as acting chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows—

Report to be considered to-morrow.

It is about time.

I may explain that the report is being published to-day in Pretoria in the " Government Gazette," and, unfortunately, advance copies have been sent to me only in English. The Dutch version is also being published to-day in Pretoria, but, unfortunately, I can lay on the Table only two copies to-day, one for each side of the House in one language only (English). It is rather unusual for something of this nature to be done, and I hope that the House will not take this as a precedent. I have also supplied the local newspapers with the report, and in any case it will be published in the local newspapers also to-morrow.

It is, of course, requisite that the report be laid on the Table in both languages. When does the hon. Minister expect the Dutch copy?

I may explain that the law does not require the Minister to lay this on the Table of the House. I do not know whether it is required under the procedure of the House.

Yes. If the Minister will undertake to lay the Afrikaans copy on the Table later on, I do not think there could be any objection to his laying on the Table now the English copy that he has available.

I think it would be a very bad precedent, and if it were once done we should have trouble later in stopping the evil. I think we ought to object.

If the hon. member objects it cannot be done.

I hope the hon. member will not maintain his objection. The principle is wrong, but an exception has already been made, in the case of the report on the iron and steel industry, which was laid on the Table in one language by the Minister of Mines and Industries.

That was not really a Government document.

I would appeal to the hon. member, in view of the great public interest involved in this question, not to insist. This report has been awaited for a long time now, and the public interest is so clear and paramount in this case, that I hope my hon. friend will not press his objection.

I would suggest that the Minister allows both sides of the House to see the copy and then it can be laid on the Table later.

Yes, just circulate it privately.

And then lay it on the Table later on.

I would like to raise a point concerning which the Minister was kind enough to give the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and myself an interview this morning, and that is with regard to the boys' and girls' hostels at Port Elizabeth in particular, and the rest of the country in general. The matter is of far greater importance than appears on the fact ot it. The Minister himself, last year or the year before, moved to include this question under the Housing Act. The Minister of Labour went to the trouble of appointing a special commission to inquire into this question, and the report I have before me. The matter is of, I might say, national importance, more especially in the case of Port Elizabeth, which is fast becoming perhaps the most important industrial centre in South Africa, and there are thousands of young girls and boys coming in from the country, not as a burden on the State, but being absorbed into the industries there. I know of one firm alone, Messrs. Mosenthal & Co., who have started a new clothing factory and have 300 girls there. As a rule girls and boys in any industry start at learner's wages, and I suppose the average weekly wage is about 10s. It is found they cannot possibly live under decent conditions on wages like that, but although they start at a low wage, they are being absorbed into the industries, and a great work is being performed for the benefit of the country, because they naturally work up to higher wages. Both the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Labour appreciate the difficulties. The Minister of the Interior himself told me this morning how valuable he found these hostels and what a valuable function they are performing. I am sorry we have such an inattentive House, for the matter is of very considerable importance. With regard to the indigent hostels in the country, at the present moment the Cape Province alone is contributing £150,000 per annum, and their per capita contribution is about 6s. or 7s. per child, and I submit that boys and girls assisted to be absorbed into the industries are of far more real value to the country. That is to say, a per capita grant to children such as I have mentioned, is of far more value than in the case of the type of boy merely getting a grant in the country hostels. I would urge upon both Ministers once more to bring this matter before the Government, because, as things stand at present, these hostels cannot carry on. I am speaking more particularly of Port Elizabeth. Hundreds, no thousands, of youths and girls are living under conditions in Port Elizabeth which certainly do not redound to the credit of this country. Without a per capita contribution on the same principle as is being received by indigent children in the country hostels, they cannot carry on. If the Minister will look at the report of the Hostels Commission, he will find that the Government is very strongly urged to make a grant of 7s. 6d per capita per annum. The report would repay reading by hon. members. This report urges the Government very strongly to start a system of per capita grants. I have heard to my great disappointment that the Government is doing nothing in the matter. I understand from the point of view of the Minister of Finance it may prove an expensive burden, but I would urge the Government at any rate to tackle the position as far as Port Elizabeth is concerned, because it is far more serious there than in any other part of the country. If the Government cannot adopt the principle recommended by the Hostels Commission's report, cannot they do something to alleviate the position in Port Elizabeth itself. I think both Ministers have made personal enquiries into the position there. I have gone through it as far as I could, and I can assure the Minister that nowhere in the country can money be spent to better advantage than in making these per capita grants. We have expensive industrial schools in this country, and I understand from this report they cost £52 per child. It emphasizes that these children are performing a more useful function than in the industrial schools. It I read the report aright they recommend doing away with industrial schools in favour of the hostels. I do not think I am making a breach of confidence when I say that the Minister himself told us what useful functions these hostels are performing, and the Minister of Labour told us so too. It is not enough to tell us that these hostels can be built out of the housing funds. It is a matter of maintenance, and it costs £1 per boy per week to support, whereas their wage is only 10s. per week, and the deficit has to be made up. The very people we have to assist—the learners and beginners—cannot come in without a per capita grant. We have spent a good deal of time speaking about and investigating the poor white question, and the drift from the country to the towns. Here we have a way, better than any I know, of alleviation, and these recommendations are turned down.

I hope to make myself heard; it is not easy work, with several sub-committees sitting in the House. I hope hon. members will depart so far from this irregular procedure to listen to something of importance, which has been advanced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I want to speak in partial support of what he has said. It is well known, and specially known to the Minister of the Interior, that Port Elizabeth has done heroic things in helping to solve the poor white problem. I remember nearly two years ago the Minister came to Port Elizabeth to lay the foundation stone of the new technical college, and spoke in the warmest praise of the public spiritedness of the people of the town in doing so much to help to solve this problem. These factories at Port Elizabeth are absorbing hundreds, and in the aggregate thousands, of young people, and on that ground I hope careful attention and sympathetic regard will be paid to the request put forward by the hon. member who preceded me.

I just want to reply to various questions put, and if there are any further matters I will deal With them in my final reply. I will commence with the questions put in Afrikaans. An hon. member asked what certain items meant, such as the item " repatriation of South Africans." I think I can explain it to the House. During the war quite a number of South Africans were stranded in Europe. A small fund was collected to assist them in various ways and, if necessary, to assist their return to South Africa. As hon. members notice it is a temporary fund, and the amount has been reduced this year. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) and other Free State members referred to the Bloemfontein museum. I can only tell them that the present Government has not yet given further attention to the Bloemfontein museum because it was only recently openly taken over by the State. Hon. members know that definite provision is made in the Financial Relations Report of 1913. According to that report certain institutions only inter alia, certain museums would fall under State control while others would come under provincial control, including the museums at Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg. Those museums in the report referred to come under the provincial administrations. The provinces however refuse to consent to putting the museums under the control of the Government, and without it no transfer could take place. That was the position until the present Government decided last year to bring the two museums under the control of the Union Government. I grant that if we compare the allowances for the Bloemfontein museum with those for the others a decided injustice is done to the former. I have gone into the matter, and can assure hon. members that, although no special provision can be made for the museum this year it will be done next year.

Just shortly before the election?

I do not know whether a grant to a museum would have much influence on an election.

Anyhow a few Saps. would possibly come over.

They have many other good reasons for coming over. I am going into the matter, and in any case the grant to the Bloemfontein museum will be increased. Then the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) pointed out that certain notice boards at the Castle in Cape Town, which have been there for generations, have been removed. In reply, I want to point out that the Castle falls under the Defence Department, and this is a matter which really should be raised under the Votes of that Department What the actual position is I cannot now say, but I shall have to go into it and see whether I have the power to do anything. I shall, however, bring the matter to the notice of the Defence Department, and, if necessary, also to the notice of the Historical Documents Commission which is more particularly, under an Act passed by Parliament, charged with the preservation of historical antiquities.

†The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) raised a number of points regarding general policy. I would point out that the mental institutions at Bloemfontein and Queenstown have all either been erected or begun under the administration of my predecessor, and what we have done is merely to complete the plans drawn up by him. The only institution for which I am personally responsible for the starting of is that at Fort Napier, where we are making provision much more inexpensively than in the case of the other institutions. We bought from the Defence Department the military cantonments at Fort Napier, which were used during the war as a concentration camp for enemy subjects. Certain alterations were only required, and the result has been that whereas the Potchefstroom institution ultimately cost the State about £250 per bed, the cost at Fort Napier is only £143 per head. The work is now being done more inexpensively than in the past. The hon. member asked whether it is intended to abandon Robben Island as a leper asylum. We have decided to depart from the policy we thought of adopting. I stated last year that a definite undertaking was given by my predecessor to the Robben Island lepers that they would not be transferred against their will to the leper asylum at Pretoria. When I assumed office I thought it only right that I should honour that promise, and I have not departed from it. The only alternative was to make provision for the Robben Island patients on the mainland. I suppose the high cost of running Robben Island is largely owing to the fact that supplies and visitors have to be transported by sea to the island, and we have to keep on the island a fairly large staff, most of whom have their families with them. I went very thoroughly into the whole question to see whether we could not have less expensive accommodation on the mainland, but the report I got from the experts was that if there were any saving at all it would be negligible. Taking everything into consideration—the deterioration of the buildings on Robben Island, the very large amount of capital that has been invested on the island and the fact that no other department can tell us to what use they can put Robben Island, the Government thought it best just to continue as at present. Under the circumstances we think we can bring down somewhat the per capita expenditure on Robben Island by increasing the number of patients there, and at the same time improve certain unsatisfactory conditions in the mental hospitals. For that reason we transferred from Pretoria to Robben Island the coloured patients so that the coloured patients will be together in one institution. That increased somewhat the number of patients on the island, and brought down the per capita expenditure. That is only temporary. The number of patients on the island was increased from about 130 to 180, but the number is falling off gradually owing to the fact that if lepers reach the arrested stage of the disease they are discharged. In that way over 1,100 leper patients have been discharged from our institutions during recent years. Then leprosy generally, fortunately, is decreasing, more especially in the western parts of the Cape Province, and the day will come when the number of leper patients will very materially decrease, and then we shall be up against a very high per capita expenditure in that institution. For the present we are just carrying on, trying to bring down the expenditure as much as possible.

Have you any European patients?

We had a few from Pretoria, but the number of European patients remains small—I think only about 30 or so. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asked a question regarding the advisory council for the public service. I am very glad to say a very satisfactory arrangement has been reached with the Public Servants' Associations in regard to that matter. These associations had advocated the adoption of a Whitley Council—a two-sided council consisting of representatives of the Government and of the public servants in equal numbers, the resolutions to be decided by the majority of votes. The Government discussed the proposal with representatives of the public service, but we found we were unable to agree to an arrangement of that kind. But after further discussion and by mutual agreement we came to another arrangement, that is, an advisory council constituted by elected members of the public service and by nominees of the Government to sit merely in consultation together. The Government nominees do not vote, they are there merely for the definite purpose of representing the Government's standpoint in regard to questions which come up for discussion. That arrangement was not only to the satisfaction of the public service generally, but we find by experience that it is working very well. The first resolutions we have had, and the good spirit which is prevailing generally as the result of this arrangement shows that we have been justified in taking that step. Then the hon. member has asked the question with regard to the position of coloured clerks in the service—whether there is any discrimination in salary between coloured i clerks and Europeans. The information I have is that there is no discrimination, in the regulations or practice, between Europeans and coloured persons. There is a discrimination between European and native clerks employed in the Native Affairs Department, and exclusively in native territories. It is altogether confined to the Native Affairs Department, and to native clerks employed in native territories. There is no discrimination as far as the rest of the service in the Union is concerned. The hon. member asks what steps are being taken in connection with the condonation of illicit entry of Indians into the country. I can repeat what I have said on a former occasion that whole condonations scheme is in the nature of a quid pro quo for an honourable undertaking on the part of the Indian community in the country through their most representative association, that they would not countenance in future any illicit entry on the part of Indians into the country; that they would set their faces sternly against it. It is an honourable undertaking, but so far as I can judge it is working fairly well. There are certain sections of the Indian community dissatisfied with this agreement, but I have every reason to believe that that is merely a small minority. The condonation scheme is altogether on the lines of a similar condonation which took place during the Great War, namely that all Indians who entered the country illicitly and who wish to be condoned have to report their cases personally, to the department, in this case through the South African Indian congress, if they desire to do so. Only these cases which are reported will be condoned, if they are reported before the 1st of October, but all cases of illicit entry found after that date will be taken into consideration.

No matter how long ago it may be?

No matter how long ago they entered the country.

What will you do with them?

If they are discovered they will be deported.

You will never discover them.

I will not personally, but I hope the police will.

made a remark.

If the children came with their parents they are illicit entrants. I come to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The first point raised by the hon. member was the unfortunate delay in the publication of certain reports. The reports mentioned by the hon. member were the Union year book and the annual report of the Department of Education. I have gone into this matter with the department but I cannot very well see how we can change it. The hon. member must not forget that the year book is a compendium of official information which must be extracted from a number of reports. Naturally these reports appear only at the end of the year, very often three or four months or more after the end of the year. We cannot avoid that. It takes a considerable time before all this information is collected and tabulated and made ready for the press.

1926 information should be out by the middle of 1927, surely.

Yes.

That is not the case.

Take the case of the annual report of the Department of Education. If all the information which we publish in that report were at the disposal of the Department of Union Education, then it would be easy enough to comply with the request, and see that very soon after the end of the year we should publish the annual report, but the hon. member must not forget that under the Union Education Department we have got a large number of institutions which are autonomous, and which issue their own annual reports. I refer more particularly to the universities and university colleges, and, however much we try to expedite matters, we very often cannot get the information from these institutions before quite a considerable time has elapsed after the end of the year. We are doing our best, but we are dependent upon the councils, the registrars, and the administrative machinery generally of institutions over which, in this respect, we have got no control. That is the explanation, but I will give the hon. member the assurance that I will try and do my best. Then the hon. member is very much concerned about the big increase in the vote of this particular Department of the Interior.

It is always going up, it is always increasing.

The hon. member accuses me more particularly of extravagance, even beyond the extravagance of my colleague generally, but if he will look again at the estimates, he will see that £12,500 of that increase is accounted for by the fact that we have got a biennial registration. With the best intention and the best will in the world, I cannot change that. That biennial registration is statutory. I cannot avoid that. Then on immigration, the repatriation of Indians, we have an additional £55,000. I do not think any hon. member, not even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), will object to this, because it is the definite policy which has been laid down by the Government, and which has been approved of by Parliament, and surely we do not grudge the £55,000 extra, and if we could increase it under the present system to £200,000 a year, I think the House would gladly accept that, because, after all, that is the best amicable solution we have found so far to a very pressing problem. Taking these two sums together, you have an increase of £67,500. Deducting the £15,000, which we did not spend last year on the referendum, that gives you an increase of £52,500. The net increase on the vote, as it is shown here, is £48,400. I think that is a very satisfactory explanation and that the hon. member will have to revise his opinion about the extravagance, certainly in regard to this vote. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) raised the question of the appointment of probationer nurses. I must say that I sympathize to a very large extent with what he has represented, but, unfortunately, I can do nothing so far as that is concerned, because it falls under the provincial administrations, and I am very reluctant generally to interfere in provincial matters which have been entrusted to provincial councils under the constitution, and, all I can say is that, personally, I will be very glad if the hon. member or some other authoritative person would represent that matter to the provincial councils concerned.

The four councils?

Yes. Then the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and other members have raised the question of the treatment of the applicants for registration under the Accountants Act, which was passed last year. Those applicants who are dissatisfied, I may say, have made representations to me, not complaining about any injustice that has been done to them, because, generally, they realize that the administration of the Act does not fall under me, and that I can do nothing so far as that is concerned, but appealing to me that I should make an appointment according to the so-called Pearce agreement on the board of appeal, the appointment of a very able and competent man, and it was their desire that he should be a judge of the Supreme Court. Now I have not seen my way to approach any judge sitting on the bench to-day, because I really think it would not be a sound principle if we appointed a judge who is actually on the bench, but I have gone as far in the direction of meeting them as I possibly can, and I can only say that I am in communication at present with an excellent retired judge of the Supreme Court, and I hope that he will agree to serve on this commission. I think that the applicants who have approached me to appoint a judge will be quite satisfied if we secure his services. Now the hon. member has also raised the question of free vocational education in the Transvaal. I gave a fairly exhaustive reply to representations of the same nature made when the Vocational Education Bill was before Parliament a short time ago. I can only state again that, seeing that vocational education generally was taken over by the Union Government from the provinces, it is certainly impossible to have one system for one province and another system for other provinces. You cannot make in one province people pay for the education of their children and, at the same time, pay taxes to the Union Government to provide free education in another province. That, every hon. member will understand, is impossible. So we had to find some uniform principle on which to act. Now there were two possibilities, one was to make the schools fee-paying throughout the Union, and the other was to make the schools free throughout the Union.

Why not?

As far as the second alternative is concerned, I pointed out on a former occasion that I am severely criticized every year, when the education vote is before Parliament, on the big increase that there is there, and I have given Parliament the undertaking that I would go into the matter, which I have done through the Higher Education Inquiry Commission, to see whether we cannot at least decrease that annual increase of the education vote, whether we cannot reduce it somewhat. That commission has been going into the whole matter, and I think that matters being still as they are, it would be impossible for me to face Parliament with the proposal that we should make technical and vocational education generally free throughout the Union. It would mean very great additional expenditure. Besides that, I cannot see how we can make technical and vocational education free and have feepaying schools in some provinces at least for secondary education. I do not think we can justify that. If you give free vocational educational you must also give free education throughout. It would be a good ideal, but I think we have not reached the stage when we can put that ideal into practice.

When are we to have that report?

The Dutch translation is being prepared at present, and the report is being printed. As soon as it is printed I will lay it on the Table of the House. I can just say in passing on this point that the introduction of the fee-paying principle in the technical schools of the Rand has had this result, that the average daily attendance in those schools has materially improved. If people get their education free they very often do not appreciate it, and the children are very easily kept out of school. I can further inform the House that in spite of the introduction of that system the number of students in the technical colleges of the Transvaal has also very largely increased. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has asked a few questions in connection with the repatriation of Indians, and he wishes me to give figures. The House is never weary of asking questions in connection with the repatriation scheme, and I am always glad to give this information to the House. The scheme under the agreement has been in operation only for eight months. It came into operation on the 15th August last, and I have the figures here. From the 15th August to the end of December repatriated under the repatriation scheme, 3,007; then taking January, February and March of this year, another 1,011. So, during the eight months that the scheme has been in occupation the number of repatriates is 4,018. That is a very considerable increase on even the best that we have had before. As I stated on a previous occasion, the highest number that was ever reached was a little over 2,900, and that was reached shortly after the first repatriation, scheme was brought into operation in 1921. After that it dropped, and merely to show the necessity of getting the goodwill towards such a repatriation scheme of the Indian community, I may just state that after the introduction into the House of the Class Areas Bill in 1924, almost immediately after that, the number of those leaving the country under the repatriation scheme fell almost to nil.

What is the number of births per annum?

I cannot say that.

Ten thousand.

No, it cannot be that, certainly not. In any case, the scheme was taken up again, and in the first instance improved by doubling the bonus. That was done by the present Government in 1924. That improved the position somewhat, but not to any large extent. The numbers afterwards again decreased with the introduction of the Bill, for which I was responsible. Since the scheme came into operation and a better spirit prevailed, even before the larger bonuses were offered, the number of repatriates increased, and it has been steadily increasing, and during the eight months in which the scheme has been in operation we have had 4,018. That would work out at about 6,000 per annum if it continues like this.

These have the right to return within two years?

Yes, they may. I will come to that.

Have you sufficient boats to take them away?

Generally speaking, yes. We have made new arrangements with the shipping companies. They are leaving more regularly than formerly. We sent over to India Mr. Venn, Commissioner for Asiatic Affairs, to further consult with the Government of India about the arrangements which they are making on the other side, to welcome the immigrants from South Africa, and to absorb them into the permanent population there. The Government of India has various schemes which they laid before us, and which were tentatively agreed upon on a former occasion, and Mr. Venn was going over to look into matters there and report to us. I have not seen him since his return, but I understand from the department that he is very well satisfied with the arrangements which are being made on the other side. I must say that the assistance of the Government of India has not so far had an opportunity of showing its full effect on the repatriations of Indians to India, because these arrangements have been made only during recent months, and are not quite completed yet. I hope that it will have a very beneficial effect on our scheme in future years. With regard to the entrance of Indians into the country, I may say also in that respect that the results of this agreement are satisfactory. As I stated in the House before, about 600 Indians on the average still entered into the country annually under the old laws or arrangements. They had the right to do so, and we could not stop them. As hon. members will know, when the agreement was entered into with the Government of India, we tried to stop the further entrance of Indians as much as possible. We made a new arrangement, and under that it is shown that more women have come into the country this year than before, or during the last few months.

What for?

Oh, because their husbands are here—a very good reason, I should say. But the number of boys entering the country has been very much reduced. So the agreement is working in this direction—that the number of male Indians introduced from outside into the country will practically cease, and the number of women will, for a certain period at least, increase, and that will make for a more settled home life, and the discontinuance of the connection between the Indian community and India.

Indians practise polygamy.

The hon. member ought to know that if an Indian has more than one wife he cannot introduce more than one wife into the country.

They are polyandrists too.

The hon. member may know more about that than I do. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) also raised the question with regard to illegal entries into the country, and he represents that the number is increasing. If he knows that is so, he will assist us very materially if he will give that information to the police. But the Department of the Interior has not got that information; on the contrary, the information we have is that there is hardly any illicit entry into the country, as far as we know.

That is all wrong.

If anyone has information with regard to that, let him give it to the police, and they will act at once. It is no use making vague statements in the House which cannot be proved. It is merely suspicion; that is all. A further question was acquainting Indians with the facilities and bonus offered. Pamphlets in the various Indian languages have been issued and published by the Department, and are distributed broadcast amongst the Indians in the country; that is as much as we can do. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) asked whether the department would not be ready to go into the question of the graves of Louis Trichardt and his followers in Lourenco Marques. All I can say is that there is a good deal of uncertainty with regard to where Louis Trichardt's grave is. I understand that Mr. Preller, who is a student of South African history, contends that the grave is at the corner of some street in Lourenco Marques, but there are others who also have the right to speak on this matter who say that that is not the case, and that he and his followers were buried in an old churchyard in the neighbourhood; so there is no certainty with regard to the matter, and besides, it is very difficult for the department, even if the spot could be found, while the department is not responsible at present—the Government has not taken upon itself the responsibility at present of erecting monuments of any kind in the country. If we thought of doing something in that direction, I think it would be by way of supplementing contributions for that purpose which have been given by the general public. I think the initiative must be taken by the general public, and not by the Government. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the question of provision for the equipment of the technical college in that centre. I can only inform him that it is the general policy of the Education Department to contribute for equipment on the pound for pound principle; but how much we can contribute in a particular year depends on the funds at our disposal for the purpose. All I can say is that while we adhere to the general policy, the council of the technical college must be good enough to put in a definite request with all the details, and we will see how far it is possible for us to meet their requirements. The hon. member will admit with a certain amount of gratitude that Port Elizabeth has not been left in the lurch as far as technical education is concerned. We have done a good deal for Port Elizabeth, and we will always see it gets its due. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the question of payment to be made for the issue of passports and visas, and objects to those persons who apply for passports having to pay one pound. I must say I do not think that people applying for passports, who get the benefit of these, and which facilitate very much their travelling oversea, think it a great burden to have to pay £1 for that privilege. It costs the Government something to have that passport office, and I do not think £1 is too much for a person who can pay, his passage oversea and go travelling abroad.

Under what authority do you exact this payment?

It is a fee not imposed in the first instance by the Department of the Interior, but it is a treasury matter.

Under what law?

If it is illegal I daresay the Auditor-General will point that out to the House, but I do not remember he has so far made any remarks with regard to this question. The question of passports and visas, is really a matter of international arrangement. So far as visas are concerned we act on the principle of reciprocity, and we make the subjects of other countries pay for visas what those countries make our subjects pay.

Is the passport for England still necessary?

Yes. I think the system has come to, stay. It is a very simple means of controlling the movements of undesirables from one country to another. I do not think passports have been done away with in any country in the world with the exception of Canada. I do not think we should put an end to passports so long as other countries retain them. The hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. O'Brien), has again attempted to induce the House to do away with the provincial barriers for Indians—[Hear, hear. ]

A voice in the wilderness.

I am very glad to see that he at least has some support in the House.

Not much.

In any case we do not want any further revolution, and if we do away with the provincial restrictions on the movements of Indians we shall certainly have revolutions in three provinces. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has again raised the question of the unification of technical instruction on the Rand. He complains that the isolated position of an institution in which he is more particularly interested has been changed as the result of the re-organization of technical training on the Rand. After technical education was taken over by the Union Education Department it was the most reasonable thing in the world to unify—in an area like the Witwatersrand— all technical education under one council, that being the only way to prevent a large measure of overlapping. Technical education for the Rand is not a matter for Brakpan, Benoni or Germiston alone, but it is all part of one great problem for the whole of the Reef, and it must be dealt with as one whole. We have reorganized technical education there. I think generally to the satisfaction of the people, and certainly there has been increased efficiency. There is no doubt about that. If, however, a particular institution which existed before, independent of the others, has in some measure been altered so far as its general character is concerned, that cannot be helped. The greater question is—can technical education generally be made more practical or satisfactorily changed? That is a matter affecting the constitution of the governing body. The governing bodies of all technical institutes are constituted according to the Act of 1923; the Minister cannot do as he likes, but must follow the Act. According to the Act a scheme must be agreed upon between the Minister and the local body responsible for the starting of an institute; then the scheme must be published for a certain period for criticism, and only after that can the scheme be made final. That procedure was followed in the case of the Rand Technical Institute, and I cannot change at this stage what has been done—at that time according to the Act—but I can inform the hon. member that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in various quarters with regard to the representative nature or non-representative nature of the council of the Rand Technical Institute, and I have been in negotiation with parties there regarding the change of that scheme of government. It is quite clear to me now that it would not be against the law for me to take the initiative. It was at one time thought that that would be against the law and that I could do nothing. I am busy at present taking the necessary steps to get the council reconstituted as far as the representation of various bodies and organizations on the Rand is concerned. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member and, if he has any representations to make, I think this is his opportunity to come to my office and I will see what I can do. He also raised the question of the reduction of the salaries of teachers in the trade school in which he is particularly interested. No salaries of teachers who were teaching in these schools when they were taken over by the Union Government were reduced. In the Act of 1925, the pension and salary rights of these people were specially safeguarded. If their salaries were reduced, it would be against the law. The determination of salary scales for new appointments is another thing, and in that we must follow a uniform principle throughout the Union, and we always act in conjunction with the Public Service Commission and the treasury, as the law passed by Parliament this year lays down. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) raised a point in connection with industrial hostels. The hon. member is quite right. It is certainly needful that provision in that direction should be made as soon as possible. Undoubtedly a large number of young boys and young girls often come from rural areas into the large industrial centres to find employment. In the beginning they get only a very small wage, often not more than £1 10s. per week, and put of that they must find all their means of subsistence. The result is that they very often find lodging in the most unsatisfactory quarters of such an industrial centre. It is very necessary that we should have industrial hostels under proper supervision, and that these hostels should in some way get assistance from the Government. Hon. members will remember that a few years ago I introduced into this House a small Bill amending the Housing Act in this way: That such hostels can be looked upon as an improvement of housing conditions in such a centre, and they will be able, under that Act, to benefit from loan monies made available by the Government. I introduced that amending measure more especially with regard to conditions in Port Elizabeth, and I am glad to say that an industrial hostel for girls there has benefitted in that way. But the need is a much larger one, and the Government, through the Minister of Labour, has appointed a commission to go into the whole question and report, and to that report the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has referred. That has been discussed sympathetically by the Government, but we were not able to make any provision on the estimates this year and the whole question as to whether in future provision, and what provision, shall be made on the lines suggested by that report will be considered in the recess.

I protest against the suggestion that because people have to pay for vocational training the attendance will be improved. It may be that the attendance on the Witwatersrand is better, but not because they have to pay for vocational training, but because of the fact that to-day all the big industries, the mines and all the big employers, insist upon apprentices attending the technical and trade schools. That is part of their agreement as apprentices. I want to emphasize that it would be intolerable if this House accepted the position that, by making a person pay for education, you would have better attendance and better results. That was exploded 40 years ago, when the Tory Government in England, particularly in dealing with Scottish education, insisted on the Scottish people paying a very small sum towards their education. Shortly after that, the Education Act was changed and free education came about in Scotland. The result to-day is that any Scottish child can go from the kindergarten to the university almost without paying anything whatever. That has been going on for many years. I think it will be a very dangerous thing for this, or any other Government, to suggest that the right way to get better attendance at the vocational schools is by making people pay. That is not so. Many a genius has been kept from education just because of the fact that his parents were not able to nay the necessary funds. The Minister said that either he must make this province come up to the other provinces and make the people pay, or deal with the other provinces and make them give free education. Let me tell the Minister that it would have been much better if he had said the way of progress is free education, whether is be elementary or university. He would have been well advised to have said: " I will make vocational technical training of this country entirely free." Had he done that, he would have raised himself very much in the opinion of people in the Transvaal. Here we have a very poor family, in a district such as Fords-burg, there we have apprentices in the various engineering works, who, when they go to the trade school or the technical institute, have not only to pay for their books, but for their training, whereas parents in happier circumstances, say in Yeoville or Brakpan, whose boy is ultimately going to be a doctor or lawyer or some other professional man, can send him to the secondary school and let him take his matriculation without paying a penny. That is wrong. I hope, before many years are over, the Minister will take the other course open to him, and see to it that, as far as the poor children are concerned, they will also get their secondary education in the form of vocational training equally as free as the children in the Transvaal get their secondary education when they are much more able to pay. I want to raise another point, and that is in reference to the accountants. The Minister did say, and it was said before in answer to a question of mine, that he had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Act. I quite appreciate that. At the same time I think the Minister should also realize that there are certain circumstances surrounding the passing of that Act, so that I do not think the Minister should entirely absolve himself as far as responsibility is concerned. We know that during the debate certain statements were made, and we had even the Minister of Finance stating that the conditions of a certain agreement, since known as the Pearce agreement, would be liberally interpreted, and the Minister of Finance gave his blessing to the Bill on that occasion, assuring the House that a liberal interpretation would be given, otherwise he, and I take it the Government, would see what should and could be done in order to ensure that justice was done to these people. The appeal board will be sitting very shortly, and I notice that the Minister is appointing a judge. If the applicants desire a judge, I can say nothing in that connection, but I think that the judge ought to know the circumstances surrounding the vote taken in this House, and the fact that that agreement had not to be interpreted in too strict a legal sense, but in a liberal sense, the desire being that no person should suffer unfairly or unjustly as a result of too strict an interpretation of that agreement. I also want to bring this to the Minister's attention. He did not answer certain questions I put to him the other day, but I think the House ought to know, and if the Minister cannot give the information, we are entitled to go to the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and ask him what he has got to say about the Pearce agreement.

We cannot do that.

I do say we are entitled to go to the hon. member for Liesbeek. I do not say I want to off-load on to his shoulders the responsibility that other members have got. I want to ask the hon. member for Liesbeek if he can give this information to the House. I think that we are entitled to know how many applicants from each province applied under the Pearce agreement for admission to the Cape Society of Accountants and Auditors, first of all under Class 1 and under Class 2. I think we are also entitled to know how many applicants from each province were rejected under Class 1 and Class 2 respectively, and whether reasons were given for rejection, and, if not, why no reasons were given. I think we are also entitled to know whether reasons were asked for by unsuccessful applicants and refused. I think in that respect we should also ask the hon. member for Liesbeek if he can tell the House what steps will be taken so that those applicants will be given reasons. [Time limit.]

The Minister was good enough to give a fairly full explanation in regard to the £1 exacted for British passports. I pressed him on the point of the legality of making that charge, but he could quote no authority to show that the Government was entitled to exact that charge. It simply means that, by regulation, this tax is imposed on the public. I want to know who has the right of imposing taxation on the country. If it is necessary to introduce a law to impose this taxation, by all means do so, but don't let us have taxation by regulation, or by the sweet will of any Government in power. I understand that in Pretoria to-day a gazette has been issued placing the public in possession of the terms of the delimitation report. I may point out that on August 15th, 1927, the first sitting of the Delimitation Commission took place, and their report is dated February 29th, 1928, and that more than two months have elapsed since that report was signed.

What are you quoting from?

A document in my possession. This report is dated February 29th, 1928.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in quoting from a document which is not before this House?

I do not know where the hon. member (Mr. Nathan) got the document from. He may proceed.

This document which I hold in my possession is dated February 29th, and yet we have been informed to-day by the Minister that there has been no Afrikaans translation of it to enable him to place it on the Table of the House. The Minister seemed to think that, by reason of my having put the question on several occasions, I was very much concerned myself. I am concerned in so far as the delimitation of the hon. member's division is concerned. I find, for instance, in Calvinia that the area is divided into three districts, and that polling districts 204, etc., are under " A ", 221, etc., under " B ", and 233, etc., under " C " but there is no map accompanying it, and it is absolutely impossible to know whether the Minister's return as a member of this House will now be placed in a precarious position. The Minister has no idea how anxious we are to see him back in this House, not necessarily occupying the position that he occupies at the present moment.

What about Von Brandis?

Von Brandis is quite safe, except this, that I find that division is divided under four letters—" A ", " B ", "C" and " D ", and under those letters I find polling district No. 281, but no map accompanying it, and I would ask the Minister what is embraced under polling district No. 281.

They are waiting for the Afrikaans translation of the map.

I want the assurance of the Minister that we will have the maps so that we can follow the report with certainty.

I am not going to attack the judges who formed the commission, because they had a very difficult task to perform, owing to the increase in the population, but at the same time it would have cost very little more for printing to have given the areas under Nos. 213, 214, etc., and I hope the Minister will look into, that. Surely every individual voter is entitled to know what is going to take place under the delimitation. From this document, as we have it now, without charts, it is absolutely useless. I am sure the Minister appreciates the position, and he feels the information supplied to-day is absolutely unreliable in so far as it is not accompanied by maps. I hope we shall have the assurance that within a few days it will be laid on the Table to enable hon. members and the public generally to appreciate what has taken place.

I am surprised at the great enthusiasm that is shown at the agreement that was arrived at dealing with chartered account ants. A private Bill was introduced into the House, unfortunately the title practically embraced the principle; the result was that no amendments could be moved to that Bill. A large number of hon. members who had objections met together, the result being that I drafted a public Bill dealing with the same matter. The promoters of the private Bill were up in arms at what they thought meant the rejection of their private Bill. They then met members of this House belonging to all parties and agreed to a compromise arrived at whereby the two Bills would not be discussed in the House at the same time, and later, owing to the fact that under the rules of the House the compromise could not be embodied as part Of the Bill, it was thought sufficient by the members present at the compromise that it be separate from the Bill in the form of an agreement. The members present all agreed that it was a just compromise. It gave the opportunity to accountants who were practising to make application to become chartered accountants. It also laid down that not only would those be dealt with who had been practising for a period of ten years, but also under certain conditions those who had practised only for five years would also be admitted. The compromise arrived at also enabled them to appeal to an appeal board comprised of three members—one member to be appointed by the Government, one by the accountants' societies, and one by the university council—therefore, I think it is wrong for members of this House to discuss before this House grievances when those applicants refused by the society have not waited until their appeals have been dealt with by the appeal board. There is no doubt a great deal of controversy arising out of this matter. I would like to state the number of applicants who have applied in the various provinces. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) and others have persistently been asking questions and discussing this matter. I will deal with the answers of questions which the hon. member for Langlaagte put on the Order Paper for the Minister of the Interior to answer on April 24th, but which the Minister stated he was not in a position to answer as the grievance if any was under the Pearce agreement—

1. (1) How many applicants from each province applied, under the Pearce agreement, for admission to the Cape Society of Accountants and Auditors (a) under Class 1 and (b) under Class 2;
2. (2) how many applicants in each province were rejected under (a) and (b), respectively;
3. (3) whether reasons were given for rejection, and, if not, why not;
4. (4) whether reasons were asked for by unsuccessful applicants and refused, and, if so, why were they refused; and
5. (5) whether the Minister will use his influence to get reasons in each case furnished to unsuccessful applicants, in order that they may bring their cases properly before the appeal board ?

The answer to No. 2 is as follows:

1. (2) The number of applicants rejected is as follows

The answer to No. 3 is as follows:

1. (3) Unsuccessful applicants were advised that in the opinion of the Council of the Cape Society they did not fall within the scope of the undertaking given by the promoters of the Act in terms of the Pearce agreement.

The answer to No. 4 is as follows:

1. (4) Reasons were asked for by some applicants who were again informed that in the opinion of the council they did not fall within the scope of the undertaking. There is no obligation on the part of the council to give fuller reasons at this stage. The society's work stopped immediately it had given its decision, and from that point, the matter falls into the hands of the appeal board.

The answer to No. 5 is as follows:

1. (5) Applicants were required under the Pearce agreement to satisfy the Cape society that they fall within the scope of certain prescribed conditions, Those who have failed to satisfy the council are entitled to submit their respective cases to the appeal board. In terms of the agreement, all the documents in connection with the applications will be submitted to the appeal board, who, after deciding on its procedure, will have power to call for such further information or documents as it may desire from either side, and also to administer an oath.

The Pearce agreement was agreed upon unanimously by the members present at the meeting.

No.

Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) should have attended the meeting when he was asked to attend. Every person who had raised any objection to the private Bill was requested to meet upstairs the promoters of the private Bill. [Time limit.]

I am sorry to have to revert back to the question of the hostels, but I cannot help saying that the attitude of the Minister is very disappointing. He tells us himself that he went out of his way to alter the Housing Act specially in order to benefit Port Elizabeth in regard to hostels. He tells us how useful these hostels are, and yet all he has to say is that in some unspecified way or other they ought to be helped. That is very vague and indefinite, I quite realize that every Department bombards the Minister of Finance with requests for expenditure, but I think very few claims that could be made on him would be of equal importance to this. There is actually no provision on the estimates. Another thing that astonishes me is the complete lack of interest on the part of hon. members on the other side. If you go through the factories at Port Elizabeth you will find that probably 90 per cent. of the young boys and girls who have recently come belong to the Dutch-speaking community to which these hon. members and I belong; yet they apparently take no interest in the matter. While I was raising the matter there was a buzz of conversation going on and there appeared to be a complete lack of interest. Nothing would repay the country better than a substantial provision on the estimates for these hostels. Instead of that we have been wasting money on Doornkop, Lospersfontein and other activities at Harte beestpoort under the Labour Department—experiments of the Minister of Labour—none of which will do a tithe of the good that the provision for hostels will bring. I am glad that the Minister is so sympathetic, but, after all, that does not bring us much further. He realises that " something or other " should be done.

But you say we must be economical.

In the right direction, but not in flesh and blood. That is what we are doing—economizing in the youth of this country. These young people are being absorbed into our economic life at no expense to the Government—they are being absorbed normally—and the little help we can give them is being refused. The indigent hostels were offered something like 6s. per week per child— and here the commissioner appointed by the Government recommends 7s. 6d. per child. These are not indigent hostels but a hostel where they go away in the morning to their work in factories. In regard to the industrial schools the pupils are not yet in trade or occupation, whereas in these hostels they are in trade. The factories cannot provide living quarters unless the Government comes to their assistance. I can see no cheaper and more economical system of absorbing our unemployed youth than this system of hostels, and after all, the future of the country is largely going to rest on its youth and not on the elder men. I am very disappointed and disturbed, I must say, at the apparent lack of interest shown in this matter.

I should like as warmly as I can to support the plea of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) in regard to these hostels. I know they are of much assistance in Port Elizabeth. I have also one in my constituency—the Louis Botha Hostel, which is serving an extraordinarily good purpose in a large city area. Here you have young fellows at the most impressionable and critical time of their life coming to town to work) and they often have to spend their time in unsuitable surroundings. The only accommodation they can generally get is wholly unfit for young men of their age. But these hostels give just that amount of control and guidance which keep these young people from the pitfalls they would otherwise encounter and to which they would be exposed—especially young people coming from country life to town life. I do ask the Minister to give as strong support in the Cabinet as he can to carry out the recommendations of this very important commission which contains the names of a large number of men which carry the approval of the House. The report is based on very sound and reasonable lines. I ask the Minister particularly to bear in mind such a case as that of the Louis Botha Hostel at Observatory, about which he knows a good deal, and that very good work is done there. The Y.M.C.A. is running it under their auspices; both methods and the object they have in view deserve every support. I would like to know if the Minister could tell the House what is the latest step of the inquiry with regard to the cure for leprosy. What basis of justification is there for the very high hope held out that the new method and cure are of great benefit indeed? Then with regard to the housing of the archives in Cape Town in the basement of the Houses of Parliament, for a good time it has been mooted that there should be a proper building sufficient to guarantee the safety of the archives against fire, and also for the public to consult these invaluable documents with more comfort and convenience than is possible under the present circumstances. The accommodation for the invaluable specimens in the South African Museum, Cape Town, is inadequate. Unless the specimens are properly housed, they will deteriorate. As to mental hospitals, the local branch of the Victoria League has collected great quantities of fruit and distributed it to the Alexandra Hospital and Valkenburg Mental Institute, but it has been stated that in future fruit will be given regularly to the inmates of these institutions as part of their diet by the Government.

The Minister is in a little bit of a fog in regard to technical institutes. He has to make up his mind whether we are to have a number of colleges training youths for the higher professions or schools for the practical training of youths to become mechanics and artizans. Where the fundamental mistake was made was when the Government took over these institutes and reduced the practical training considerably. Not one boy in a hundred is able to reach to the highest rank, and the brilliant boy, in any case, will get to the top, but what we do need are places where the youth of the country can obtain a practical training, so as to fit them to take their place with the skilled workmen of the Union.

In the last five years the printing vote has increased by £60,000. I recognize that the Minister has an almost hopeless task to keep the vote down, as there is an enormous number of unnecessary publications issued by the Government. It is impossible to read the lengthy reports issued by the various Government departments; these reports would be much more useful if their length were curtailed and their contents made more readable. I suggest that the Minister might cure this if he instituted a system of charging each department for the printing work done for it. At present the departments pour in work into the Government printing office, for which they are not charged anything. The importance of a department seems to grow with the length and size of its report. If the departments were charged for their printing, the departmental heads would have some interest in seeing that the utmost economy was exercised. I suggest that £313,000 is a very big sum for a small country like South Africa to spend every year on printing and stationery. I believe that with proper control we could easily save £60,000 or £70,000 a year. Fortunately, the Government has appointed a trained man to take charge of the Government printing office, and I think he will be able to frame a scheme by which the departments can be charged for the printing work done for them.

I realize that the Minister cannot know the full circumstances of every case that comes before him, but I have received three letters which clearly prove that the medical boards which decide on mental diseases do not work in unison with each other, therefore giving different verdicts. A man named Hay, with a military pension, who is suffering from shell shock was placed in the mental hospital adjacent to Cape Town. He was allowed to spend week-ends with friends, the medical board acknowledged that there was very little the matter with him. The time came, however, when he was insubordinate and the medical board then classified him as a dangerous patient. He was removed to Bloemfontein; the medical officer there states that he is willing to let the man out for six months. Now it is rather unique to think that one medical board in Cape Town will prove that a patient is a dangerous patient and cannot be allowed outside and yet another medical officer at Bloemfontein states he is willing to let him out for six months. We have to be considerate with these men who are suffering from the after-effects of the war. The man's mental faculties were of such a character that he was allowed out every week-end in Cape Town, then the medical board found he was dangerous, and he was transferred to Bloemfontein, the medical officer there stated he was in a fit state to let him out for six months. The only thing the relations of this man want is that he should come back to Observatory. They do not want him to stay at Bloemfontein. I have seen the authorities, who state that the medical board advise against him being transferred to Cape Town. I will read the letter addressed to Mr. W. H. Clough by the Under-Secretary for the Interior on the 14th March, 1928—

The superintendent of the Mental Hospital. Bloemfontein, states two months later, on April 2nd, as follows—

On the 26th April Dr. Watson, the medical superintendent, writes—

When there is a difference of opinion the Minister should utilize the power he has. I do not know which medical board is correct, but I object to medical boards differing from each other and leaving relations and friends of patients anxious, not knowing whether they are really insane or not.

I think the House is indebted to the hon. the Minister for the exhaustive manner in which he has replied to the various questions that have been put to him. I would like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in regard to the agreement under the Chartered Accountants Act. I think it is entirely premature to come to this House and complain, insofar as an appeal board is being set up and unsuccessful applicants have the right to go to that appeal board up to June 9th next. Considering it is May 9th, I think we may wait a little longer. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has put the case fairly, and I do not want to pursue it further. The point raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) with regard to the housing of the archives has been raised several times, and I understood from the Minister last year that he had in view the taking over from the university, when it is moved from Cape Town to Groote Schuur, certain buildings for this purpose. It is highly desirable that something should be done in that direction. The way in which the officials have to work at the present time is not fair, and I think two or three are suffering from eye trouble on account of the artificial light used. The keeper of the archives is a man deserving of every sympathy in connection with the work he and his assistants are doing there. I hope the Government will consider giving them proper quarters as soon as possible. Natal will hear, with great disappointment and deep dissatisfaction the decision of the Minister in connection with the breaking down of provincial barriers regarding Indians. The poor whites are being sent into Natal in thousands— flying columns. Natal has never had a poor white problem, but it is getting it now. The Minister of Railways last year said he would send these men where he pleased. That may be so, and Natal is quite prepared to take its share in settling this great problem of South Africa. On the other hand, we ask for some quid pro quo, and we ask that these barriers should be broken down and that those Indians should be allowed to go into other provinces. I should like to refer to the round-table conference which culminated into the agreement. Natal was never consulted on that agreement. It was true we had the Minister of Labour, a member of that round-table conference, but I should like to know in what way he consulted the wishes of Natal on this question. Did he ever put forward anything Natal required in connection with this problem? We have heard several figures to-day from the Minister of the Interior, but the figures of repatriation tell us nothing until the next two years have elapsed, and we know whether these people going to India are merely going for a holiday or not. I think Natal will be deeply disappointed at the dictum of the Minister, and I hope he will give the matter further consideration.

I would like to know what the figures are with regard to the number of women coming from India to South Africa under the Act passed last year. The Minister told us there has been a considerable increase in the number of women coming into the country.

Not a large one.

Will the Minister give the figures? He has given the figures of the number of Asiatics leaving the country under the repatriation scheme. It is interesting to know that under that scheme during the first five months something like 3,007 were voluntarily repatriated. During the next three months 1,000 were repatriated. In other words, there is a tapering off of the number of Asiatics who are allowing themselves to be repatriated.

When ?.

According to your own figures, because during the last three months only 1,000 have left, but for the first five months no less than an average of 600 a month left the country. I would like to point out that the an-proximate net natural increase of Indians is about 7,000 to 8,000 a year. According to the Minister's own figures something like 6,000 Indians a year will be repatriated. I would like! to know from the Minister whether he considers that any of the Asiatics who have allowed themselves to be repatriated will be coming back or not. The Minister, it is true has quoted figures to show that the number during the last seven months has considerably exceeded the number in any previous period, but he has failed to tell us whether the Indians who left the country left it once and for all. The Asiatics who are leaving the country now have got the right under that agreement to return. Will the Minister give us any idea whether in his opinion any of the Asiatics who are now leaving will return to this country? The information I have—and it is fairly reliable information—is that a number of the Asiatics who are leaving the country are taking advantage of the facilities given under this agreement, and are leaving in order to take wives to themselves in India, and that the likelihood is that they will return with their wives. I would like to know what the position is now in regard to the technical education that the Minister promised to give to the Indians in Natal. Last year he wrote through his secretary a letter to the Maritzburg Technical College asking them to make provision for the technical education of the Indians there. I would like to know from the Minister what the position is.

I told you that last year.

I want to know whether provision has been made, or whether the governing bodies are prepared to make provision in these technical colleges. Then the Minister has told us that he has made an agreement with the Indian congress under which, by a quid pro quo, he is going to condone all Asiatics who have come into the country as prohibited immigrants. That quid pro quo means that all these Asiatics who are prohibited immigrants are now to be allowed to remain in the country. On the other hand, I understand that the Indian congress have promised that they will on their part, in future divulge to him the names of any Asiatics who, come into the country illegally. Does the Minister believe that that is going to, be carried out? If the Minister is so innocent as to believe that, I can only say that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the Asiatic. Another point is in regard to the provision for education of Indians in Natal. Will the Minister state whether he is going to bear the cost of that education, or is the province of Natal to bear it? The Minister himself passed that agreement without consulting the people of Natal, and I say that it is the Minister's baby, and it is up to the Union Government, if the Minister is going to press for that, to bear the expense. I would like to ask the Minister how many Asiatics in the northern districts have applied for registration. I understand that notice was given in the " Gazette ", in January last calling upon Asiatics under the Northern Districts Registration Act to submit their names for registration. The Minister has also told us, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) that his department is satisfied that there is no illegal or prohibited immigration taking place as far as Asiatics are concerned. I do not think that statement is correct. From the information which has been given to me, it appears that there are quite a number of Asiatics coming illegally into the country. They are using Portuguese territory as a stepping-off ground. Only a short time ago I saw in the press a statement that there was a considerable agitation in Portuguese territory against the influx of Asiatics there.

How can I know when I have got no information about it? How can you know?

I admit it is very difficult to trace these people, but there is information by people who know that it is taking place.

Why don't you give the information to the police?

I will give information to your department in regard to one who came in not long ago. I have information otherwise that there are a considerable number of Asiatics coming in from Portuguese territory. Can the Minister tell us how many of the trading classes of Indians are leaving the country, how many from the Transvaal have voluntarily repatriated themselves, and how many of that class are leaving Natal? Personally, I believe there are very few, practically none. I would like to know from the Minister whether he thinks that the number of Asiatics who voluntarily repatriate themselves now will be sustained, or whether, in his opinion, they will gradually taper off until no more Asiatics will allow themselves to be voluntarily repatriated. Unless the number is sustained, no advantage whatever will have been gained from the agreement which has been entered into. I would like to know from him whether he has any information as to the gradual and insidious movement by Asiatics in Natal for the purchase of further ground in large blocks, and also the acquisition of further licences within the last year. [Time limit.]

It almost seems as if the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) would be very much disappointed if the Indian agreement were a success.

Oh, no.

The point he has raised here this afternoon is just a repetition of his criticisms when the legislation in connection with the agreement was before the House, and on most of these points upon which he has asked questions now I have given the replies before. In several cases questions were put on the Order Paper, and they were replied to and the figures were given on that occasion. Let me just take a few of them. He asked whether in the last few months there has been a tailing-off in the number of Indians leaving under the repatriation scheme. That has been so very slightly, but it is very easily explained. It is the monsoon period in India, and it is the experience of the department that during the monsoons Indians do not like to travel to India. But that is only very slightly, and very easily accounted for. As regards the number of women coming to the country after the agreement has been brought into operation, I stated that the number of women was slightly increased, but the number of boys was very much decreased, and the hon. member asks for further particulars. During 1927, from January to December, the number of women coming into the country was 170. The agreement came into operation only on the 15th of August. Now I take the whole year: Boys, 335; girls, 64. If I take the figures for the first three months of 1928 the number of women is 64. If you take 170 for the previous year and divide that by four, take it for the one quarter, it would be 42, so the increase has been from 42 to 64 women. Girls, it would have been, if you took the figures for the whole of last year, 16; it is 22 now. The boys would have been 83, and it has been only 52. That shows the number of boys entering the country is rapidly decreasing, though there is a slight increase in the number of women and girls, but not much. These are the correct figures. In regard to whether Indians who have been repatriated under this scheme are coming back or are likely to come back, all I can say is that both the Government of India and our own department, judging from their long experience with regard to repatriation, have been definitely of opinion that the number of Indians going back to India, and who have to return at their own expense and refund in India to the Union Government all the expenses in connection with their repatriation, that the number of such Indians coming back to South Africa would be insignificant. It has been said that they think not more than 5 per cent. would return, but ever if 5 per cent or 10 per cent. should return to this country these arrangements will take all in all thousands more Indians out of the country than would otherwise have been the case. Even if they do return to the extent of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., then their having gone to India costs the Union Government nothing, because they have to refund every penny spent on them. The hon. member again suggests what he suggested on a previous occasion, that I wrote to the technical educational authorities in Natal demanding they should make provision for technical education for Indians. I told him on a former occasion, that was not the case. I know quite well that these institutions are autonomous and any provision that they do make for Indians or any other class of the population must be a voluntary act on their part. I cannot demand anything from them. The farthest I could go in the case, for instance of the Cape Technical College, as far as coloured education was concerned, was to represent the need to the authorities and ask them to make provision, because if they do not make provision, this Technical college being, under the Union Government, the Union Government must go and start a new institution for these people. The authorities in Cape Town said they quite saw the need, and they made provision, but it was voluntary on their part, and it was merely on my part a representation of the need to them. As far as the technical college at Durban is concerned, and the technical colleges at Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, I have done nothing more than that, nothing more than to say I will be glad if they will consider the needs of all classes of the population. They have replied that they will consider the matter, and that is all I could do. I have nothing more to do with that. The hon. member must not suggest I have demanded anything of that nature from the Durban Technical College, or any other in the country. I cannot do that. As far as the educational inquiry into the Indian question in Natal is concerned, I stated in the House when the agreement was under discussion, that I promised nothing more to the representatives of the Government of India than this: That there being a grievance or a condition that is felt as a grievance on the part of the Indians in Natal, that we should look into that grievance. I did not demand anything from them, I merely represented there was a grievance, and requested them to look into that matter. Surely to deal with grievances or any section of the population in any province, that is the ordinary responsibility under the constitution of the provincial authority?

You rather suggested the province had failed in the past.

I suggested nothing of the kind. If the hon. member will read the correspondence between me and the Administrator he will see I did nothing of the kind. It was felt as a grievance by the Indians; that grievance was represented to me and, as in hundreds of other cases, where provincial grievances come to me, I referred the matter to the provincial authority.

Did not the agreement suggest that Natal had utterly failed to do its duty?

The agreement did nothing of the kind. I merely undertook to represent the matter to the provincial administration and ask them to appoint a commission to go into the matter, and they agreed to do so. Under the circumstances, how, if there is a grievance—and I understand from the reports in the papers there is a grievance that the provincial administration of Natal spends less on Indian education than they get from the Union Government for that purpose—if there is that grievance surely it is not for the Union Government to step in and take the responsibility and rectify that? It is, under the constitution, a responsibility resting upon the shoulders of the provincial administration. The hon. member asks further how many Indians in the northern districts of Natal have registered under the Act we passed last year? I think that question was asked in the House and replied to. I have not got the figures here, but I think 14. Then the hon. member asks about the number of Indians belonging to the trading class who have left the country. We have not got any statistics about that. He mentioned the Transvaal. In the Transvaal most of the Indians belong to the trading class. The figures that I gave to the House were that of 4,200 Indians who left the country in the eight months the agreement has been in operation, 1,000 came from the Transvaal, so that I should say that would point to the fact that at least a considerable number belonged to the trading classes. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O'Brien) again raised the question of raising the provincial barriers. I do not think I can go into the matter again; all I can say is that if the hon. member can persuade his own side of the House to adopt this policy, that the provincial barriers against Indians should be removed, the Government will take this into serious consideration.

Your side, too; take your share.

I only want to point out in what a hopeless minority the hon. member is, even as far as his own side is concerned.

He would not get one on your side.

Yes, and very few on your side. That is all I want to bring out. I will be glad if the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) would allow the matter about printing to stand over until the vote—Printing and Stationery—comes forward, when I will give a more detailed reply. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked a question about a new method of leprosy cure, and whether it is successful.

Or hopeful.

Well, these representations about leprosy cures reach the country almost every year; it is almost a regular thing; all the assurance I can give the hon. member is that we watch the position very carefully, and whenever there is any hopeful remedy suggested, it is being tried in the country. The whole policy of the Government with regard to leprosy is that we get the advice of the best experts we have in the country, namely, the Leprosy Council, of which the best bacteriologists of the country and university professors in bacteriology and medicine are members. In that way the hon. member may be assured that the department will not lag behind. Most of these cures which have been advertised are disappointing. We will go into the newest one most carefully. With regard to the housing of the archives, it is a matter not so much for the Department of the Interior as for the Department of Public Works. The position is most unsatisfactory, and we have had an intimation from Mr. Speaker that the space downstairs is required by Parliament, and we must move. We are at present still negotiating with the University of South Africa to see whether it is possible to get for the purposes of the archives their building in Queen Victoria Street, which they have been ready to dispose of; but we have not reached that stage when I can make any announcement with regard to that to Parliament. With regard to the museum, which I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised, that is a matter which should be dealt with on the loan estimates. All I can say is that the hon. member in his expectations may be disappointed, or he may not, and I would advise him just to have a little patience, and he will know what the position is. An hon. member has asked a question with regard to fruit diet, and whether that is given in certain institutions. Most of these institutions mentioned by the hon. member fall, not under the Department of the Interior, but that of Public Health. I will get the information and supply it.

I am sorry that the question of the Indian agreement is being constantly brought up before the agreement has had a chance of working, because the only effect is to endanger the fair working of the agreement. It should be given a fair trial even by those who objected to its terms. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) about not relying on the undertaking given by the Indian organizations it is the fact that in nearly all cases where there have been illegal entries the information has been given by Indians to the department.

That is so.

Even if the hon. member is so prejudiced against Indians, he might at least be fair in stating the case. With regard to the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), I must express my entire disagreement with the statement he made as to the position with regard to the so-called Pearce agreement. The impression I gathered from his speech was that all those who were opposed to the Bill were consulted and agreed to the terms of the agreement. That is entirely incorrect. You will see that if you look up the correspondence in " Hansard ". [Letter read.] The hon. member cannot shoulder the responsibility of that agreement on other members. I was not consulted, nor did I agree, and I opposed the Bill to the utmost of my capacity. I moved that it be read that day six months and called for a division, and I showed in the most unmistakable way that I was not concerned with the agreement, nor was it suggested at that time that I was. I do not wish to say anything about the merits of the individual cases; I said they would come before the appeal board. The promoters wrote that the promoting societies were desirous of sympathetically meeting all deserving cases. The responsibility of the Government was clearly stated in the debate on the Bill on April 1st, 1927, when the Minister of Finance said—

The appeal board has not yet been constituted. I hope it very soon will be constituted, for rejected applicants have only up to June 9th to submit their cases to the appeal board, and they do not know what case they have to meet. After that date the rights of appeal will lapse.

I wish to correct a wrong impression on the part of the Minister, who has been pressed to make grants to hostels supplying lodgings to young people working in factories. I am very glad he has not given way on that point, because if he did, it would really amount to paying a subsidy to manufacturers in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and would be taken advantage of by them. It is wrong for the State to contribute towards wages, as it would be indirectly doing if it made grants to hostels supplying cheap lodgings for factory workers.

In deference to the views of the Minister, I will not raise all the points on the question of policy arising out of the Auditor-General's report dealing with the printing vote. That vote increased by £67,000 from 1911-'12 to 1925-'26, and by £32,857 as compared with 1925-'26. Again, I find that a Mr. J. J. Kruger has been appointed Government printer. I have nothing against him personally. He may be an excellent man, but before his appointment he was assistant general manager of the " Diamond Fields Advertiser." Why go outside the public service in making this appointment, for there are men in the service who should receive consideration. I contend there must have been men in the service with the same capacity and qualifications as Mr. Kruger, and they should have been given preference. I have frequently drawn attention to the fact that Government, on many occasions, goes outside the service for men to fill the most important positions—the plums of the service. I cannot too strongly condemn such a policy; it is not running the service on business lines. Then a large sum of money is spent every year by the Government in advertising. According to the latest information £1,272 was paid for advertising to " Ons Vaderland ", £937 to the " Die Burger ", £930 to the " Rand Daily Mail ", £694 only to the Johannesburg " Star " and the sum of £397 to the " Cape Times ". I do not know what induced the Government to make the enormous differentiation between these papers. Then why does the Government subscribe £105 to the Association of Master Printers? I see that by the latest figures 7,381 blue books remained unsold. That shows there is something wrong in estimating requirements; in time these surplus copies are destroyed. These matters might well engage the attention of the Minister.

In regard to this vote for the national zoo at Pretoria which is reduced £500, I would like to ask the Minister if that £500 is to pay off the temporary loan

Yes, that is so. The zoological gardens in Pretoria were in a difficult position financially, and they approached me last year and asked whether special assistance could not be given, if not by directly increased contribution, by loan, and they would work off that loan in course of time as conditions improved. We agreed to give them a loan of £2,500, and that is being reduced this year on the vote by £500. That is according to the agreement. I may at once reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). He raised the question of the appointment of Mr. Kruger as Government printer, and he objects to a man having been taken from outside. I must point out that the printing business of the Government is only one particular concern. If the Government were printing on a much larger scale it would have been easy to find within the service a man who has been trained, and whom we could appoint. But there being only one Government printing works, it is very difficult to make a good selection from the small number of men available. Seeing the printing works have to be run, as I think Parliament expects, as a business concern, and in the most economical way possible, we have to find the best business man we can get for the job. We advertised and Mr. Kruger was, I should say, far the best applicant we got. I think his appointment has been justified by results, which I will explain at a rater stage. As far as advertisements are concerned, the hon. member says there has been a good deal of differentiation in distribution between the newspapers. I am afraid there has always been differentiation under the previous Government, and to some extent also, under the present Government. The principle which I found was acted upon by the previous Government, and which has been acted upon until very recently by this Government, was that the Government printer placed advertisements in various newspapers according to the recommendations of the particular department concerned. £10,000 is voted every year by Parliament for the purpose of advertisement, and no particular Minister was responsible for the allocation of that money. Every Minister went to the Government printer with his demands, and the Government printer usually acted on the recommendations. I cannot be responsible in Parliament for what my colleagues do. Recently we changed the system. We found it much better that the whole question of advertisements in newspapers should be under the control of one Minister, and it has been placed under my control now. That is only recently. I can assure the hon. member we try to do justice to all newspapers, whatever their political opinions may be, and, at the same time, fulfil the requirements of the various departments.

Embargoes always excepted !

That is another question.

I do not think the Minister is doing a useful service to the country in constantly emphasizing the repatriation figure, of Indians. The Minister must be aware that by doing this he is creating in the minds of the public outside a belief that ultimately the Indians will all leave the country.

I am only giving the figures; you asked for them.

I agree, but the Minister ought to realize that the Indians will be a problem for many years to come. The Minister must be aware that the figures he quoted probably do not keep pace with the births of Indians in the country.

There is a reduction I think generally in the Indian community in the country as a result of repatriation.

Relative or actual?

Actual.

I very much doubt that, and I think those who are leaving to-day are probably those who would have been induced to leave under any circumstances. I doubt whether a great number of those born in South Africa are leaving.

Thirty-three per cent.

Well, at any rate, they hardly keep pace with those being born from day to day in the country. I do not think we are serving a good purpose in overlooking the real fact that the Asiatic population is going to remain with us for many years to come. The Minister must also realize that he rather laid a burden upon Natal in the agreement. I do not want to criticize the agreement which Natal is loyally co-operating in working out. We have an entirely different atmosphere to-day from that which existed some years ago, but the Minister must realize that he has placed the onus on Natal of taxing itself to provide fresh funds to carry out what he has agreed to. Natal cannot Fear it. The Minister has said that there is an admittedly grave situation existing in Natal in regard to Indian education, an expression of opinion to which the people of Natal take the strongest exception. I do not know what grounds the Minister had for making that statement, because I doubt very much whether the education of the Indian in Natal is any less efficient than that of the Indian and coloured person in the Cape.

I merely quoted the superintendent-general's report.

Superintendents of education are always enthusiastic in the cause of education. They will naturally make statements that education is in a grave situation even in regard to the higher education of Europeans in the country. But in quoting in a document which has international significance that the education of Indians in Natal is in a grave situation, the Minister placed a stigma upon the people and an onus in Natal to do what it cannot do without assistance. It is all very well to say that the education subsidy which went toward the Indians was not all expended on the Indian education. I know nothing about that, but he must know that the subsidy though based upon the number of children attending school is designed for all purposes. It is not ear-marked for education. The present education subsidy took the place of the pound for pound subsidy, but hospitals and roads have to come out of that assisted by the taxation of the province. The upkeep of the roads in Natal is very different from what it is in the Cape, because you have a deeply ravined country with rivers every few miles along the coast requiring the upkeep of expensive bridges and culverts. All these factors must be taken into consideration, and when the Natal Indian Education Commission presents its report the Minister should bear in mind that the alleged admittedly grave situation referred to in the agreement is being emphasized by the Indians to-day, quite unjustly, considering the financial position of Natal. There are two other question to which I wish to refer. One is in regard to the hospitals which were erected on the coast in Natal many years ago to supply the needs of Indians and native labourers in the sugar industry and other employments. These hospitals have been functioning all these years in a very efficient way, at any rate, they have been meeting the needs of the districts concerned, and to-day they have been closed down. To-day the native worker has very largely taken the place of the Indian in Zululand. The only place in which they can be treated were the hospitals which it is now proposed to abolish. Surely the sugar industry should not be placed in any different position in regard to the labourers employed in it from any other branch of agriculture in any other part of the country. I think it is the duty of the Minister to see that the Native Affairs Department takes this matter up and to see whether funds cannot be provided to keep these hospitals in existence. There is one other matter which has repeatedly exercised the public at large, and that is this fetish about matriculation examinations. I notice in the education report that in the examinations in February last out of 350 entrants 210 failed, and there are 52 per cent. of failures in the interim examinations. I wonder if the Minister has considered in relation to this problem that we are automotically closing the door to the advance into higher education of thousands of young people who have equal ability to those who have passed the examination, but who are shut off against any further advance merely because they have failed in the examination, not because of any want of knowledge, but because of the examination fright which many of them are subject to.

I may reply at once. With regard to the matriculation examination, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in educational circles throughout the country, and I may say that the matriculation examination is something with which the Minister has not directly anything to do. That matter is determined by the matriculation board, which is a statutory body under the Higher Education Acts and constituted in a particular way. They have got powers with which, of course, the Minister cannot interfere, but to meet the situation, which is admittedly unsatisfactory, I have convened in Pretoria for July a meeting of educationists representing the provincial administrations, the Union Education Department and the teaching profession, also representatives of the universities and the matriculation board, and there the whole question of matriculation and other similar questions in connection with higher education will be gone into. We feel that, especially in regard to the matriculation examination, which is the boundary between lower education and higher education, we must, as far as possible, keep in touch also with the other services under the provincial administrations and I think that, as a result of that consultation, better conditions in regard to this matter will prevail in future. In regard to the hospitals to which the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has referred, these hospitals have been erected out of funds in connection with the introduction of Indians into the country. These hospitals were meant merely for Indians. The employers have contributed, and the Government of the day contributed, and in that way a fund was established and these hospitals are maintained out of that fund. But the old position with regard to several of the hospitals has changed in recent years. Indians have left the sugar estates, have gone probably to Durban or other centres, or have been partially repatriated, and natives have taken their place. There is no responsibility on that fund for the hospital care of natives, and it is a responsibility of the employers, and if not of the employers alone, then ultimately of the provincial administration. I do not think it is right; I do not think it is legal, for the Union Government to undertake the maintenance of hospitals which are for natives or mainly for natives. As far as one of the hospitals is concerned, in which the hon. member has an interest, I think there is some temporary arrangement which will enable the employers to tide over the period of difficulty before you come to new and better conditions.

I should like the Minister to give some consideration to the question of encouraging the study of the great problem of immigration into this country. In a very informative document on this subject, an American writer has called attention to the desirability of a conference being held between the immigration receiving countries of the world, and he points out how much in common those countries have, how many problems they have to consider in determining the character of their future populations, and he lays stress upon the fact that each country has sovereign rights in regard to its emigration and immigration processes, and therefore these countries should consult together and decide upon a policy best calculated to minister to their mutual benefit. Last year I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that there had been an international conference on emigration and immigration at Rome in 1924, where the representatives of the Governments of 57 countries advised that there should be a further conference at a later date. The Minister, in his reply, indicated that the Union Government had not been invited to participate in the later conference of 1927 and therefore he did not propose to send a delegate. There I think the Minister was guilty of some neglect of our interests. I think Mr. Chas. Pienaar, who has represented us at many conferences in Europe, might very well have been sent to this conference to see in any case what was going on. An expert on the question of immigration in America, Dr. H. H. Laughlin. has pointed out that these conferences, held largely in Europe, and sometimes under the aegis of the League of Nations, are rather overbalanced by countries which are emigrant exporting countries and who therefore are much more concerned with keeping an open door for people from their overcrowded territories, than with considering the interests of immigrant receiving countries. Therefore he has suggested that we should, on our part, arrange for a conference among the immigrant receiving countries. A list of those enumerated includes the Union of South Africa, and I think the Minister would be well advised to take this matter up through Mr. Louw, our very able trades commissioner in the United States of America, with a view to the study of this question being undertaken. I observe a certain amount of dissent with my reference to him as an able man. He shows himself an able man in everything he takes in hand, and any question he deals with he treats in an exceedingly able way. I hope the Minister will realize the importance of this question and ask Mr. Louw for a special report upon it. There are men in America who have made a study of it, and it is a matter of grave public concern. President Coolidge in his first message to Congress said—

I want to deal with this matter not in reference to the undesirable character of any particular race. I want the Minister to consider the question as a great question vitally affecting the future of South Africa, and one which presses for attention. The matter is one in which the human stock of this country and those who have had most to do with the pioneering of this country and with the establishment of law and order are chiefly concerned. I hope the Minister will outline to us, in any case, what his own views are on this question, and if possible take up the matter with our commissioner in the U.S.A. with a view to a closer study being made of it. It can only throw a useful light on the matter, and enable the Minister to form a sound conclusion to enable him to amend our legislation in harmony with the prevailing ideas, and the soundest method of building up a nation of useful citizens in this country, who will be best qualified to maintain white civilization in this part of the world. I think the question of immigration is bound up with the future of our country not less intimately than is the grave problem of the depressed people who are already in our midst. A large class of these people are so mentally deficient that they ought to be disqualified from reproducing their kind. A most informative report has been prepared on this subject by Dr. Dunston, Commissioner for Mental Hygiene, and I should like every hon. member to read it. I wish to draw attention to the case of a mentally defective woman and her five children mentioned on page 12 of Dr. Dunstan's report. The report states—

I hope the Minister will make a study of the question and will encourage the very able officers who are in control of this department to make a report such as will bring everybody to realize the very serious state of affairs, and to recognize the peril in which we stand owing to the reproduction of people of this kind. Not only should the female be placed where no breeding can take place, hut the male mental defective should be dealt with in the same way. One man aged about 19 or 20 who was at a marriageable age was asked what he knew about Gen. Hertzog, and his reply was, "He was a leader in the war, but what he is doing now I don't know." A white man about to procreate his kind and he doesn't know his own Prime Minister! This youth had the intelligence of a normal child of 8½ years of age. There has been a progressive increase in the number of children sent to institutions, the present figures being: Cape Province, 877; Transvaal, 888; Orange Free State, 329; and Natal, 127. The maintenance of these certified institutions and industrial schools—where there are also some mental defectives—cost the State £225,000 a year. I do not begrudge the expenditure on these unfortunate people. I merely wish to show to what proportions it has reached. I hope the Minister will grapple with this matter in a more manful way than by merely bringing these distressful cases forward in an annual report. I hope the Minister will indicate what his policy on this subject is going to be. I want to remind the Minister of the return he put on the Table of the House showing how many men from outside the public service have been introduced who to-day are drawing over £400 per annum. I asked him for that information and he laid on the Table a return which showed that no less than 186 people have been introduced from outside during the regime of the present Government who are now drawing over £400 per annum. That includes both the general division and the other divisions of the service. I think the Minister was the author of the statement that in the selection of candidates all things being equal a Nationalist would have the preference. I assume he has gone on that principle of political favouritism in the selection of these gentlemen. It is a matter I want to press upon his notice as one that constitutes a grievance in the minds of public servants.

The hon. member asked me whether we could not make a more thorough study of the old question of immigration especially through our representative overseas. I may inform him that as a Government we received an invitation to an international conference which is being held now at Havana, Cuba, where I think 45 countries are represented, and we accepted that invitation in so far that we agreed to send our trade commissioner from the United States, Mr. Louw. not as a member of the conference but as an observer. He bears no responsibility but is present at all the discussions. We sent him as an observer because we realize that this conference, like the one at Rome, is a conference of emigrant-ex-porting countries and not of immigrant-importing countries and so we were not so intimately concerned in the conference.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.9 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

I would just like very briefly to refer to one or two points brought forward by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). In regard to the question that he raised in connection with these conferences, while I agree that there is a difference between the immigrant-exporting country and the immigrant-receiving country, I think that the Union should be represented at both kinds of conferences, viz., where all countries are called together, both the immigrant-exporting and the immigrant-receiving countries, and also conferences of immigrant-receiving countries. It would be a good thing that the Union representative should be able to point out to other countries, immigrant-exporting countries, exactly what the state of our law is, and it would be very much better that that information should he given by what has been referred to as inspection at the source. We should have inspection at the source under our immigration laws and then the immigrant would be saved a very long journey at very great expense, and he would be discouraged from coming to a country where, under the law, he would probably not be admitted. I think, therefore, that the presence of a Union representative at such conference would be useful in that respect, making the immigrant-exporting countries acquainted ith our immigration laws and the tests that have to be passed by an immigrant on coming here. The hon. member also referred to America. I cannot quite agree with him there, because although it is an immigrant receiving country I do not think you can put all immigrant-receiving countries on the same basis. There are some that do not want immigrants, because they are densely populated, and they discourage immigrants. America is one of those. They aim rather at restricting immigration, whereas a country like South Africa, which is sparsely populated, should encourage rather than discourage immigration. We do not want to encourage persons who are unfit, and they are kept out by the law of 1913. While one can learn a great deal from America one must bear in mind that America does not want more immigrants.

But look at the area.

They do not forbid it altogether, but they have now got such an enormous population. They do not have examinations to see whether a man is fit or not. It is all done on a mathematical basis, so many from this country and so many from that country. The hon. member will not contend that we are in the same position as America. The two positions are quite different. There are other countries which are in the same position as we are, and it is rather to those countries that one ought to look. I followed the hon. member with great interest in regard to this report of the commission on mental hygiene. This is a matter which causes one a great deal of thought and almost despair. The rate at which the mentally deficient population is increasing in the Union is becoming a very serious problem. Your gaols are filled with the offspring of marriages of persons mentally deficient, and apparently nothing is being done about it. In some other countries they have advanced views about this matter and they go in for a process of sterilization of unfit persons. The case quoted by the hon. member—could anything be more ghastly? A widow with six children, all mentally deficient, and the mother herself with less intelligence than they. The quotient in her case was 36 in the intelligence test. There is no law that I know of to prevent the marriage of mentally deficient persons. The population as regards the children of these people is increasing in greater proportion than the children of parents in possession of all their normal faculties. You will read in the reports that the inevitable result is poverty and crime. We have enormous expense in connection with gaols and hospitals and the police force, etc. It should be a simple thing for the Government to enquire into what is going on in other countries. There ought to be no difficulty in providing that where a person is declared to be mentally deficient that person should be forbidden to marry, and perhaps a better way is sterilization. That belongs to the subject of eugenics. It is a matter not often discussed in this House, but is is a matter which will have to be attended to This is becoming a, very serious danger to South Africa. Some enquiry might be necessary beforehand. While we, on the one hand, are not getting a very large addition to our permanent population by means of immigration, we are, at the same time, manufacturing on a very large scale, children who are mentally deficient, no use to themselves or to their parents, no use to the State, but a deplorable burden to the State, and unless this problem is tackled with the same amount of energy with which we tackle cattle diseases and matters connected with agriculture, if we do not tackle this human problem with the same energy, then the time is fast coming when this particular problem will be the most serious problem the Union has to face.

I did not intend to take part in the debate so soon, because I thought that the debate about mental defectives would come under the next head, but as it has been raised. I will say now what I intended to say. The question of feeble-minded people is very serious, and it is a matter which the Government has not yet probably dealt with. I am particularly thinking of the educational side of the matter. The Minister recently had a Bill in the House making provision for special schools which, of course, is also connected with feeble-minded children. I had hoped that there would be something on the estimates in connection with the doing of something in that direction, but I regret to find that nothing has been done. Take, for instance, the next item on the estimates which shows that the Government has not yet properly dealt with the matter of the education of feeble-minded children. As far as I know there has never yet been a proper enquiry into the actual condition of the feeble-minded. I am thinking especially of the class of child who comes between normal and the other extreme, the idiot, and the entirely mentally defective child. That class of children goes for the most part to the ordinary school and does not there get exactly what it needs. The experts who have studied conditions in other countries say that 1 per cent. of school-going children here come under the classification of feeble-minded, between the two extremes mentioned, and there is not proper provision to-day for that class of child. Starting from that figure there must be about 3,500 school-going children for whom no provision is made. The Minister will possibly refer me to the Alexandra institution and the Witrand institution at Potchefstroom, but those institutions do not provide for the needs of the class of child I have in view, and that is spread over the whole country.

Suggest what should be done.

Yes, I am doing so. In almost all other countries, even in countries like Japan and Hawaii, proper provision is made for that class of child. In our country they fill the gaols and supply recruits for poor-whitism. That child gets no proper benefit from the ordinary education, and if the parents are not well off they naturally fall to the poor white class. Forty per cent. of the children in reformatories are of this class, and how many of those feeble-minded children there are in gaol it is difficult to say. That class of child really needs proper education and a right lead, and must come under the right control during the years when that control is indispensable to him. Otherwise they become criminals, and, in view of the large native population in our country, it is still more necessary that that class of people shall not walk around without proper education. Take the Alexandra institution; there a group of feebleminded children are being instructed, but the institution is certainly not intended for educational purposes if we look at the numbers. The institution was originally established for the extremely ignorant. The Witrand institution's nursing staff is 163, and there are 6 teachers who get very poor salaries. In the Alexandra institution there are 63 nurses and 12 teachers, and if we look at the salaries we see that they cannot be the right people. We need a class of teacher that has had a special training, has been trained in psychology, and has had experience in psychiatry. Such people will want a larger salary than the £300 or less which some teachers there are drawing. For that kind of child who is to be found all over the country, proper provision has not been made. Our Education Act lays down that children of a certain age are obliged to go to school, but these children, who need the most education and require the best expert lead so that they will not become a danger to the community, should have a different education from the ordinary one. If a doctor gives a certificate that a child is subnormal it can be exempted from compulsory school attendance. In the meantime the number of poor whites is increased. I thought that as a result of the Act we recently passed money would be made available for this purpose. I realize the difficulties of starting at once, because of the difficulty of getting teachers. We cannot just take any teacher whatsoever and entrust the education of these children to him, we must start by training the teachers. What the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) referred to are desperate remedies to make an end of this difficult problem. In other countries it has been shown that much can be done to lessen the danger of weak-minded children, and many of the persons who pass as weak-minded are turned into useful members of society. The Government must, therefore, start with the education of teachers. I certainly hope that the Minister will soon take steps in connection with this important matter, and will convince the Minister of Finance that this is a matter throwing great obligations on the Government. Moreover, with regard to backward children, blind and deaf and dumb children, practically nothing have been done in the past. The care and the training of these children has in the past been entirely left to private institutions of the Dutch Reformed Church, one institution of the Anglican Church, and two of the Roman Church. The Government has only given a little money by way of grant to the institutions, but the time has come for it to do more in this direction.

I cannot at all agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). He made a long speech and said a good deal, but let him tell us what the Government must actually do. It is easy to say that there are 3,500 weak-minded children in the country.

I said that teachers should be trained in the first instance.

What did the hon. member say we were to do? The 3,500 weak-minded children must be taken away from their homes, they must be trained, educated, clothed, fed, looked after, and put in special establishments. If the hon. member says that 3,500 weak-minded children must be trained away from their homes I want to point out that it will not be an easy matter. The hon. member says that every country has already made provision; is South Africa then to copy everything that other countries do? It is nothing but aping. Has the hon. member considered the cost? We are here as representatives of South Africa, and every member must look after the interests of South Africa. I think the hon. member for Winburg will put his head into a beehive if he goes to the countryside and says that all the 3,500 weak-minded children must be provided for outside their parents' houses.

I think the hon. member has not thought much about the matter. That is always very dangerous. In the first place I never said that we must take all those children away and put them into institutions, there is plenty of room for special training in existing educational establishments close to the place where the children live. I have only got up to warn the hon. member not to talk before he has investigated the matter.

I want to bring something to the notice of the Minister, but do not know whether I must raise it here. I want to say something about the matriculation examination. I understand only 50 per cent. of the candidates passed this year, and that it is the same every year. This throws a serious reflection on our secondary education.

The hon. member can discuss it under the " Education " vote.

I do not want to go into the difference between hon. members on this side of the House, but only to say something about the question of our feebleminded children. We have not yet advanced So far in my opinion that we can as yet take a very important forward step in that direction, I think the various institutions we have should first be further developed. As for our normal children, more particularly with respect to trade and vocational education a good deal more remains to be done before we can decide possibly on spending more money on the abnormal child. I want to point out that we are already doing something in that direction, but before I explain it I first want to point out that we have two separate classes of children, to whom reference has been made to-night, who must be distinguished from each other. The one is the child who is definitely weakminded, and it can be classified under the persons who come under the Act on mental defectives. For that class of child in my opinion sufficient provision for the present is made in the two institutions which are still comparatively young, namely, the Alexandra and the Witrand institutions. The two institutions are not yet quite full, because adequate provision was made with a view to the near future. It will not be possible to make further provision for this class at present. They come under the Department of the Interior, and are administered under the Mental Defectives Act. The other class to which the hon. member refers is the backward child who is at school, but is not capable of taking part in the education of the class, or at any rate cannot keep up with the other children and who possibly is a brake on the education of the other children in the class. Those children are on the whole normal, but backward. It is necessary to teach them in separate classes, possibly in separate institutions, but they are children for whom the provincial administration is responsible. The provincial administration must do something in this direction. I just want to point that out. Under the heading " education " there is a small amount for enquiry by means of the application of the intelligence tests. The work is really done gratis by a university professor or professors of psychology, because they themselves are anxious to make the investigation. They have free access to institutions where the children are, and to other schools, and the amount which Parliament is asked to vote is only for travelling expenses, which they are reimbursed. When they visit institutions they board there gratis. That is something, but another important donation has been offered by the Carnegie Foundation. They give the donation by rotation to the various dominions, and for the next five years South Africa will receive it. It is a considerable amount, I think at least £2,000, which will be available in connection with enquiry about the poor white question. Scientific enquiry will, inter alia, be made with the use of resources in South Africa, into the relation between weakmindedness and poverty. We are getting the co-operation of the churches, and we shall, if necessary, grant various facilities. The Research Grant Board will take an important part in the enquiry, and when the work has been done for five years we shall, so far as South Africa is concerned, have much more scientific data in connection with the matter, and we shall then possibly thereafter be able to make further advances.

The Minister does not seem to have dealt with several matters which I brought to his notice. I will mention one or two further matters. Will the Minister consider whether the Immigration Department is not more closely allied to the Department of Lands than to that of the Interior Has the time not arrived when the immigration work should be transferred to the Department of Lands, which is fully alive to all the potentialities of the country for settlement and would be likely to work in harmony with the whole idea of immigration? The question of a conference of the immigrant-receiving nations has been suggested by Dr. H. H. Laughlin, of the Carnegie Foundation, and he has suggested a series of questions which are pressing for discussion, such as the causes and consequences of human migration, the rights and duties of emigrant-exporting nations and repatriation, naturalization and dual citizenship. We are exposed, according to this authority, to grave dangers in the matter of people coming from such countries as Bulgaria who should be unacceptable to us. Two hundred Bulgarians were convicted of crime and sentenced to prison, but as there was no room for them in gaol in their own country they were given the right to go to America. Under the changed conditions introduced by the United States Immigration Act of 1924 they might turn their attention to South Africa. To escape their sentence of imprisonment they went en bloc to America. These are verified cases. It might well be that these people would be provided with sufficient capital to get through our immigration barrier under the present immigrant law. In that respect countries like Germany and Italy are noted for the care with which they have everything recorded about their populations. It is stated by Dr. Laughlin that every citizen born in Germany is recorded at the nearest police barracks on the day of his birth. Should he at any time be arrested, the following particulars are added to the mine of information concerning him already in possession of the police: finger prints, photograph and facts bearing on his methods of crime. The same holds good of Italy where a very complete system exists as also in France. The less developed countries have no such protection for us, and America is finding out in connection with her system of enquiry at the source of immigration that the particulars are very deficient in a large number of countries apart from Germany, Italy, France, Denmark and Sweden. In Italy they encourage a man to emigrate; in Germany he may emigrate if he wishes to, but in Sweden they would rather he did not leave the country. I want to emphasize, that with so large a portion of our population who are mentally deficient, we are bound to have the burden of maintaining many of them even before they reach the age of 65 at which it is proposed that beneficiaries shall receive an oldage pension. It is futile for us to go on blinding ourselves to the fact that these people are going to prove an in tolerable burden to us if they are allowed to be brought into the world as they are at present. I was disappointed that the Minister was unable to tell us what his own view was on this subject. This question brooks of no delay. It is a matter we must deal with definitely, and on which the Minister must develop a policy for the consideration of the country. He is assisted by an efficient staff of mental hygiene officers, and I believe the figures show that our ratio of mental deficiency is probably the highest in the world in relation to our population. In regard to the Asiatic question, I think the Minister is altogether too optimistic as to the result of his policy. I am not going to crab the agreement he has entered into while it is in process of trial, but I urge him not constantly to dwell with such provocative satisfaction on the results of the system so long before it has been proved to be a success. The hon. Minister was certainly unwise in committing Natal to an unlimited expenditure in connection with Indian emigration on the ground embodied in the Indian agreement that " an admittedly gravesituation exists." I was sorry the Minister of Labour allowed that to happen, because he was familiar with the state of affairs in Natal. Of the non-European section of our population, the Indians are quite the best educated.Whether their education has been gained in the schools of the country, or in private study, I am not in a position to say. I hope the Minister, having placed the Natal provincial council in the position in which it stands committed to hold an enquiry, will be prepared to foot the bill if any extension of the existing educational arrangements for Indians is recommended by the commission that has been appointed. I wish to support what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) in support of a bigger grant for the Durban Technical College. [Time limit.]

Last year I raised the question of these Indians going to Fort Hare and Lovedale for higher education, and the Minister then did not give a satisfactory reply. I am aware that there is a certain amount of feeling on the part of the natives on this question and I do not think that the Indians themselves generally support the proposal of providing higher education for their children there. I would like to ask the Minister how that scheme is progressing and whether he, finds the Indians favourable and satisfied, and whether they are increasing in numbers at Fort Hare.

I hope at some future time when conferences have been held on the subject of immigration, that the Minister will come to the policy of establishing a quota for the admission of immigrants to this country. When that time arrives, the quota will have to be based on the various strains of population existing in the country at the present time. In order better to identify those strains of population, I hope the Minister who is in charge of the department dealing with statistics will discourage actively, if necessary by-way of regulation, the constant changing of names that goes on. I think there is a danger if this is done on the present scale of people's racial origin being obscured by their change of name. Speaking as a Scotsman, I appreciate the business disadvantage under which the Scotsman labours when his country of origin is known, but, as a rule, the Scotsman is prepared to see it through. He realizes that there is a certain merit in being Scottish, and he is prepared to stick to his name for better or for worse; but I think it would be well if the Minister had some regulation in connection with this matter, because there is undoubtedly a tendency on the part of a certain number of people to change their names and, as my hon. friend here says, in some cases to assume a name that belongs to Scotland. There is one other point, and that is the unaccountable delay that has taken place in the production of the delimitation report. I hope I may be permitted to make a few comments in regard to the handling of this matter. We had a most important report, one of the most important reports that the Department of the Interior has delivered to us, and we have had no explanation that is satisfactory to anybody as to why that report is laid before us at a time when no comment is possible while the Minister's vote is under discussion. It seems to me that the most charitable view of this is that there has been gross mismanagement. The Minister has not vouchsafed any information to us.

I have got nothing to do with it.

Surely the printing of this report is in the hands of the Minister'

Oh, that is another thing. That is not the delay.

That is the very point I want an explanation about. We have been led to understand that the report was completed more than six weeks ago. If it was not completed then, will the Minister tell us when it was completed?

It was signed a few days ago.

It is dated 29th February.

Why, then, was there this delay? Can the Minister account for the delay that took place between the time—

Easily.

Then, a mattter that has caused some annoyance to the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is the failure of the Minister to produce the copy in Afrikaans. Why was that not done? I feel that even my small beginnings in the language are entitled to encouragement, and I feel a certain amount of dismayed disappointment that the Afrikaans copy is not available.

I am sure the House appreciates the concern of the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the Afrikaans copy of the delimitation report. My complaint in connection with this matter is that I notice in the report references to certain appendices showing what the report means, but at the end of the report the appendices do not appear. I hope the Minister will, at any rate, give us some assurance that these appendices will be available to the House at the earliest possible moment, so that we may clearly understand what the effect of this report is. Another matter I want to refer to and it may surprise the House and my hon. friend the member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that I am in complete accord with the hon. member in the suggestion he made in regard to the question of the change of names. I agree with him that some provision should be made by way of regulation so that when a person adopts another name it should be done in such a manner as to give the utmost publicity to that effect. In my own case I did it by means of a notarial deed poll, it was registered and published in the newspapers. I am not at all sure that the change of name is so objectionable as the failure of people to change their character. Again, a change of name is often the indication of an intention on the part of people to adapt themselves to the country in which they happen to be resident at the time. It is certainly a practice which has been set by the highest in the land, not only here, but in Great Britain.

You mean that people who do not change their names do not want to identify themselves with the country?

To a certain extent that may be so. The hon. member for Illovo referred to the question of immigration, and again I want to say that he dealt with it with refreshing moderation. I hope the Minister will not entertain this idea of South Africa, we will say, taking part in a conference as to how you are going to restrict immigration. I agree, and I think every member of the House will agree, that anyone who is either a criminal or mentally defective, or is likely to become a public charge to the country, should be prohibited from coming into the country, but, outside of that, I say that the views put forward by the hon. member for Illovo are suitable to a country like the United States of America, to countries which are thickly populated, but totally unsuited to a country like the Union, where we are clamouring for an increase in the white population. I think that, instead of laying down a quota which is likely to restrict immigration into the Union, the Minister should seriously consider what steps can and should be taken to encourage European immigration to as great an extent as possible, because it is only by encouraging immigration to the Union to the greatest possible extent that you will be able to deal with the disparity which exists at the present time between the European and the native population. I believe that is a very important matter, and it would help us very materially to develop South Africa and to deal with some of our problems much more effectively. The criterion that should be taken in this matter is that we want people to come here who will help us, who will take part in the affairs of the country, and who will associate themselves with the destinies of the country.

We don't want any Communists.

I say without hesitation that in the main, if an examination were made of the work of people who have immigrated into the country, we should find that many people who arrived penniless before very long have become useful citizens, helping to develop the country. So I hope the Minister, instead of dealing with the problem as if it were a densely populated country with no further room for European population, will rather take steps in regard to European immigrants, excluding criminals and mentally defectives, and such people as are likely to become a public charge, to see that everything possible shall be done to encourage immigration into this country.

Perhaps I should first deal with the matter of the delimitation commission's report. Let me just explain first of all that that commission is a statutory commission, and the only thing the Government has to do in connection with it is to appoint members of the commission, but further, the Government does not interfere and may not interfere in their work, and I doubt very much whether it is even advisable for the Government to hurry up that commission when they do not complete their work within a specified time. It is for the commission itself to judge. It is a commission with full powers. The report of that commission has not been delayed owing to difficulties or delay in the printing of the report. I think the printing of the report has been done in a remarkably short time. The report was actually signed by the chairman of the commission, so I am informed, only last week.

The report says the 8th of February.

To tell hon. members the truth, I have not had time to read the report myself. Well, as I explained to the House before, the delay which occurred was the difficulty of getting certain descriptions from the various provinces from the Surveyor-General. I daresay the report was actually completed on the date which is specified in the report itself, but the Surveyor-General had to check, I daresay, certain descriptions or to complete certain descriptions, and it took a very long time before these descriptions were got from the Surveyor-General. The greatest delay was in the Free State, I don't know for what reason, but in any case it was presented to the Governor-General, I think, only yesterday, and I took the earliest possible opportunity to acquaint members of the House with that fact. As I said, I have not looked at the report yet but I am informed that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is not correct in stating that the appendices to which reference is made in the report are not in the report itself. Appendix (1) is found on page 17, I am told, appendix (2) on page 21, appendix (3) on page 111, and appendix (4) on page 113. As far as the inclusion of maps is concerned, I think I have seen all the previous delimitation reports, and, as far as I can remember, no map was ever included in any report. It is in the hands of the Department.

Where can you see the maps?

If members come individually to see these maps, then I have got them there.

Hang them up somewhere.

I will look into that and see whether we can do it. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has again dealt with the question of immigration, and he has asked whether it is not possible to transfer that department to the Department of Lands. I hope it is not a reflection on the present Minister administering the Act, but, in any case, I quite understand what the hon. member has in mind. He wants to link up our immigration with land settlement, Our immigration law, as it exists to-day, is not a law for the control of immigration into the country. It does not control immigration, much less is it a law for the encouragement of immigration into the country. It is merely a law to keep out of the country undesirables—

But you don't do it.

And as such it may be administered. I do not think the Minister of Lands has any particular interest in keeping undesirables out of the country. The hon. member has pointed out that in one particular country, Bulgaria, persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment are given the choice of leaving the country, and he says there is a danger that large numbers of them may come to South Africa. I may point out that under Clause 4 (1) (f), the Minister has full powers to keep out such people, and I can assure the House that if I am informed by the police that not only numbers of those people but any one particular person of that description is coming to the country, I will make use of those powers to keep them out.

How will you know?

The High Commissioner possibly will be informed. These people have to come with passports and with visas, and although the control may not be very effective, we have some measure of control.

If the Bulgarian Government want to get rid of them, they will facilitate the granting of passports.

I ackowledge the Government may not inform us, but the British consul may. The man would first of all have to go in Bulgaria itself to the British consul to get the visa, and it is, for the British consul in Bulgaria to inform our High Commissioner and the High Commissioner to inform us. That is the way we very often get information, and on the ground of such information, we very often keep out such people. I think the powers we have at present are quite sufficient to deal with such a situation. Just a word about what has been said by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). He has asked about how Indians from Natal can come into the Cape. The hon. gentleman will know that under the existing law, which has been the law for many years, Indians who can comply with an education test may enter the Cape. In that way, of course, there are quite a number of Indians in the Cape. In some small way we have made it more difficult, but in any case the door for a certain class of Indian to come into the Cape is open. As far as Fort Hare is concerned, right from the beginning the council of the college has admitted Indians to study there. Fort Hare, like other colleges and higher education institutions, has a certain measure of autonomy, and it is not for the Minister to say who is to be admitted there, but it is for the governing body, and it has never been against the principle of admitting Indians to that institution. I have been reliably informed that there has been no difficulty with regard to the admission of those Indians, and after the Indian agreement was entered into, they gave us the assurance that even if Indians in larger numbers should come to Fort Hare for further study, they would have no objection, and they did not think it necessary to have a special hostel for these students there. I am not going to make provision for a special institution; they must make use of the institutions for non-Europeans.

I would like a little information from the Minister on the treatment of leprosy. I do not want him to take this as a reflection on the department—Dr. Mitchell has done his best and has always most courteously rendered any assistance when approached. We have two leper institutions in the Transkei; at one only Pondos are admitted, and the other deals with the rest of the native territories. I understand the method of collection of cases is by donkey-wagon. When there are a large number of cases awaiting collection it seems to me that everything is at a standstill, they breed more donkeys to cope with the situation! Recently the magistrate at Matatiele reported he had thirty cases of leprosy to be removed; everyone of these was a potential danger, not only to the natives, but to Europeans as well. They removed two cases, and left the other twenty-eight. On a European farm, belonging to a very progressive man, a case was reported which was left more than five months on the farm after reporting; after I mentioned it to the department it was there another month and a source of great danger during that time. The case was one of a native woman who was a native doctor and daily natives were coming to consult here. If it is a case of money, more should be voted. It is certainly unfair to the district to leave cases there for six months. There is another matter to which I would like to draw attention. I understand where any Government servant is dismissed he loses absolutely all his rights to any pension. He may have served the State for twenty or thirty years; he commits an offence and is dismissed. Not only is that dismissal a severe punishment, but he loses the whole of his life's work as far as his pension is concerned, and what is worse still, his wife and children are the principal sufferers in most cases.

The hon. member is now advocating an alteration of the law.

No, I am not advocating any alteration of the law. The tendency is sometimes in the other direction; an offence is committed which merits dismissal but it is felt that the consequences are so severe that some lighter penalty is imposed and a person is retained in the service when it would be to the benefit of the service if he was dismissed. I would like to see powers taken in cases of dismissal to award the whole or portion of a man' pension to him.

The hon. member wants the law to be altered.

No, I do not want any law to be altered.

As far as the last point is concerned, the Public Service Commission, working under the Public Service Act, can pronounce judgment on a public servant who has been accused, but they can make a distinction in the penalty which they impose, and it is only in extreme cases that they will dismiss. Of course the hon. gentleman does not expect that we will do away with the extreme penalty.

The point of the hon. member is that the pension must be forfeited, and that is according to the law.

The Chairman is quite right; if we have to change that it means an alteration of the law. As far as leprosy in the Transkei is concerned, I agree with the hon. member that the present position is unsatisfactory. Provision will be made on the loan estimates for six depots, where leper patients will be collected, and then sent on to the leper institutions. Generally I may say that the number of patients who come forward voluntarily is greater now than ever before, as the result of the policy of discharging from our leper institutions the arrested cases. Leper patients nowadays look more to leper asylums as hospitals for the: chronic sick, and not as they used to do as prisons. The knowledge that this is so is spreading among the natives, and that is facilitating the administration very considerably.

I think the time has arrived when the immigration laws should not only provide for the exclusion of undesirables, but for the introduction of people of a type suitable to the conditions of the country.

That is publicity overseas.

The publicity work directed by the Government is almost entirely designed to encourage tourists to come here, particularly from America. But when I speak of immigration, I mean the arrival of people who are going to make their permanent homes here and not be merely birds of passage. In view of the circumstances of the country, I want to see our European population increased as quickly as possible. The chief ingredients of our European population are of northern stock, and we should introduce people of a stock more likely to assimilate to the existing stock than we are doing to-day. I do not wish to say anything disparaging about any race, but we peoples of northern races are in the majority here among the white population and we should encourage the entry into this country of those peoples who will assimilate the most rapidly with us rather than encourage people, however good they may be, to come from other parts of Europe. It is time we took into very serious consideration the introduction of a quota system of immigration, as America has been driven to do, if we want to preserve in the Europeans of this country the characteristics of our ancestors who settled and developed this country. It is common ground amongst all of us, whether business people or farmers, that South Africa is overstocked with traders. What we want are producers, whether by their manual labour or from the fruits of the soil, rather than traders and distributors. We want people who will help to develop the country, who will make their homes in our waste places and who will not merely be—

Parasites.

I don't want to use that word, but will say people who make their living out of the labours of others. I am not satisfied that this or any previous Government has done the right thing by merely making a law to exclude the most undesirable people. Nobody can pretend that all our immigrants are desirable. I don't care a fig about their religion, but we northerners who are the majority of the Europeans should stand together to see that South Africa must remain a habitat for northerners so far as possible. If you go down to the docks, you will see people arriving who will not make a desirable addition to our population. It is a difficult subject, and when it has been broached in the past from this corner of the House we have been accused of being racialists. That is not so. We have friends among all races; we realize the good qualities of each, but we feel strongly that we should look to the countries of our origin for the main supply of our immigrants who are to be the future citizens of South Africa. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said it was not desirable to have the quota system, because of our sparse population. On the contrary, I think that we should lay sound foundations at once, while our population is not yet too much mixed. Do we wish to get into the condition that the United States found itself in before we adopt a quota? The chief trouble in America is the difficulty of obtaining political and social cohesion because of its heterogeneous population. I hope hon. members will not think that we have any racial feeling on this matter, but it is time for the country to face the issue squarely and to encourage the immigration of people who will help us to build up a sound and homogeneous European population. We have many problems and dangers to face in the future, and the nearer we assimilate to each other in racial character and descent, the easier it will he for us to solve the problems of the immediate future, and to face our future as a nation with confidence. When we are told by the hon. member for Troyeville that the only people we ought to exclude are criminals, I join issue. We should go much further than that. We have heard of criminals in Bulgaria being given the choice of going to gaol or emigrating. Are we to be used as a sort of Botany Bay or penal settlement? I do not stand, for one moment, for accepting citizens from any country which might use us in that way. As for what information the High Commissioner in London might get regarding the desirability or otherwise of emigrants from such countries, that suggestion is worth nothing whatever, because he will not have access to the information which he ought to have if he is going to exercise a proper and useful scrutiny of the migrants coming to this country from the continent of Europe. I hope the Minister will take into serious thought the points that have been put from this part of the House. It stands to reason that we who are both born South Africans are just as anxious as anybody to see that our country, and especially its European population, is built up on sound and proper lines, and one of the main points in the policy of any people should be to see that the human element and the composition of its population takes precedence of any subject that may come up for discussion. The human element is more important than any industry. The future life and greatness of this Country depends as to 99 per cent. on the type of people who are to be allowed free access to and citizenship of this country. We want producers, and not intermediaries.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior has not replied to my comments on the large number of men from outside the service who were introduced and who are now drawing salaries exceeding £400 per annum. The Minister gave me a list of no less than 186 persons who have been introduced from outside the service during his short term of office. I asked whether men from inside the service could not have been secured, and in all the cases excepting six the Minister has met me with this answer: "not with the necessary qualifications." That is a very off-hand reply. It is the stereotyped reply throughout the whole list. That is dealing with the subject very light-heartedly, because the promotion of these men necessarily involves retarded promotion of every man who is at this moment drawing £400 a year in the Government service, and it is a matter of great heart-burning in the service that these men should have been introduced. How is it possible for the aspirants for promotion to know what the necessary qualifications are that they did not possess? One feels suspicious about this because of the Minister's unwise declaration, and one that was served to disquiet the service, to the effect that all things being equal a Nationalist would be chosen. That, to my mind, is an absolute negation of the whole principle on which our civil service is based. The joining of a political party, or taking any prominent part in a political party is forbidden by the service regulations, but here what is a disqualification to a man in the service is regarded as a merit, indeed as the deciding factor. By a short nose the Nationalist candidate always gets home ahead of his rival. There are men in every branch of the service who have been superseded by these appointments, and who feel that the principle on which the service was established at Union is being trodden underfoot. I can remember, as a former civil servant, deriving the greatest satisfaction from the fair basis on which the Act of Union was framed in this connection. It seemed to me that the man who unfortunately was unilingual was fully protected, but it has been left to the regime of the present Government to introduce a new order of things, under which no matter whether a man is a pre-Union official, or not, if he were unilingual his claims to any appointment are disregarded. People not only from outside the service but juniors in the service are being promoted over his head. I maintain that is not fair. It is destroying the espirit de corps of the service. When the Minister said that political conviction would be the deciding factor, we scarcely took him seriously. Now the fruits of his policy are being seen. I confined my question to appointments that might be coveted by any junior in the service, viz., at a salary in excess of £400 per annum. Now the men who have been obliged to recede in their promotion because of these people from outside, will feel that the determining factor has been the political qualification of the person chosen. I hope the Minister has, by his ripening experience in office, realized that the service cannot be run on those principles; that loyal service to the Government is a thing that counts first. If we aim at that, whatever party we belong to, we shall he doing the service a benefit, and upholding a principle which was enshrined in the Act of Union and which everyone of us ought to respect. The Minister has, on his estimates, the position of Union agent at Lourenco Marques. Is this the appointment formerly held by the gentleman who attended to the customs at Lourenco Marques

Yes.

Has the incumbent of this office who was there two years ago, left the service, or is he still there?

I think he is still there.

Thank you. I do not want to stress the matter of the changing of names, but I think it is important in connection with statistics. The department of statistics comes under the Minister of the Interior, and I wish to mention a further matter in the hope that he will pass on the information to his statistical department. I quote from a letter in the London " Daily Mail " of April 16 of this year, in which the writer, one Captain Stanley Shaw, refers to the matter in its relation to Great Britain, and it is of equal importance in relation to this country. He draws attention to the danger of mis-description in statistics through name changing, and he says—

I think that the point mentioned by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is quite a good one, that in the case of name changing the process should be an open one, and rendered as public and as conspicuous as possible, as the hon. member, as I understood him to say, did in his own case. In that connection I remember that at one time it was possible—I do not know whether it is still in some provinces—-for any man wishing to change his name to put a notice in the " Gazette " to say that from and after a certain date his name, whatever it happened to be, was abandoned, and he had adopted and taken unto himself a new name. I remember a skit upon one of these gentleman. A man desiring to ridicule a recent change of name put in the " Gazette " a notice which purported to be signed by a native to the effect that, having found the name so-and-so which had been abandoned was derelict, he had from and after that date assumed it, and it had become his name. I think we ought to have some method by which either by letters patent or something of that sort the changing of names only should be permitted. Letters patent, of course, are not possible in this country. It should be made a difficult and expensive matter, and even when the name is changed I take it there would be no objection on the part of any man who changed his name to agree that the statistical department should in the matter of race, describe him as of the race to which he belonged, and to which he should be proud to belong. There is one small point I want to mention, and that is that I understood the Minister to say at the outset of his speech this evening that he had met the Public Servants' Association in connection with the advisory council. I should like him to tell us whether all the points made in the manifesto or the circular which the Public Servants' Association of South Africa addressed to members have been overcome. There was a communication from the Minister reproduced in their circular. The Minister wrote to them on the 27th February, 1925, and indicated that the arrangement with the advisory council was capable of some improvement, and he would be prepared to meet them on the matter.

Yes.

I hope the Minister has been able to overcome the difficulties that were mentioned, because one would like to feel that the advisory council which was contemplated in the Public Service Act was proving its usefulness.

As I explained this afternoon, I could not meet the civil servants on their request as it was made at the beginning, viz., to institute the Whitley Council, but I intimated to them that I thought the existing machinery could be improved. As I explained this afternoon, I have instituted an advisory council now which is two-sided with certain limitations, that is to say, that members of the advisory council appointed by the Government are not ordinary members who vote with the others on any question, but they are there merely in a consultative capacity to represent the Government on these questions which are being discussed. That system has been accepted by the public service, and is working very well. I do not think I can add anything useful in regard to what has been said about name changing. There is no existing law that I am aware of that gives me any powers in regard to that matter, and I am very much in doubt whether, if legislation is to be introduced to give the Government any power in reference to that matter, it would fall under the Minister of the Interior or not. Possibly it is more a matter for the Minister of Justice. The other question raised here by the hon. member to which I am sorry I did not reply before, is in connection with appointments in the service. According to him, and according to the reply which I gave to a question on the order paper, there are about 180 appointments in the civil service from outside the service. Let me say that to a very large extent that is altogether unavoidable, and I do not think that the number of appointments of that nature by the present Government is at all greater than the number of such appointments by the previous or any previous Government.

Oh, yes.

No, I do not think so, because, as I say, it is largely unavoidable. In the number quoted, from 180 to 186, are included appointments, for instance, in the administrative and technical division of the service. It is common knowledge that if you want to appoint a technical or a professional man in the service you cannot recruit him, as a rule, from the service itself, because there are very few in the service, and that man has to be taken from outside. All these are included. A division also included is the general division, that is the lowest division in the service. To a very large extent the general division consists of persons who occupy posts of very minor importance, e.g., messengers, door-keepers and persons who have occupations of that kind. There are also in the general division posts of a higher grade, and these posts carry salary in very many cases of over £400. Take, for instance, all the physicians employed in the mental hospitals, quite a large number of them, they all belong to the general division. They are public servants but they are not classed in the clerical division or the administrative or the professional. But surely if there are vacancies and new appointments have to be made you cannot fill them from inside the service. You must take them from the outside. If you deduct all such cases the number remaining would be comparatively small, and I say again I do not think this Government has made more such appointments than the previous government or any other government did.

With regard to this point I think we are indebted to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) for raising it, because there is undoubtedly a very great deal of dissatisfaction in the public service owing to the large number of men who have been appointed from outside, and many men in the public service have asked me to raise the point and to discuss their grievances and so forth, but I have always said to them that it is useless to do so because if any individual's name is mentioned in this House or mentioned to the Minister as having a grievance, as having been passed over by an outsider, he immediately becomes a marked man, so it is impossible to bring forward instances and at the same time to protect these people who have grievances. But I can assure the Minister that the public service is seething with discontent owing to this growing system of bringing in men from outside, and I do not think the Minister is correct when he says that the present Government have not made any more appointments of this sort than the preceding governments did. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister looks into the matter and compares the past four years with the previous period of four years he will find that he and his colleagues have been responsible for appointing many more from outside than the previous government. I do not think it is quite a fair excuse to say, as the Minister does, that such a large number of technical officers had to be appointed that the number has swelled the total. There must be very few technical officers appointed and, at any rate, there are a good many technical officers in the public service at the present time, but in many cases their claims have been overlooked. The Minister also makes the further excuse that the appointments made from outside include those made to the general division, but I fancy there won't be very many of those men appointed as door-keepers who are included in the list, because the list only includes men who are drawing salaries of £400 and upwards.

Yes, but you cannot recruit them from the lower ranks into the general division.

I admit that if you want a new man as a door-keeper, in most cases you have to go outside, but the general complaint is in regard to men in the higher grades, and there are many men looking for promotion whose promotion has been stopped. I think, myself they have a grievance and it ought to be ventilated.

I should like to point out to the Minister that the list which he has laid on the Table refers to men who draw salaries exceeding £400 per annum, but immediately below that scale there are innumerable men, stock inspectors, dipping supervisors and men of that sort whom I purposely excluded. I know of the strong family influence that has brought service men to coin a new beatitude— " Blessed are the Kemps and Bodensteins for they shall inherit the earth !". Surely in the mental hospitals which he mentioned there must be very few who are drawing £400 and upwards.

Quite a number in the general division.

I admit that, but I am dealing with the Minister's argument piecemeal, and he mentioned that particular department, and there I join the issue with him. There are so many in the select family of dipping inspectors that one would not trouble to deal with their appointments. I have merely confined myself to appointments which the Public Service Commission has been called upon to deal with, and there we find this formidable list of 186 people. Then there is another matter that is causing a great deal of discontent, and that is the tendency of the Public Service Commission that comes under the Minister, to abolish offices and reconstitute them again as soon as the previous incumbent is safely out of the way on pension. We have a flagrant instance mentioned in the Department of Agriculture.

You must deal with that under agriculture; I do not know anything about that.

I suppose I shall be met by the Minister of Agriculture with the reply that it is a matter in the hands of the Public Service Commission. I would much rather deal with the Minister. His replies to me are much more pleasant.

Let me explain, if the hon. member will allow me, that a matter of that nature, an appointment, say, for instance, in the Agricultural Department on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, never comes before me. I have got, as Minister of the Interior, absolutely nothing to do with that. Under the Public Service Act, the Public Service Commission is given certain powers. I cannot interfere with those powers. The power of the Public Service Commission is that of recommendation to the Minister concerned, not to the Minister of the Interior. They do not make that to me, except with respect to my department, but not with respect to departments of other Ministers. There they make a recommendation to the Minister concerned. If the Minister concerned wishes to set aside the recommendation then he must report it to the Cabinet, and then I come in merely as a member of the Cabinet, nothing more, and it is for the Cabinet to decide whether it will uphold the recommendation of the commission, or the objection of the Minister, and, if it upholds the objection of the Minister, then the matter must be reported by the Public Service Commission to Parliament. According to the procedure and according to the Act, the Minister of the Interior has nothing to do with such appointments. I am willing to bear all the responsibility that the law imposes upon my shoulders, but I object to bearing the responsibility of other Ministers.

I quite agree it is not the Minister's responsibility, and I will reserve what I have to say until we reach the Department of Agriculture, but I should like the Minister to let us know what the proposals are in regard to the biennial registration for which we have the sum of £18,500 put down. Is it his intention to employ the same type of canvassers and registration officers as we had at the last registration, or are the police to be employed, and will he give us any information on the subject.

I informed the House on several occasions before that the procedure which I follow in the appointment of canvassers is to request the magistrates, before they make their nominations, to approach the chief representatives of the various political parties, and to lay the list before them for their criticism, and, if possible, to get the various parties to agree with each other with regard to the appointment of canvassers, and there can be no objection. As a rule, the magistrates carry out these instructions. There have been complaints to me in this or that particular constituency that that method has not been followed. I will see to it that the method is followed throughout, and so far as I can see this is the most satisfactory course that we have been able to think of so far.

The Minister has rather thrown out a challenge to this side of the House, and said he felt convinced that there were no more appointments made from outside to the permanent service to prominent positions than during the last administration. I accept that challenge. I ask the Minister if he will have a statement prepared during the last eight years, and to make it perfectly clear, from 1920 to 1924 and from 1924 to 1928, showing the number of people from outside taken into the service, some of whom have been, I make bold to say, pitchforked into the public service of this country. The Public Service Commission falls under the Minister's department. The new public servants are really the children of my hon. friend, because as regards the last Public Service Commission, the Minister did not extend their appointment.

Why should I adopt other people's children?

Even in the new appointments, they have had difficulties with the Minister and the Government, and their opinion has been overruled. Perhaps the Minister would do a kindness to my hon. friend (Mr. Marwick) and myself and ask the Minister of Agriculture, so that there will be no delay before the latter's vote comes under discussion, to prepare a list of the number of people whose services have been dispensed with in the Agricultural Department and the number of people appointed from outside the service in their stead—and the reasons for their appointment. If he would get his colleague to go still more carefully into that, he would find that a number of people have had their services dispensed with and that other people not nearly so efficient, have been appointed to their positions, solely and entirely on account of their political views. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), there is seething discontent in the public service of this country on account of the fact that since this Government has taken office, they have on many occasions gone outside the public service and passed over the heads of thoroughly efficient officials to pitchfork other people into the service.

It has always been a matter of complaint.

Is it not a justifiable matter of complaint when men, for political considerations, are taken into the service from outside, to the detriment of people who have served the country for years? There was a period of time when we had an opportunity of securing for the horticultural department one of the greatest plant pathologists who exists—Dr. Webber—who had been brought from California to go into The whole question of citrus and cotton production, and was recommended to the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister. He was not appointed, although his qualifications were of such a character that at the present time he is receiving in the technical research station at Ealing a grant from the Empire Marketing Board of £25,000 for the investigation of plant and root development, so essential to citrus production in this country. The Minister may give us his reason why these people are not appointed. In this particular case, the reason given was that he was not bilingual. I can understand that officers should be bilingual where they have to go out into the country and come into contact with the population, but so far as science and technical opinion is concerned, if you are going to say you are going to refuse people with great scientific qualifications because they are not bilingual, you are not going properly to develop the agricultural resources of this country. We see in certain departments men taken from outside. I do not want to mention names, but if I am forced to do so, I can mention the names of people in the public service who have given years of service and who have been superseded by people who have not the qualifications the others have. I think it is only right that the Minister of the Interior should give the reasons and justification for the Government doing so, when the responsibility rests upon them—for doing an injustice to the public service of the country. Let the Minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and let him tell us what the position is in his department at the present time. One of the most important officials of that department was sent to the United States and Europe to qualify in a particular direction, notwithstanding those qualifications, the Minister's colleague went to get a man from outside to take the place which this man had been specially trained to occupy. Have not political considerations been largely taken into account in making appointments of this character? Whether the feelings of the public services are inclined to the Government side or this side of the House, there is seething discontent among permanent members of the service, because they consider a grave injustice has been done. I speak feelingly on this, because public servants must know that if public appointments are made, when they are competent to fill them they should not have these plums taken away from them for outsiders, and when you bring outsiders into the service to fill important posts which men inside the service are competent to fill, you are stopping promotion through the whole run of that particular department, and that is not a thing that is advanageous to the espirit de corps of the public service of this country. I don't think there is a greater sinner in this respect than the Minister of Agriculture. Will the Minister of the Interior have a list prepared showing the number of people who have been appointed from outside the service during the last eight years? We are entirely justified in bringing this very important question to the notice of the Government. I hope it will be an example to the Government, not to overlook the claims of their old servants, many of whom are extremely competent and perfectly fitted to occupy positions which people have been brought in from outside to fill.

The Minister has outlined the system pursued in regard to canvassers for names for the parliamentary electoral roll. I have no objection to the system provided it is properly carried out, but the Minister should see that due care is exercised to place the names of qualified voters, especially of coloured people and natives, on the roll. There is not the slightest doubt that on the last occasion there was grave cause for complaint against the canvassers, who neglected to obtain the names of these people, and the impression was given, rightly or wrongly, that the canvassers were not anxious to place coloured people and natives on the electoral roll. No doubt there are means of getting on the roll subsequently, but the people I have mentioned are less able than others to look after themselves, and it is only right that special attention should be paid to giving these people proper facilities for having their names placed on the electoral roll.

I hope the Minister will pay attention to the position of civil servants who fill higher posts than that which they are paid for, without extra remuneration. I understand the public service regulations provide that a man can fill a higher post without extra remuneration for three months, but in some cases second grade clerks do the work of first grade clerks for nearly twelve months without additional pay although during that time they are responsible for any losses that may be incurred.

All I can say in regard to civil service matters, as they have been represented by the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick), all these grievances can be thrashed out and are being thrashed out in the Public Service Advisory Council, with the representatives of the Public Service Commission. The minutes of these meetings are, as a rule, sent to me as the responsible Minister, so all these matters come under my notice. Very few grievances have been discussed by the Advisory Council and considered to be so important as to be sent to me to be rectified. I do not remember that the particular point mentioned by the two hon. members has figured largely in the discussions of the Advisory Council. A resolution has been passed, but that is a complaint not only against the present administration, but whenever an appointment from outside is made.

When they are unnecessary.

But also in all other cases there is usually some measure of heart-burning amongst public servants, but in many cases these outside appointments are absolutely inevitable. We must pay attention not only to the interests of the public service, but of the general public. The service is there not for the sake of the service, but for the sake of the country.

Is it any wonder that there should be a certain amount of heartburning when an officer is chosen for a post by the heads of his department, accepted by the Public Service Commission, and when after having been sent to the United States to take a special course he returns to South Africa, he finds a man has been taken from outside the service to fill the post at a higher salary, although he was not as well qualified? Can that take place without causing discontent, and people asking whether the reasons for the appointment were of a political character That is why I speak so feelingly; not to undo what has been done in the past, but to warn the Government not to continue its wrongs to the service.

The hon. member refers to a particular case which has been thrashed out on the agricultural estimates.

That is only one of many cases.

Vote put and agreed to

On Vote 21. " Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-minded," £533,017.

What arrangements are being made in regard to the mental hospital at Maritaburg? I understand the Minister has bought from the Defence Department a piece of land at Fort Napier on which to erect an addition to the mental hospital, the addition to be used exclusively for native patients. Will patients from other provinces be received there or will the place be confined to the reception of Natal natives? Is the new institution to be under the care of the present physician superintendent of the Maritzbzurg hospital, or will a new superintendent be appointed for this additional institution. If any new appointment is made I hope the claims of the medical men in the service for promotion will not be overlooked. We have a great number of very able medical men who have studied this branch of disease in our service.

I think it is impossible to lay down the principle that in a particular institution in a province we may not place patients from another province. If we follow that principle our expenditure will rise considerably. The new institution has been started at Fort Napier to relieve the overcrowding in existing hospitals. There has been very great overcrowding, and naturally if we want to relieve that overcrowding, we Will have to transfer a number of patients from other hospitals there. As far as the appointment of a superintendent is concerned, I am not quite certain but I am under the impression that the appointment has already been made and I can assure the hon. member that the gentleman appointed is a physician who has been in the service of the department. I think that the assistant physician superintendent has been moved from the Pretoria institution to Fort Napier. That is my impression.

I should like to ask the Minister, with reference to the future, and in connection with what he has just said, whether provision can now be made for extension. On page 16 of the report the fact is mentioned that on the 31st March next year there will be 1,500 patients too many if the census is taken according to the average census of past years. My question therefore is whether provision has been made for this. The complaint is that no funds have been voted for the purpose.

All I can say is that I shall do my best. I think that the institution at Fort Napier, which is new, will be sufficient for the increase. It was built for more than 1,000 patients. It will obviate a great overcrowding in mental hospitals, and I hope at any rate that no difficulty will arise for the moment.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 22, " Printing and Stationery," £313,742,

I promised the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) when the discussion took place on another vote I would give certain facts in connection with the printing and stationery department. During the recess we have gone very carefully, as I promised the House last session, into the whole position. It has been complained by hon. members that this vote is altogether too large, and is increasing year after year. We thought at one time of appointing a commission of inquiry, but after investigating the position further I came to the conclusion that it was much better to give the new Government printer an opportunity of showing what he can do in the way of reducing expenditure. In the first place we have effected economy by abridging a number of reports where it could be done. Take, for instance, the customs and excise. A large number of these reports contain tables of figures, and it is unnecessary in these cases to have separate reports in English and in Dutch. By combining these reports we have saved quite a considerable sum of money. We found too that the printing works are rather overstaffed. We did not follow the procedure of discharging any of our employees, but we followed the principle of not replacing the natural wastage as far as possible. The result is that in wages alone we have been able at this stage to save compared with conditions previously existing £300 a month. That will eventually work out if we proceed further in this direction to the saving of a considerable amount of money. Then we are trying to curtail as much as possible the printing matter coming from various departments. We have our own way of dealing with that as a Cabinet, and I hope there will be no unnecessary printing. The printing works have undertaken the manufacture during the last year, which they did not do before, of stationery. All the stationery supplied to the various departments was bought before, but now the paper is bought and the pads and ruled books and so forth are being manufactured by the printing works in Pretoria. That will also mean a considerable saving. The "Government Gazette" is printed in a new form so that we can use the roller press for the purpose, and that will also save, I think, about £1,500 per annum. Let me say further that if we make a comparison between our expenditure for printing in South Africa and some other British countries I do not think that South Africa comes out so very unfavourably. Let me give figures by way of comparison. The percentage of printing and stationery compared with the total expenditure of the country in the Union of South Africa is £1 3s. 2d. per cent. of the total expenditure; in New South Wales it is £1 16s.; in New Zealand it is smaller, 18s. 7d. Take printing and stationery compared with the total revenue. In South Africa it is £1 2s. 2d. per cent., while in New South Wales it is £1 14s. 8d. I am just giving the figures that I have. Here we have a comparison between more countries in regard to the cost per head of the European population. In the Union it is 3s. 11d. per head of the European population, in New South Wales 3s. 11d., in New Zealand 3s. 6d., in Queensland 3s. 10d., in Victoria 1s. 6d., in South Australia 5s. 2d., and in Canada it is only 1s. 9d. At the same time I wish to point out that in these figures for the Union, we include the cost of new plant, advertising and transport. These items are not included in the figures for the other parts of the Empire.

Do you include the printing for the provincial governments?

Yes, all our printing is included. That shows that the comparison is not so unfavourable so far as South Africa is concerned. There has, undoubtedly, been some improvement so far as expenditure under this vote is concerned. There has been a general improvement. The expenditure in the year 1926-"27 was £317,000, in 1927-'28 it was £326,000, and on present estimates it is £313,000.

£309,000.

Yes. So compared with previous years there has been actually a reduction of the total expenditure, but then I must point out that in the expenditure every year is included a fairly large amount for capital expenditure, which should really be excluded if we are to get a good comparison. If we exclude capital expenditure for the acquisition of new plant, then for 1926-'27 it was £308,000, for 1927-'28 it was £306,000 and for 1928-'29 it was £293,000. That again shows that there has been a considerable actual reduction of the expenditure under this head. A further point of importance is the productivity of wages. I think that is a very good criterion of the position. The productivity of wages for actual cost compared with previous years is as follows: In 1925-'26, 26 per cent.; in 1926-'27, 20 per cent.; in 1927-'28, 29 per cent. So it became worse in 1926-'27, but the productivity has very much increased in 1927-'28. I think that is certainly very satisfactory. I just thought of giving these figures to the House to show that the position in any case is not unsatisfactory and that it has certainly improved during the last year, and we hope to get the full benefits of this improvement during the coming year.

I think the committee is very pleased to hear that the Minister has been going so thoroughly into this matter, because it required going into very badly. The Minister did not reply to my exact question as to whether he would arrange that each department should be charged with the whole of their requirements, both for printing and stationery. I suggest that a sheet of paper, the size of this comparative classified summary which we get, is quite sufficient to give us—

You will find that on page 100.

Yes, I must look through that. Is that a new thing?

Yes, a new departure.

I am very glad to hear that. I really want to see all these special services rendered for departments put on to a sheet of paper like this classified summary, so that on each vote we come to, down below would appear a note pointing out what services they get which we are not voting on that vote. It is not only printing and stationery, it is rent, postage and telegrams, and everything else which they get, so that when we get to the vote of justice or agriculture, or whatever it may be, we know at a glance exactly what that department is costing the country. I welcome very much this statement the Minister has now provided the House with. I think we all agree when one looks at the reports we get, it is not an extravagance to say that 25 per cent. could be cut out of them without any loss to us, provided the head of the department knows one of his jobs is to economise as much as possible in all forms of expenditure. I agree that to-day heads of departments do not seem to have that instinct. They do not seem to worry about it, and it is only by showing these men it is not only their salary list we look at but also all other forms of expenditure that will keep them constantly looking all the year through to the sources on which they can save money. With regard to the statement the Minister made showing the difference in costs in Australia, it must have struck him as most extraordinary that one province in Australia could work their stationery so much more cheaply per £100 of other expenditure than the other States.

I do not think these comparisons are worth much.

The Minister has rather cut the ground from under the feet of the Minister of the Interior.

No, I never believe in these statistics; they mean nothing.

But they have just been quoted to us as evidence. It does show this, that if one State is economical and the whole trend of the civil service is towards economy, a great deal of money can be saved. When you come to the really strong Labour states, you see how frightfully extravagant they are in their administration. I would like to say one word regarding the balance sheet and profit and loss account that one finds on page 186 of the Auditor-General's report. I mentioned before that this balance sheet and accounts is not correct. It is misleading. It shows a profit of £3,000, but it does not show any charge whatever for the use of £100,000 worth of capital in constant use all the year through, for which we pay £5,250 a year. The new building, together with older buildings, I think, cost roughly £113,000, and I do suggest that it is not a fair rent to charge only £5,000. If you take interest not charged and rent undercharged, it amounts to nearly £6,000. You show a net profit of £3,000, but those two items turn that into a loss of £3,000. The Minister will agree that is one of the worst ways in which a business should work—to think it works at a profit, but there is a loss. The Minister now has a business man in charge of this department, and he should take every advantage of his knowledge in business affairs and get this account properly adjusted. The Minister says we have to take into consideration that there is a very considerable amount spent in certain years on capital assets. Does that not show a very unsatisfactory form of working business accounts when you have such a confused state?

Surely you agree to charge the cost of machinery to revenue instead of capital is very sound?

In the estimates, yes, but not when you come to frame a profit and loss account.

Here you are dealing with the estimates.

The Minister of the Interior says he is getting more work into the factory; they are undertaking manufacturing stationery and other lines. The printing works are rather a luxury, and I know enough about manufacturing, or rather about the ease with which you can lose money in manufacturing, to warn the Government not to extend their manufacturing proclivities.

We do not increase the staff.

No; but the result will be eventually an increase in the staff. You are now taking on another class of work. There is nothing sounder than when buying a thing to know what it costs you. Even in your printing works you think you are making a profit of £3,000, but as a matter of fact you lost £3,000. When you start manufacturing it is very difficult even in an ordinary business to know what the work actually cost, but in a Government concern it is more difficult still, and the soundest principle is not to touch manufacturing at all, but to buy from the man who will supply the commodity at the lowest price. At the same time the Government should make it clear that the official who is demanding the additional expense is going to have it charged to his vote. I am very glad to see the Minister is taking the matter seriously, for great extravagance has been shown.

I understand the Minister said the vote had been diminished, but it has been increased. We are very much indebted to the Minister of the Interior, because he gives the House full details as far as he has them. The cost of printing paper rose from £40,000 to £50,000 whereas contract printing and binding decreased from £52,000 to £40,000. That I presume is due to the fact that a great deal more work is done at Pretoria. I should like the assurance that departmental printing is cheaper than contract work, but I am inclined to think that it is not. If the Minister would have the departmental reports cut down still further and confine them to giving information in the clearest and most concise form, it would not only reduce expenditure enormously, but would be a great advantage to busy members of Parliament who have to contend with voluminous blue books.

We are taking steps in that direction.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, " Public Health," £454,351,

I think that so much has already been said on the public health vote that it can be passed at once.

I think there are hon. members who still want to say something about it.

Then I shall move the adjournment of the debate.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.