I move—

It may be advisable for me to say a few words about this proposal. Quite a number of hon. members have approached me with the request that I shall see to it that the House shall conclude its proceedings as soon as possible, in view of the fact that the extraordinary circumstances in which we are finding ourselves here, make it essentia] for them to return as soon as possible. It would appear to me, considering the matters which still have to be disposed of, that we should be able to conclude our business before Saturday of next week, that is to say, if we also take in the mornings. The business still to be transacted is practically all before the House now, with the exception of the small financial Bills that are usually placed before the House after the estimates have been disposed of. Therefore, there remains, to my mind, only very little to be done. Hon. members will see that there are three Bills on the order paper for to-day, in addition to which there are two others of which notice was given on Monday. None of those Bills will in all probability occupy a long time, with the exception, possibly, of the first one, the Farmers’ Assignment Bill, although I hope that that will not occupy a great deal of time either. In the circumstances it is advisable from next Monday to take in the mornings as well for the House to meet, and it is for that reason that 1 move this here.

Mr. J. F. TOM NAUDÉ seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Perhaps it would be convenient if I deal, at this stage, with some of the points raised while the House was in committee last night. In the first place, I wish to refer to one or two of the smaller points raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Heerden) raised the question of overcrowding of prisoners in our gaols. It is admitted that somewhat unsatisfactory overcrowding conditions exist to-day, but that is largely in consequence of the prevailing economic circumstances, and those economic circumstances operate along two lines. In the first place, the Government itself has been affected by the financial stringency, and has been unable to put in hand all the work it would have liked to put in hand; and secondly, there are certain other influences at work which tend to increase the number of prisoners in gaol. That tendency always operates in a time of economic depression. It is one of the better signs of the present time that, within the last few months there has been a slight decrease in the number of prisoners. In 1924, the average figure for the year was 17,228, but during each of the two following years, there were special releases of prisoners which will not be entirely forgotten by members of the House. As a result, the number fell to 15,453. In 1927 there were 17,539. In 1928 there was again a special release, and the increase as a result was checked, the number remaining practically stationary. Thereafter, the number gradually rose till it reached 18,222 in 1930. In 1931 the increase was again checked, as a result of the remission of sentences to first offenders. Since then there has been a considerable increase. In 1932 the average number was over 20,000, and in February of this year the peak figure of 22,000 was reached. Since then there has been a slight decrease which, I think, tends to suggest that we must regard this as a passing phase. At the same time, as I have already admitted, there are in many cases undesirable conditions of a permanent nature prevailing. The hon. member for Newcastle has raised the case of Utrecht, but as he has been already assured, the department has that case under consideration. The hon. member for Queenstown raised the question of the large expenditure on transport of prisoners, and he referred to the figure on the estimates of £19,700. In that connection he implied that a good deal of saving might be effected if we did not bring any prisoners from the lock-ups to the gaols. That suggestion could not be given effect to without an amendment of the Prisons Act, in terms of which we are not allowed to keep prisoners in the lockups more than a specified period. But that vote not only covers the transport of prisoners to the gaols. It also covers the rail fares of prisoners and prison officers, the transfer of prison stores, and the provision of transport of long-sentence prisoners. Now I come to what was perhaps the most important point raised in the debate last evening, and that was the question of the employment of convicts by private employers. I appreciate the spirit in which this matter has been raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson). I appreciate what they have been doing in this community in the matter of unemployment. They have certainly not spared themselves in their attempts to deal with that serious problem in the Cape Peninsula, and it is therefore natural that the competition of convict labour with free labour should be raised by them. This matter is, of course, one that the Minister of Justice must decide. The Minister of Justice, I am told, had it under consideration before he left for oversea, but he decided, on the information before him, not to make any change in the present arrangement. I understand, however, that that is not a final decision, and that the Minister of Justice is perfectly willing to go further into the matter. I want also to give the assurance that I will bring the matter before the Acting Minister when he returns next week. He will be able to investigate the matter on the spot, and he will come to a decision after such investigation. There is, however, another side to the case. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) has already suggested that their is another side to the case, and I think that that other side must not be entirely overlooked. The hon. member for Salt River himself indicated what the basis of that other side is, when he used the phrase “convicts must work.” Convicts are sentenced to hard labour, and it is up to the prisons department to do what it can to provide that hard labour for the convicts. The prisons department has found itself, within the last few years, with an abnormally large number of convicts sentenced to hard labour, and the department therefore has had to face up to the fact that it has to do the best it can to provide work for this large number of convicts. It is impossible to do that without competition with other forms of labour. There are forms of labour carried on in the prisons themselves which imply such competition. I think the hon. member for Salt River himself will admit that it is impossible to provide the hard labour without, to some extent, entering into competition with free labour, but it is the department’s policy to-day to do all that it can to minimize the competition to the best of its ability. We have, for instance, the question of the employment of convicts for quarry work. That particular work, I am told, has come to an end, but, apart from that, that was work for which, in fact, it was entirely impossible to recruit free labour, and in that case I think the action of the department in employing convict labour was perfectly justifiable. We have also had reference made to the employment of convicts in the gardens of the Union Buildings. I think hon. members who raised this point will appreciate the fact that if we did not have these convicts available for that purpose it would have been one of the things on which the Government would in these recent difficult years have been compelled to economize; it would not have meant the replacement of that labour by free labour; to a large extent the work would not have been done, and those who take a pride in the gardens of the Union Buildings in Pretoria would very much regret if that work had not been undertaken. Then we have the specific case raised of this work being done by convict labour at Constantia, and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson), I think, referred to this as a new menace. I think he knows that it is not new by any means, that it has been going on for many years. It is a system which has been in process for quite a long period, and in that connection it must not be forgotten, as the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) pointed out, that the farmers who are hiring this labour have undertaken a good deal of expenditure for housing quarters for that labour. That must not be overlooked. I think I am correct in saying that during these several years no complaints with regard to this matter have reached us from farmers’ organizations or from labour associations. Moreover, the department of prisons has not failed to look at this matter also from its effect on unemployment, and in this, it has had the collaboration of the Department of Labour; and as a matter of fact, an investigation was held some time ago as to its effect on the labour market, by a magistrate and an inspector of labour, and as a result of that it appeared that the abandonment of this system would not be likely to lead to an increase in the amount of free labour employed. Certainly, when this system was commenced, it was impossible to get the work done by any other means, and at that time there was no other labour offering for this work; and this system was instituted then because of that fact. That is another fact that must be borne in mind before the abandonment of that system can be considered. The number of convicts employed in this work is not very large.

How much further is it going?

The system has not been extended for a number of years.

It has been developed.

The number employed at Constantia is 110. I do not think the hon. member will suggest there has been an increase.

Within the last year or so.

Or so? There has been no development within the last year. As I say, the abandonment of that system would not lead to an increase of free labour; and that being so, the other considerations should not be lost sight of.

I should like to thank the Minister for the manner in which he has given his explanation, or rather, the defence of the department in this matter, and for the grounds on which he has based that defence. 1 am not prepared to go further into the matter at this stage, in view of his statement that the final decision has not been given; but I wish to take this, the first opportunity available, of repudiating the monstrous defence which was raised at a late hour last night by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé), who made an unprovoked and unwarrantable attack on the Cape Peninsula, and cast what amounts to a severe stigma on the non-European population of the Peninsula. I did not think the hon. member was capable of such depths of venom as he has displayed in this matter. The reason why, according to him, farmers were compelled to employ convict labour was, firstly, because the non-European population was not available, and did not wish to do the work, and secondly, if they did wish to do the work, they were in a state of intoxication from Saturday morning to Wednesday night. He also used a term in regard to them which I have not found in my Afrikaans dictionary. He casts an unwarrantable and an unjustifiable slur on the non-European population of the Peninsula. Now, sir, there are “won’t works” in every class of the community, and there may be coloured persons who are not prepared to work: but to cast that stigma on the whole of a community is an outrageous accusation to come from any member of this House. There are hundreds of non-European families who were fed last year and will no doubt have to be fed again this year by relief committees, and they desire to have employment. They would do most excellent work indeed if they found employment. It was a monstrous suggestion which the hon. member made; and I have got up to say that hon. members from platteland constituencies ought to allow hon. members from urban constituencies to mind their own business.

Why?

Because we can mind our own business better than those who come in from outside constituencies. If such accusations continue to be bandied across the floor of the House, one might also have accusations levelled against the farmers. I have personally made it my duty to go to the country districts in order to try to understand the point of view of the farmer; and that is why I can support the Government’s measures of relief to the farmers, without saying that the farmer is being spoon fed. If the hon. member wants to get into touch with the whole country, he should not cast such an unwarranted aspersion on a town community.

I think my hon. friend has said enough to expose the ignorance and fallacy of what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) said. He need not be afraid that I shall not look after the interests of my constituents in raising this matter. But I am not afraid to tell my constituents or the Government when I consider they are doing wrong; and here the Government is definitely on the wrong tack. I am very much obliged at the way in which the acting Minister has replied to the matter; but in raising the matter in the way I have done during the past 18 months with the department, I have always differentiated in regard to convict labour. Personally I am against the principle of employing convict labour at all in competition with free labour, whether it is by the Government or by private people, but I realize that the system is established, and it is going to take some time to do away with it. What I have been battling against for the last twelve months is the fact that certain farmers have acually displaced permanent employees who have been with them for years, and have taken on convicts in their place. They have actually built miniature gaols on their farms for the purpose of employing this convict labour. The Minister seemed to regard that as rather a laudable thing to do. I do not blame the farmers so much as I blame the Government for encouraging them to do it. Where it can be said that there is capital work to be done, such as building a dam or a road, that comes under the old principle, under which convict labour was provided. When I referred to a new menace, what I had in mind was the principle established in the last twelve months whereby certain farmers, there are only two or three of them, have actually got rid of employees who have been working for them for years, living on their farms, and have taken on convicts in their place. That principle, I say, is one to be condemned, and I cannot conceive this committee, even the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) saying that this principle is not thoroughly unsound. Apart from that, there are certain farmers who are employing convicts for certain special work they are doing. I have nothing to say about these people at the moment, because they come under the general principle accepted all over the country. The people I am concerned with are those who are displacing permanent employees in favour of convicts. Where is it going to end if this Government is going to allow anyone to build a prison settlement on his farm, or anywhere else, or even at a factory? That is the principle I am fighting, and I hope this committee will endorse my attitude. As to the remarks of the hon. member for Pietersburg about the coloured community, I regard him more in pity than in anger, pity for his ignorance of the subject. If he could only spare a little of the valuable time which he spends in the Cape Peninsula to take the trouble to come to some of us who know the Cape coloured people, and ask us to show him what they are doing, and how they are living when they have the opportunity to live, I feel sure he i would revise his opinion. I should be glad to I have the privilege and opportunity of taking him round and teaching him something about the coloured people in the Cape.

May I be allowed to tell the last two speakers at once that I consider that I know more about the conditions in the Cape Peninsula than they themselves possibly do? I want to repeat this. I know that it is occasionally somewhat difficult for the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to follow Afrikaans, and I therefore wish to repeat this: I consider that I know more about the conditions of the coloured people in the Peninsula than they do. They must bear in mind the fact that I hail from the Cape Province. I was not born in the Transvaal. That, possibly, is more than the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) can lay claim to. I frequently visit the farmers here and I am familiar with conditions on their farms. I want to say that, when referring to the coloured people last night, I made use of the term “bastards”. I am concerned with the conditions of the farmer, and it is for that reason that I found fault last night with the fact that all that was said here was said on behalf of the coloured section, while not a word was spoken in the interests of the farmers. The hon. member for South Peninsula is here to represent the interests of the farmers too; how is it then that he did not plead for the interests of the farmers as well? Naturally, they are so concerned about the coloured people of the Peninsula, because they need the votes of those people. Why did the hon. member not say that the farmers some time ago could not secure coloured people to work for them, and that for that reason they hired convict labour? They were obliged to do so. Why does not the hon. member go and have a look at the amount of drunkenness there is in the Peninsula every Saturday? He himself should go to Constantia, where he says that I should go. I go there a great deal more often than the hon. member does, but he should go there during the week-end and have a look at the coloured people. It does not help him to try and make us believe that those coloured voters of his are all angels. There are many decent coloured people, and I am prepared to assume that the great majority of them are decent people, but there is also another class of coloured people who are no good. It is for that reason that the farmers had to make other provision, owing to the fact that the coloured labour was not effective to carry out their work. Why otherwise would the farmers have incurred the expense of erecting buildings on their farms, if it was not necessary for them to do so? We find to-day that a number of those coloured people get paid on Fridays, they are drunk the whole of the week-end and on the Monday they are not able yet to do their work. I do not withdraw a word of what I said, but hon. members must not try to make out that I said all the coloured people are like that.

And yet you want to extend the tot system to the north.

No, no, your Afrikaans is faulty and so is your information. The tot system is one of the curses of the Western Province and I vote and shall always vote for its abolition. I am quite satisfied that the Minister will have the matter enquired into. The farmers will be pleased if they can do without the convicts and if they can secure other labour. It was merely with the object of saying that that I got up last night.

I wish to associate myself with the views of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I think I know something about the farming community, and I can speak with knowledge of the position to-day regarding labourers on farms, their remuneration, and so forth. After listening to the very lame explanation of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé), I ask this House who is to blame for the drunkenness which is seen at week-ends? Who but the farmers themselves? In the wine-producing areas, rather than pay their employees in cash, they prefer to pay them, to a great extent, in cheap wine. That is the reason. If a stop were put to that you would not see drunkenness to any great extent in the Western Province. I also extend an invitation to the hon. member for Pietersburg and any other hon. member who would like to see some of the homes and the conditions under which our coloured people are living in the Western Province to-day, and they would be very agreeably surprised.

I wish to refer to several points in connection with this vote. The first is the question of probation officers. I submit the number is inadequate. Probation officers should be appointed in all centres where the amount of work justifies an appointment. The important function of the probation officer is preventive work, and he should keep in touch with young people who show a tendency towards delinquency and endeavour to check that tendency. This actually formed part of his duties until 1927, when the Department of Prisons, under whom these officials function, issued instructions that the probation officers were no longer to perform that work. I think that that is calamitous. They come into contact with the delinquent only at the prison gate now. I remember in my student days at Edinburgh that I used to watch the drunks on a Saturday night. At 11 o’clock there was usually a drunk at every street corner with here and there a policeman watching. The policeman could not touch the man until he fell, and when he fell he at once arrested him. It is wrong that we should wait for our youths to fall, it is wrong that nothing can be done for them until they have actually fallen. It is important that the officers should come into touch with these youths and should try to help them before they fall. Under the present system the probation officer is an official of the Prisons Department, but I consider that he would be much more suitably employed as an official of the Department of Justice, so that he would be able to take his share in social measures. The probation officer used to perform other important duties which have been taken away from him. In Johannesburg we have a man who some years ago proved himself most efficient in extracting fees from defaulting husbands against whom orders had been made for maintenance. In one year he increased the amount so collected from round about £2,000 to £12,000 or £15,000. Surely, that is a tremendous achievement in the interest of everyone concerned, the mothers, the State and the children. But that was stopped and he was ordered to discontinue that work. That should be rectified. A great deal can be done in securing the collection of grants in this way by suitable officials. Again the probation officer is limited in his duties to juveniles who come from reformatories. He is not allowed to deal with juveniles coming from certified institutions, industrial schools. Yet these children need after-care. The boy is sent to an excellent industrial school and he is moulded into a useful citizen; he comes back to his old surroundings, gets into his old ways and often finishes up a criminal, and all the good work is undone. A great deal of this could be prevented if the probation officer were given the right to deal with such cases. Now I want to refer to hostels. In South Africa we have four hostels for the reception of committed children, as a sort of alternative to reformatories. The results of the work done by these hostels are very good. The percentage of boys and girls who make good after having been to the hostels is very satisfactory, while the number who make good after leaving reformatories is relatively low. We cannot do without reformatories, but if the system of hostels were developed, and the expenses not too big, the need for reformatories would become less. If reformatories must be maintained, and I am afraid they must, may I plead with the Minister to devise some change of name which will not stigmatize the child, because to say that a youth has been to a reformatory to-day very often stigmatizes him through his after life.

If I correctly understood the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. R. J. du Toit), then his contention was that the drunkenness among the coloured people is attributed to the farmers. If I may be allowed to say so, I should like to tell him that he knows as little about this as a cat knows about the bible. The farmer is not responsible for drunkenness among the coloured people. The coloured people on a Saturday come to town and a few of them, possibly, may go to excess, and then it is said that all the coloured people are drunkards. That is not the case, and even less can the amount of drunkenness that does exist be attributed to the farmer. The drunkenness which one comes across in a place like Cape Town is attributable to the unprecedented influx of natives to this part of the country.

I had not intended taking part in this debate, but when I listen to hon. members talking about matters of which they know nothing at all, it makes me think of the man who reads scripture without understanding a word of what he is reading. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. R. J. du Toit) said that it was the farmers who are responsible for drunkenness among people. That is not so. It is not the wine farmer who is the cause of that drunkenness. Even if we were to cut down all the vineyards it would not put an end to drunkenness, in fact it might even increase it. Where does one meet with more drunkenness than in Scotland, and yet they have no vineyards there? One cannot prevent people from getting drunk, and it certainly is not the wine farmer who causes them to get drunk. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) said that a coloured man does not work on a Saturday morning. It will not improve the position to shut up the canteens on a Saturday morning, because if you shut up the canteens on a Saturday they won’t work on a Friday, and if you close them on a Friday they will stop work on a Thursday. The wine farmers have nothing to do with it. It is a matter for the licensing courts. We manufacture the liquor, but we do not want people to get drunk. There is no section which is more opposed to drunkenness than the wine farmer. I personally am also opposed to the employment of convict labour. I am a farmer, and a working farmer at that, and I am not merely a person who represents a farming constituency. I have never yet had any difficulty in getting people to come and do my work.

Why not?

For the simple reason that I pay them. The farmers of Constantia want to get cheap labour, and for that reason they go to the magistrate’s office to engage people at 1s. per day. I pay my people 2s. 6d. per day. I consider that it is wrong on the part of farmers here to employ convicts. Let them employ the people of the Cape Peninsula. There are a great many unemployed. I had some trouble with the Minister of Labour only the other day, because he gave us the right to take on 200 people, and the labour office next refused to pay us the subsidy because we employed 300. Fortunately matters were put right, but all this tends to show that there are unemployed. The people are available and there is no need for the farmers of Constantia to requisition for convicts.

As we are engaged in dealing with the subject of drunkenness, I hope that the committee will give me the opportunity of saying a few words in view of the fact that I represent a wine-producing constituency. I want to start off by saying that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) spoke a lot of nonsense. Although I am aware of the fact that he knows quite a great deal about other matters, it would appear to me, judging by what he said here, that he had a very defective knowledge of the matter on which he spoke. The position is simply this. My thoughts go back to what took place in the House of Assembly in 1905, when Sir Meiring Beck tried to force a Bill through in connection with liquor licences for light wine.

The hon. member is getting rather far away from the subject.

All this is in connection with drunkenness, and drunkenness is the cause of people becoming convicts. Sir Meiring Beck said, on that occasion, that his experience had shown him that there was hardly any drunkenness in France, in spite of the fact that the licences for the sale of liquor there were practically unrestricted. When, however, he was back in London, where the sale of liquor was restricted, he came across drunkenness at the corner of every street. May I be allowed, in this connection, to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that in England there are no bastards such as those he referred to here last night. There are no coloured people there, and it was the white people who were drunk there. Drunkenness in South Africa is not confined to the coloured population. It is a weakness among all sections of the population, but it may be more conspicuous among the coloured people because of the fact that they do not possess the conveniences to secure liquor which the whites have. I now wish to come back to Sir Meiring Beck’s experiences. When he made that remark to which I referred, Mr. Brand of Port Elizabeth said that he was not convinced that Sir Meiring’s conclusion was correct, as Sir Meiring, when in France, might have been in better company than when he was in England.

What has that to do with the vote before the committee?

My contention is that drunkenness is caused by too many restrictions.

I wish to remind the committee of the fact that we are engaged in dealing with the vote, “Prisons and Reformatories.”

The hon. member who referred to certain non-Europeans last night, as “hottentots and bastards,” does not seem to realize in what respect his remarks have givenoffence. We do not deny that there are some backsliders among the non-Europeans as there are also among Europeans, but what the hon. member does not realize is that it is hopeless as a public man to try and besmirch a whole race because of the misdeeds of a few members of that race. The hon. member referred to them last night as “hottentots and bastards.” No self-respecting man should refer to the non-European in opprobrious language of this kind— either inside or outside the House. There are many thousands of non-Europeans who do not touch liquor in any shape or form, and neither have their fathers nor forefathers. Some of these people occupy most responsible positions. Is it right to talk about the whole of this population as “hottentots and bastards”? The hon. member should be more guarded in talking in such an insulting way about members of a race who are quite as intelligent and respectable as other people are. With regard to the illicit liquor traffic, the Government might very well devote more attention to it. The evil arises not from respectable licensed houses but from shebeens. I ask that attention should also be paid to the number of private individuals who have been in the habit of employing convicts for purely private purposes—householders in suburban areas for instance on their gardens. The Minister did not deal with that point in his reply. Is the Government going to allow a private individual to hire convicts to attend to his garden? I ask the Minister to tell us if this evil is confined to non-Europeans, or are white convicts hired out in this way too? It is a very serious problem, do not let us try to minimize it. The whole social life of the country depends on the extent to which convict labour is to be employed in competition with free labour. If the employment of convict labour is to become the rule rather than the exception, the whole of our civilization will go under. It is a very serious matter, and the Minister should remember what took place in Australia and Tasmania until the populations of those countries swept out the system of importation of convicts from over the seas. Unless the employment of convict labour in the Union is kept in check, it will increase until finally it becomes a very bad cancer in the body politic.

All hon. members representing wine-farming constituencies, have now given their views regarding drunkenness.

Oh, no.

With regard to the employment of convict labour, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what I have said on the subject, although I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) did not quite follow all the remarks I previously made on the matter. I tried to deal with the subject in its general bearings, and emphasized the fact that the total number of convicts hired out in the Cape Peninsula was under 300, so the matter was not so serious as the hon. member believed. The hon. member has raised the general question of the employment of convicts by private individuals. Certainly, private individuals are allowed to employ convict labour, but I told the committee before that the department attempts, as far as possible, only to use convict labour where it will not have a detrimental effect on the employment of free labour. I myself in Pretoria, but for one day only, had a gang of convict labourers in my garden, but if I had not employed them I would not have employed free labour. I think he will find on investigation that in nearly every case where such employment takes place, if such convicts were not employed there would be no opening for free labour as a result. The hon. member asks whether European convicts are employed in this way. The answer I am told is in the negative; they are not so employed. I want again to give the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) the assurance that I shall ask the Acting Minister to go into the matter, and in that connection I think it would be useful if the hon. member will supply the facts to which he referred with regard to free labour being displaced by convict labour.

Within the last yaer.

I am asking the hon. member to give those facts to the Acting Minister when he arrives. The question of reformatories has been raised by the hon. member for Rosettenvile (Dr. Baumann), and while it was raised merely from the point of view of the name, the matter goes deeper than that. The question has been raised whether the reformatories should be administered by the Department of Prisons, and from time to time the suggestion has been offered, in one case by a commission of which I was a member, that some change should be made in that regard. I want to say to the hon. member that I am personally very fully in accord with his view that we should do what we can to remove the badge which to-day attaches to the inmate who has come out of a reformatory; but I think we should be able to go further, and I want to say that it is proposed, after the return of the hon. the Minister of Justice from overseas, that the whole question of the transfer of the reformatories to the Department of Education will he gone into. The hon. member also raised the question of juvenile hostels. I think I can say that the Department of Justice and the Department of Prisons have done quite a good deal in this direction. There are three such institutions in Johannesburg, in the Cape Peninsula, I believe, there are two, and near to Durban there is one at Pinetown. These institutions are not departmental institutions. They are run by private organizations, but with subsidies under the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The department is satisfied with the work being done there. There is a good deal of useful reclamation work being done there, and the department is always willing to consider any proposal which may be put forward by private organizations for the establishment of institutions of the kind. The hon. member further raised the question of probation officers. As the estimates show, we have actually eleven probation officers on our establishment, and they are stationed at the big centres such as Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban. The hon. member suggests that their work falls more appropriately under the Department of Justice than under the Department of Prisons. There is something to he said for that contention, but at least as a matter of administrative convenience it is desirable that the present position should be maintained. The first task of these officers is to prevent a relapse into crime, but I can assure the hon. member that their actual duties are not confined to that work, and that they do investigation work for the courts as well. Again, I want to repeat that in the financial circumstances which prevail, it will be quite impossible to consider any expansion in the number of such officials.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Police,” £2,380,500,

I should like to say a few words in connection with the vote “Police.” In the border districts we have a somewhat peculiar state of affairs. My constituency, for instance, extends for a distance of about 120 miles along the Basutoland border, and the position there is definitely unsatisfactory in so far as police matters are concerned. I was pleased to see that the Commissioner of Police, in his report, admits that we have insufficient police, and that he will try to bring about improvements in this regard. I welcome this statement, especially in view of the fact that we realize what the position is in the border districts. Hon. members may possibly ask why an increase of police is required particularly in the border districts. The public, in those areas, have to cope with conditions which people in the districts of the interior do not suffer from. It is quite easy to come into the district from another area, to commit a theft, and then to disappear again over the border, and it is very difficult for the police to apprehend such offenders. Time after time the farmers have instructed me at meetings and at congresses of the Agricultural Union, to approach the Government with a request for more police. I want to express the hope that the Minister and the Commissioner of Police, when the time comes when they will increase the number of police, will hear in mind the situation in the border districts, as those districts need an increase in their police very much more than the districts in the interior. I want to give the House the assurance that the people living in those areas experience many difficulties, and that they are continually complaining of an insufficiency of police protection. Then there is another point I wish to refer to. In those districts we have native constables going about on bicycles. The farmers are amused at it being expected that those police should travel over mountains and kopjes with their bicycles. It often occurs that they have to leave their bicycle by the roadside and continue far on foot to the native huts if they have to apprehend a criminal or do other duty. They cannot perform their duties when they are hampered by a bicycle. That sort of thing is quite impossible in the mountainous areas of the eastern Free State, and it would be much better to provide the police in those outlying districts with horses. I hope that an alteration of that kind will soon be effected.

I should also like to be allowed to say a few words in connection with the border police. The condition of affairs depicted by the previous speaker, also applies to the Swaziland border. In the Barberton district, the farmers are experiencing difficulties, particularly owing to the proximity of the game reserve, as a result of which it is rendered quite easy for criminals to get away. I trust that the authorities will give their attention to this matter. There is a further matter which I wish to raise, and that is that members of the police should receive more protection from the magistrates when cases are heard in reference to assaults by natives on policemen. It is almost a daily occurrence that the police, when a person has to be arrested, are set upon by natives, and the assailants when brought before the courts are let off with a light punishment. As hon. members know, the police are not entitled to make an indiscriminate use of the arms which they may be carrying. It is quite true that a constable may be carrying a revolver, but he is not permitted lightly to make use of that weapon. Natives attack the police and often inflict serious injury, and they should be made to realize that the police are there to maintain law and order, and that if they are attacked, the assailants will be severely punished. Another point I wish to raise is that civil servants and persons in the railway and harbour services stationed in fever areas should get one uniform climatic allowance. Members of the civil service are paid such an allowance according to one scale, while railway servants are paid according to a different scale, but the lowest scale of all is that of the police. That surely is not fair, as the members of the police force do not have ordinary office hours, they do not have to attend to their duties merely during day-time, when the malaria danger is less than it is at other times, they have to work day and night. Particularly when they are stationed in the game reserve or on the Lebombo Flats it is unreasonable that they should be paid a lower allowance than that which is paid to other officials. This state of affairs is most unreasonable and I want to ask the Minister to see to it that it shall be changed as soon as possible.

Some hon. members have raised the point of police shortage in their districts. I would like to raise the point of the general shortage of police through the Union as disclosed in the report of the Commissioner of Police, and to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to take notice of that report and to provide the facilities which are mentioned therein as necessary. There is no question that to-day we have one of the most efficient police forces you can have, and the men are trained admirably. The country can be congratulated on the stamp of man obtained for the force, and on the training these men receive. In times of depression it must be remembered there is also more lawlessness than in a time of prosperity, and that is evidenced by the serious number of assaults which have taken place recently. This makes the work of the police difficult, when they are shorthanded and are called upon to undertake duties in sparsely-populated areas. Take the Cape Peninsula itself; I was advised not to take a certain road in the evening, a road which is practically within one mile of the centre of Cape Town itself, because of its danger after nightfall. You have the very serious case of assault which took place the other evening. One realizes it is impossible for the police to be everywhere; but it does disclose a serious state of affairs when you consider that the police requirements are below what are required for the safety of the population. I would ask the Minister whether the Government will very seriously consider the report which has been made, and endeavour during the next few months to increase the force to such numbers as to provide that security which the commissioner and his officers consider to be necessary.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to a matter which is attracting a great deal of notice in the rural areas. I am referring to the kind of thing that has been happening here in Cape Town. Gangs of five or six coloured men roam about here—all with razors in their pockets, and if the police try to arrest them, those coloured men attack them and cut them to ribbons. The policeman so dealt with may be the son of people living in the rural districts, and when his parents get to hear of him he may be lying in the Somerset Hospital. The coloured men are brought before the magistrate and get off with a light sentence. The excuse is given that they were drunk, although to attack a person with a knife and to inflict injuries with a knife is nearly as serious a crime as the commission of a murder. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that, if necessary, the law shall be made more severe, so that it will be possible to inflict heavy sentences on persons committing crimes of that nature.

I should like to be allowed to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of the purchase of remounts for the police. My constituency is one of the few areas left where horse breeding is still carried on, and every year difficulties are experienced about the purchase of horses. The question has been raised repeatedly at the congress of the Northern Agricultural Union at Kimberley. A resolution is passed and is sent on to the Minister, and at that the matter is left. Nothing further is done. Experience has taught us that there are certain people who have influence with the commissioners and with those people who purchase the horses, and they receive preference. The result is that the farmer has to go to the middleman with his horses. There he is paid £10 or £15 for his horse, while the middleman possibly gets as much as £30. It takes the farmer four years to supply that horse. He studies the whole matter and lays himself out to breed the type of horse needed by the police. We hope that some change will be made in regard to this matter. I realize that it is easy to criticise, but I also want to make a suggestion. The present position can easily be remedied if early notice is given to the magistrate of the district, giving the date when the representatives of the police will be in attendance to buy horses, so that the farmers will be able to be there with their horses. There is another difficulty as well. The police may possibly intimate for a period of two years that they require a certain type of horse. The farmer will breed that particular type, and when he has prepared the horse for the market, the police will require another type. That is wrong. A definite standard should be laid down, so that the farmer may be able to know what is required, and if he supplies that type of animal, the police should be obliged to buy from him. The main point, however, is that centres should be fixed for the sale of remounts and that no underhand work should take place.

I want to say a few words in connection with the provincial administration of the Transvaal with a view to certain assistance being rendered by the police. I am aware of the difficulties that face the provincial administration in connection with the collection of certain taxes. They are charged with the eradication of weeds, they levy a wheel-tax and in addition there is the dog tax. Members of the police are not made available for the performance of those duties. Take the eradication of weeds. In the wool districts in the eastern parts of the Transvaal weeds are on the increase. Only recently I came across the real xanthium spinosa within 50 yeards of a police post. The administration furthermore has to take steps to see to it that the motor tax is collected. We know that the police set aside one day in every year to have a “seen” day. If an arrangement could be made to render available a policeman for every district, who would be paid by the administration to see to it that weeds are eradicated and that the dog tax and the motor tax are collected, the Transvaal administration would not merely get in a lot more money by those means, but it would also be in the interest of farming because weeds would be eradicated. I am of the opinion that the Minister should give his consideration to this matter, and, if necessary, he might give instructions to the provincial commission to go into the question of whether such steps would be practicable.

It is my duty in connection with this matter to defend the interests of my constituency, and to ask that farmers shall be protected from stock thefts. My constituency on the one side adjoins that of the Prime Minister and partly adjoins Basutoland. Some time ago the police posts on the Basutoland border and on the border of the district of Herschel were abolished. Repeated applications have been made for those police posts to be re-established. These requests have not been complied with and I wish to express the hope that the Minister will consider the question of doing so now. The natives have become accustomed to the fact of there not being any police to guard the borders. There is a drought and the river is dry, so that it is quite easy for them to pass the stock along to Herschel or to Basutoland. Only recently one of our young farmers was knocked senseless by natives who had stolen his stock. The farmers of my constituency have sent a petition to the Minister and they have threatened to take the law into their own hands and to fire at the thieves. It has been the custom of late to deport criminals to Basutoland if they are Basutos. They are handed over to their chiefs, but within a few weeks they are again caught in the Free State. These people in point of fact are ordinary criminals and they come there to rob us. It is the experience of the farmer that if he goes to report that one or two of his sheep are missing, he meets with a great deal more inconvenience than he is prepared to put up with. If sheep have once entered Basutoland or Herschel, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack to try and find them. We feel that we have a strong case when we ask for more police on the borders to protect us against stock thefts.

I wish to direct the Minister’s attention to item N, “Medical Services.” I understand from the police that a distinction is made between old members of the force and those new members who have joined up after a fixed date, in regard to the privileges under this heading. I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to the question whether new members of the force cannot be granted the same rights and privileges as old members. I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister that where such a distinction is made as between old and new members, it may give rise to dissatisfaction. It is absolutely essential that we should have as much contentment as possible in a service of this nature, where people have to carry out their duties to the State under great difficulties. For that reason we wish to see as much contentment as possible. In the event, therefore, of new entrants to the service not enjoying the same privileges as the old entrants, in regard to medical services, I consider that they are suffering a hardship. I should like to hear from the Minister what he considers that he can do in the matter.

I want to support the application of the commissioner for an increased number of police. The Cape Province is not the only province in South Africa where this want is sadly felt. It is also very apparent in Natal. I want to give the police force full marks for the efficiency which they have shown in recent years in regard to the urban areas in stamping out the curse of Amaleita gangs; but there is a limit to the work which the police can do. There is no doubt that through the economic depression crime has been on the increase. I hope in this connection that when recruitment is taking place—and it must take place because the police force as at present constituted is insufficient for the work it has to do—consideration will be given to the young fellows in Natal who are Zulu linguists. It is a great handicap to a policeman in Natal if he has to depend on an interpreter. I say it is essential in Natal that a policeman should have a knowledge of the Zulu language. In the old days a policeman got 1s. per day for qualification in languages. Why not bring that into vogue now? I hope this appeal of the commissioner will be listened to and given effect to, because it is very necessary. I may say that in the urban areas of Natal it is unsafe to go about at night time in outlying areas because of the insufficient number of police. It is imperative that the appeal of the commissioner should be acted upon by the Government.

I also want to support the appeal made in this matter and I particularly want to draw the attention of the Minister to the lack of police supervision in the southern suburbs of Johannesburg. Burglaries there occur far too frequently for the liking of the people residing in that district and it is also unsafe to leave a motor car in the streets. The illicit liquor traffic is carried on on a wholesale scale and drunken natives can be seen, not by the score, but almost by the hundred, every week-end. I hope the Minister will rectify that state of affairs at the earliest moment. Recently people made an attempt to take the law into their own hands, a very undesirable thing indeed.

I want to support the requests that have been made by hon. members for an increase in the police force in various areas, and particularly so in the areas bordering on native territories or surrounded by natives. As far as my constituency is concerned, I have had communications from numerous bodies asking me to urge for increased police protection in those parts. At present the police force there is quite inadequate to deal with cases of stock theft and other offences, although in normal circumstances the number of men available may be almost sufficient. In existing circumstances, there has been an increase in these offences, probably owing to the fact that natives have been feeling the pinch owing to the shortage of food. The position is, that in many cases we have thefts being committed, not of single animals, not of one or two sheep, but of large numbers of sheep and stock which are taken away and then easily distributed throughout the native areas. It is very difficult to trace such stock, especially when reports of cases of that kind are investigated late. When reports are made the trouble is, that there are too few men available to take up the investigations. I happened to be in a police station, in connection with my election campaign, recently, and I was told that in one day six reports of stock theft had been received. That shows the need for increased police protection in those areas.

I am anxious to bring one matter to the notice of the Minister, and that is the case of those far-flung parts, especially of the north-west. I have my own constituency in my mind, and I take the district of Van-wyksvlei. The difficulty there is that the police have to perform patrol duties with their horses. Whereas other hon. members have complained that they have not got enough horses, the difficulty here is that people cannot get food for their horses. In addition it often happens that water is so scarce that the horses have to go thirsty. I want to suggest that motorcycles should be supplied to the police, so that the patrol work may be carried out much more expeditiously and much more effectively.

I want to raise the important question of police trials under the Act, and I want to point out to the Acting Deputy-Minister that the question of police trials is causing a lot of concern and dissatisfaction among members of the police force in general. I hope that the deputy Minister will convey what I have to say to the Minister of Justice, and that he will try to remedy the existing state of affairs. At present we find that, as the court is constituted, members of the police force are tried by an officer who, perhaps, has just been promoted, and who has to follow the procedure of the magistrate’s court, which, as my legal friends will agree, is very complicated, so much so, that experienced legal men some times find it difficult to comply with all the rules. If that is so, then you can hardly expect that officer, who has had no legal training, to administer justice in a proper way under the Act. What we suggest is, that, seeing that these trials very considerably affect these men in their various positions, some different method should be laid down, because it is not when they are found guilty and have to pay a small fine that they are affected, but when a man is found guilty and has his increment withheld, and when it also affects his promotion in the service in the future, then it is a different matter. Therefore, members of this House will agree with me that a trial of a policeman is of the utmost importance to such a man, and it is not in his interest that his immediate officer, who may be the complainant, should also sit as his judge and should, as often happens, also be the prosecutor. I do not say that a policeman does not receive fair treatment or justice, but in his mind he is not convinced, often, that he received that justice which he is entitled to receive as an honourable member of an honourable force. Let me say at once that we can justly be proud of the police force of the Union of South Africa, under our able commissioner, who has done so well in the past. But we do feel that the procedure should be altered, and that the court should be differently constituted. In order to save money, it would perhaps be advisable to appoint a special judge, or a special officer, to adjudge matters in a big town, where you have more frequent cases than in smaller towns. But in the smaller towns, it can easily be done by the magistrate of the district, and I can assure the House that it will give considerable satisfaction if such a procedure is adopted, and that can easily be done by the introduction of a small amending Bill, so that a special man may be appointed to try these cases, a man unconnected with the police force, or at any rate unconnected with the facts in respect of which these men are tried. It is an element of justice that anyone who tries a case should at any rate not be prejudiced or know anything about the facts. That is where the police force feel that they have a grievance, and if that grievance is removed, it will give satisfaction to a very honourable force, and therefore I press upon the Minister to make such recommendations to the Minister of Justice as may remedy the state of affairs existing at present.

I should like to be allowed to say a few words in connection with the condition of the police stations in rural areas. At those posts there are insufficient policemen to enable them properly to control their area. One finds two or three constables who have to control an area of from 40 to 50 miles, with the result that they cannot exercise proper supervision and that a great many sheep are stolen. I want to ask the Minister to provide for a larger number of police to be attached to the police posts in rural areas. A further improvement would be effected if the police posts in rural areas were to be supplied with motorcycles. The use of motorcycles would enable the police, if a report were received of the theft of sheep at a spot 40 or 50 miles away, to trace the thief very much more quickly than is the case now. I, therefore, wish to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to provide more police in the rural areas and to provide those outlying posts with one or two motorcycles so that they will be better able to control their area.

When I rose here last night to speak a few words about the difficulties on the diggings, you ruled that this was a matter which did riot fall under justice, but that I should rather raise it under police. I submitted to your ruling and did not go on to say what I wished to say. The acting Minister of Justice, however, thought it necessary to reply to the few words I had said, and his reply was consequently fairly incomplete. The difficulty which we are experiencing is that the natives are trading in the locations, which they are not entitled to do as they do not have licences. I did not attach any blame to the licensing officials, but expressed the view that the police should step in. A further grievance is that the provisions of the pass laws are a dead letter on the diggings, especially as regards the taking out of passes and the ordinary registration of native labour. A further grievance is that a fairly large number of natives live on the diggings without paying their poll tax. The people further complain that the rounding up of natives, which used to take place in the past, has been discontinued, with the result that vagrants and possibly criminals now regard the locations as places of safe refuge. I do not know whether instructions were issued that this should be discontinued, or whether this is due to the fact that the police on the diggings are below strength. If such is the case on the diggings, it is not the case in the town of Lichtenburg, where the opinion prevails that there are far too many policemen there, who are carrying out the municipal regulations so strictly that they upset the public. I want to emphasize that a stop should be set to criminals and vagrants being enabled to stay in the locations and also to the illicit selling of liquor which prevails there. I must say that the officer in charge of the police on the diggings and the police themselves always do their very best, and I do not desire to blame them, but I understand that these round-ups have been set a stop to with the undesirable results which I have referred to. I hope that this state of affairs will be ended.

Does the Acting Minister of Justice agree with the policy of employing police to work motor speed traps in urban centres? Speed traps are absolutely obsolete. They are a survival of the days when the motor car had to be proceeded by a man carrying a red flag. To employ men on this task in these progressive days, when the Commissioner of Police is calling out for 500 additional men, strikes me as being absurd. What is even more absurd is for a man to be convicted for travelling at 32 miles an hour when the legal speed limit is 30 miles an hour. It is impossible to secure sufficiently accurate timing over a short distance to determine whether a motorist is travelling at 32 miles or 30 miles an hour. Only this morning I was deprived of £3 of my hard-earned parliamentary allowance for speeding. I think the police should not be used to carry out the trapping system, which has been declared obsolete all over the world.

I wish to add my voice to the plea for more police protection for the Border districts, particularly all along the Kei River from Queenstown to Komgha. On account of the drought, and of the great scarcity of food, the farmers feel that unless the police are increased there is a risk of a considerable increase in stock theft and also petty thefts of foodstuffs. Much as we appreciate the type of policeman stationed along the Border—and I can speak with the greatest praise of the efficiency of the police in our areas—it is most desirable that the men should be acquainted with the native language. The farmers find that the best policemen are those acquainted with the language of the native, as then it is far easier for the police to detect crime and to arrest the offenders. I can anticipate the Minister’s reply—he will raise the question of funds, but I think the time has come very seriously to consider whether a man is a policeman and not a tax collector, census officer, registration officer, dog tax collector, and in many instances is also expected to count the farmer’s sheep when a farmer has reported the loss of stock. The members of the force will have to be increased enormously if the additional duties to which I have referred are thrown on the police. It costs a considerableamount to train an efficient policeman, and he should be engaged purely and simply on police work.

I also wish to bring the question of the purchase of horses to the notice of the Minister. Tremendous difficulties are experienced in connection with this matter. One improvement has been effected, namefy, that a farmer has been appointed to the purchasing committee. Our difficulty, however, is that we who live in the north have to take our horses to Kimberley so that they may there be examined for purchase by the committee. This means that the farmer from Bechuanaland has to take his horses in over a distance of 150 miles. It would be much cheaper if the police were to come up to Vryburg, Kuruman and Mafeking, and were to buy the horses there that are required for that particular area. To-day it may happen that a farmer takes in a horse over a distance of 150 miles. The horse is purchased and then it is sent back again to be used in those very areas where it has come from. We know that those parts of the country are under quarantine at the moment and that the borders are being guarded. Practically all the police horses have been taken there. It would be much better if the horses that are available there were bought there. It would be more convenient for the department and also for the farmers if the business were conducted on that basis.

I desire to associate myself with what was said here by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). There are a few other points which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in respect of which I consider relief can be given to the police. When the members of the police force are off duty, they are expected to remain at their homes. If they desire to go out on a Saturday, they are obliged first of all to inform the officer commanding their area, so that he may be in a position to know where they are. I can well understand that this might be necessary in times of stress when difficulties may be expected, but in ordinary times I consider that members of the police should be allowed to go where they like without it being incumbent upon them to give notice of this nature. I further learn that older members of the force find it difficult to undertake all the kind of physical exercises that are expected of them and the younger members of the force at the training courses which they have to undergo from time to time. Those men may have had a long experience. I hope that the Minister and the commissioner will give serious consideration to these matters which I have raised.

I would like to support the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Raubenheimer) when he referred to the case of a young man who had just joined the service who received medical attention for himself and not for his family. That is a real hardship. There is another matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister, I would like to ask the Minister what system is adopted with regard to promotions. Is it possible for officers from the non-commissioned ranks to be promoted to the commissioned ranks? It appears to me that we have some very sound men among the non-commissioned officers to-day who could very well be allowed to sit for examinations in order that they might obtain commissions.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) said, a few minutes ago, that when he was wandering in a certain quarter of the city, he was told it was not safe to be there. I was wondering what the hon. member was doing in district 6. I appreciate what the Government is doing in reducing expenditure where they can, but while I appreciate their motive, I hope they won’t continue to reduce the police force. We all know what has happened in the Cape Peninsula, and at Camps Bay recently, and we were all shocked on opening our newspapers last night to see what has happened at Rondebosch. Some of my constituents wanted to come in and storm the prison last night, and I can assure the Government that if that sort of outrage happens again, something of the kind will occur. I want to know whether we cannot also have coloured police. You must always set a thief to catch a thief. In that way we can always get to the bottom of things. Coloured police would know where Piet lives and where Maria lives, and they would be able to catch delinquents where white men cannot. I hope the Government will go into the matter and give it their favourable consideration.

Quite a number of matters were raised here to-day to which I wish to reply. One of those matters is the statement that we have too few police at present. I am very pleased, however, that practically all members who have raised this subject have admitted that our police do excellent work. I think we may appreciate the attitude which hon. members adopt on this question. We as the Government are prepared to admit that the police have during the past few years had to perform their duties in very difficult circumstances. The Commissioner of Police, as was stated here, has often emphasized the fact that it is essential that the police force should be extended, and I may say at this stage that the position to-day is this, that there are less police in the Union now than there were twelve years ago, in spite of the fact that our population has increased. It is true that we have a larger number of European policemen to-day than we had ten years ago, but if we take into account our total numbers, Europeans as well as non-Europeans, we find a reduction over the course of the last twelve years. We must therefore recognize the fact that our police force has had to cope with very difficult conditions of late years. These difficulties have been greatly added to during the past few months, owing to considerable additional duties having been imposed on the police as a result of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. I imagine that hon. members will appreciate the fact that this has tended greatly to add to the difficulties of our police force. At the moment our police have to guard practically the whole of our border of South-West Africa along the Malopo on to the Limpopo at Beit Bridge. At the moment there are about 90 police posts which have been established with the sole object of coping with foot and mouth disease. I imagine that hon. members will realize that this has, to a large extent, placed obstacles in the way of the work to be done by the police force. I also wish to avail myself of this opportunity to say that the class of work done by the police in connection with foot and mouth disease is very high and is being greatly appreciated. We must further realize that the special services that are being rendered by the police force must, to a certain extent, at any rate, handicap the police services in other parts of the Union. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) referred to the round-ups which in the past used to take place in his district, and which have now been discontinued. These round-ups have been discontinued only temporarily as the services of the police had to be utilized elsewhere in connection with foot and mouth disease. Mention was also made of the position along the Basutoland border of the Free State. It is undoubtedly correct that as I believe was said by the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. J. C. de Wet) quite a number of police stations were closed down there during the past year. In those territories there used to be quite a number of one-man posts, but the department come to the conclusion that those one-man posts were unsatisfactory, and for that reason they decided to shut them down. It is especially those parts of the Free State which suffer from that decision. I think I can give the assurance that when the time comes, and I am convinced that that lime will come soon, when the police force will be increased, the special circumstances there will be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) more particularly referred to the police posts along the Kruger Game Reserve. I may inform him that the police force there, during the winter, maintains three regular motor patrols, which do quite a good deal in that direction.

We also need it in summer.

That is a matter which the department will look into. I want to revert to the point that the police have been working in particularly difficult circumstances during the past two years. It is unquestionably correct that the subject of the increase of the force must be carefully gone into, and I may say that the Minister of Justice will consider that matter as soon as possible after his return from Europe. It is very difficult to do anything this year, but I hope we shall be able to meet the requirements of the country in the estimates of next year. Next there are a few points which have been raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) raised the question of members of the native police whose only means of transport consisted of a bicycle. This does not apply to the Free State only, but also to the Transvaal, and that, in the main, is again a question of finance. It will involve quite a good deal of additional expenditure to provide horse transport, and for that reason we have no alternative at the moment. Several members have raised the question of the purchase of remounts. As regards the remarks made by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Raubenheimer) I am under the impression that there is some confusion in his mind. He was more particularly thinking of the method employed by the department of defence more so than by the police department. It undoubtedly is the custom of the police to inspect a horse on the farm itself, or at the nearest police station. As regards the question in general, I wish to point out that the average number of remounts purchased every year does not greatly exceed 230. Consequently there is no great opportunity of selling horses to the department itself, and this fact possibly may add to the disappointment to which expression is given sometimes in this House. The hon. member for Hopetown (Mr. Theron) said that farmers are not always informed of the class of horse which the department wishes to buy. As regards this matter, there has been no change in the policy in the last ten years, and farmers therefore know quite well what the department is still wanting. He also stated that notice should be given of the department’s requirements. It is the custom for the department to give notice of this I have a copy here of such a notice of the department in the “Government Gazette.” In this notice the requirements of the department are explicitly stated. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) also raised the question of climatic allowances. In reply to that question, I can only say that climatic allowances are regulated by the Public Service Commission. I was not aware of the fact that climatic allowances of the police were lower than those of other civil servants, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that this question will be looked into. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. L. M. Wentzel) touched on the subject of the purchase of motor vehicles. In reply to that I wish to say that we purchased 36 motor cycles recently for use on the countryside. The department realizes that the purchase of those cycles has had a very good effect in increasing the effectiveness of the police force. Here, however, we are again face to face with the financial question. Each machine of that kind costs £100, and we are not in possession of the necessary funds for such expenditure, although it is hoped that we shall be placed in the position of having such funds in the future. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Mr. Haywood) raised the question of exercises prescribed for the police. I can say that those exercises are based on the advice of medical men who serve the department with their medical knowledge and advice.

†Various hon. members have referred to the question of the shortage of police, and here perhaps I may give the figures on which the commissioner of police has based the statement made by him in this connection in his report. The authorized establishment of the police force in 1920 was 10,502. At that time the total population of the Union was just over 6,000,000. At the present moment the authorized establishment of the police force is 9,882, and the population of the Union is about 8,300,000. In other words, while the population of the Union has increased by 2,000,000, the establishment of the police force has actually decreased by about 600. Of course, it is only fair to say that this decrease virtually represents the replacement of 1,000 natives by 250 Europeans, from whom it is expected to get equally efficient service; but the fact remains that we have had no increase in the numbers of our police force, although there has been a considerable increase in the population of the Union; and undoubtedly it is also the case that that has made the work of the police department very difficult indeed in recent years. The matter, of course, is one that will receive special consideration on the part of the Minister of Justice, and I understand it is his intention to raise it immediately after his return from Europe. But nothing can be done, I am afraid, as far as these present estimates are concerned; the expansion of the force will receive consideration in the framing of next year’s estimates. In the meantime, we must wait for that rather than take the advice of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure), that we should set thieves to catch thieves. I am glad that various hon. members who have spoken—the hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) and other hon. members—have gone out of their way to pay their tributes to the efficiency of the police force. I think we can congratulate ourselves on the work done by them under difficult circumstances, especially in recent years, and we can appreciate the special difficulties under which the force is working at the present moment and the special demands which are made upon it to combat foot and mouth disease on the border. We have 94 police posts scattered along our northern borders, and the various units have carried out their work very efficiently under great difficulties. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) raised in this connection a matter of some little importance. He took the view that a policeman is a policeman and nothing else, and that he should be confined purely to police duties. Well, as far as the department of police is concerned, it has done a great deal to give effect to views on the lines of the hon. member’s contention. Perhaps, in the opinion of some of us, the department may have gone a bit too far in that direction. After all, the hon. member will appreciate the point when I say that a policeman is also part of the civil administration of the country, and just as you cannot confine a magistrate to work only on the bench, you have to face the fact that, to some extent, you must be able to call upon the policeman to do work other than maintaining justice and preserving law and order. Just how far you should go in that regard is another matter. The hon. member for Cathcart and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) raised the question of language qualifications, as far as policemen in native areas are concerned. Well, I can assure hon. members that the department is particularly anxious to get native linguists for appointment to the police force in the areas concerned. This has not always been easy. It has not always been easy to obtain persons who are qualified in Zulu and who also possess the other qualifications that are required. The commissioner has in fact rather strained the other qualifications in order to get such qualified linguists. I think I may say that the department fully appreciates the necessity of advancing in that direction, and will do what it can to meet these requests. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has raised a question which also interests many other hon. members of this House, myself included, who represent Witwatersrand constituencies. He has raised the question of drunken natives in the streets of Johannesburg at the week-ends. Well, it may be that to some extent the present state of affairs might be improved if we had more police, but I would suggest that this is not merely a police question, hut that in order to meet the difficulties in regard to the natives on the Witwatersrand at week-ends, you have also to develop along the lines of providing alternative occupations for them during that period. I think everybody must appreciate what has been done by men like Messrs. Pim and Hardy in the provision of sports facilities for natives in Johannesburg. It is most important that you should provide alternative occupations for the natives, and if you do not provide them, the path of crime for them is very easy. I repeat, therefore, that the matter is not merely a police matter. It is also a matter of providing alternative facilities and alternative occupations, and I would suggest to the hon. member, who is an ornament of the Johannesburg city council, that perhaps through that body he may be able to advance along the lines I have indicated. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has raised the question of police trials. I think the hon. member escaped your eagle eye, Mr. Chairman, because he was suggesting, in effect, an amendment of the present law. Police trials, to-day, are conducted in terms of the law of 1912, and it would not be possible to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member without an amendment of that particular Act. The procedure laid down by the House has been functioning since 1912, and I think, on the whole, it has been functioning satisfactorily. I think I may emphasize this point, that the matter does not end with the presiding officer, as the hon. member suggests. It does not end with the decision of the commissioned officer who imposes the sentence. There is provided in the existing law, an appeal to the commissioner, and in cases of degradation and dismissal the member of the force concerned can go further and appeal to the Minister. Apart from that, in every case, before the decision becomes of force it must be confirmed by the deputy-commissioner. I think, therefore, I may claim that the present procedure provides adequate safeguards, and on that account and because, on the whole, it has worked satisfactorily, I do not think I can hold out any hope that there is likely to be an amendment of the law. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Bouwcr) has spoken somewhat feelingly about police speed traps. The law, in regard to the driving of motor cars, is part of the law of the land; it is also part of the duty of the police to see that that law is observed. If I may record a personal opinion, I certainly do not share the view of the hon. member that it is entirely unnecessary to take any steps whatever to see that the law is observed. I think it is still important, and it will remain important and necessary that some steps should be taken to prevent unnecessarily speedy driving in the streets of our towns. I think there is only one other point to which I need refer, and that is the point raised by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Heerden) in regard to promotion. There, I can say that the regulations lay down the qualifications for promotion, but there is a clause in the regulations to which I wish to draw the hon. member’s attention, which states—

I think that meets the point of the hon. member, and I hope I have been able, in my remarks, to deal with the various points that have been raised in this debate.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “Treasury,” £36,325,

At the close of the session of 1932, in fact on the last day of the session, the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts was brought up for consideration. I protested at that time that it should be brought up on the very last day, when neither the chairman nor a single member of the committee was present; in fact it was moved by the Prime Minister himself. In view of the important matters contained in the report, he stated that opportunity would be given for consideration of certain matters therein. On the 1st March it was ordered that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider and report what steps should be taken to examine the statements of account of the South African Reserve Bank. In their report, on the 13th May, the committee stated that it had not been able to com plete its enquiries owing to the time at its disposal, and it recommended that the enquiry should be continued by the Select Committee on Public Accounts during the next session, and that similar instructions should be given to the committee. A questionnaire was issued by the select committee to the Reserve Bank, and the reply by the governor of the bank is set out, in which he deprecated the idea of a parliamentary committee examining the affairs of the Reserve Bank, but in view of the figures which are now published, I think it would be found desirable that the select committee should again go into this matter. I should like to draw attention to a few of the figures set out in recent reports. Immediately after England went off gold, and big losses were sustained by the banks, the Reserve Bank set out its balance sheet, in which it showed a liability of £8,817 to reserve. That continued week by week and month by month, until a few weeks ago it suddenly jumped to £624,000. Then in December the total assets and liabilities were shown at £15,000,000, whereas on the 17th March they had increased to £40,000,000. The figures are really remarkable. Gold coin, shown at £6,000,000, had increased to £12,000,000. Foreign bills from £642 to 18 millions. You will remember that in the Financial Emergency Act, passed by this House in 1931, the Minister of Finance took extraordinary powers in which he issued a ukase that all gold should be dealt with or disposed of through the Reserve Bank. Since that time, something like £60,000,000 has passed through the hands of the bank, and surely as we know that something like three per cent. was accruing from the exchange, there must be something in the way of a big inner reserve going on in regard to the affairs of the bank. I submit that the Treasury should again bring this matter before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and see that an investigation is made. The Acting Minister of Railways was one who took a very direct interest in this matter, and I am sure he will see the desirability, nay, the necessity, of going on with this particular investigation. The very fact that immediately after the time. I mentioned, in September, 1931, the shares of the Reserve Bank, which were over £200, went to £100, and are now £220 is significant of something which is not well known to everyone. It was said in the answer to the questionnaire that there are 1,000 stockholders in the bank, and that it would be unwise to make an examination. Well, I think it is very advisable that this should be looked into. The affairs of this country, outside of the Reserve Bank, are in the hands of two commercial banks. This House is now engaged on reducing the interest so far as farmers are concerned. Considering that 7¾ per cent. is being charged on overdrafts by commercial banks, which are not in competition with each other, I really do feel that this is a matter which should be looked into. I should like to see that rate brought down from 7¾ per cent. to a lower rate per cent. which would be an enormous concession to the people of this country. As a matter of fact, I think the time has arrived when we should have more competition by commercial banks in this country.

I have allowed the hon. member to refer to the Reserve Bank, but I do not think there can be a discussion on the subject in Committee of Supply.

May I submit that last year this matter was brought before the House when it was suggested that the examination of these accounts should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The matter was referred to the Public Accounts Committee, who asked for a full statement to be made of the position. 1 think it was recognized that in view of the fact that a certain portion of the profits of the bank are paid over to the State, it was a matter in which this House was rightly interested and the Public Accounts Committee was asked to say what steps could be taken to bring the Reserve Bank account under re view. I think the Public Accounts Committee fully considered the matter. Last year certain aspects of the matter were considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and I would ask that, in view of the fact that the public revenue of this country is vitally concerned in the man agement and the profits of the bank, this committee is justified in discussing the matter.

It is outside the estimates.

Is not that a matter which can be brought up under the Minister’s salary?

I think that the matter is not one that I can deal with. The question of whether the Public Accounts Committee shall, or shall not deal with this, is a matter for the House. This com mittee is a committee of the House, and if the hon. member wants the accounts of the Reserve Bank to be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, it seems to me that he will have to move in the House.

As there is no Public Accounts Committee this year, I am afraid it will have to stand down until next session.

I only want to draw the Minister’s attention to a point I re ferred to in the budget debate. It is the question of the general reduction of interest. I would like to learn from him whether the matter will be considered by the Government. We have surely learnt from the past that we should ride our moneylenders with a heavy bit, otherwise they will bolt. We have found that in the bad times they have raised the interest just when the people are finding it most difficult. This consequently has been the ruin of many people. Our people are very grateful to the Government for the reduction in interest which is now being brought about in connection with the farm bonds. In an indirect way the mortgagees are now obliged to reduce their interest to five per cent., but we will not touch the matter in its entirety. If we do not do so we are going to miss our mark in that case. In the difficult times it was impossible for the farmer to meet his obligations. One had to go to the storekeeper or attorney for money, or he had to apply to the bank for an overdraft. The result is that those people have odd promissory notes or overdrawn accounts with independent moneylenders or the bank on which their interest cannot be reduced, and on which it may be very high. It is not only farmers who are in this difficulty, but shopkeepers or attorneys as well, who have had to borrow money in these difficult times. If we are not going to reduce interest generally, then there are people who are going to make it impossible for the money to come into circulation in business because they do not want to reduce their interest. We notice that there is a large amount of money lying idle in the country to-day. I see the banks say there is no demand for overdrafts. That is understandable because the people do not know what interest will be charged, the interest is too high, the banks pay two per cent. for fixed deposits of more than a year, half per cent. on those over six and under twelve months, and nothing for those under six months. That shows how much money there is in this country, but we cannot get it into circulation owing to the interest being too high. I, therefore, want to urge the Government to consider the position. If a general reduction of interest can be effected there will be a great deal more money in circulation. We must go further and assist the honest attorneys and merchants as well. That class of people has done much to assist the public. I refer to the honest ones, who are surely in the majority. The purchasing power of the country has dropped tremendously, the interest must therefore be reduced. If in normal times we could have compelled people not to demand more interest, e.g., than the interest on the money he had put into building, what prevents us then in some way or other to put a restriction on money and to say that no more than six per cent. interest ought to be drawn on any money that is lent? We shall be very glad if it is possible to reduce interest generally, and bring more money into circulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to bring a certain matter to the Minister’s notice, more particularly in order to learn whether the Treasury has given instructions in connection with it to the department administering the matter. During the last few days of the budget debate in this House the Minister of Finance said, and he said it again before his departure, that steps were at present being taken in regard to the agricultural population to do everything that was possible to keep the people on the land. That statement was subsequently confirmed by the acting Minister of Finance. Meanwhile the Minister of Agriculture has also made a statement. He said that his department would appoint a commission as soon as possible, which as far as I can follow him, would receive a two-fold mandate. In the first place, that commission would enquire into the working of the co-operative societies, and secondly into the existing credit associations. Now we find that while the Government gives us information to this effect and we, as members, pass the information on to the countryside, conflicting administration is taking place in the meantime. Some cases have been brought to my notice that associations are receiving demands from the administration which is responsible for the credit associations to pay not only interest but also the capital they are owing. We further find that debtors to the farmers’ relief fund are now getting demands from the board administering the fund to pay their interest and also their first instalments. They even go further and threaten those persons that they will sell them up if they do not comply with the demand. What I would like to ask the Minister is: what is the policy of the Government in view of the measures intended to assist the people? I can hardly imagine that the Government can follow such a two-fold policy. The people are tired of the troubles they have had. We want to ask the Minister to consider the matter and put an end to that kind of thing.

I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) has said and to ask whether it is not possible to get a general reduction of interest to five per cent. At present the people whose land is encumbered are getting this concession and we are very thankful for it, but what about the farmer who also has debts but who has no land? He also owes money, but he owes it on movables. He does not even get his money at five per cent. In my opinion such cases should be met. Then we find other cases, not only of farmers, but railwaymen and other officials, who have borrowed money, e.g., to buy a house, or have one built in the village. These people have to pay a very high interest, and find it very difficult. I know of cases in my constituency where people pay eight per cent. interest. Now it was formerly represented to us that if the interest on farm bonds is forcibly reduced, e.g., to five per cent., then it would kill agricultural credit. But if it is possible to invest money in the villages at eight per cent., will not that cause the tendency to arise to call up the mortgages over the farms and to invest the money in the villages? That, indeed, would kill agricultural credit. I do not say that it will be possible to absorb all the money in the villages, but it will often be the case that the bond will be called up to invest the money in the villages. I do not think the amount which the Government has made available will then be sufficient, and I think that our people will get into trouble. Let the man who wants to speculate pay as much interest as the mortgagee can get for his money, but I think the persons already mentioned by me ought not to pay more than five per cent. At any rate let the Government set the example because the credit associations are still paying seven per cent. on their loans from the Land Bank. If the Government sets the example the other moneylenders will possibly follow it. I want to move

The hon. member must discuss it under Vote 20, “Assistance to farmers.” The hon. member must wait until we come to that vote and debate it under “Interest subsidies.”

To a point of order, under what head can we discuss it?

Under the head, “Interest subsidies,” or “Interest and other charges.”

Will you please tell me when the Government’s policy in connection with interest reductions unconnected with farming, i.e., in general, can be discussed?

On a point of order, sir, that cannot be done. A reduction of interest can be carried into effect only by an Act of Parliament.

The question I have to decide is whether assistance to be given to farmers should be discussed under this vote, and I want to make it quite clear that in my opinion the matter is relevant to and should be discussed under Vote 20, “Assistance to Farmers.”

I want to suggest that we can actually put questions in connection with it to the Minister, although we cannot fully debate it.

It will be more desirable to deal with it entirely under Vote 20.

I would like to discuss long term loans to municipalities and a reduction of interest on them. When can I do that?

The hon. member can do it now, but the other hon. members have just been debating a subject which comes under Vote 20.

I would like to ask the Minister what will be done in connection with the municipal long term loans. I want to ask him whether he has had applications from the municipalities and whether he is prepared to meet them in any way. I want to mention one concrete case to indicate the trouble. A municipality raised a loan for 28 years at 6 per cent. interest. The Minister of Finance thinks that we are now getting a general reduction of the rate of interest, but the interest in this case will run for 28 years at 6 per cent. The loan cannot be paid off either in order to get cheaper money in that way. They will be bound for a long period to pay the interest of 6 per cent. Has the Minister considered the position, and is he prepared to give municipalities relief in such cases? Then I want to raise another question which I dealt with a few days ago by way of question and answer. It was in connection with bonds coming under the Master of the Supreme Court. There was a case where a bond had already been under the supervision of the Master for four years. No alteration was made probably because it provided proper security, but now suddenly the Master asks for extra security. I asked the Minister whether it was being done with the approval of the Government. The question was—

1. (1) Whether the Master of the Orange Free State Supreme Court is now demanding additional security by means of two guarantors from mortgagors in respect of bonds registered in the past in favour of the Master;
2. (2) whether this is done by order or with the approval of the Government; if so, why; and
3. (3) whether it has been brought to his notice that this demand is a great hardship on mortgagors at the present moment?

The answer was—

1. (1) No, except where application is made to increase amounts of existing preferent bonds ranking prior to that of the Master.
2. (2) The Master does not require approval.
3. (3) No.

But what I wanted to know was why the position which has already existed for four years was no longer satisfactory. The Master now says that two additional sureties must be found over and above the bond in order to guarantee the amount. It is absolutely impossible at present to give the guarantee.

What am I to do about it?

The Master comes under the Government. The trustees in the estate are satisfied and it is the Master who is demanding the guarantee. Where there is good security under a bond and the trustees are satisfied, I cannot understand why the Master makes such a demand. It amounts to a calling up of the bond.

The hon. member should have debated this under “Courts of Justice”, but that vote has already been passed.

I just want to bring a few things to the notice of the Minister. The first is in connection with the customs duty on articles which, to a certain extent, are manufactured from mohair. I did not have an opportunity of speaking on the budget, but I want to point out that no legislation has, as yet, been passed to assist the mohair farmers, and that, in spite of the fact that those people are suffering severely

I cannot allow the hon. member to debate the position of the mohair farmers on this vote.

I want to debate the customs duty on goods which are made to a certain extent from mohair.

This cannot be debated under this vote, but it may be when the customs duties are being dealt with.

I will do it then. The other point I want to raise is in connection with the income tax farmers have to pay. The farmers are entitled to deduct the money they spend on farm buildings, excepting their dwelling house. The farmer, however, builds a house for his farm labourer, and it is very desirable for him to do so, but the commissioner for income tax refuses to allow him to deduct the money spent on that building. I shall be very glad if the Minister will enquire if it is not possible to allow the farmer to deduct the cost of buildings put up for farm labourers for income tax purposes. The chairman has already ruled that we cannot now debate questions of interest reduction, but I would like to deal with the matter of interest on bonds in villages, not bonds on farms. On a bond in the village interest can still be 6 or 8 per cent.

Does this come under the scheme for assistance to farmers?

No, it is something I want to ask the Minister.

It is a matter that will require legislation,

It affects the policy of the department.

The Government will not be able to do anything in that direction without legislation.

I wish to ask, in connection with the conversion loan which is taking place, whether the effect of that loan will not be generally to reduce the rate of interest paid on the whole of the trust funds held by the Government, such as post office savings bank monies, pension fund and the other trust monies the Government holds. I wonder if the Government realize what the effect of this big conversion will have on the trust funds now held by the State. Will not the people who have invested money in these funds suffer considerable hardship? I would like the Minister to tell the House what will be the effect of reducing the rate of interest on these trust funds.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government intends proceeding with the Building Societies Bill, which reached a certain stage last session. There are many institutions at the present time which are doing practically banking business, such as burial societies and savings banks, which do not fall under the banking laws, and are receiving deposits on a very large scale from the public, and it is necessary at the present time to protect the public by legislation, which is urgently needed. Now that money is so plentiful, these mushroom societies will grow up for the public to invest their savings in, and it is very necessary that the State should come into the picture and protect the public from themselves.

With reference to what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has said I want to mention something. The hon. member is afraid that interest in general will drop as a result of the loan conversions. In my opinion it is a matter which the Government ought to consider whether the time has not come for interest in general to be reduced. I know the Government is afraid to intervene by legislation in such matters. We can understand it. But the Government must be convinced that interest in general is very high when we look at the interest which the banks are paying, and also look at the interest which is paid on loans in other countries, and compare it with what we have to pay here.

The hon. member will see that I have just ruled that this question cannot be debated now, but that it can be raised on the vote in connection with assistance to farmers.

What I am here asking has nothing to do with assistance to farmers. I want to speak about letters I have received in connection with interest, and I want to bring the matter forward now. I have received letters from many people in my constituency.

If the hon. member wants to do that then he will have to move a specific motion or propose legislation.

I am not here advocating legislation, but am asking the Government to consider the matter.

The Government cannot reduce interest without legislation.

I would like to be quite clear what we can discuss. Can we discuss this question of interest now? That is what I want to do.

What interest does the hon. member mean?

This reduction of interest— this 5 per cent. on bonds.

I pointed out just now that there is another vote on the Estimate— Vote 20—assistance to farmers—where discussion on such matters should take place.

I understand we cannot do that. Where are we to discuss it? I think we should discuss it under this.

The hon. member should observe the ruling of the chair.

I want to discuss a question of policy. The Government made the statement in connection with certain loan companies that sureties would be done away with. Will not the Government consider the whole question of suretyship and make it illegal? I want particularly to emphasize this point. It has been said that our people in the past have got credit so easily. They get credit easily because there are sureties, and if the borrower cannot pay, recourse is had to the sureties. It will be better to make suretyship illegal, and then if credit is given to a person it will be given on his own credit.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter on this vote.

It is a question of policy for the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member can ask a question.

Then I ask the Minister the question and I want to say why I am putting it. Instances have come to my notice where one-third of the debts consisted of surety bonds, in some cases the estate was worth £20,000. We must prevent people becoming sureties.

That requires legislation and cannot now be debated.

Then I want firstly to ask the Minister of Finance in connection with the question of bonds on dwelling houses also to consider the reduction of it. Another thing that I would like very much as there are many people with capital who are going to call up their bonds, whether the Government will not consider to raise a conversion loan by which it will be able to get that money to invest it in dwelling houses, etc. I hope the Government will consider the question of the reduction of all interest on bonds.

With regard to the question of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien), as I indicated, this is to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and it is for the House to determine. It will have to be brought up in the House. Then several hon. members have asked questions with regard to the Government’s policy as to a general reduction of interest. Well, I can only say briefly that the Government is not prepared, during this session, whatever may happen afterwards, to introduce legislation bringing about, or making compulsory, a reduction of the interest on all debts. That would be going much further than the Government considers necessary or desirable at present to go. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) was concerned about credit societies and loans under the Farmers’ Relief Act, where demand was being made from debtors for the repayment of interest, and also of the capital. I have seen some of these demands, and they are certainly very peremptory. The Land Bank is entitled to do what is reasonably necessary to protect its funds, and to get its money back if it reasonably can. But it does not want to see people driven off the land. The general manager of the Land Bank will be here within the next day or two, I understand, and I could go into the question with him. The question was asked whether the Government would do anything for municipalities which had entered into long term bonds at a comparatively high rate of interest. I do not know what the Government can do unless it is prepared to take them over. I am afraid if the Government is going to take over debts of municipalities which find themselves in difficulties, it would be a very serious matter. There is provision under the Loan Estimates for local loans and works. I do not know whether the municipality in question applied for a loan under that head or not, but in any case, the Government would not be prepared to take over the bonds simply because it is paying a higher rate than five per cent. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) asked what would be the effect of the new conversion loan in regard to interest on Government trust funds. There is no doubt that the tendency at the present time is for the rate of interest to fall. The Government is taking advantage of that with regard to this conversion loan. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) asked if we intended to proceed with the Building Societies Bill next session. I believe that is intended. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) suggested that the Government should consider the question of prohibiting anybody from standing security for the debt of another. I am afraid that would be going much too far. It would be interfering with our ordinary law. Nor can the Government undertake to deal with bonds on dwelling houses. That again is going beyond the scope of the legislation which is about to be introduced for the relief of farmers. The hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. Steyn) asked a question about reductions from farmers’ income tax assessments with respect to buildings for housing servants. That is a matter I will go into.

I can quite understand that the Minister is not in a position to make a definite statement on the cases mentioned by me. His answer, I am afraid, will not allay the difficulties we are contending with. If the Minister has not had an opportunity to consider this question, I do wish to appeal to him now to consider if it is possible to extend the payment of interest. I hope the Government will favourably consider this proposal in order to meet these debtors who are in a very distressed condition.

As I understand the position, the Government is not pressing for payment of these debts, where they are satisfied that the man is unable to pay. If the hon. member will bring cases to my notice where that is being done I will go into it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Public Debt,” £5,906,929,

The Minister just now said the Government were taking advantage of the cheap money for the conversion loan. I want to elicit a little information from the Minister to find out if that is really correct, because in looking through some papears dealing with investments, particularly in England, I find that large loans have been taken up at 3 per cent. The conversion loan for South Africa is 3¾ per cent., and considering several things, which have a bearing upon this, our Reserve Bank rate of 3½ per cent. and the Bank of England rate of 2 per cent., I would suggest to the Minister that they are not taking full advantage of the position in converting this loan at 3¾ per cent. Then I would like to ask what is to be the future policy with regard to the further 5 per cent. loans in the Union. Is it the policy of the Government to convert these also and, if so, will the Government really take full advantage of the present plentifulness of money in South Africa, and the cheap money throughout the world and get these converted on the best possible terms. One more matter and that is with regard to Treasury bills. The Minister will be aware that many of our trust companies and building societies are using these Treasury bills as liquid securities in order to be able to meet calls which may be made upon them at any time. When the Building Societies Bill, for instance, becomes law, these will have to be utilized much more than before. Treasury bills are not always available and I just want to know why that should be so. Surely they should always be available as a means of liquid securities for these societies at whatever is the current rate of interest. I want to know if we can have the assurance that when this particular Bill does become law, Treasury bills will be always available in order that the law may be carried out and that they may be a source of investment for liquid securities.

I wish to refer to the item on page 41, “Loans to South-West Africa.” Will the Minister state what is the total indebtedness of the territory and if they are keeping up the interest on the loans?

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) raised the question of whether the issue of what may be called conversion loans at 3¾ per cent. is given effect to to the full extent that might be done. The issue of this loan was decided on by the Minister of Finance before he left this country and I know that he only fixed the rate at 3¾ per cent. after very careful consideration of the whole circumstances, and after consultation with those who were able to advise him, and that he came to the conclusion that it would not be safe to offer a lower rate than 3¾ per cent. I may say that the tendency of interest has been to fall since that date, but that was the conclusion which he came to, and that was why the rate of 33 per cent. was fixed. Then the hon. member asked why no Treasury bills are being issued. He said they are very convenient things, and that they constitute what he called “liquid investments.” Well, the reason why they are not being issued to a greater extent is that they are not required. The Government does not require the money, and that is why they are not being issued. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) the schedule of interest only shows the interest for the year, and does not enable the hon. member to get the information which he wants. I shall be glad if he will raise this point when we come to the loan estimates.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Pensions,” £3,035,700.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to item 3 dealing with allowances for loss of office, etc. The Minister of the Interior in reply to a question the other day said that the policy of the Government now was to abolish the retirement of officers at 55 years of age, as from April 1st, 1933. I want to ask the Minister if that is so, why he contemplates retiring officers to such an extent that an amount of £268,000 will be involved, which is an increase on the amount set down last year. In connection with this vote, I particularly want to bring to the notice of the Acting Minister of Finance a very hard case. Rather an important official in the Customs Department, who was in Durban for a number of years, was transferred to Pretoria, and probably due to some misunderstanding, he understood that the bilingual regulation would not apply in his case. After service there for a number of years, during which he had done excellent service, he was retired under this scheme at the age of 55. He was in a responsible position in the service. His chief was absent from the country for four months last year, and will again be away this year, and it seemed essential that his services should be retained, but, in spite of strong representations, his services have been dispensed with. It seems very hard on this officer. But for this misunderstanding this official would have remained in Durban and he might not have been retrenched, as he was doing excellent work there. I hope the Minister will go into the matter and see whether the matter can be reopened.

A few years ago a complaint was made here that the old age pensions were treated in too generous a way. People got them who were not entitled to pensions, or rather that ought not to have got them. There was much truth in those statements. Then with the new arrangements the whole matter was left in the hands of the Commissioner of Pensions in consultation with the local committee, and now I think we are going to the other extreme. We are reducing the pensions too much. Great stress is laid on the children of an applicant. Thereafter it is decided whether he should get a pension or not. The children possibly have an income just sufficient to keep their own families alive and it is impossible for them to provide for the applicant. The position in most cases is that a child is one of the most ungrateful things in the world. The parents make more of the child than the child does of the parents. Now it is expected from the child with an income which is just enough for his own maintenance and that of his family to provide for the parents as well. The parents see nothing of the help they need and they are suffering very severely. I know of a case in my constituency where the local commission recommended that a certain pension should be reduced by 35 per cent. It goes to the commissioner, he looks at the number of children the person has—we know our poor people are blessed with large families—and he decides to take off a further 50 per cent. The commissioner lays too much stress, under the powers he has been given, on the number of children an applicant has. If the children earn just enough for their own purposes it cannot be expected of them to provide for their parents as well, and that the parents should not get a pension. The local committee can easily ascertain whether the children earn enough to provide for the parents. All families do not need the same amount, some live on the countryside and others in the towns. Then there is another consideration. It may have been the case that the children were able to do something for their parents last year when times were better. But during these bad times the poor unfortunates have nothing for their own support, and then they are burdened with their parents as well. The poor parent feels the unwillingness of the child and that he is in the way, and this is a hard and bitter thing. I would like this committee to decide to act a little more broadly and fairly. It could be laid down that the local committee should satisfy the commissioner that the children were not able to provide for their parents as well. Even if the committee recommend it in the good times that the children could do something, then they should be allowed in these bad times to recommend that a pension ought to be given to the parent. As a rule we go to extremes and in this case we have done so. Formerly we were too generous, and now we are too niggardly. It is detrimental to the old people who deserve better from the State. This committee should give a decision on this point and give the right to the commissioner to take a little less notice of what the children can do.

I would like to support the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick). I can assure you that there is great dissatisfaction on the countryside to-day about the application of this rule. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom rightly said, two rules are laid down in connection with the grant of pensions. The first is that a person cannot get a pension if he owns land, the second is that he does not get it if he has children who can provide for him. There are old people who have a little bit of ground which they occupy, but that means nothing to them, and is more of a burden to them because it prevents them from getting pension. As for the children, it is, as the hon. member said, the children do not always provide for the old people. I can assure you there are hard cases. I do not say that there are not cases where people get pensions to which they are not entitled, but there most certainly are instances where people do not get a pension though they are entitled to it. They possibly own ground which is worthless. The children possibly make a living but they can only provide for their own families. They are not able, besides their own children, to look after their parents as well. For that reason I hope the Minister will see to it that these two rules are not so strictly enforced. There are some of these old people who have made great sacrifices for the country. They have suffered from want during the second war of independence and since. I do not think it is right to allow these old people in their last days to suffer. I hope that the Minister will meet us in this matter in such cases. We get letters day after day from people who really deserve support and do not get it.

I also want to say at once that I very strongly favour the principle that children should provide for their parents. But as the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) has rightly said we can go too far in that direction. While at first we were too generous under the Act the Act to-day is not sufficiently elastic. It is said that an old person has children, one is a policeman, and the other possibly a railway man, but sufficient count is not made of the size of the family of those children. There are possibly so many grandchildren that the poor man with the best will in the world cannot provide for his parents. Such circumstances must be borne in mind, more enquiries should be made as to the debts of the child as well as of the applicant in relation to their assets. Many of the people have nothing. I want to give an exmaple. It is not so much concerned with pensions, but I want to quote it as an example of what we also meet in the case of pensions. There is a man in my constituency who has cancer in the face, he has no money, but although he has applied to the provincial administration for admission into a free hospital he cannot go to one because he owns 500 morgen of land. Therefore, he cannot get the privilege, but he is so much in debt that he is one of those that the Americans call “lamb poor”, That is sometimes the case with the children of parents who apply for old age pensions. I want the administration of the Act to be made more elastic. There is one class of man that I would like specially to bring to the notice of the House. We passed an Act in 1925 to give pensions to certain oud-stryders of the two republics. The object of the Act was to put those people a little on an equal footing with the returned soldiers of the world war. When the old age pension was instituted the oud-stryders pensions automatically lapsed. Now many of those people in consequence of the strict application of the old age pension have lost their entire pension, and you have the position to-day, even if I possibly arouse the rage of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson), that the oud-stryders of the two republics are people who have got no pension, while the soldiers who returned from the Great War do receive a pension. They lost the old age pension and automatically the oud-stryders pension. That is not right. There are many of the people who have given the best part of their lives in the service of the republics and to-day they have absolutely nothing. On page 44 there is another aspect of the matter which I want to call attention to. In the footnote the number of pensions that are granted is given. Old age pensions are given to 33,247 Europeans and 14,554 coloured people. I do not know whether that is quite correct. I think the proportion is wrong. According to the census there are three and a half times as many Europeans in the country as coloured people, yet the proportion of the number of coloured people who get pensions to the white people who get them is as one to two. Therefore, only two white persons get a pension against one coloured person. That is not right. I plead for more elasticity in the Act because it may be that a man who has a fairly good position may be, e.g., a conductor on a train, and not able to provide for his parents because he himself has quite a number of children. The committee in Pretoria should, when cases are being dealt with, give special attention to applications from the “oud-stryders” (veterans).

The estimates allow £1,000 for costs of transportation for old age pension local committees. The Minister of Finance promised that committees would be appointed to investigate every case on its merits. In Bloemfontein the magistrate and the police have to do it, and I have already made several representations to the department asking that the committee there should be constituted out of representatives of charitable bodies who take a personal interest in the people and who know the people and their children. Hitherto, however, the magistrate has been given the work, and if there is a case which has to be investigated the police are instructed to do so. Now I ask what do the police know about the circumstances of the individual? Is it not better to appoint charitable bodies who know the people and are willing to do the work gratis? To-day we find many people who have absolutely nothing to live on, but it is said their son is working on the railways and he must maintain them. The son himself gets so little that he is unable to live, and how then can he assist his parents? I was one of those who was in favour of the amendment of the Act because I felt that under the old Act we were giving pensions to people whose children were rich, and should have supported their parents. Now, however, the Act is being so strictly applied that many people whose children cannot maintain them are also getting no pension. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if it is not possible to let us have a committee in Bloemfontein which can investigate each case on its merits. I do not know what we give the £1,000 for, and whether there are local committees at other places, but in Bloemfontein there is not one.

Quite a lot of complaints have been brought up in connection with old age pensions. I am very sympathetic with old pepole, but I cannot understand why there are complaints that there are old people who should get old age pensions and do not. It is the fault of the member of Parliament himself. In my own town I went about immediately and got the magistrate to appoint a committee there, committees have been appointed all over and they are still in existence. The committees make recommendations and they know how many of those old age pensions that are given are given to people that are quite well off. I know the old people in my constituency, and I think every member ought to know the old people in his constituency. If the commissioner deprives the people of their old age pensions, and I know that their children are honest and cannot maintain their parents, then I tell the commissioner I think the children cannot pay and there has not been one instance where the commissioner has not given the pension back again. When I tell him that I know the people and their children, that they are honest and cannot pay, he restores the pension. I do not agree with hon. members that further elasticity should be given, and that this and the other should be done. I know the whole of my constituency and know cases where it is said that a certain man had given his farm to his children and now he wanted a pension. Every hon. member knows where such people are, there is the commissioner, why do they not tell him of the cases?

I would just like, in connection with the grant to aged or weak ex-soldiers, or their dependents, for whom this year only £3,500 is being provided, to ask the Minister whether they have especially borne in mind the cases of oud-stryders who get no pension. I know of an oud-stryder who is crippled and I would like to see him get a contribution out of this fund.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) has no difficulty in relation to the Old Age Pension Act. He "is in a very fortunate position, but I can assure him that we in the north, and especially in the Transvaal, have to cope with a man who has had great trouble, especially oud-stryders who have never been able to recover themselves. I want especially to draw attention to the position of the settlers who, owing to droughts and other misfortunes, have not enough to live on. They have a piece of ground of which they cannot even pay the interest but it is said that they cannot get a pension because they are landowners. I have a letter here from a man who is half blind and helpless, but because he is a settler he can get nothing. He writes me: “Please do your best for me, I am living entirely on mealie porridge”. He is an old helpless man, but he has been refused the pension. I want to emphasize what the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) and the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) said, that there are cases which the Government ought to assist. It is said that they are settlers. The land is in the way of their getting a pension, but they would like to be rid of the piece of ground if in that way they could get the pension. I hope the Government will go out of its way, especially to meet those settlers.

The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) must be in a minority of one to be able to tell the House that everything is for the best of all possible worlds as far as old age pensions are concerned. That is certainly not the experience down here. One must not forget that owing to the great financial stringency last year, drastic reductions were made, especially as far as non-Europeans were concerned. The pensions were cut down to a very small amount and in a large number of cases they were taken away altogether. Now that the Union is out of the direct financial morass in which it was at that time, I think the time has come for the Government to reconsider the whole matter. I do not think it should be considered upon a purely racial basis. Comparisons were given by the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) that do not apply. He takes it on the basis of numbers. He forgets that one white man gets more than two coloured men. If the hon. member will enquire, he will find that a miserably small sum is paid to non-Europeans. You must also remember that in the case of Europeans there are private institutions which take a few old men and women into homes. There are no such facilities for coloured people. When they get old, they are in a most miserable condition, and there is no place where they can be looked after. Comparisons of this kind are odious. The scale laid down in the original Act provided much less for non-Europeans than for Europeans. However great their sufferings may be, and I believe they are great, Europeans do not suffer as much distress as the non-Europeans. I think the whole matter ought to be reconsidered. It is a terrible thing that very little is done outside of benevolence for those who fall by the way after a long and strenuous life. The old age pensions are miserably inadequate to deal with the situation. Private charity cannot do more than it is doing now and the time has come for the State to reconsider the whole matter. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that some reconsideration will be given to the matter now that the position of the coun try is not as desperate as it was.

Regarding the old age pensions, I want to emphasize that there should be more elasticity in granting them. Note is only taken of the number of children and their income, but account is not taken of the debts and obligations which they possibly have. If a man lives in a little house which he owns, then it is valued in such a way that he gets nothing. Here, too, in my opinion, an amendment is necessary. Then I want to plead for the oud-stryders and their dependants. There are various oud-stryders who get no pension because they do not fall within the terms of the Acts concerned. A man who has been left with rheumatism, e.g., after the war, but cannot prove that it is a direct consequence of the war, will not be able to get a pension. I wish that the Government, if a man is an oud-stryder, and it can be taken that he is suffering in consequences of his participation in the war, even if it cannot be proved, will meet these kind of people.

I think the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) has roused sleeping dogs by his speech. I am glad his constituency is so well off, but as we have many poor people, we cannot say the same thing.

Because you do not do your duty.

I am a great nuisance to the Commissioner of Pensions in Pretoria, but it does not do much good. Even the local committee in the district appeared to exercise no influence on the commissioner. The pensions are not only granted very sparingly in the constituency, because most of the pensions are very small. Because there are children who possibly are poor whites the report of the commissioner is that there are enough children to provide for the parents. Not only that, but if it is granted then it is six months before it is paid to the people. I have a letter here in which the commissioner states: “I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter and to inform you that the application has been approved and that a pension of £2 10s. a month has been granted to take effect on 19.10.32.” It is therefore months after the application has been approved before the pension will be paid. I am prepared to accept that in consequence of the coalition and other difficulties the officials cannot do everything.

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

At the adjournment I was just breaking a lance for the people who draw old age pensions, or who apply for them. I showed that owing to the delays that sometimes take place, and the too literal interpretation of the Act, great inconvenience is experienced by many of the old people. I do not suggest that the Commissioner of Pensions acts unsympathetically. I am certain that he is merely carrying out the letter of the law as laid down. But in this time of necessity I think that we can surely go a little further to meet these people, and should grant more pensions where it can be done. It is noticeable that the amount on the estimates for old age pensions is considerably less this year than it was last year, and yet the necessity this year is so much greater. I also think that the assistance which is to be expected from the children of needy parents is exaggerated. It is easy to say that the old people should be maintained or assisted by their children. The children are so often not able or in a position to do so. Further, it is still expected that the old people themselves will take proceedings when the children do not fulfil their obligations. That will not do. I feel that the Minister should bear in mind that the prevailing stress of circumstances necessitates assistance, and I hope the Commissioner of Pensions will be given a little more latitude.

In connection; with what has just been said by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel), I just want to bring to the notice of the Commissioner of Pensions that although old people in the past were allowed to draw pensions, where they have received them for years and are satisfied with them, some of them have received notice that the pension is cancelled. I would like him to notify the people that the matter is not finally disposed of, but that they will be entitled to go to the local committee and state their case. I assume that at all those places there is a local committee. At most places there certainly are committees of enquiry, but when these people get notice that their pension is cancelled, then they are not told at the same time that they can appear before the local committee again to state their case. Then there is another point that I would like to mention on this vote. I am doing so under sub-head “L,” “Artificial limbs and other appliances.” What is the position of people who are really deformed, who have lost an arm or a leg, if they want to obtain artificial limbs? So far as I know, this availability is only intended for people who have taken part in wars. They can get the artificial limbs and appliances. If I am right and if that is so—I hope it is not so—then I want to express the hope that the Government’s policy will be altered. We find that a person who is poor—he has an accident and loses an arm or a leg—provision ought to be made for such people because otherwise they are helpless and become a burden on the community. The State practically has to feed them to keep them alive, while if the State provided those people with these limbs—that is, where they are poor—then we enable them once again to become self-dependant citizens and to provide for themselves. I hope that this will be provided for, because if this is not done then the State will in any case have to look after those people.

I want to stress what the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) said, viz., that old age pensions are not granted to anyone if he is not a settler. I have a letter here from a certain Mr. Peltzer, he and his son are joint lessees of a farm. They cannot under any circumstances pay the interest on their farm, and yet the department has written to the individual that he cannot get the pension simply because lie is a settler. I consider this as very unfair. I see that last year no less than £35,000 was deducted from the old age pensions. I would like the Minister to tell me from whom the £35,000 was deducted. I cannot think otherwise but that it was taken away from the people on the countryside. The people are under the impression to-day that pensions are things they are not entitled to. That it is only by generosity they can get them from the Treasury, because last year when the Commissioner of Pensions was given the right to reduce pensions he went to work without recognizing the local committee and reduced the pensions. In some cases he cancelled them, and in other cases he reduced them without consulting the committees. The people, therefore, think that they were never entitled to them. The local committee ought to investigate cases themselves because they consider they have the right to a pension. The Commissioner for Pensions has always been friendly disposed towards me. When I brought a particular case to his notice he was always prepared to enquire into it and he always gave assistance. It is not right that the law should allow us to leave all the claims of the old people in the hands of one person. Practically the Commissioner of Pensions has the right to-day to grant or refuse pensions to the old people. He is empowered to refuse, and I do not think it is right. As the State has gone so far as to make money available for the old people, they should realize that the money is due to them. As things are to-day the way decisions are given is not right. We must not bring the people under the impression that they are receiving a kind of favour.

I desire to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) with regard to the retirement of an official. I have knowledge of the facts of the case, and notwithstanding the withdrawal of the circular to which the Minister referred in replying to my question on Tuesday, the actual fact is that this official, subsequent to the withdrawal of the circular, was retired at the age of 55. Here was a very competent and very highly placed official, who desired to remain in office. I would like to join in the appeal made to the Minister to see whether something cannot be done in order to obviate what is undoubtedly a grievance. I would also like to be associated with the many appeals which have been made to the Minister for a revision of the Old Age Pension Act. Those who are familiar with the working of this Act realize that many hardships exist. However great the difficulties of the country may be, it is almost depicable to think of minimising the paltry amounts paid to these unfortunate people. I would appeal for a revision of the Act to give consideration to these people and, if it is not possible to implement in any way what is paid to them, I suggest to the Minister that there should be the widest possible and most sympathetic interpretation of the provisions of the Act.

I would like to know from the Chairman whether I can discuss the subject of gratuities under this vote? By your silent ascent I assume I can do so. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Raubenheimer) in order to assist the Acting Minister of Finance I want to tell him from whom the pensions, in respect of which a saving was made last year, were deducted. I will mention a few cases in my own constituency, including some cases of oud-stryders who have lost their pensions. This happened amongst others in the case of an oud-stryder of 96 years because he had children, who were still working, with whom he was living, but who themselves had families for whom they scarcely had enough food and clothes. I have already brought this matter to the notice of the high official, and as we are now discussing the matter I want to mention a few more cases. There are the cases of old Mr. Jansen, and Mr. and Mrs. Lombard, Sen., two old people who have nothing to live on. I just want to bring these few cases to the notice of the Minister and the House. But I have other cases as well.

All of them have died during the election.

Mr. Chairman, have I the floor or the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst)? As the matter is being debated in the House I also want to bring up the case of one of the oud-stryders for friendly consideration by the House. It is Mr. Antonie Michael Prinsloo, the red general of Bethlehem, who died in such sad circumstances, leaving a widow in necessitous circumstances. I am going to plead for those cases and also for the case of the widow of Hendrik Bruwer, commandant of Bethlehem. This widow was left in a state of absolute poverty. Another matter on which I want an answer is that of the local committees. I want to ask that when cases are referred to the local pension committees that the commissioner should not leave it only to their sole enquiry, but that the people who are applying for pensions should also have an opportunity of giving evidence.

I am sorry that I cannot quite agree with some hon. members. We must be very careful with this kind of case. We are engaged in undermining the filial duty of the young people by allowing them to neglect their duty to their parents. There are, of course, cases where they cannot maintain the parents, but there are also many cases where the children neglect their duty, and member after member are getting up and pleading that the children should be released from their duty. We must be very careful here. The regulations say that the State can give the pension to the parents and claim it back from the children, but we find that the regulation is not being carried out by the magistrates and that the children are not being held responsible. We must take care that we do not undermine the feeling of independence and self-respect of our people, and the House must be careful in a thing of this kind, especially in view of the future. We must not think only of to-day seeing that this depression will not last for ever. We find that the children are not fulfilling their duty to their old father and mother, and now one hon. member after the other act as if that duty did not rest on them. Let us examine each case carefully. There are children who are well off who will not maintain their parents. Let the State pay the pension in such a case, but let it see that the children, who can do so, pay it back. If the children evade their duty, then they must be compelled to do it. I hope the Minister will not yield to the request, but that in each case he will first have full enquiry made.

Even if the last speaker asks that we should be careful about old age pensions, I want to point out that there is a big reduction in these estimates in the amount which is being voted for this purpose. If there ever was a time of need for our old people it is this year. I cannot see how this year, when the whole country is suffering ana no one can make anything out of farming, and half the people are unemployed, such a reduction could be made in the amount of pensions. If we have to be so very careful, then we should have been so before, and not go and reduce the pensions now. We must not forget that the proverb says: “One parent sooner brings up twelve children, than twelve children maintain one parent”. We all know what the grace and gratitude of children are. Members of Parliament have complained bitterly and I can assure you that in our parts the members of parliament get so many letters that we can hardly answer them all. If the pension committee rejects a pension, then the people come to the member of Parliament and think that he should see to it. A considerable number of pensions have been deducted and there are bitter complaints because other old people do receive the pensions. I wish the Minister will see that careful enquiry is made as to whom the pension is given, because the local committees are not always quite au fait with matters. It should be seen to that the pension is only given to the person who really needs it, because at the moment it does not always happen that the right person who earns the pension receives it.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch), that it is time that this old-age pensions scheme should be revised; but while we are setting about this, the old people are suffering and starving. I notice that my old friend the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) is to be on his feet within a minute or so, and I can assure the House that, having sat with the hon. member for four years on the pensions committee, I think many of the hon. members here should take the opportunity of joining it, or trying to do a little bit of their duty as far as this committee is concerned, and they would learn a little more about pensions than they know. We have heard a good deal during the afternoon with regard to these old-age pensions, or this poor relief, as I call it. It is nothing more or less. We also know from various hon. members who have spoken that sons and daughters of these old people have been asked to contribute towards the upkeep of their parents. Several hon. members have spoken of it. One hon. member said he has a man of 69. I have a man of 89, who has children who are unable to give him support. In that connection let me say that I think a little bit more consideration should be given, and that pensions should be granted in a more liberal way than they are at the present moment. It is not the fault of the commissioner of pensions, or of the administration, but the fault is in the law that has been passed, and the recommendations that have been put forward. I can say nothing that is not in the highest terms of the commissioner of pensions, and those associated with him. Hon. members have told you all that can be said on the matter, and I think the Minister ought to take this matter into consideration and ought to give instructions that a little more latitude should be given to these old people. Before I sit down there is only one matter I want to refer to, and that is with regard to the pensions of soldiers. We have these old pensioners who fought way hack before the Boer war in the Transvaal, and in many other campaigns. Many of them to-day are suffering in their old age through the privations that they suffered in those campaigns. We have also men who fought on both sides in the Anglo-Boer war and who also have suffered from the effects of the war. This position exists and I think a little more consideration should be given to these men. We have also the men who fought in the great war. Many of these men through sheer pride have omitted to make application within the statutory period. We are getting applications time after time in the Pensions Committee from men suffering from wounds, malaria and other conditions of their war service, which are only now beginning to manifest themselves. We have to refuse them because they failed to apply within the statutory period. That I think is a great injustice, and one which we ought to redress. Many things there are that ought to be considered as far as soldiers’ pensions are concerned. No matter whether they fought in the old Transvaal days, or in the Anglo-Boer war or whether they are the lads who did their best in the great war, we must consider them—see that just consideration be given to their applications and in a fine measure.

The only way to give absolute satisfaction to everybody would be to grant a pension to every person over the age of 65. But is that possible? I think that all hon. members will agree with me that it is impossible for us to do it in our present position. The law was not introduced with that intention. I still remember the words of the Minister of Finance when he introduced the Bill, he said that it was a Bill to provide for our needy, old people. The Act was hardly in force a year when it appeared that it was not being administered in the way intended. A committee was then appointed, and I had the privilege of being chairman of that committee. To our amazement we found that people with great possessions were drawing old age pensions. I am very sorry it was so, and that people of all classes were abusing the pensions. Amongst the working coloured class we also found that there were some getting good salaries and having a good living who, nevertheless, drew the pension. We made a report not with the object to do any injustice to any needy person amongst the old folk. We also found out that magistrates were often transferred from one district to the other with the result that they were not acquainted with the circumstances of all the people in the various districts. We, therefore, recommended that local committees should be appointed, and it is the duty of every member of Parliament to see that such a committee is appointed at every place in his constituency. It has been done in my constituency. Now I do not want to say that in the altered circumstances an injustice has not been done to certain people. There are people who have children and the commission and officials thought that the children could provide for their parents or contribute something. The changed circumstances of the country have made it impossible for the children to contribute anything and the old people are suffering badly to-day. I have had such cases in my constituency. The matter was submitted to me and I told them to go to the magistrate of the district again and I would see the magistrate so that they could once more state their circumstances to the local committee. It may be that the applicants at a definite time had a certain income, or that their children had certain incomes, but circumstances had changed and they should ask the magistrate to make further enquiry. The pension officials cannot do otherwise than be led by the local committees and my experience of them, as far as I have had to do with them, is that they are always prepared to listen to the recommendations of the local committees. I do not know how we can now review the whole matter. We must if we want to give general satisfaction take the step of giving a pension to everybody over 65. We all feel that we cannot do that and I therefore think that our people must make use of the local committees. If circumstances have changed, let them appear before the committees and the committees, which know the local conditions, can judge how the altered circumstances have affected those cases. If they do so, and the local committee makes a report, then I feel certain that justice will be done to the applicants.

After the very wise and sensible remarks of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), I think perhaps if I explain what the actual position is with regard to old age pensions, it might shorten the discussion and might satisfy hon. members who feel they should say something about this matter. First of all, I would call the attention of hon. members to a point which has been remarked upon by more than one member and that is that before the recent amendment of the law the general complaint was that the provision of the old age pensions was being abused, that many people were getting pensions who were not entitled to them. After an enquiry was held, the amendment of the law was passed, and now we have the complaint from hon. members that the grant of pensions is too much restricted.

Many are not getting pensions.

Let me put before the committee what the position is. First of all, it has been put forward by more than one hon. member that there is a large reduction in this year’s estimate from what it was before. Let me explain at once, that the sum of £1,000,000 which appears in the vote as the amount provided for last year, was a mere round figure put in as an estimate of what possibly the pensions might amount to. It was impossible to say what the effect of the new law would be, and £1,000,000 was put in as a round sum. As a matter of fact the amount that is being provided this year is not a decrease but an increase on what was actually paid out last time. So do not let hon. members suppose that a great diminution is being provided for in this year’s estimate. A great deal has been made of the restriction providing for an applicant not being awarded a pension if he has children who are in a position to maintain him. The hon. member for Hopetown (Mr. Theron) put the point very clearly that we should not discourage the obligation of children to maintain their parents if they are in a position to do so. The law does not say that a man shall not get a pension if he has children. The law and the regulations say that he will not get a pension if his children are able to support him. Who is to decide that? That is decided by the commissioner on the advice of local committees. Certainly in a large number of cases there are local committees, although they may not be everywhere. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the commissioner, that he is not to get a pension because his children are able to support him, he has the right to appeal to the Minister. The commissioner gives his decision subject to an appeal to the Minister, so that there is always the last resort for the man who feels aggrieved and thinks that he should have a pension which has been refused to him. The same hon. member mentioned the case of settlers. One disqualification is, that if the applicant is the owner or lessee of a Government farm under the Land Settlement Act, he cannot get an old age pension. Now is the Government to provide old age pensions for those for whom it has already provided settlement on the land? Where are we going to stop? No, I think that the position does not involve any unnecessary hardship; as I have pointed out, there is an appeal from the commissioner’s decision to the Minister and the Minister considers the whole matter sympathetically and justly. I cannot speak from personal experience as to how these matters have worked, but I can assure the House that the whole position will be dealt with sympathetically and not harshly, but at the same time one must have a certain hold over the national finances, and one cannot simply give way to the idea that every man who is over 65 years of age and has not too much of this world’s goods can come to the Government and get a pension, no matter what other means he may have and no matter whether he has relations or children to assist him. I have explained that the fact of there being children or other relatives does not prevent a man from getting a pension unless these children or relatives are in a position to support him. That I would like hon. members to understand clearly. There is no serious decrease contemplated in this year’s estimates; on the contrary, there is an increase over the amount that was actually withdrawn from the exchequer last year. Another point that was raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé), who spoke about the artificial limb factory which was established in order to supply artificial limbs for ex-soldiers who have lost their limbs on active service, or as the result of injuries received on active service, but it also provides for policemen, who may lose a limb through injury on duty, and for officers of the Government. I am not prepared to say now that they will supply artificial limbs for everyone who happens to be in need of these things. Of course they do supply on payment. I shall go further into the matter, but I will not promise that they will supply artificial limbs to everyone, except on payment. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) asked a question in regard to the allowances provided for under item E. That provides for allowances for loss of office. Now the increase apparently provided for under this heading, does not mean that this policy of retiring public officials at the age of 55 is going to be continued. The hon. member knows that now that the financial stress has been somewhat abated, the regulation about retiring officials at the age of 55 has been withdrawn. The increase provided for under this head is largely due to the retirements on re-organization in the post office. The hon. member also referred to a case of a customs official who has been retired just before the new regulations came into force. I am informed that this official had received due notice of the intention to retire him and that he has been retired, and that it is not likely that he will be reinstated. It is a matter that has not yet come to my notice, but I am prepared to go into the matter personally, though I cannot in the circumstances hold out any hope that it will be possible to reinstate him. Then there was the question of “oud-stryders” which was raised by the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood). He said that they were transferred to the old age pension scheme when they reached the age when they were entitled to an old age pension and that some of them in consequence had lost their pensions. I am told that that has only happened in cases where they had made untrue representations.

Not necessarily. The same thing applied when an “oud-stryder” had children to assist him but when the children could not do so.

But if the children cannot assist then the man will not lose his pension.

There are cases where the children could not assist but where the men lost their pensions none the less.

I am prepared to go into any case where the person has been deprived of his old age pension on the ground that his children are able to support him when in fact they are not able. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. J. F. van G. Bekker) asked why there is this reduction under Item O. A number of these men have died and others are transferred to the old age pension fund. The hon. member for Lichten-burg (Mr. Swanepoel) complained that too long a time elapses between the grant of an old age pension and the actual payment. That is a matter of administration which I shall be glad to enquire into. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Raubenheimer) complained that pensions now are granted not as an absolute legal right, but in the discretion of the pension commissioner. That is the law. I think these are all the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, and I hope that hon. members will now be satisfied that the old age pensions have been subject to a certain amount of restriction. A law was passed for that purpose because it was felt that the previous law went too far. Pensions are granted at the discretion of the commissioner, after due enquiry into the circumstances of each case. But the commissioner’s decision is subject to appeal to the Minister. I claim that the law has been sympathetically administered, and with due regard to the fact that times are hard and that relatives no longer find it so easy to support these old men as they did in more prosperous times. The Minister will pay full attention to these cases, and will deal with them justly but sympathetically.

In principle I do not object to the Old Age Pension Act because I realize that it could not be drafted differently, but there is a very unsavoury principle in the Act

The hon. member cannot discuss legislation.

Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention that in cases where the commissioner or the local committee have decided that the children are in a position to maintain the parents, that the burden is not thrown on the parents to take proceedings against the children if they do not fulfil their obligations.

That also requires legislation.

I am moving no amendment.

The hon. member cannot discuss it if it includes legislation.

I will then just ask the Minister to give his attention to it if I may not debate it. There are many cases where children, in the opinion of the commissioner, are able to support the parents, and in those cases the decision of the commissioner is conveyed to the parents and not to the children. I think that the children should be notified, and that they should have an opportunity to put their case before the local committee, and that the decision, if necessary, should be reviewed so that the parents who possibly owing to a misunderstanding or mistake in the information given to the commission will draw their pension if they are entitled to it. I ask whether it is not possible for the commissioner to give notice to the children, and that these should have an opportunity of defending their case if they cannot support the parents. This will be much more satisfactory to parents and children. If it is left to the parents they often say: “What use is it to go to my child, he said only the other day that he could not pay for the maintenance because he has too much debt.”

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the clerk in the public offices at Nylstroom who handles the old age pensions does his work in the same office as where the native passes are issued doubtless owing to lack of accommodation. The result is that when the old people come to the office about their pensions they have to be attended to at the same counter where the natives get their passes. This has only recently been brought to my notice, and I take the opportunity to draw the Minister’s attention to it, and I want to ask him to arrange to change this undesirable state of affairs.

There must be several members in this House who have heard with some dismay the remarks which have just fallen from the Acting Minister of Finance. It would appear that, notwithstanding the appeal made from these benches during the course of the debate, we shall have to recognize that in this matter, at all events, the Government is decidedly conservative and does not realize that the subject is one which calls for adjustment. The question of old age pensions generally is related very closely to the question of unemployment and unemployment insurance. I do not want to incur the Chairman’s displeasure by embarking on that subject now, but I do submit that the Minister must not imagine that South Africa has said the last word on the subject of old age pensions. It is not necessarily and entirely a matter of expenditure on the part of the Government although, of course, there must be State expenditure in the early days of the development of these insurance schemes. I can see a wider field for a scheme built up on a contributory basis. But if we delay the matter indefinitely, the ultimate burden on the State will be larger than ever. I would like the Minister to tell us that the Government is going to give the subject some serious attention. The Minister asked the House where this sort of thing is going to stop. Those of us who come from the towns and notice what is being done in other ways for the country think that in this direction, at all events, we have not got to the point where we should be called upon to stop.

Having been for five years a member of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, I would advise my hon. friend and colleague from Durban (Mr. Wadley) to mark time on this matter. I am astounded at the attitude of mind shown by numbers of people who present petitions to the Select Committee on Pensions, and I often ask myself the question whether the people of South Africa are degenerating into a poor white state of mind, in addition to our having a large poor white population. I think there is a danger in this country of people thinking too much of their right to run to the Government on any pretext in order to get something in the way of assistance. That is a dangerous state of mind foil any people, and after five years’ work on the committee of which I am a member, I think it is time for steps to be taken to save these people from themselves. It is easy to preach running to the State for relief, and to imagine that we are charitable, we are not really charitable but encouraging an attitude of mind harmful to the people we wish to help.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

I wish to show that there has been a rapid growth of this vote. In 1915 your total bill was £458,000 under this heading, of which £93,000 was in the nature of invalid relief and war relief. In 1933 your total bill had increased to £3,025,000, and £1,750,000 of that amount is invalid, old-age pensions, and war relief. It is no use transferring wealth from one section of the people to another section if it results in the community as a whole being weakened. I think the time has come when we should call a halt. It may not be a popular attitude to take up, but it is a right attitude in the interests of the nation. I want to sound a warning to this House that we may go too far with this sentimentalism of poor relief, and so endanger the moral fibre of the nation.

In reply to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts), I see no reason why the people he has referred to should not appear before the Minister and put the facts before him.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 13, “Provincial Administrations,” £5,807,804, put and agreed to.

On Vote 14, “Miscellaneous Services,” £118,411,

I would like to say a few words with regard to the Provincial Commission, the appointment of which was announced by the Minister of the Interior the other night. I don’t want to make the position more difficult, but I do feel that we require a little more clarity on this matter than we have at the moment. The Minister’s statement was very clear. He stated that he is committed, and that the Government is committed, to a favourable consideration of an extension of the powers of the provincial councils within the framework of the Act of Union. That favourable consideration, if the extension of powers and functions is of the essence of the coalition agreement, and it is the promise of that favourable consideration which induced the members of Natal to accept the coalition agreement. While the Minister’s statement was clear enough, the actual terms of reference to the commission are vague, or, rather, they are ambiguous; so ambiguous in fact that when a number of us first read the terms of reference, we had some difficulty in understanding whether they really gave the provincial commission power to recommend an extension of the functions of the provincial councils at all. The terms of reference read as follows—

That means that the commission is to enquire into the existing financial relations. The terms of reference go on to say that the commission is to report upon the present financial position of the several provincial administrations. It is perfectly clear what that means. It means that the commission is to find out exactly the present financial standing of the various provinces. Then the terms of reference go on to say that the commission is also—

As far as I can see there is nothing in the terms of reference to indicate that favourable consideration should be given to the extension of the powers and functions of the councils. It is clear to me that the commission may make such recommendations as may effect a contraction of the powers and functions, and I think there is a considerable amount of misgiving caused by the fact that a matter like this is being left to a commission, that the fundamental policy of the extension of powers for which the Government is responsible is left to a commission. It is a commission which is not appointed because of any constitutional knowledge possessed by its members. They are presumably appointed on this financial commission because of their financial knowledge; yet one of the very first things this commission will have to decide before it can make any financial recommendations at all, is what the extension of the powers and functions, if any, are to be to the provincial councils. The commission must first determine what extension of powers and functions there is to be, otherwise its financial recommendations will be fruitless. If there is to be a devolution for instance of powers in regard to agriculture to the provinces, obviously there will have to be a transfer of actual revenue derived from taxation in order to carry on those services. As I say, the very first thing the commission will have to do is to determine to what extent there shall be a devolution of functions to the provinces. Now I do not question in any way the ability or the impartiality of the gentlemen who have been appointed to this commission. Some of them I have no knowledge of at all, but we know what the views are of the gentleman from Natal, who has already expressed his opinion that power should be devolved to the provinces to a certain extent; and as far as I am concerned, and every member from Natal, we have adopted the recommendations of the Hollander Agreement; but we also have a gentleman on this commission who has sat on the commission for the abolition of the provincial system, and in the absence of any injunction that there should be favourable consideration of the extension of powers, it is only natural to suppose that the predilection of these gentlemen will appear in any judgment to which they may come. I should have thought that the Government would itself have first determined to what extent it would devolve these powers, and when that was determined, when the extent of devolution had been decided upon, it would set up a financial commission to finance the services it was proposed to transfer to the provinces. The onus seems to me to rest entirely on the Government, and not on the commission. All I want to-day is to know whether it is not possible for the Government to make this position clear and to put into the terms of reference to the commission precisely what is agreed upon, and not leave it to the commission whether they should go in one direction or in another, and put the onus of the reconstitution of our constitution on the five individuals of this commission. The whole position ought to be clarified entirely, and it ought to be put into the terms of reference precisely. I may say this, that if the commission reports for a contraction of these powers or it reports in such a way as to make an extension of these powers impossible, a very great difficulty would be created and a good deal of agitation and trouble would exist in the country. I take it that if any member of the commission feels any doubt as to what is meant by the terms of reference, he can get a ruling from the Minister; on the other hand, this commission is appointed by the Governor-General, and the terms of reference are in the interpretation of the chairman of the commission. Well, I have some recollection of the chairman of the commission, an old official of this House, who was once the Auditor-General, and who has an independent judgment; if he sits as chairman of the commission he may make his own interpretation, and we may have another interpretation of the terms of reference than that which our Minister has made. I think this matter might be clarified.

I must say I have heard with a great deal of surprise the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I think I am within my rights in saying that I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member should not have discussed points of this nature with me before he has raised them in this House. The hon. member had ample opportunity to do so. If he wished to have the terms of reference to the commission changed, he might have done so before the actual commissions were prepared. I regret also that he should raise the matter, on a vote for which I am not responsible, without giving me any indication that he was going to raise it. I did the hon. member the courtesy of telling him that I was going to make a statement on the matter, and I regret that he did not extend to me a similar courtesy. I have not a copy of the speech I made last Friday before me, but in that speech I made perfectly clear what the intentions of the Government were in this matter, and I think the hon. member for Zululand himself suggested that he was satisfied with the tenour of that speech. His difficulty appears to be that the commission might interpret the terms of reference in a manner different from what was suggested in that speech of mine, and he seems to have some doubt as to what the attitude of the chairman of the commission will be. He may perhaps be reassured when I state that I have had a letter from the chairman in which he has made perfectly clear that he sees no difficulty in interpreting these terms of reference in the way I indicated in the House. I think the hon. member may feel himself reassured on that point. I want to go further, and I want to remove any possible misunderstanding on the matter. I have made perfectly clear, firstly, what the position of the Government is, and secondly, what we want the commission to do. I have made perfectly clear that we want the commission to make recommendations whether or not there shall be extended powers. I want to give the hon. member for Zululand the assurance that, should there be any difficulty of any kind in this matter, and should the commission find there is any difficulty in dealing with matters of that kind with regard to any suggestion for extended powers—provided they are within the framework of the Union—then the difficulty will be removed by the Government, which has the fullest intention of having these difficulties removed, and has the fullest intention that the commission should make the fullest investigation in this matter. I hope the hon. member will accept that assurance. I do not anticipate there would be a difficulty for one single moment. I do not think there are many people who have read the terms of reference of the commission as the hon. member for Zululund has done. The hon. member is starting at a shadow. I repeat, that if any kind of difficulty such as the hon. member for Zululand anticipates, is raised, that difficulty will be removed. I hope that the hon. member, and anybody who has any such fears as the hon. member may have, will be reassured fully by that statement. But the hon. member has gone further, and has implied that the Government has made a mistake in so far as it has not given the commission instructions to give favourable consideration to suggestions for extended powers. I think it would be most inappropriate if we had bound this commission, or any other commission, in that particular way.

Why?

I think when you appoint a commission, and you want them to enquire into a subject, it is wrong to indicate the way in which their report should go. We have appointed a good commission, as good a commission as we could possibly have appointed, and we trust that commission to do the right thing in the light of the evidence given before them and to make their recommendations accordingly. I made perfectly clear in my speech last week that we, as a Government, stand by the assurance given in the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice. We have stated that we shall give favourable consideration to the extension of provincial powers and functions, within the framework of the South Africa Act. I assure the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that whatever the commission may report the Government will honour its bond and will carry out its undertaking. The hon. member has asked further why should we have left it to a commission to go into these constitutional matters. I say why not? The hon. member has indicated that this commission was appointed solely for its financial knowledge. I can assure him it was not appointed solely for its financial knowledge. I ask him to look at the composition of the commission and he will see that the commission is not only well qualified on the financial side; it is also particularly well qualified both on the administrative side and on the constitutional side. The commission is very well qualified to deal with both aspects of its task, both the constitutional aspect and the financial aspect. The hon. member asks why we do not in advance determine what the particular extended powers and functions should be which should be given to the commission. Well, I think we have done the right thing. We have asked the commission to go into that matter. We have asked them in the light of that to make recommendations on the financial aspect. We do not bind ourselves in one respect or the other. We shall decide upon our final policy in the light of the commission’s findings, in the light of the facts it discloses and in the light of our own assurances. I want to give the hon. member an illustration of what happened in the past. We had a commission once of which I was a member, a commission which had to consider on the one side what should be the sources of taxation of the provinces and on the other side, what should be the basis of subsidy payable by the Union to the provinces. It could have been argued then in exactly the same way as the hon. member for Zululand is arguing now, that the Government should first of all have said what should be the sources of the taxation and then on the basis of that left it to the commission to decide what should be the basis of subsidy. The two things of course are inter-dependent. It was, however, not deemed necessary for the one thing to be laid down before the commission could go into the other thing. The commission was, in fact, able to deal with both things simultaneously. As a matter of fact, the Government did not accept the recommendations of the commission in either respect; it amended the recommendations of the commission in both respects. It started out from the basis of the information provided by the commission and then shaped its own policy. And that is what is going to happen in regard to this particular commission. We have appointed, I repeat, the best commission we could possibly get. We have given that commission not vague powers, but broad powers. We have given that commission the fullest freedom to deal with this problem in its various ramifications and we have every confidence that the work will be done well and to the satisfaction of the country as a whole. As I started on a note of surprise, I want to end on a note of surprise. I find here from the “Natal Mercury” that no less a person than Col. Greene has declared himself completely satisfied with the commission. I should have thought that the hon. member for Zululand might on this occasion have been disposed to agree with Col. Greene.

I am certain that the fact of Mr. Green’s satisfaction with the commission has set the Minister’s mind at rest. I want to tell the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that the fact that the people who serve on the commission differed with the instructions that were given them does not necessarily make them unfitted to serve on this new commission. I want to say at once that I have no objection to the personnel nor to the terms of reference to this new commission. On the contrary I agree 100 per cent. with the Minister that it was not desirable to give instructions which would necessarily compel the commission to follow one line. This, however, does not detract from the fact that I want to express my regret that the Government did not at least give the last commission, which has just been dissolved, an opportunity of making a report. I was a member of that commission, and I did not necessarily, nor do I now, agree with the principle of the abolition of the provincial administrative powers, but I always thought, and I still think that the people of South Africa have never had a chance to consider carefully an alternative scheme. As the commission had practically finished its work, and the Government need not have accepted the recommendations, I think that they ought to have had the opportunity to complete their report; then the public of South Africa would at least have had an opportunity, especially in view of this new commission, also to look at the opposite point of view. On the one hand we have a clear extension of the provincial powers, and opposed to that an abolition of the provincial administrative powers, which does not necessarily mean a centralization of all the administrative work. The people like the provincial system with more or less the same love as lovers who for a moment think that the lady is rich, and they want to court her, and then again they think she is poor and they do not want to. The same applies to the love of the public for the provincial councils. A few years ago, e.g., we had a movement in Johannesburg for the abolition of the provincial councils, and subsequently they said: “No, we must retain them.”

The hon. member may not discuss the abolition of provincial councils.

No, I do not want to do so. I just want to point out that the public of South Africa at one time wanted to abolish them and at another time not. Consequently, I am merely expressing my regret—not because I was a member of the commission as hon. members are aware. I would have been sorry even if I had not been a member that the Government had not given the people an opportunity to see the opposite side. Perhaps even our Natal friends, if the commission had submitted a well-worked-out scheme, would have seen whether the recommendations were actually so contrary to their point of view. I can assure the House that Dr. Stals, who was the chairman of the previous commission, will be one of the best members of the new commission. I have no objection to the commission, but I would have liked to see the public having an opportunity of seeing the other side as well.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has to some extent raised a hare which has been hunted for some time and which we thought had been killed. As one who takes an interest in this matter, I want to congratulate the Minister on the very categorical statement he has made this evening. I personally feel that this commission will do its work as well and as honestly as it possibly can. The Minister said he hoped we would raise this matter on his own vote. I myself thought it would come up then, and I want to know whether we shall proceed with this discussion or wait for the Minister’s vote.

The matter can be discussed now.

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, if you will rule that the subject has been discussed and cannot be reopened.

If the other vote does not make provision for the appointment of the commission it cannot be discussed then.

It puts us all in rather an awkward position. I want to suggest that the terms of reference should be extended so that the decisions taken shall be as final as possible on the question. I do not think we should tinker with this subject. When we tackle it, let us do so whole-heartedly, and, if possible, put it on one side for the next 25 years. I think the whole question of the provinces wants to be considered in all its bearings within the framework of the Act. I refer particularly to the question of the extent of the provinces as they are to-day, and the provision which was i made that their areas might be curtailed or extended, or that new provinces might be carved out of existing ones.

The hon. member cannot raise a discussion on a question which may involve new legislation. The hon. member can only refer to the matter as far as the appointment of the commission and its personnel are concerned. He cannot refer to the extension of its powers of anything else.

The question which I want to raise is whether or not this commission should have its terms of reference extended so as to enable it to enquire into the question whether the provincial councils should have their areas maintained as they are to-day or not. In the past this Cape Province has proved to be too unwieldy altogether for purposes of local self government; in addition to which there are too many diverse interests within its borders. I consider, as many other people do, that it should be divided into two provinces. The question also arises whether, if we adjust the matter of the native franchise, it would not be better for Griqualand East to fall under Natal. The agricultural and commercial interests of Griqualand East, and many of its other interests, are similar to those of Natal and in every way it would be better administered from that side than from this. That is a point which I would suggest to the Minister—that the terms of reference of the commission be widened so that all aspects of the provincial council system may be gone into. I do think that the whole question in regard to the provincial councils should be gone into very fully and not merely one side of it, because I feel sure that if we deal only with one aspect, this other question will come up acutely later on. There is a growing feeling among large sections of the people of the Cape Eastern Province that this is a matter which should be looked into. It is not a party matter at all. Men of every shade of political thought are beginning to give this matter further and deeper consideration. There is nothing new in it, it is a matter which dates right back to the days of the Cape Colonial Government, and as long as the Cape Province retains its present geographical delimitation, this question is bound to arise, and it will arise in a more acute form as time goes on. We have here an opportunity of considering whether there is anything in the suggestion, and whether it should be dealt with now or left to a future occasion. I think that the matter is of sufficient importance to allow the commission to go into it.

I do not think the Minister has been quite fair. Before speaking on this Vote, I consulted the officials of the House and asked them whether I should speak on this matter on this Vote or on the Minister’s Vote and they said I should speak on this Vote, which was the proper Vote on which to deal with the matter. This Vote contains an item “Provincial Council. Commission, £3,000,” and we are voting that sum here for the appointment of this commission and therefore the officials of the House held that it should be raised here. I naturally expected that the Minister would be here to deal with this Vote. I regret very much that I did not inform the Minister that I was going to raise the matter. I may say that the Minister has spoken to me on this matter and we have discussed the terms of reference, and I then expressed my doubt, as I am expressing it now, as to whether the terms of reference carry altogether the meaning which he gave them. The Minister said—

He said that in his statement. He said in his statement to the House—

Now the Minister says—

That surely is an extraordinary way in which to appoint a commission. You may have a commission marching in a direction entirely different from that in which the Government wants to go. The plain thing to do in order to remove all doubt would be to put into these terms of reference an instruction that the commission should favourably consider the question of the extension of powers. To me the English is plain; and it is not set forth in the terms of reference that the commission should favourably consider the extension of powers. The hon. the Minister said that I condemned the commission, or rather the Minister would lead the House to assume that I had condemned the commission. I have not done anything of the sort. I said the gentlemen appointed to the commission are men of integrity as far as I knew, and that they would be absolutely unbiased in their findings. The Minister expressed surprise at what Col. Greene has said.

Who is he?

He is a gentleman in Natal.

Is he your leader?

I am only answering the Minister and it is he who quoted Col. Greene. I had not seen this paper from which the Minister read and I had not seen what he said. I have now had an opportunity of looking at it; and this is what the paper said: “Interviewed in regard to the appointment of the Provincial Commission, Col. Greene said that if the commission approached its enquiry with an open mind, he would be perfectly satisfied. He thought the constitution of the commission very fair.” There is not a word there about the terms of reference; he merely approved the personnel. I have said the same, precisely the same. I have said that I have no fault to find with the personnel of the commission, but what might have been done was to include in the terms of reference the words of the coalition agreement, which provided for a favourable consideration of the extension of powers and functions of the provinces.

It seems to me as if Natal is dissatisfied about the terms of reference given to the provincial commission definitely to extend the powers of the provincial councils. I, for my part, am afraid of that increase of powers. If we are going to direct the commission to give mere powers to the provincial councils and the Government does so, then it will be the last nail in the coffin of the councils.

The hon. member can only debate the terms of reference to the commission, but not the question of the provincial councils.

I would like the instructions to the commission to have been that it could enquire into the land tax. Am I in order in suggesting that?

It comes within the terms of reference to the commission.

Then I would like to say a word on it to make it clear to the Government what the difficulty of the fanners in the Cape Province is. The Government now propose to assist the farmers in relation to the interest payable on bonds. I can assure the Government that the land tax presses more severely on us than the interest. To give an instance, I know of a farmer who made £600 out of his wool, and had to pay £100 in land tax. Accordingly, I would like the Government to include in the terms of reference to the commission the consideration of whether the land tax payable to the provincial administration should be abolished.

The matter brought up by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) will be the better understood if it is clearly realized that the paragraph of the coalition agreement upon which most attention was focussed in Natal during the general election was this one—

This statement stood out throughout the whole of the election. On every platform coalition candidates were asked whether the Government would redeem this pledge, and we stated with confidence that the Government would do so. What, then, does the plain man in the street think when lie finds that in the terms of reference of the Provincial Commission appointed under the coalition agreement there is no mention whatsoever of these important words? He begins to doubt whether there is any intention to give favourable consideration to the extension of provincial powers and functions. This pledge was fixed in the minds of the people in Natal, and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) did no more than his duty in drawing attention to the want of clarity in the terms of reference. Although the terms of reference empower the Commission to make recommendations as to the changes in the financial relations, they do not similarly empower it to make any recommendations for the extension of provincial powers. The obvious rejoinder to the Minister’s assurance that the commission is free to make such recommendations is to say that the best way of removing any possible doubt whatever is to insert a clear, unequivocal paragraph to that effect in the terms of reference. That is the obvious rejoinder to the somewhat dialectical reply of the Minister. We accept what the Minister says as to his intentions in regard to the scope of the commission, but there is this important factor to be considered that, once the Governor-General has issued his appointment to the com mission, the interpretation of the terms of reference becomes a matter solely for the chairman of the commission—and the Minister’s interpretation, or even the Governor-General’s— then ceases to have any force whatsoever. I know of terms of reference being interpreted in this House by the Prime Minister to embrace certain definite subjects for investigation, and I have found the chairman of the select committee to rule in complete conflict with that interpretation, and when the matter was brought up in the House, it was made clear that the chairman of the select committee was within his rights in ruling as he did. It is only natural that people should be anxious that there should be no ambiguity whatever either as to the terms of reference of the commission, or the scope of the evidence that may be brought forward. As far as we are concerned, we bring this subject up merely with the object of keeping faith with the people of Natal. In the interests of the coalition agreement it is desirable that we should entrust to the commission the power to take evidence and make recommenendations as to the additional powers and functions to be extended to the Provinces.

I have already stated that in regard to the terms of reference, I can see no difficulty. Probably 99.9 per cent. of the people who have read the terms of reference can see no difficulty, and the chairman of the commission sees no difficulty. I have also given the assurance that, in the very remote contingency of there being any difficulty, the Government will remove it. I think my hon. friend should accept that. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has raised the important question of provincial boundaries. There is, of course, machinery in the Act of Union in regard to the alteration of provincial boundaries, but the hon. member will probably find, if he looks at the Act, that the kind of thing he contemplates could hardly be done within the framework of the Act of Union, and it would therefore go a great deal further than was contemplated in the coalition agreement if we had extended the terms to cover the point he raised, and it would also considerably enlarge the work of the commission. I think it would be wiser to confine the commission to the problems with which it has been created to deal. On reconsideration I think the hon. member will agree with me that we have taken the wiser course. I think he also appreciates that the question of altering provincial boundaries is connected with the franchise, and it would be inappropriate to deal with that subject at a stage when the wider question of the franchise for non-Europeans is under consideration.

I am very glad that the Minister of the Interior has made a statement on this subject. Some of us were alarmed when it was suggested that the provinces were to be cut up, more especially when we remember that it is generally the poor old Cape Province that is to be cut up. The whole framework of the Act of Union would have to be altered if we attempted to readjust the provincial boundaries, and many other important questions would arise, such as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Once we start cutting up the provinces and getting away from the framework of the Act of Union, there will be a risk of smashing the framework. As one of the Cape members, I wish to say that I welcome very heartily the statement the Minister has made on this matter. The point raised by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) is outside the coalition agreement, and will cause great alarm throughout a large portion of the Cape Province. I think our friends from Natal are unduly alarmed. If you appoint a commission, you don’t tell it what its findings are to be. The responsibility of carrying out the coalition agreement rests with the Government, but it is now asking a commission to enquire into certain matters. Our objection to the last commission was that its hands were tied, and that it was told that the provincial councils were to be abolished. Hon. members from Natal then objected to the provincial council commission’s hands being tied in the direction of abolition, but now they desire the commission’s hands to be tied in another direction. It is much better to give the commission a free hand with the knowledge that the Government will honourably carry out the coalition agreement, but to tie the hands of the commission would be fatal.

I should not like it to go forth from this House that Natal is dissatisfied with this commission. I have had communications from that part of the country, and all of them express satisfaction with what has been done. I listened the other evening with pleasure to the speech of the Minister of the Interior, and when he gave the terms of reference I felt satisfied that the coalition agreement is going to be carried out. I see no reason for disappointment, and I want to say in a few words that I am satisfied that the commission is splendidly formed, and will do the work committed to it, and that there will be favourable consideration for the extension of the powers of the provincial councils in terms of the coalition agreement. That is the ultimate work of the commission, and, as far as I know, the people in my part of the country are satisfied with what has been done.

The question of the findings of this commission are very important indeed to the constituency which I represent. The provincial councils have to deal with education, which particularly affects my constituents and the working classes generally in the Union. Objection has been made to the commission, and to its terms of reference, and 1 feel it my duty to say that if there have been certain suspicions with regard to the personnel of that commission, I, for one, and those I represent, heartily welcome the terms of reference, and the way in which the Minister has put this matter forward. We in this part of the House have been accused of being irresponsible backbenchers, but we can never be accused of being back scratchers. Yet I am compelled to say, as one who realizes the importance of this commission to the future of the young people of the Cape Province, that I am convinced that the Minister has handled this matter in a most statesmanlike way. We of the Cape Province are very satisfied with what the Minister has done. It has astounded me tonight that the suggestion should be made that a commission should be told in advance what it has to do. I stand for the principle that if one appoints a commission, that commission should be independent. If you are going to tie the hands of a commission beforehand, it is not of the slightest use whatsoever. I congratulate the Minister on the stand he has taken up, and on the fact that he has not given way to the parish pump idea of tying the hands of a commission beforehand.

The last speaker said that he was speaking for the Cape Province. I do not know for whom he speaks, certainly not for all. I would like to know from the Minister whether it falls within the terms of reference to the commission to go into the question of the duration of the provincial councils, i.e., the time that elapses between the elections. I would like to know whether they can go into the question whether it will be necessary to continue to hold the provincial elections every three years, or whether the period can be lengthened?

I think that is a matter which the Government can decide.

Then I hope the Government will consider it very carefully. I do not know whether I shall be in order in mentioning one or two reasons in favour of it. I hope the Government will consider the inclusion of it in the terms of reference. It is a matter which was brought up by the earlier commission, and it has often been discussed since. I would like the Government to consider whether it is not a terrible waste of time to hold an election every three years. I should also like him to remember the great expense connected with the holding of an election every three years. Then the Government should remember that the provincial councillors get a very small allowance, while they have practically just as expensive an election as members of this House who have to fight an election every five years only. They have to conduct just as troublesome an election as members of Parliament, and they have to do it every three years. From the nature of the case I hope that the Government will give its serious attention to it, so that the commission can consider the matter. I am sorry that it has been stated that the Government is going to bind the hands of the commission.

That is untrue.

Its hands are bound to this extent, that the commission can hardly recommend for the provincial councils to be abolished.

It is mentioned in the coalition agreement. Do you stand by that?

I will answer you if you give me an opportunity.

Do you still support that coalition agreement?

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) must not boast about coalition. He voted against the coalition Government at the first opportunity. I will give hon. members the reason why I think that we should leave the hands of the commission free. There are six members from the Nationalist side and six from the South African party side in the Cabinet. The previous Government appointed a commission which practically had to enquire into the question whether the time had come for the abolition of the provincial councils. Those were the instructions to the previous commission which was appointed by the Nationalist Government, and six of whose members are now in the new Government. It is known that the South African party, on the other hand, desired that the provincial powers should not be curtailed, but extended. So, on the one hand we have had the opinion of the Nationalists that the provincial councils ought to be abolished and on the other hand that of the South African party, which is against abolition. I say that it would be a good thing if the Government had appointed an impartial commission—which it has in fact done—but that that commission then should have been left free to arrive at its independent findings.

They are free.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Salt River; the Minister is there to reply. The Government appointed an impartial commission, but that commission should be allowed to give an impartial decision and be free if needs be to recommend the abolition of the provincial councils. The Minister of Mines is here, and he was a member of the Baxter Commission, which made one of the best reports on provincial problems we have had.

I was not a member of the Baxter Commission.

I was under the impression that the Minister was a member of it, but I accept the correction.

He was a member of the Jagger Commission.

Yes, I nearly confused the names, but I am sorry that the Minister tried to get out of it in such an astute way. He was a member of the Jagger Commission, and the report of that commission was certainly not flattering to the continued existence of the provincial councils. Now in this Government he is sitting along with six Nationalist Ministers who also are not keen on the continuance of the provincial councils. Nevertheless, instructions are given to this commission that it can recommend anything except the abolition of the councils.

But that is one of the agreements under the pact.

The hon. member for Salt River must not speak about the pact. At the first division he voted against the Government. I do not want to take the matter any further. I only express the hope that the Minister of the Interior will yet reach the point of allowing the commission a free hand so that we will have an impartial commission to enquire whether the provincial councils should continue or not.

I am sorry the debate has gone in the way it has, because when the Minister made his statement on the budget I was very pleased and satisfied to hear it. I spoke to my colleagues from Natal, and with the exception of two, they all expressed satisfaction with it. I am not including the “watchdogs.” I was so satisfied that I went across to the Minister and expressed my pleasure and satisfaction at the statement he had made. I say the majority of the people of Natal are satisfied, and they have no doubt of the good faith of the Government in carrying this out. The hands of the commission are not tied, and the Minister has said that if they report unfavourably, the Government is not bound to accept their report. What more is required then?

May I draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance, in connection with an item appearing on the estimates, to the necessity for the holding of an enquiry in regard to insurance companies doing business in this country. I do not know whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the debate which took place in the House of Commons in Canada on the 14th March, 1932, with reference to the operations of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. That is a Company which, by reason of its being the successor of the New York Life, has a great deal of business in South Africa, and has insured a very large number of lives in this country. Very serious statements were made in the House of Commons in Canada as to the stability of the company, and as to its investment policy, following upon an attack made in an important journal of Canada, the Journal of Commerce, attacking the stability of this company. If I read from a statement isued by the policy-holders in 1929, it will show, to some extent, the way in which the policies of people of this country, too, have been jeopardised by the actions of the company in Canada—

A general accusation was made by the gentleman who moved in the matter that the company’s investment policy had been in the nature of buying common stocks and jeopardising the security of the policy-holders. They were also accused by the policy-holders—

The subject was discussed very fully in the House of Commons in Canada. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. Mr. Bennett) dealt very fully with the accusations stating that he had held a departmental examination of the affairs of this company, conducted by an officer of the department of insurance, one of the state departments in that country; and he was satisfied from that report that the necessity for a parliamentary investigation did not exist. In March, 1932, the Prime Minister declared his belief that the company was solvent, though he admitted that they had taken no legal action in the courts to vindicate their position. He added that he was not in accord with the investment policy permitted to insurance companies by the Canadian statutes. He concluded his statement with these words:—”I trust that we will dispose of this resolution quietly and expeditiously, and decline to refer it to any committee at this time, so that no injury may be done either to the enterprises, to the policy-holders—the men, women and children in every part of the world —or to the credit of our country.” The solvency or otherwise of this company closely affects large classes of people here who are insured in that company, and I hope the Minister will entrust to a responsible officer in his department an examination of the debate which look place and any cognate matter dealing with the subject, in the hope that if it proves that an investigation is needed, the Minister will order such investigation to take place, and if necessary, a parliamentary investigation, although I should prefer an actuarial one, under which we should arrive at the true state of affairs of this company in so far as policy-holders in South Africa are affected. This company should also be required to hold in this country a sufficient sum to meet the probable liquidation of claims on policies that may become payable, either through the death of the insured, or through the maturity of endowment policies.

Unfortunately, I was not here when the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) made his speech, but I was quite satisfied with the statement of the Minister regarding the provincial councils. There are certain members in Natal who have had to fight elections on this very question, and certain members who have not. As far as I and other members from Natal are concerned, we are definitely standing by what we promised the people of Natal. We are standing by the coalition agreement. We have had to fight the suspicion of people who thought we were not sincere. I am quite prepared to accept the statement of the Minister that there is no ground for suspicion in the terms of reference. We realise to-day that by this agreement Natal members must stand or fall. The Minister has told us quite definitely that abolition is a thing of the past, and the recommendation will be to give greater powers to our provincial councils. I am prepared to accept that. We, as Natal members, have pledged ourselves quite definitely that if the commission recommends abolition or not giving greater powers to the provincial councils, we are prepared to go back to our constituencies and place ourselves in the hands of our electors. As far as I am concerned, and as far as other members are concerned, I can assure you that if the recommendations of this commission are such as we cannot accept, and our constituents cannot accept, we will carry out our pledge. At the moment we are quite prepared to accept the bona fides of the Government. I think the members from Natal, with perhaps one or two exceptions—I am not speaking of the members on the cross-benches, the watch-dogs who have not yet barked—who had to fight elections on this very issue, stand definitely by the coalition agreement, hoping and knowing that the Government will carry it out.

With regard to the matter which the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has brought forward in regard to the affairs of a prominent life insurance company, I am afraid it would form a rather unfortunate precedent if we felt at liberty here to adopt one or other of the two conflicting views which obtain on the subject. It would lend some colour to any idea that there is a need in South Africa for parliamentary investigation of the affairs of a concern which has a world-wide connection, and, I believe, a world-wide reputation. I should like to mention that this particular question has been the subject of much controversy. When the Prime Minister of Canada referred to it in the House of Commons in Canada, in the debate that took place there, he did say he was satisfied that no case had been made out for parliamentary investigation. That statement was accepted as adequate by one of the leading financial papers, the “Economist,” which I do not think would have given its approval to the statement if it had felt there was some reasonable ground for the discussion that took place not only in Canada, but in England as well. It is the case that very unfair and one-sided propaganda has been indulged in, resulting, I may add, in a law suit here, where the defendant was compelled to withdraw his allegations and to make some reparation. Consequently, if the matter were left where the hon. member has left it, it might be capable of creating alarm in the minds of many people who do not quite understand that there are two sides to the question. I hope what I have said has made it clear that we should not just accept any suggestion underlying the remarks of the hon. member that a case can be made out for a parliamentary examination of the affairs of this concern.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to an item on page 14. It is £13,350 for war graves. I cannot understand why the amount is so large. We could understand in the past, when the Government voted large amounts for gravestones, but today they are not necessary. Why there should be such a large amount to maintain the graves I cannot understand. The debate has turned to-night to the question of the provincial councils. I said during the budget debate that to me it was quite unheard of and inexplicable that the Government did not allow the previous commission, which it had already appointed, to complete its work. It was not necessary, even if the commission had completed its work, for its report to be adopted. Then the Government could have appointed another commission to satisfy hon. members from Natal. That commission did a tremendous amount of work, and now everything is casually thrown overboard for the sake of a few friends from Natal. The late Mr. Merriman said of the provincial councils that they were nothing but “a glorified divisional council.’’ I was a member of the provincial council myself, and I know how things are conducted there. You can simply get nothing worth anything done there. You get into trouble about everything you do because all our taxation is direct. The Government’s taxation is indirect, and the people do not feel it. But if you directly touch a man’s pocket he is dissatisfied. I said during the budget debate that we were merely going over the same road and simply doing catchwork. I am certain that the House will not accept the recommendations of the commission. The hon. members from Natal will grumble about it, and they will be the first who will not accept them. I hope the Minister in charge of the matter will extend the powers of the commission as much as possible. It is the most important thing, the commission should be able to consider everything. It should chiefly go into the question of the life of the provincial councils. It is now three years. It should be at least five years. As to the question of pay, a provincial councillor at present only gets £9 2s. 6d. a month after the cut is deducted, and he does more work than a member of Parliament.

What do you know?

I speak from experience. I get more letters now about provincial matters than parliamentary matters. I am not speaking of the provincial council of the Free State, because its members have a very small council. If a member of the Cape provincial council earns £10, then they only earn 10s. I hope that the Minister will see that the provincial commission, which is being appointed, will conduct a full enquiry, and will not be restricted within narrow limits.

I would like to have a little information from the Minister about a question often put to us on the countryside. It is about the expenditure connected with a Minister without portfolio. I see that there is an amount of £1,000 on the estimates for travelling and retention expenses, a private secretary, etc., for this Minister. Why then does a Minister without portfolio need a private secretary, and what are the other expenses connected with the matter? I do not put the question to criticize, but it is a matter on which uncertainty prevails, and about which the people are very curious. I only ask for information so that we shall be able to explain it to the public.

I should like to say a word in reply to what has fallen from the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Reynolds). He apparently was not in the House when I spoke, and he now comes here to criticize what 1 said. Loyalty to coalition is not advanced by placing your hand on your heart and protesting your loyalty. Loyalty to coalition means seeing to it that the coalition carries out the agreement which has been entered into. I am as good a coalitionist as my hon. friend is, and I have been preaching it throughout. Let there be no mistake about that. All I was endeavouring to do was to try to smooth over difficulties which I am sure will arise, and which I thought did arise in the interpretation of these terms of reference. There was nothing to get heated about—I simply asked that the terms of reference should be altered to include terms of the coalition agreement. The Government sees difficulties in that. They assure the country that the coalition agreement is to be carried out, and they are perfectly certain that the commission is going to work in that direction. If it doesn’t, then the Government will not accept their recommendations. Well, we are satisfied with that; what else can we say? I only, in the interests of coalition, in the interest of peace and goodwill, ask the Minister, as I did before I came here, that the terms of reference should be altered. I think the Minister will admit that it is not perfectly clear what the Government intended, and I think that simple language could be used to explain what we desire. Now my hon. friend has argued “Do not worry, give them a completely free hand.” Why give the commission any terms of reference at all? What an extraordinary state of affairs that would be if you were not to tell commissions what is expected from them. None of the other provincial council commissions have been concerned with extension, of provincial functions. They have been concerned with financial relations—all excepting the last one, and what did you do there? It was instructed to investigate the provincial relationships between the provinces and the Union with a view to the abolition of the provincial councils. Here was a positive instruction for abolition. But what are we doing now? We have changed our policy and we are marching in the very opposite direction. Why not follow the same course? Why cannot it be set down in plain terms that we are now working for extension? I am sorry that some hon. members have thought that in raising this issue, I was trying to do damage to coalition. That is perfectly absurd. We shall strengthen coalition so long as we are perfectly honest with each other, and just so long as we do not create a suspicion that we are not trying to carry out the coalition agreement. Any suspicion that we are not trying to do that will only damage coalition. I leave it there. I am perfectly satisfied. The Minister has assured us that the Government will give favourable consideration to the extension of the powers of the provinces, and I am prepared to accept that.

I want to associate myself with some of the remarks that have fallen from the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I also say that I could have wished that the Minister had consulted the Home Rule party of Natal as well as what used to be the South African party. If he had done so, the terms of reference, as laid down for this commission, might have been acceptable to all parties. I feel sure that even the watch dogs might have been able to assist the Minister in that direction. It is not many weeks ago that we were promised in Natal—and I am dealing with Natal only now—a complete measure of home rule. The right hon. the Minister of Justice definitely promised Natal a complete measure of home rule. Now we have had that whittled down to an extension of the powers of the provincial councils.

What is the difference?

There is a tremendous difference, and if this House wants to get a true opinion as to what Natal is desirous of obtaining, I am sure that they would be able to arrive at that opinion after the provincial council elections have taken place during the next few weeks. There is not a single member in this House from Natal who did not fight this election under the home rule banner. They were all complete home rulers.

The hon. member can only discuss the commission and the terms of reference.

As far as my party is concerned

What party is that?

The largest opposition party in the House. As far as my party is concerned, we are not disappointed at the terms of reference and have no fault to find with the Minister over them, but we shall anxiously wait to see the result of the commission and to see if the Government will accept its findings. We shall not be surprised, however, if the Government does not accept the commission’s findings. The South African party members from Natal would not have been returned at the general election if they had not made the promises they did. We hope when the commission has finished its labours that we shall have a very agreeable surprise, and shall realize that we are going to get from the Government what we did not anticipate getting. It has been said that Col. Greene is perfectly satisfied with the terms of reference. That gentleman, however, has no following, and if the Minister had mentioned tha†Mr. Stuart Helps was perfectly satisfied we should realize that the Minister was voicing the wishes of Natal.

I did not intend to enter into this debate, but I wish briefly to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Reynolds). I do not in the least associate myself with what I consider to be the unworthy suspicions which appear to have been cast by the hon. member for Zululand this evening on the manner in which the Minister has appointed the Provincial Commission, and the way in which he has explained the terms of reference. The leader of the Home Rule party in this House has even recognized and welcomed the fact that the Government is doing its best to implement its promise under the coalition agreement but he has added precisely nil in the shape of any constructive point in regard to the composition or the terms of reference of the Provincial Commission. About the only thing he said was that all of us who fought the recent election in Natal as coalitionists, did so on the full home rule platform. That is not altogether correct. We have fought the election, those of us who were the official coalition candidates, on the coalition Agreement, and it is because we have recognized the able and the frank and the full statement from the hon. the Minister, which was not only made this evening but was made fully on Friday when the personnel of the commission was announced, that we are quite satisfied with the position. Likewise, Sir, we arc confident that the overwhelming majority of our constituents will be satisfied, and look, in the spirit of complete trust, to the faithful carrying out of its work by this commission, and in the same spirit as that in which we ourselves have been sent to this House to look after the interests of our constituents in regard to this matter. Again, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made in this connection by the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Reynolds), and I feel sure that the overwhelming majority of our constituents are as whole-hearted in their endorsement of the hon. the Minister’s statements as I am myself.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has asked that the Government should consider the desirability of appointing a commission to make enquiries in connection with a certain insurance company carrying on business here. As the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) has said, there have been enquiries in Canada and elsewhere with regard to this company, and I am not aware of any facts which would justify the holding of an enquiry into its stability or its way of carrying on business. There was an action fought here also in regard to the matter. Under the insurance law every insurance company carrying on business in this country, which comes into South Africa from outside the country, has to make a deposit as a security to persons holding policies here. There is an amendment of that law under consideration which will require a larger deposit, or larger assets in this country. The hon. member for Hopetown (Mr. Theron) raised the question of the war graves. The amount under the heading “E”, is a contribution towards the expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, which attends to the graves of the soldiers who fell in the great war belonging to Britain and the dominions and colonies, and the contributions are regulated by the number of graves belonging to each country which are taken care of. This amount here is one of three instalments which have been accepted by South Africa in view of the fact that the number of South African graves was originally under-estimated, and the increase in that number has now been accepted, and the Government has undertaken payment of three annual instalments of £13,350, of which the instalment now provided for is the second. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) asked why the sum of £1,000 is provided for the Minister without portfolio. Although the Minister has no portfolio, he has to receive a certain amount of correspondence in connection with the Government and to deal with it. He also has to have a secretary, and to do some travelling, and those expenses are provided for in this item.

Has he a salary?

No, he has no salary.

In connection with this matter I feel that I must protest against the statements of the hon. member for Hopetown (Mr. Theron). He constantly goes out of his way to drag the Free State provincial council into the debate in a contemptuous way. Last night he argued that the provincial council of the Free State only sat three days in the year. There he showed the greatest ignorance.

Do they then merely sit two days in a year?

I will come to that.

The hon. member may not now reply to a speech made last night.

I am speaking on this vote.

What item?

Provincial administration.

There is no such bead under this vote, only the terms of reference to the provincial commission can be discussed.

You allowed the hon. member for Hopetown to refer to the provincial council, and if I am out of order, then that hon. member was also out of order. You did not call him to order, and I therefore take it I am in order. He said last night —

If a mistake was made then in allowing the hon. member for Hopetown to do so, then I must not make the mistake again in allowing the hon. member to enlarge on it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 15, “High Commissioner in London,” £65,949.

Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet before you allowed the Vote to pass.

I was not aware that the hon. member wanted to speak.

I am sorry but I must point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that some hon. members are practically seated behind you and you cannot see when they rise. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) was on his feet before the Vote passed.

I want again to make it clear to the committee that an hon. member who wants to address the Committee must address the Chair when he rises. Merely to rise is not enough because the Chairman does not know whether such a member is not rising merely for the purpose of leaving the committee.

I just want to ask for an explanation and it is: Why is our representative in London called a high commissioner and why are our ambassadors called ministers plenipotentiary? I do not know why the Minister of Agriculture is laughing.

Do you want me to cry?

No, but there was a time when the Minister of Agriculture did cry about this matter. Why I bring forward this point is because I do not know whether it is an agreement between the members of the commonwealth of nations to call their representatives at the English Court high commissioner. I am under the impression that all do not do so. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his place, but I want to ask whether it is not possible to make a change, a change in a name to which the Nationalist party has always objected in the past. I want to ask that as we have attained our independence why we cannot call our high commissioner, who gets the same salary as a minister plenipotentiary, by the same title, seeing that all the other independent states call their representatives there ministers.

I do not know why the hon. member makes such a fuss about the title. The simple explanation seems to be this—a fact of which the hon. member may be aware, or which he likes to forget—and that is that this country, like other members of the British commonwealth, are under one sovereign. The King is King of South Africa, of Australia, of New Zealand, and representatives of these dominions in Great Britain are not representatives to a foreign court, but they are representatives at a court of a sovereign who is their sovereign also.

Mr. ERASMUS [inaudible].

The hon. member might find that out from Mr. De Valera. He might find it out from where it can be obtained, and not from me.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 16, “Inland Revenue”, £152,064, put and agreed to.

Vote 17, “Customs and Excise”, £222,755, put and agreed to.

Vote 18, “Audit”, £66,555, put and agreed to.

Vote 19, “Farmers’ Special Relief Board”, £18,184, put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Assistance to Farmers”, £4,855,000,

I want to ask whether out of the sum of £120,000, being voted here, the Government will also pay the losses of wheat farmers when they have borrowed from the commercial banks. We have already expressed our gratitude to the Minister for his intention to use the money to cover the losses suffered in consequence of money borrowed from the Land Bank, but we feel that there is a possibility that the money will not also cover the expenditure and losses suffered in consequence of loans from the commercial banks. I know the Minister is sympathetic, and if he can he will at least use part of the money to compensate for losses suffered on loans from the commercial banks as well. I understand the commission to be appointed to enquire into the question of co-operative societies will also go into this matter, but there are many farmers who are in uncertainty about that point. If the £120,000 is not enough, I want to ask the Minister at once—I do not ask a promise of him now—to give an assurance that he will do his best to see that that money got from the commercial banks will also be covered. I do this especially because I want to act very fairly towards the co-operative societies. The Minister has done his utmost in the direction of helping the co-operative societies. I obtained from him the assistance of two of his officials, Mr. van Dalsen and, I think, a Mr. du Toit, to come to Piquetberg, and with their help we established a co-operative society there. In consequence of the Minister’s help, co-operative societies were established in my constituency, but I fear that if they are not further assisted than what is indicated here, the societies will go under, as has happened in other places. I understand that there are already nineteen societies in liquidation. If we do not do all in our power to encourage the bodies in their work, then the co-operative spirit will, in the future, absolutely die out in South Africa. Here we have a case where the Minister has encouraged the co-operative societies to borrow money from the commercial banks from whom they could get it. They did so. I cannot see what difference there is between money lost by cooperative societies when they have done business with ordinary commercial banks, and money which they have lost where they obtained their loan from the Land Bank. I hope that the Minister can assure the House and the country that such losses suffered in consequence of loans from the commercial bank will also be covered. If the people do not get the assurance, I fear that the co-operative movement will be seriously undermined.

I would like an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture on a few points. According to the statement of the Minister of Finance, there will be a certain sum available for the Land Bank out of which farmers can be helped who otherwise would be ruined in consequence of the drought. The Minister, I may assure him, may hold himself prepared for many applications because the need is greater than he possibly expects. A point that I would like to ask the Minister is whether he noticed that at various farmers’ meetings a resolution was passed to ask that, in consequence of the drought if the Government had any more maize intended for export on hand, it could be given to the farmers.

The hon. member can only speak on matters referring to the Vote.

It is surely relief or assistance to farmers; where then can I debate it?

Not here in any case.

Then possibly under the Minister of Agriculture Vote?

Possibly.

But, Mr. Chairman, we must surely be able to speak upon it at some time or other? It is of special importance for us to debate the assistance to farmers.

I want to ask the Minister whether he will clear up one point for me. I had a letter from a man who wants to know what his position is. He is in business, but he has been farming on land for some considerable time and has a bond on that land. Will that man be able to get assistance, because his bondholder has given him notice that he is ging to call in the bond? Will that man be classed as a farmer so far as relief is concerned? Then there is another point in respect of which I have also had a letter. A man has bought a farm and has been occupying it for about a year with the stipulation that he is to purchase it at the end of this year at a fixed bond. The bond has not been actually registered, but an agreement has been entered into which becomes operative at the end of this year. Will that agreement be recognised under the relief scheme of the Government?

I see that provision is made here for export subsidy and also to cover the losses of the maize pool and the wheat pool. There is one aspect of this matter which has already been brought to the notice of the Government, on which the electors, especially those in the wool districts, have very strong feelings. It is the compensation to farmers who sold a part of the clip last year while we were still on the gold standard, and another part of it later, by which, apart from the alterations in price, a great difference in the prices arose. The position is that some of the farmers did not expect the Government to go off the gold standard, and when it did go off there was a considerable difference in prices between the one part and the other, owing to a part having been sold before the change, and a part after it. The farmer who sold before we quitted the gold standard had to fulfil the same obligations as the other farmers who got considerably more. I hope that the Government will consider giving those people who sold their wool before we quitted the gold standard an extra subsidy.

Business interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.