for a moment. It is because, whether rightly or wrongly, the Friesland Society in England, before these cattle had been exported at all, said they would only take the cattle under certain conditions, and that they came up to certain specified standards.

Where did you get that from?

The Minister of Agriculture will be able to inform you. The lion, member must understand that these cattle were sent from here for the purpose of forcing the hands of the Friesland Society in England and forcing them to register them whether they wanted to or not. It is always better in matters of this sort that we should have the truth, rather than have a one-sided statement like that made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who considers that he is going to gain kudos from a certain section by bringing before the bar of this House the whole of the English people. It is unfortunate that before the hon. gentleman made this extraordinary tirade upon the people of England he did not acquaint himself with the circumstances. I am sorry this exportation has turned out so badly, but it is not fair to prevent the House from being in possession of all the facts. Before these cattle were exported from South Africa a communication had taken place. Does the hon. gentleman know, and if he will not take my word, will he go over to the Agricultural Department, that with regard to the importation of Friesland cattle from Holland there was a request from the Friesland Society of South Africa, and as a result we introduced the most vigorous conditions, not alone with regard to the milk of these cattle, but the third and fourth generation. When I was in office I had specially to intervene to allow perhaps one of the most noted Friesland bulls to be imported. He was a prize-winning bull, but there were objections to his importation because the third or fourth generation did not give the prescribed quantity of milk or butter value in the milk which the Friesland Society laid down as the condition under which cattle should be imported here. When we made regulations to protect ourselves, I think it is extremely unfair—we see unfairness from the hon. gentleman on occasions when he is seeking a certain amount of cheap notoriety—that he should have made that attack on the people of England without giving the committee the whole of the facts. He says we allow pedigree cattle to come out without transport charges, but that is because the Government of the day, realising the essentiality to cattle-breeders of having pedigree cattle which are the best in the world, to come out free, made that a condition in the mail contract. The farmers are extremely anxious to improve their herds. What is recognized in Europe, in North and South America, and especially in the Argentine, the greatest cattle producing country in the world, as the studs to draw upon to replenish the blood of cattle, and to improve blood, are the cattle of the United Kingdom.

Not as far as Frieslands are concerned.

If my hon. friend will read the records of some of the cattle bred in England, he will find they are the highest in the world.

No better than the cattle of South Africa.

I did not say that. It is unfair to put the interpretation which the hon. gentleman made. The Friesland Society in England had a perfect right to do what they desired—I am sorry they did it—but when the cattle were exported the people who exported them knew that when they arrived in England they would be subject to these restrictions. They thought that the Friesland Society there would not have carried out the information they had given them; they took the risk, and unfortunately—I am sorry for it—they lost a considerable amount; but it is unfair to blame the people of England. It is unfair to blame the whole of the people of England.

We don’t.

It is all very well for the hon. member to make these cheap statements. I have said what I did because these cattle were sent from Bloemfontein by constituents of mine and I had the full facts. When Mr. Abrahamson went over everything was satisfactorily arranged by people overseas and they agreed to the cattle going over.

They never agreed to register them.

They did agree. From whom did the hon. member obtain his information?

You ask the Minister if they agreed to register.

The hon. member has made some statements which are not correct. I shall prove what I have said by documentary evidence from England. The two premier societies in England welcomed the introduction of these cattle, and it was then that these jealous people in England, who had bought our first consignment—

And did so well with them.

began to move. Some of these calves will hold their own with the best English cows. These people in England were jealous, and that was why they would not allow us to put our animals in the herd books. Where is the reciprocity? When I talk about South Africa buying engines in England instead of in Germany, the hon. member puts both his arms round my neck.

Rather bad taste.

The hon. member is a racialist and I am not. I do not say everything that is done in England is right, but in this instance they have done us a very bad turn. They put every difficulty in our way, even to placing a boycott on the sale. That is what the English farmers did for their brother farmers in South Africa.

It is a scandal.

The facts should be made known, and if they are telegraphed to England they will not do it again. I shall yet make the hon. member apologise and say I was right. The hon. member always barges in when anything is said in regard to England. This is not the first time the Irish people have rushed to the help of England and I don’t suppose it will be the last. Everything done in England is not right, and they have done us an injustice which a large number of people in South Africa feel very deeply indeed. It is not a question of the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa, for the majority of people who sent the cattle were South Africans of English descent. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will bear me out.

The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has put the case so clearly that I do not think it will be necessary to say much more. After the facts have been placed before us we ought to be able to judge pretty fairly and clearly as to who is right. In regard to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said the cattle sent to England were sent in spite of the fact that the British breeders’ society would not accept them on terms that were proposed. In spite of the stipulations made by the British breeders’ society, the Friesian Society of South Africa sent those cattle and when they got to England they were accepted. After all, it is only a breed society question. It is not a question for the people of England to decide. In this country I know of cases where a breed society has refused to enter animals imported from England into this country. The position is that those cattle were forced on to England by the breeders of this country, who knew the stipulations that had been demanded by the British Friesian Society in relation to those cattle.

So many facts in connection with the export of Friesland cattle from South Africa to England have been brought up by the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) that I also want to mention a few. That the people of South Africa, in connection with this export have been exploited, not by the English people, but by the Friesland breeders of England is without doubt. The first consignment of Friesland cattle which were sent was not as good as the second, and strangely enough the names of the six cattle in the first consignment were changed, but yet they won all the first prizes at the shows in England. The names were changed, not the studbook, nor the cattle.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported: to resume in committee tomorrow.