I move—

About December, 1922, Mr. Rushton brought his petition forward in regard to this hotel. He was given an official receipt for the purchase price and spent some £3,500 on the reconstruction of the hotel, and in all he spent £6,000 on it. In 1923 the Government constructed a bridge over the river. The ford was done away with and the hotel became an unpayable proposition. He endeavoured to sell it and received an offer of £5,000, which he was prepared to accept, but it appeared that the land was vested in the Natal Native Trust and there were conditions of which he had not been aware. Under the lease all the buildings belonged to that trust, without there being any compensation whatever. Under these circumstances he was unable to sell and to carry on the hotel, and the buildings reverted to the trust without any compensation. He is now entirely penniless and asks for sympathetic consideration. I move the motion to see if there is not some method of compensation to Mr. Rushton for the losses he has undoubtedly sustained.

I have great pleasure in seconding this. The Natal Native Trust is prepared to lease land not exceeding five acres, with the proviso that the erector of the buildings has no claim over them. It used to be an annual lease, but to-day is for five years. It is a very unfair position indeed. I think, with a little trouble, the Natal Native Trust could convert these buildings to their own use. Why cannot they make an ex gratia payment? It is very hard luck on this man, who has expended so much money under a misapprehension. It was lack of business methods on his part that he did not enquire into the title.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The Bill deals with expenditure on a few matters which form the subject of the usual investigation by the select committee and were recommended in their report for appropriation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

I move—

I do not want to embark on a long discussion, for we have debated the matter very fully. On Friday after stoutly maintaining that the farmers did not come under the Bill, the Minister had to admit that he was mistaken, and that, under certain circumstances, farmers were brought under the Bill. Did he attempt to rectify the position? Not a bit, but he availed himself of the closure supported by farmers on the Government side who should have insisted on the Minister amending the Bill. On Monday the Minister said he had discussed the matter with his advisers, but he was so afraid of one single guilty person escaping that he refused to accept any amendment to put the matter right. Again he had the silent vote of the farmers sitting behind him. He also had the very active support of the Minister of Defence who rushed like Bombastes into the arena, although he knew nothing of the matter. However, very shortly after he retired defeated and discomfited and was not seen again. It is strange that no member representing a farming constituency on the other side of the House raised a single voice in protest, but voted dumbly for the Bill. All they could say was that the Labour members were excellent fellows, were their very good friends and that they were quite content to leave the discretion for the administration of the Bill in the hands of Labour. Truly they have chosen strange bedfellows when they selected the Labour members. Had I such bed-fellows I would buy a tin of Keating's powder. I can imagine the farmers in the platteland feeling that the destinies of the country are safe in the hands of great Afrikanders rejoicing in such names as Kairowsky, Weinstock, Rosenbaum and Kantorowitch, evidently, by their names, noble scions of the old voortrekkers.

The hon. member should discuss his amendment.

I am only leading up to the position which induced me to put the amendment before the House. I never saw such a spectacle as was presented when this Bill was in committee. The Minister, although beaten, was stoutly supported by the farmers on the other side. They supported him in spite of the fact that they were going absolutely against the opinions of those they represent. They know very well that they dare not on a platform in the platteland support a Bill containing the principles laid down in this measure. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) spoke of £57,000,000 worth of wool produced in Australia.

You are wrong—£65,000,000.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has been in Australia, and I challenge him to support the Bill. I challenge him to tell the House of the country population of Australia being gradually driven into the towns from the operation of the Labour policy. I challenge him to tell this House of the position of the farmers, of their wives and children slaving to do the work themselves, because they cannot pay the wages which are demanded by the Labour party in Australia.

The hon. member must confine himself to his amendment.

I want to point out the effect this clause is going to have on the farmers, and I want to draw a parallel with conditions obtaining in other countries. I want to show what we may expect by an application of the clause to this country. Hon. members opposite should realize where this sort of legislation leads. I draw the parallel of Australia, where the shearers, not content with doing an honest day's work, being paid for that work on results, are demanding a flat rate of £15 a week. That is what legislation of, this sort is bringing about.

The principles of the Bill are not being discussed now. The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment.

Section 13 of this Act lays down. [Extract read.] That is the obligation which I am trying to avoid by my amendment. This is the first time the farmers in this country have ever voted for the extension of the 8-hour day to the farms Make no mistake, that is what you are voting for—to put power in the hands of the Labour Minister to extend the 8-hour day to the farms.

Has this anything to do with the hon. member's new clause?

This Bill provides that the 8-hour day shall be operative in factories, and I am trying to get the small factories exempted from its operation. You may call me narrow, but I and my farming friends opposite know that I speak for the farmers of South Africa.

I second the amendment. There is no doubt that if hon. members opposite are compared with the Labour members we can see who has won the battle about this Bill. The Labour members are very pleased that the Factory Act is being extended, so that, at any time, it can be applied to the countryside. This side has tried to make it clear, and we are doing it now for the last time, by means of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that the farmer is excluded from the operation of this Bill. Our farmer friends opposite are agreeable to the farmers being ruled by the Labourites, who are to-day so pleased at their victory. The interests of the farmer are sacrificed by hon. members opposite for the support they get from the Labour party. It is unnecessary to say any more about the matter. We dealt fully with it in committee, and at the second reading. I am sorry hon. members opposite will not help to make it clear that the farmer does not come under the operation of this Bill.

The language in the Act and the sentiments of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) must make his friend, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) shiver in his shoes. There is a good deal of Pecksniffian cant about it.

Order.

I did not catch what the hon. member said.

I think there is a good deal of Pecksniffian cant about it. That is a very good phrase from Dickens. It is quite a classical phrase. It is to be found in one of the best books ever written in the English language.

The hon. member accused' me of cant, and changed it to Pecksniffian the second time.

The hon. member has probably never read Dickens.

Is the remark " cant " in order?

I think in the way the hon. member uses it, it is, but I must say On frequent occasions words are used that really ought not to be used.

The phrase " Pecksniffian cant " has been accepted by the British House of Commons. The hon. member is a Pecksniff there is no doubt about it. It does not make it any better, and it does not make it any worse. May I point out to him that his allies, the Unionists, in 1918 brought forward exactly the same speeches and the same idea that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Griqualand? They even went further and said that the whole of the Factory Bill should he I thrown on to the countryside, and that all the farmers should come under it.

made an interjection.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had his way, there would be no Factory Bill, and we would get back to 100 years ago, when the children pulled the coal on their stomachs out of the coal mines. The hon. member is 100 years behind his time in social legislation. He always has been. I won't treat him harshly. He is departing from this House, to our sorrow. If he had had his way, no Parliament that he led would ever have passed any social legislation. I am talking rather to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). It is the hon. member for Yeoville whom we are sorry for. Would the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who sits besides him, get up and make the speech that was made by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson)? He has his ear to the ground and his eye on the ballot box for the Rondebosch workers. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will do it, because the Kat River hottentot likes that kind of thing. The South African party wants the man who works in a factory in the veld to be worse treated than the man who works in a factory in the town. Let the man on the veld who works in a factory be sweated. That is what the South African party wants to-day. There shall be a difference between the workers in the factories in the rural areas and those in the urban areas.

I want to remind the hon. member that the principles of the Bill are not before the House. It is merely an amendment, a new Clause 3.

Naturally I bow to your ruling, but this new clause, if it is carried, means that the rural workers in factories will be in quite a different position from the workers in urban factories. I will not pursue that point. I only wish to point this out to the hon. member who red his shot and then ran away—

No, he has not run away.

I am sorry. The hon. member is nearer to me than I thought he was.

He is facing the guns.

The hon. member is quite friendly. He talks about Australia. He perhaps does not know that the bulk of the support of the Australian Labour party comes today pretty well from the rural areas, from the small farmers.

No, you are wrong.

Take Queensland.

The hon. member probably does not know that since 1921 the Labour party has not been in power in Australia.

They have been in Queensland.

I am talking about the Australian Commonwealth. The majority of people in Queensland to-day, except the big squatters, are supporting the Labour party. It comes back to this, that either the people of South Africa are worse than the people of Australia, or the land in South Africa is worse than the land in Australia, because, working under these conditions in Australia, they can put their butter on our market and we have to put a tax against it, and they can put their meat on our market and we have to put a tax on it. There are men working on the countryside there who get £3 15s. as against 10s. a week in some parts of this country. In South Africa we are paying less wages and yet we cannot compete with Australia. The whole of this is done to drive a wedge between the two wings of the Pact and frighten the farmers on the Countryside. That is finished; it has gone by the board. They won't be able to do it.

I do not want to take up at any length the time of the House, because I have had an opportunity of expressing my views on this question on one or two occasions, nor am I going to proceed to admonish the House, like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), the courteous character of whose speeches in this House is so well known. Satan reproving sin would be much on a par with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) admonishing hon. members for speeches made in this House. My reason for rising is to get some statement from the Minister. I referred during the discussion last Friday, and again yesterday, to the position of fruit farmers who desired to come together to pack their own fruit, and I brought to the notice of the Minister cases where very grievous damage might be done to farmers who are desirous of putting their produce on the market in the best possible manner and under the most economic conditions that it can he dealt with. I referred to the fact of certain citrus farmers I knew who are anxious to pack their fruit. Would the Minister kindly listen to a telegram which I have received this morning without having had any communication with these people in any way. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo), I understand, has some very important citrus growers in his district, and I commend this telegram to his consideration. As I say, this is unsolicited, but I suppose people in the country must have seen reports in the papers of the discussion last Friday. This is the telegram—

That telegram is signed Kato. That is the code name of the Kat River Co-operative Citrus Society in the Fort Beaufort district. What has happened there? If the Minister will consult the Railway Department he will find that when the two-foot railway was built from Fort Beaufort through Balfour to Seymour, the citrus fruit farmers of that area, realizing the essentiality, the Government having spent all the money on the railway, of making it a success, came forward and at their own expense put up a small co-operative factory on the railway line at Fort Beaufort, and there they are packing citrus fruit which is known in the London market as the best citrus fruit that comes from South Africa. I may go further and say that authorities in connection with the quality of citrus, will tell you that the citrus from the Kat River is equal to the best ever produced in California or Florida. They have established a cooperative factory to deal with their fruit in an economic manner. One or two of the brands in that district, especially the brand of Mr. Roberts, is known on the London market as perhaps one of the premier brands of citrus that has ever come to London from any part of the world. There is another brand of Mr. McGregor, and another of Mr. George White and other farmers Who have a world-wide reputation. But these people are so patriotic that although they have this reputation for their own brands, in order to assist their brother farmers they have scrapped their own brands and have taken one brand for the whole body of farmers farming on the Kat River. They have established a co-operative factory, and when the fruit is picked off the trees it is put in ordinary boxes and sent straightaway to the little co-operative packing shed. By dealing with the fruit co-operatively and collectively, they are able to put it on the market in a much better manner, and at a much lower cost than would be the case if they packed it severally. It is for cases of that kind I have been advocating. I mentioned yesterday an article in the " Livestock Journal," but if the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is really desirous of information he should consult some of the Australian agricultural papers, and he would there find what I found in Australia, that the farmer in Australia is also feeling the pressure of the times and the lowness of world prices, and he is finding it essential to come together and try and get out of the oppression which is put upon the farmer in this country. This country is not as rich agriculturally as Australia. There is no doubt about it whatever. Australia has a large coastal area, and in that area they have a winter rainfall as well as occasional summer rains. Consequently, front the climatic point of view, they are in a better position to produce than the farmers here. But even they are feeling the pinch. I want to appeal to the hon. member for Somerset East, whether I am not justified in asking the Minister to realize that the condition of the farming population is entirely different from that of the commercial population, and entirely different from ordinary factory operations. I am not one of those who object to the eight hours in the ordinary commercial factory business of this country, but if you are going to limit farmers to eight hours and things of that sort, in dealing with their produce, that is a very different matter. Why, we often have to pack fruit in artificial light up to 11 or 12 at night, because when dealing with a perishable crop like peaches or plums, a few hours in getting them into the cooling chamber means all the difference between success and disaster. So, under those circumstances, it is utterly ridiculous to talk as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) and some members of the Labour benches talk, of placing the farmer under exactly the same conditions as the ordinary individual. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) that if a co-operative factory of this sort is to be exempted, the farmer should not have to come, hat in hand, to the Minister to ask for that exemption. They should be exempted by law. I want now to know if the Minister, is prepared to state that he will exempt a co-operative factory such as I have referred to from the operation of the Act. I hope the House will pass the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), but the character of the vote that has been given is rather, I am sorry to say, of a party character, because knowing something of the views of this country I know if members who represent farming constituencies were untramelled, they would vote with both hands and both feet, if they could take them off the ground, in favour of the proposal of the hon. member for Griqualand, because experience has shown you cannot submit the farmers of this country in dealing with their produce, to the same restrictions as you impose on an ordinary factory. Though we may have a soft-souled Minister in the hon. gentleman who occupies that position now, we might have a hard-hearted Pharoah one day to take his place, and he might not be prepared to let the producer go and he might insist on the operation of the Act in all its stringency. I do hope the Minister will make a statement. He stated the other day the Act will not apply to cases such as I have mentioned. The cooperative factory I have referred to represents numbers of co-operative factories in this country. Since that Act has become law, the co-operative spirit has spread in an extraordinary manner in this country; it has done more to break down racial prejudice which existed between the two sections of the farming population than any other thing that has taken place. It has brought both races together, and shown them the necessity of doing so to make a success of their own interests.

Like the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I hoped the Minister would make a statement. I think he has already done so, and I do not think it would be necessary to explain the matter further at this stage. The Bill has already been before the House a few times, and the clearest statement was made by the Minister on the point raised in the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I want to say this—that, if I for one moment thought that the matter was half as serious as the other side makes out, I can assure hon. members I would vote against the Bill, but the thing is not at all so serious, and, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has mentioned my name in this connection, I want to say that I have two cooperative factories in my constituency, and they, when the season comes round, do not have to work eight hours, but twelve hours a day to get through the work. The fruit there is of such a nature that it has to be packed in a few weeks, and they have to work hard because there are not always sufficient helpers. If I thought for a moment that the Minister would be so foolish as to make those factories come under the Bill I should certainly vote against it,

What would you say if there were to be a Minister who did apply it on the countryside?

Then it must be a Minister from that side. I am quite satisfied that this Minister or any Minister on this side on the cross-benches, or on the other side, will never be so foolish as to apply the Factory Act to those small factories which work a few weeks in the year.

Why not exclude the farmers?

If we passed the amendment we should, as the Minister has said, immediately open the door for other factories which ought not to be exempted. I am quite convinced that the position under the proposed Bill is quite safe. If the Minister does not apply the Factory Act to the farming industry we shall stand by him, and so, I hope, will hon. members, opposite. I am glad to see that they are so concerned about the farmer, but in this case there is no reason for uneasiness.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) got very excited about the attitude of the Minister. Has the Minister amended the Act to the detriment of the farmer? Is the amendment moved by the Minister not something which farmer members ought to be grateful for? I quite agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that you must not be forced to go hat in hand to the Minister. That is the reason why yesterday I opposed the well-meant, but absurd, amendments of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). But the Minister is not compelling a single farmer to go hat in hand to him. If the Act, as it has existed for the past ten years, contained no danger to the farmer, why should it become full of dangers all of a sudden now? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that he was afraid of the administration of the Act when it fell into other hands. In other words, he is not afraid of the present Minister, but of his successor. Now who is likely to be the probable successor of the present Minister? Surely a member of the South African party? Is he frightened of his own party, and not of ours? The hon. member was Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for the farming population. Did he consider the Act dangerous then? If he did, why did he not see to its amendment? Does he want the House or the public to believe that the administration of the Act would be detrimental to the farmer when it rested in his hands? If so, then the longer he is kept out of the Government the better for the farmer, but. I know the hon. member is not serious in his opposition. He is only talking make-believe. That is the reason he is supported by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter). He is a splendid farmer! The hon. member for Gardens has presumably never seen a farm in his life. He was the great protagonist of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort last night. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort also found faithful supporters in such splendid friends of the farmers as the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and more of the kind. One has only to mention their names to show how hollow the indignation is. The amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), if passed, will do the farmers more harm than good, because it restricts the provisions merely to a kind of work, as if all other kinds of work in which the farmers cooperate must be regarded as unlawful. The noise made by the Opposition will deceive nobody.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has spoken because he is also interested in certain co-operative business in his district. We are not talking about factories employing thousands of persons, but about farming occupations, which are so precarious, that for two or three years there is possibly no profit at all. We want the Minister to say absolutely clearly whether he is going to hang the sword over our heads We know that the wine co-operative societies must reap their harvest within three weeks.

Where did the sword hang formerly?

I was not in the House, and it does not concern the question. I am, myself, a director of a tobacco association which does not use a big plant, but the excuse of the Minister in applying the law was that there were a certain number of people working at a certain time. It happened once in a lifetime. If the Minister went to look now or at any other time he would find that the number of regular employees is much less. The people at that time had come there from Wellington and elsewhere to do urgent work. It the Minister applies the 8-hours day to the farming industry the court will have plenty of work. We want it to be clearly stated that the farmers are excluded.

I have sat in this House with the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) for a good many years, but the longer I sit here the more amazed I am at his attitude and actions.

Because he has not joined the Pact.

For the last ten years the Factories Act has been on the statute book. Fir six years it was administered by the late Government, of which the right hon. gentleman was not only a distinguished member, but was Minister of Agriculture. Then was the time—if he had the welfare at heart of these poor farmers for whom he is now shedding crocodile's tears—to have taken action. During the time the late Government was in power, sixteen co-operative societies were registered. One would have thought that the first thing he would have done when he became Minister of Agriculture was to alter the Act, seeing that he is thundering forth about the iniquity of the measure.

There was no unholy alliance in those days.

But not a word was said on the subject.

It was not necessary.

No complaints were made, but to-day, because the present Government is in power, and is administering the Act as it was administered under the previous Government, and because the Opposition think they can drive a wedge between the two sections on this side of the House-—

We know that is quite hopeless.

And because they hope to be able to make party capital out of the matter they are attempting to prove that the Act needs radical alteration. If the right hon. member had been honest right through the piece he would have brought in a Bill exempting co-operative societies and farmers from the Act.

You are all wrong. I never said I would sacrifice principles for power.

If the right hon. member really had the interests of the farmers at heart—

As you have.

Yes, as it has been proved I have. I am doing more with my little amending Bill to help the farmer than ever the late Government did. When I brought forward this Bill the amendments I proposed were accepted and carried. That, however, did not end the matter. Days and days of fight were put up as if I were introducing something which had not previously existed, and was imposing special hardships on the farming community to which they had not been subject before. The fight has not been on my Bill at all, but on the main Act which the Opposition passed, and which I am amending on the strength of representations made from both sides of the House. Under the new Bill a farmer who grows wattle bark or lucerne or manufactures anything at all from his own produce, if the factory—no matter how large—is on his own farm, and he is manufacturing his own produce, is exempt. Before this be was exempt only if he manufactured articles of food or drink for human consumption. It has been left to a Labour Minister in the Pact Government, to help the farming community in the direction of making it easier for them to function under the Factories Act.

Under pressure.

Hon. members opposite, instead of attacking the Minister for trying to help the farmers, should have been unanimous in congratulating him for having given this additional relief to the farming community. Now they say: " What you have done is all very well, but it does not go far enough, and all co-operative societies should be exempt." The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) quotes the cases of a certain Mr. Roberts, certain Mr. McGregors, and certain Mr. George Whites in the Kat River district who have earned a name in the fruit markets of the world for their special brand of fruit with which they have been able to bold their own against all comers. They have done this evidently in the past under the operation of the Factories Act, and now they see the discussion raised in Parliament, and that the whole thing is in the air, they are sending telegrams saying: " Exempt us from this." Some of them really think that we are imposing some additional restriction which did not exist before, instead of granting relief. The secretary of the Fruit Control Board in Cape Town called at my office this morning.

A Government official.

Yes, but he has the interest of the fruitgrowers at heart. Will the hon. member deny that? He came round to see what it was we were going to do that will interfere with the co-operative societies and fruit farmers. When it was explained to him that we were not imposing any additional hardship at all, but that the Act in that respect was the same as it always had been, he went away quite satisfied that the position was not as he had feared.

He went to the wrong place for his information.

I cannot take the amendment. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has dealt with co-operative societies. Might I draw attention to the fact that the question of cooperative societies is not before the House at the moment. That was fully discussed, and defeated by a vote of this House, on Friday last, On an amendment brought forward to exempt co-operative societies. Only 15 members on the other side voted in favour of that amendment.

Look at your side of the House now.

There were 38 on our side of the House. To show the wonderful interest taken by the farmers on that side, only 15 on that side voted. What is before the Hause is the amendment of the hon. member for East Griqualand, and his amendment makes it possible to set up unofficial cooperative societies by any farmer sending his produce to any other farmer and their joining together to put up the biggest jam factory in South Africa. That factory would be exempt from the operations of the Act, there would be no safeguarding of machinery, no proper sanitation, and that jam factory could compete with the biggest jam factories in the towns. Any number of farmers under the hon. member's amendment could combine to form a co-operative society and put up the biggest factory in the country and produce butter, cheese, jam, or anything else, completely free from the restriction and operation of the Factories Act.

You have told the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) you are going to give exemption.

What we allow is that the man on his own farm can do that.

And his neighbour can join him.

What I said the other day was that there would be a technical offence; there might be a technical offence if two or three neighbours joined together to produce in a common factory, but I said I did not think action would be taken.

Did not think !

If you try to meet that by opening the door in the way the hon. member suggests, you have no check or control over this abuse, and the second stage will be ten times worse than the first. Hon. members opposite have mentioned border line cases, hut they have not referred in a single instance where there was any interference where two men had a common packing shed and worked like that. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) talks about the citrus sheds. They get their seasonal exemption. They are satisfied. There have been no complaints, and there is no interference. These people, who are registered, get their seasonal exemption without any difficulty. We all realize they have to work sometimes up to midnight in order to get their fruit away into the cooling chambers, as the right hon. member has mentioned. When you are handling perishable products, you cannot limit your hours or activities. You have to get the things away before they perish. For that reason, special provision has been made in the Factories Act, and exemptions given and relaxations made in order to meet the hard cases referred to by hon. members on the other side. There have been no difficulties whatever in administration. The difficulty is a political difficulty which hon. members on the other side raise, because they find themselves in political difficulties in the backveld.

Proposed new clause put, and the House divided:

The Minister is not here.

He will be here in a moment.

He is not here now, and I, therefore, move to report progress.

I hope the hon. member will not press that motion.

We cannot go on with this vote while the Minister is away.

He is just in the lobby. I hope hon. members will not be bored, because I shall have to go on speaking for a few minutes until the Minister of the Interior comes back. I want to point out that my vote seemed likely to be concluded about half-an-hour before the adjournment last night, but there was an obvious desire to go on discussing it, and my hon. friend could hardly have anticipated that there would not be another word said to-day. I see he is now coming in.

With leave of committee, Mr. Jagger withdrew his motion.

There are one or two points I would like to touch on in regard to this vote. One of the important departments under the Minister is the department of mental hospitals. Every year we are faced with a report that the accommodation provided in these hospitals is inadequate to house the number of patients who ought to be admitted according to the doctors. From my own experience of the department, I know that that is so, and from time to time the Government has spent very large sums of money, sometimes enormous sums, in providing additional accommodation to house these unfortunate people, and to-day, as far as I know, we are still in the position that proper and adequate accommodation is not provided for the whole number of the patients who are already under the care of the department. The point I want to raise is this, whether some new scheme cannot be found to provide adequate accommodation for, at any rate, certain classes of these patients who are now in a mental hospital at a much less cost to the State than is now thought to be necessary. If hon. members would only go through some of these recently built institutions like that at Queenstown, or like some of the new wards at Bloemfontein, they would find they are most magnificent places. Nothing is lacking in the equipment of these institutions. They are fitted up in the most magnificent manner. No one wants to begrudge that. Provision must be made for the comfort of the unfortunate people who are confined there, and everything must be done to make their stay there as far as possible curative. But there is a certain class of these patients, and a large class, for whom, unfortunately, there is no possibility as far as we know of a cure, and it seems to me that the Minister and the Public Works Department ought to try and devise some plan of building to house these people which would not involve the enormous expense these places do at the present time. I would like to know from the Minister whether he will not go into this matter with the Public Works Department and see whether a different type of building cannot be evolved which would provide adequate and comfortable housing for these people. I also want to know what is the policy with regard to his leper hospitals. When I was in office, the idea of the department was that Robben Island should gradually be closed down. It is a most expensive place to work. I have not got the figures at the tip of my fingers, but the cost per patient at Robben Island is far in excess of that of any other institution, and the reason is the Government has to maintain a service between the mainland and the island to keep the place supplied and to provide facilities for the officials to go backwards and forwards and for patients and their friends to get there. The idea was to close down that place as a leper hospital and to provide for the patients who come from this part of the country at some institution on the mainland. I quite recognize it would be a very great hardship and indeed a cruelty to some of these patients whose friends and relations live in this part of the country to send them, say, to Pretoria, or some other place far away from their friends and relatives, and I do not suggest that should be done. In fact, an undertaking was given to the coloured patients that they would not be removed from this part of the country, but I would like to know whether the policy of gradually abandoning Robben Island is being pursued, and, if so, what provision is going to be made for patients from this part of the country. Another point is what is being done by the Public Service Commission in regard to the advisory council of the public service, and how that council is now constituted. The public service association kept on for some time making representations that the advisory council should be constituted by what they called the administrative side being represented, as well as the ordinary staff side. I understand that the original scheme has been modified to a certain extent by the Government, so as to meet the Public Service Association's wishes to a certain extent. I would like to know from the Minister if that is so, and, if so, how the new arrangement is working and whether he proposes to carry the developments still further in the direction of meeting the views of the Public Service Association. I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the manner in which recommendations of the Public Service Commission appear to be lightly disregarded, I do not say by him, but by some of his colleagues in the Government, particularly in regard to matters of promotion. The reports of the Public Service Commission for last year and this year show that very clearly, but the Minister in question was the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and I suppose I had better deal with that when we come to his Vote. I mention these things not because I want to go into them now in detail, but because it seems to me it is incumbent upon the Minister of the Interior to do what he can to maintain the prestige of the Public Service Commission. If the commission's recommendations are to be lightly flouted by any Minister who does not happen to agree with them, and they are simply left to report to Parliament, as they do, that their recommendation has been over-ruled by the Governor-General, then I think the prestige of the Public Service Commission and its usefulness will be very much impaired. After all, this over-ruling of a recommendation of the Public Service Commission is something that should not be lightly done by the Government. One of the cases, for example, was this. There was a question of promotion of four postal officials to a higher grade. The promotion committee recommended four names. The names went forward to the Public Service Commission and the commission agreed with that recommendation. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said, "No, I will take three of the recommendations, but as regards the other one, I want to make another promotion." It went back to the Public Service Commission and they upheld their previous recommendation. The Minister then goes to the Cabinet and gets an order overruling the recommendation of the committee, and that is reported to Parliament. In a matter like that, if the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are to be lightly turned aside whenever any Minister happens to want to put a particular official against the views of the commission, I think they are doing a very serious injury.

Would it not be better to discuss the merits on each Vote.

I have explained that I am going to bring forward these things when the Minister concerned is before us, but I mention it now because the Minister of the Interior is responsible for the Public Service Commission vote, and it is up to him to see that the prestige and usefulness of the commission are maintained. I next want to ask what is the position at present in regard to coloured clerks in the service. I would like to know whether a separate scale of pay is applicable to coloured persons on the administrative and clerical side, and if so, what it is, and in what respect it differs from that applicable to Europeans. I have been told there are cases in which clerks who happen to be coloured do excellent work, but owing to some colour bar they are unable to advance beyond a certain point, in the salary grade, which is quite different from that applicable to Europeans. The last point is in regard to the answer which the Minister gave some time ago to a question that was asked him about the steps which he proposed to take in connection with certain Indians who have come into the country illegally or who are supposed to have come in illegally. I understand the Minister gave an answer that all Indians that have come into the country illegally, no matter how far back, apparently have to report themselves to his department within a certain date, and he will decide what to do with them. I want to know whether that is so. Does that order apply only to those who have come in within recent years, because it is causing a good deal of uneasiness amongst the Indian community?

I would like to point ost that if the hon. member wants to discuss policy, he should not postpone it until later on. I understood the Minister to remark that the hon. member should wait with his discussion on policy until a later stage. This is the time.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. The point with regard to the Public Service Commission was that certain cases which had been recommended by it were over-ruled, affecting departments not under the control, of the Minister of the Interior, and I said I would bring them up on the vote of the Minister concerned.

It is only fair to mention that only points of administration can be discussed when we come to public service administration. I am pointing it out only for the benefit of the hon. member.

These cases occurred in the department of another Minister, and I propose to raise them when the other Minister's votes are under discussion.

I do not want to rule on any hypothetical case, but I thought the hon. member might want to know when he wishes to discuss policy, that this is the stage.

There is some doubt in the minds of hon. members as to what is a question of policy. Is the matter of the technical college one of policy.

It is a matter of administration. Bring it up under " education."

If the hon. member wishes to criticize any administrative act, he can wait until later on.

A general question of policy must be discussed now?

That is so.

Last year I raised the question of delay in printing, and we were then told that the new printing establishment was getting into order and there would be a vast improvement. Well, I have not been able to see any improvement yet. I have just asked for the last official year book, and got the one for 1925. Does my hon. friend believe that? You can get a later one from Australia, We are shilly-shallying with one three years late.

That is a compendium. It contains special reports published some time ago.

That is not good enough. The real trouble is the Minister has not taken the trouble to go into this matter. The report of the Department of Education for 1927 is not out yet; that of the Department of Native Affairs is not out yet. What is the good of my hon. friend making a promise of this kind and nothing being done? I hope he will take the thing seriously. I have always had a great respect for him in that regard.

You are now losing it?

Then I want to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the enormous increase in this vote, £48,000.

Biennial registration is included.

You had registration last year.

No, no.

The Minister of the Interior I should say is about the most extravagant on the Government benches. Take Interior: the Auditor-General gives some very useful figures and says that the increase of expenditure has been £74,967 as compared with 1925-'26, and now we are up again by another £48,000. Surely my hon. friend must have some regard for the taxpayers of this country. Then I see there is an amount proposed to be put down for the art gallery—is this the one near the side of Government House? We ought to have some explanation of this very heavy vote of £85,000 for the repatriation of Asiatics, increased from £30,000 last year.

A generally approved policy.

Can my hon. friend give us some idea how many Indians are going?

Well, I can do so.

And how many are coming back?

A request that I desire most strongly to make is on behalf of a hard-worked under-paid class of public servants. It seems to me that now is the only possible time to draw attention to something that needs attention being drawn to it, and that is in relation to our probationary nurses in our hospitals. We have four provincial administrations, but supervising them is assuredly this Parliament, and therefore I bring up what is to me a scandal, and has been for several years. For nearly five years I was chairman of a hospital board. Every probationer nurse was required to take one month's holiday, and during that month to do no nursing. Probationer nurses in the first year receive the magnificent pay of 30s. per month! How can they take their compulsory holiday on payment like that? I hope the Minister will be so sympathetic that some plan will be devised by which these young girls will be assisted and that they will be given a free railway pass.

There is considerable dissatisfaction, especially on the Rand, over the manner in which the Chartered Accountants' Designation Act is being administered. It was generally understood when the measure was passed that applicants for admission to the Chartered Accountants' Society would be treated very sympathetically, and that no unnecessary difficulty would be put in their way. Instead of that, out of 100 Transvaal applications, only about a dozen have been admitted. The society is very unreasonable in this matter, and is trying to act as if accountancy were a close reserve. The Minister of Finance pointed out when the Bill was before the House, that if the society did not administer the Act sympathetically and properly, some redress would have to be given to rejected applicants. The Bill provides that a rejected candidate can apply within three months to an appeal board, but that board has not yet been set up, because the Minister has not appointed the Government's nominee. There is another point I wish to refer to once more, and that is the question of vocational training in the Transvaal. When vocational training was taken over from the province by the Minister of Education, fees were charged, although previously the education was free. This hits the children of poor people, who, however, should be given every facility to become skilled artisans. What steps is the Minister taking to secure that these children shall receive free technical education?

I should like to ask the Minister something in connection with the naming of the various bastions of the castle in Cape Town. There used formerly to be a notice hung up at each bastion giving its name, and it was interesting to read those old names coming from the days of Van Riebeeck. A few years ago the notice boards were taken down, apparently for fresh paint. Since that time they have not been hung up again. I am sorry that those old names have disappeared from the castle, names like Nassau, Katzellenbogen, van Buuren, etc. I should like to know from the Minister why the boards have not been replaced, and whether they will be put up again.

How is the Indian agreement working? How many Indians have been repatriated and are any of them returning to South Africa? There is an increased vote by £55,000 for repatriation, but that will not go very far. I should have thought that at least three times that amount would have been provided. What steps are being taken to inform Indians, who are scattered far and wide over Natal, of the increased repatriation fee and the privileges they can enjoy in leaving this country? It appears that no information on this matter has reached the Indians in the country districts. If the information had been published broadcast, the outgoing stream of Indians would be increased. One hears of Indians entering Natal illegally overland in growing numbers. It is alarming to think we are spending so much over the repatriation of Indians and that they are eluding the law and re-entering the Union overland.

I should like to ask the Minister for a little information in connection with museums. Provision is made on the Estimates for special allowances for the director of the Natal museum, and also for the director and assistant director of the Transvaal museum, but there is no provision for a special salary for the director of the national museum of the Free State. If we look at subhead (H) (2) on the next page we see that the grants for the South African museum in Cape Town are £6,200, for the Transvaal museum £6,079, and for the Natal museum £1,650, while the amount for the Bloemfontein museum is only £1,000. It may be that the Minister will say that the Free State museum is not yet developed as much as the others, but I can assure him that the Free State museum is having a very difficult time financially. It is quite impossible to keep it up, with the grant of £1,000, and if we accept the principle of giving special grants to directors as in the other provinces, then I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to give the director of the Free State museum a special allowance also. It is true that that museum was established later than the others, but I can assure the Minister it is doing very useful work for education in the Free State, and that extensions are constantly taking place. There actually is a necessity for increasing the staff, but it cannot be done because the existing staff cannot even be maintained. I should like to see the Minister considering the matter favourably.

I wanted to ask the Minister the same thing as the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) has spoken about—the Free State museum. The museum in Bloemfontein is losing £300 a year, and it will be closing down. If the Minister cannot give any more money, can he revise the amount and perhaps give a little less to the Transvaal and the Cape? If he gave the Transvaal £6,000, the Cape £6,000, Natal £2,400 and the Free State £2,600 that would be the right way of working it out, and it would come to £17,000. I do not think the members from the other provinces would grumble at that. I do not suppose they know they have a museum. At the present time the Orange Free State National Museum contains a large number of things which have been looked after by the people of Bloemfontein for nothing. The director says there are things which it is a shame to let strangers see, and unless improvement is undertaken they will have to close down the museum. I should like to ask the Minister if there is any truth in a paragraph which is appearing in the press that the bones of Louis Trichardt and other old voortrekkers have been discovered underneath tram lines in Lorenzo Marques? Does the hon. the Minister know of any investigation, and if the paragraph is correct, will he see that these bones are given proper burial?

I should like to ask the Minister what the policy of the Government is in regard to the equipment of technical colleges. I see £1,000 on the vote for equipment of the Port Elizabeth technical college. The council of the college is anxious to make an appeal to the public. Heretofore the position has been that the Government will give pound for pound for locally raised subscriptions for the equipment for the technical college. The council would like to get £3,500, but if there is only £1,000 on the vote they cannot appeal to the public on the basis of a Government contribution of pound for pound, unless the Minister will declare the policy of the Government. He may say it will not all be required at once, but he will understand that you do not want to make an appeal year after year. You must make an appeal once for all and get the sum. They request that the Minister will now say that provided £3,500 or any similar sum is raised, he will contribute on the pound for pound principle.

I see on page 75 there is £500 for repatriation of South Africans. I should like to know what it means.

In reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) undoubtedly a responsibility rests On the Government to see that the agreement is fairly and justly carried out. The support of the Minister of Finance ensured the Bill going through. I am not going to say anything on the merits of the individual cases because I realize they may be said to be sub judice. I think, however, that the Minister might tell the committee whether he has appointed a chairman of the Appeal Board, and who the chairman is going to be.

There is one point that I desire the Minister to inform this committee on. I find that the Auditor-General, on page 179 of his report, refers to a loss of £20 per annum which the Government is sustaining by reason of the abolition of exit visas. I would ask the Minister, in view of the fact that any British subject who leaves this country has still to pay £1 on his passport, whether he is prepared to take into consideration the removal of that tax. It is very hard that anybody who goes from this part of the world to Great Britain should have to pay £1 for a passport. I am told that it is illegal. If it is illegal, surely the Minister will be the last person in the world to wish to act illegally, and I hope he will revert to the legal position, and not exact the £1 in future. *

I hope the Minister will seriously consider the request of the hon. members for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) and Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I mentioned the question of the Bloemfontein museum last year, and I am sorry my plea fell on deaf ears, and that we have not got a penny more than last year, although the position is worse. Figures have been quoted with reference to the grants to other public museums, and the question will be asked why the Free State should get so little, why it is being treated as Cinderella. I sincerely hope the Minister of Finance will come to his colleague's assistance a little. The Free State museum is of great value. Apart from the old historical things it contains, the work of the whole Union is divided over various museums, and the Free State museum is, therefore, of importance to the whole country. I recently brought something in connection with the Bloemfontein museum to the notice of the Minister, and he appointed a commission to investigate, and, according to the commission's report, the difficulties were due to the weak financial support of the matter. Because of their financial difficulties they were obliged to employ a native in the museum when they would otherwise have appointed a white man. The museum committee also stated that it would appoint a white man as soon as finances permitted. It is a question of an overseer, and a lady belonging to one of the leading Bloemfontein families and her children Were recently reproved by the native, and we can well understand that it leads to unpleasantnesses. The Free State will appreciate it very much if the Minister will do something in this direction. The interest in the museum is increasing more and more, not only are all sorts of things which appertain to a museum sent there, but the number of visitors has increased tremendously from 18,500 in 1921 to 55,000 in 1925. That shows how great the value of the museum is from an educational point of view, and I hope the Minister will see his way to increasing the grant on these estimates.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) have both dealt with the question of the distribution of grants. I see Cape Town also has an increase in its Library vote to £3,000 this year. I think that something ought to be done in the direction of making a more equal distribution. Last year I asked the Minister to see what could be done in regard to the return of destitute Indians to India, and he stated that would be looked after by the Indian Government. A large number of destitute Indians reached Calcutta from Fiji and were thrown on the streets there. We do riot want that to occur with those returning from South Africa. It is quite impossible to say yet how this agreement is going to work. It will be some years after it comes into operation before we shall see whether it is working fairly or not, because a large number of these people who are being sent to India under the agreement, may be there on a holiday, and I am afraid we will find some of them back again, having had a very nice holiday in India. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has drawn attention to the increase in the vote from £30,000 to £85,000. That brings up the question which I have raised before, and which has to be faced by Parliament and the country, and that is the question of breaking down provincial barriers in regard to the Indian population. The only province in the Union that has the right to say it will not have Indians is the Orange Free State, because at Union that was laid down definitely. It has become a grave menace that there are more Indians in Natal than there are whites, and it is becoming graver day by day and year by year. This country will have to face that. The representatives of the Orange Free State at the National Convention, definitely laid it down that one of the things that must be entrenched was that Indians must not come into their territory. But why not into the Transvaal, and why not into the Cape? I may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but it will have to be faced by Parliament and the country. Year by year this cry will go up until it is met.

It is very interesting that the hon. member from Natal now wants the 33 Asiatics to be spread over the other provinces. They are the people who imported the Asiatics; when they had finished with the Chinese they imported the Indians. I think it is very wrong to introduce such a motion. I want to ask the Minister if he does not think that inasmuch as the Indian agreement has up to the present been nothing but a failure, other steps ought not to be taken to stop the evil. I speak particularly of the Transvaal. The evil has increased, instead of becoming less. The Asiatic is trading more than ever to-day. He is out to get hold of the business places in the most important towns, and to squeeze out the white shopkeepers. It recently occurred in my village that a business man had to sell his business through ill-health, and before the white shopkeepers could take any steps, the Asiatic had taken over the shop. The result was that the white shopkeeper had to pay a big sum to get rid of the Asiatic. There was not the least chance of keeping him out of it by refusing a licence, because the municipalities must grant a licence and in that way the evil is worse than ever before. Things cannot continue like this. A few test cases with regard to licences have been heard, but it was laid down that it was ultra vires, and the prosecution of the Indians had to be stopped. If, therefore, a licence is refused, the Asiatic goes to the Supreme Court and municipalities are now afraid to refuse. I hope the Minister will tell us what he intends doing in connection with the matter.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to a matter I have dealt with on previous occasions. When the Union Government took over vocational schools, certain fundamental changes were made in respect of their governing, which has led to decreased efficiency of the boys being turned out. The first change was an alteration in the governing board. To-day the educational authorities are represented on these boards far beyond what they ought to be, and practical men have been taken off. Another error that was made, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has touched upon it, is that pupils were non-fee paying, but that has been changed, or fees were introduced into these schools, and that, when the country is crying out for the highest skilled men you can get. It means that a large number of boys cannot be admitted to these schools. An alteration was also made in the training of these boys. Previously, the practical side of their training took up the largest portion of their time, but this was immediately cut down by the new board. Before the Government took over, a boy had to pass a practical test and if he did not do so, he could not get his certificate. To-day the passing of the practical test is optional, and a boy can obtain a certificate for passing in theory. These alterations are reflected in the decreased efficiency of the pupils. Another big mistake was reducing the salary of the teachers, so that new entrants receive only £300 against £500 paid to the old people. Where can you get an efficient man for £300 a year, when an ordinary mechanic receives £365 or £400 a year? Practical men will not leave the bench to go into the schools now. If there is one country in the world which requires to train its boys in skilled trades, it is South Africa. The Minister should state what he intends to do to bring the schools back to their previous practical stage of efficiency.

On the motion of Mr. Close it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee to-morrow.