laid upon the Table—

Document referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged the Minister of Labour from service on the Select Committee on the Wage Bill and had appointed the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in his stead.

I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the opinion of the Auditor-General on the surrender by the Treasury of certain of its functions. On page 13 of the report functions of the Treasury are given. The report states—

In all these matters a commission has been substituted for the Treasury. The commission is by law an advisory body, and it does not seem right that the last word should rest with the commission. It seems to me that the final word on the matter should remain with the Treasury.

I would like to reply to the questions which hon. members put to me last night in connection with this vote. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked whether the Government had received representation from the Rhodesian Government in regard to our proposals in connection with the tariff. As I pointed out at the time, the answer is in the negative; we have had no representations. The hon. member also raised the question of the removal of the dumping duties on wheat and flour, to which reference has been made on several occasions in this House. I do not know whether I can carry the discussions any further. It is not quite clear to me whether the hon. member refers only to the removal of dumping duties or whether he also wants that the Government should remove the present protective duties which wheat and flour enjoy.

No, no.

Well, I do not understand that attitude at all. Parliament has deliberately accepted the principle of dumping duties and has laid it down by legislation. Well, I take it, and it is so in fact, that as far as the finance part is concerned it is simply a matter of carrying out the law as laid down by Parliament. The finance department has to carry out the law. That is the position, and until such time as Parliament reverses its policy of protecting industries by way of dumping, the finance department has to carry out the law. As I have already indicated, I intend laying before the House certain proposals which will remove certain anomalies and difficulties that have arisen in the administration of the law. For instance, when, owing to certain world circumstances, very high dumping duties were being collected by the customs department, we say, of course, that the law as administered resulted in certain anomalies; and the Government realizes that what Parliament laid down at that time, what in law is at present dumping is not dumping in fact. The hon. member knows it is a difficult question, but we have tried to deal with it, and when I lay these proposals before the House I hope Parliament will find that these anomalies, where the customs have collected abnormally high duties, will not occur again. Where there is actual dumping I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will object to that principle being carried out.

The report points out that there is no actual dumping here.

But it is dumping in law, and surely he does not want me to fail to carry out the law? I may again inform the House that at the time of these abnormally high dumping duties the Government considered the position, and we actually abrogated the collection of dumping duties for some time. What was the result? The bakers said this would not affect the price of bread in the least. The price was not reduced, and the only effect was that I made a present of about £30,000 to certain importers. Of course, great play is being made in connection with the recommendation of the board that the duties should be removed. If hon. members will read that report they will find that even the board is of opinion that the question of dumping duties has little to do with the price of bread; but they say the matter is not of real practical importance. I said I was not going to surrender revenue, and I have proved that these duties have no effect on the price of bread. So far as the present position is concerned, it is back to normal again. Only the real actual dumping duties in law are in force at present. The hon. member also asked me what the intentions of the Government were as to remedying the position which arose some months ago in the previous Government when it was stated that warehouse receipts would not be accepted by the banks and that farmers would not get the benefit of such receipts. Well, I believe subsequently some arrangement was arrived at, and it does not present practical difficulty at present. Under the Agricultural Credits Bill, which I hope to introduce within a day or two, and which I hope hon. members will allow me to pass, provision is made for these warehouse receipts to be regarded as security in the case of advances to be made by the Land Bank, where the produce is sold through a co-operative society. That is the arrangement we intend proposing to Parliament. The question of making these warehouse receipts general security, as I have already pointed out in the Budget statement, is a very serious matter, and we propose first to see how the system works in the case of sales through co-operative societies. It will be a departure from common law, and we want to see how it will work in connection with proper warehouses that can be controlled. If the system is a success, we might consider extending it in general. The hon. gentleman asks what the Government proposes in connection with what I mentioned in the Budget statement, about the £500.000 we propose to provide for roads—special contributions towards road construction. I may inform the House that this is additional to what the provinces will themselves spend, under the constitution, in connection with this service. They, of course, come to the Treasury for loans in connection with road construction, and the Treasury gives them such money as it considers reasonable and can afford, but we realize this question is such an important one, and has become more urgent, especially as a result of the recent rains and floods, that this will be an additional grant which the Government proposes to make to the provinces, free of interest, not under the ordinary system of redemption and payment of interest, but, being for capital expenditure on road construction, it will be free of interest.

As a loan?

No; a grant by the central government, not subject to the ordinary loan conditions, but free of interest, and under these circumstances the amount will be reasonably distributed between the provinces. The Cape Province will get its share. The Minister of Labour will have the administration of this amount in consultation with the provinces. We will ask them where they consider the money should be spent—on which particular roads—and the Minister of Labour will have the supervision of the spending of this amount in connection with unemployment.

Are they loans?

They are not loans. This is an additional amount over and above the ordinary provision which the provinces will make for road construction out of loans the Treasury may grant them. If will be a grant.

To be paid back?

No. Then the hon. member asked the present position in regard to the Umfolozi sugar mill, and the Government’s commitments in regard to that. The previous Government agreed that the Land Bank should render this mill financial assistance, and the Treasury guaranteed a pertain amount. Subsequently, after the present Government assumed office, the settlers tame to us and pointed out that certain further expenditure had to be incurred to recondition the mill, to put it into proper order for the settlers, and the Government then agreed that the Land Bank should provide that assistance also. Since then we have had the disastrous floods in Natal; considerable damage has been done there, and it has now become necessary to shift the mill to another site and recondition it. Under the circumstances, seeing that the Government is already committed through an undertaking of the previous Government which has been increased by this Government, the only possible thing to do is to keep those settlers going and go further and say that the Land Bank may provide the additional amount required for reconditioning the mill on a new site, and the Treasury will also guarantee that amount. The work will be done under proper safeguards as regards site, re-erection, etc., and the Public Works Department will see that a proper job is made of the work, and we hope, after this, no more difficulties will arise. The hon. member also asked what the position was in regard to the establishment of a State bank. This is also a question which was raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in the Budget debate, and repeated last night. All I can say is that the Government has not arrived at any decision in regard to that. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asked whether, in distributing the surplus of the Custodian of Enemy Property. I had made provision for the payment of certain liabilities in respect of dividends which were paid on the funds of ex-enemy nationals to the Custodian, to return those dividends to them. That is, I take it, prior to the passing of the Act.

Prior to the sale of the securities.

The policy which was laid down by the previous Government in that regard was that interest from July 1st, 1914, to the date of issue of the certificates of credit was capitalized and included in the amount for which the certificate was issued. Up to July 1st, 1914, interest at 4 per cent. was included in that. Thereafter the certificate carries interest at 4 per cent. The hon. member thinks interest only ran from June 22nd, 1915 (that is the date on which the law was passed vesting these assets in the Custodian), but the present Government has extended that date to such previous date as interest was actually received in connection with any enemy assets. Although previously this 4 per cent. was only added to those certificates from July, 1916, we had extended the date to such earlier date from which interest was received on these assets. Then we have made the further concessions. The 10 per cent. charge levied on enemy nationals has been waived, and in the case of smaller estates we have not made the ordinary 10 per cent. charge to meet claims of Union nationals. On smaller estates, which did not exceed £20, we have paid out the amount in cash and not issued a certificate. Of course we are not paying out dividends; it is all worked out at 4 per cent. and we have extended it.

Do you make the waiver of the 10 per cent. retrospective?

Oh, yes! The Custodian of Enemy Property holds certain assets, against which are certain liabilities. The certificates are a liability of the Custodian. I propose that the certificates outstanding shall become a direct lien on the consolidated revenue funds—in other words, they will become a long-dated loan. The Custodian has liabilities in respect to certificates already issued, and to be issued, amounting to £8,242.000. That is after cancelling certificates of credit for a face value of £98,500. The Custodian is a creditor to the Union Treasury to the amount of £11,661,000. The difference of £3,419,000 by which the Treasury’s liability exceeds the liability of the Custodian is a fictitious one, and the public debt of the Union is overstated by that amount. We propose that the certificates outstanding shall become a direct liability of the Treasury instead of an indirect liability. Treasury balances held by the Custodian to an equal amount will be cancelled. As to the £700.000 for roads and land settlement, that sum will be used to finance the appropriation. The effect will be to reduce the interest charges by just over £1,000, which will be employed in redemption of debt. Any further windfalls in connection with the Custodian’s service will also be used for redemption of debt. We may get some more money from the French and British trustees, and that will also be utilized to reduce the public debt. The point that has to be remembered is that to get these payments we shall have to cash Treasury notes or borrow anew. Although interest will accrue, there are corresponding assets which are also interest-bearing.

Have you not capitalized for the redemption fund the difference between the interest payment of 4 per cent. and 5 per cent.?

No. The Custodian of Enemy Property has been paying 4 per cent. on the certificates and getting 5 per cent., and that is one of the ways in which this surplus has arisen. A very large amount of the surplus has been contributed by the taxpayer of the country. There has been no increase in the staff at the pensions office, although the work has increased considerably. In 1924-’5. we had had a permanent staff of 48, and in 1925-’6 a permanent staff of 55. The temporary staff numbered 43 in 1924, and 30 in 1925-’6, so that here has been a net reduction in the staff of the pensions office of six. The ungraded officer referred to is Mr. Collins, who has been doing valuable work in connection with the old age pensions, and is now going into the question of the overlapping of poor relief as between the provinces and the Union.

*Various hon. members have raised certain points in connection with the Land Bank. They insist upon it that in different directions the functions of the Land Bank shall be extended in order to give further facilities to the farmers. I hope that the House will always bear one thing in mind, and that is that we must be careful to do nothing by which we shall depart from the sound basis on which the Land Bank has worked hitherto. We remember there was a time when there was strong opposition when the Government came to Parliament to get money for the Land Bank. That time is now past. The Land Bank has worked in such a manner that hon. members, especially on the opposite side who then opposed, are now convinced that the Land Bank is no burden on the State, but that the farmer himself pays for the assistance that he gets. The Land Bank is managed on such a sound basis that no losses are suffered, and it is not necessary to call upon the taxpayer to make up losses, and we must take care that this satisfactory condition is maintained, and that we do not alter it by legislation permitting the Land Bank to carry on business of a less sound nature If in the future there may be an extension of its operations, then it can only take place if no breach is committed upon the sound principle on which it now works. A point which has been mentioned is the need that is felt in the country for it to also help a certain class of people who are not landowners, and not in a position to give the security which the law compels the Land Bank to demand. What we now propose is the Agricultural Credit Bill, to which I have already referred. In that we hope to make provision for these people. When the Bill is before the House, hon. members will see that this is so. Then hon. members further insisted that the interest demanded by the Land Bank should be reduced. Last year, when the Bill was introduced, it was provided that in certain circumstances the Land Bank would be entitled to do so, and I then said that I hoped the time will soon arrive that the Land Bank could give effect to this request I may say that the matter is at the present moment being considered by the Land Bank, but I wish to point out that the position is slightly changed. We agreed last year to write off a certain amount of the reserve, and so the reserve fund was weakened, so that it will actually not be possible to go so far as hon. members expect. But as soon as the board thinks that it can safely reduce the interest, then the matter will certainly be brought to the notice of the board, and I hope that it will be possible later on to do something. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) urged the establishment of branches of the Land Bank, and the hon. member will see that it is impossible, but if the Agricultural Credit Bill is passed, then it will be necessary to have cooperative societies in the various districts and in that way the requirements will be provided for. Other members have talked about writing off the advances in terms of the Act that we passed last year. The grievances are that individuals do not get the advantage thereof. I wish to point out to the House that we expressly stated at the time that the writing off would be for the benefit of the co-operative societies, and not for individual persons. We were induced thereto to prevent the co-operative societies receiving a slap in the face if they were compelled to force good members to pay the debts of fellow-members who had gone insolvent. Therefore the writing off was for the benefit of the co-operative societies, and in cases where there have been bankruptcies the associations are not now compelled to put the losses on to the other members. If we had allowed the individual members to benefit by the writing off, then we should in that way have benefitted the rich man and not the poor man, who requires help. The policy which we follow is for the encouragement of co-operation societies. Therefore I hope that individual members who were dissatisfied will see that it was the proper way and that it is in their interest to take the course of joining the cooperative societies. The question of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) about warehouse receipts has, I think, been already answered. In the Agricultural Credit Bill provision will be made that the receipts will be valid in cases of co-operative societies or of persons who sell their produce by means of cooperative societies. It is in this way also that indirect encouragement is given to affiliate with co-operative societies. Then the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) mentioned the matter of perpetual quitrent. It would amount to this, that certain revenue which to-day goes to the State will be written off. It is of course a serious matter. We have had commissions before, but my predecessors did not see their way to do anything. I am, however, prepared to investigate the matter again to see if anything can be done. During the time I have been there I have noticed in certain cases that certain recommendations are made by the Public Service Commission with regard to the increase of staff. If the department has money on the estimates, the Public Service Commission recommend it. I am looking into it, and I believe it is in connection with functions entrusted to the Public Service Commission under the Act. Formerly the Treasury dealt with the whole question of staffing. It is a question whether financial regulations should be revised, and that is a Question I will look into. Then I omitted to reply to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), that under the Act we passed last year we did not provide for the granting of loans to co-operative companies, with limited liabilities, on their produce. It only assisted those companies that exported their produce. I did not know that it was the intention to give these facilities to people in the country on their produce, because we should be doing something for these people that we were not doing for the co-operative societies with unlimited liability. Under the Agricultural Credits Bill, when these people bring their produce to the warehouses they will get these advances.

That is all we want.

Those who sell their produce inland are a lot more difficult to deal with than the ones who export. The exporter has to give additional security. If these people are prepared to give the same security they can be assisted to-day under the existing legislation. It is the question of security which is not satisfactory at present, and will not be until we make provision for warehouses, and until they are prepared to give security according to the law. Then the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) also raised the question of the branches of the Reserve Bank and what the Reserve Bank was going to do to come into more active opposition to the commercial banks. I may inform the House that very shortly the Reserve Bank will be opening about five branches in the country. They are now busy getting the necessary premises and the necessary staffs together, and as soon as that is done there will probably be five branches of the Reserve Bank opened, and in addition we hope they will be able to function in the manner indicated in the report of the commission.

I would like the position of the Minister to be perfectly clear. I think he really misunderstood me last night. If he looks at the Land Bank Act Further Amendment Act of 1924 he will see that by clause 13 advances can be made on the security of agricultural produce which is in the possession of a limited liability co-operative company, not alone advances against the security of the produce, but advances can also be made on that produce in connection with packing and freight charges when the produce is sent overseas. But it must be produced for export. Consequently the omission which took place in the Act last year was this, that while you were assisting the members of a co-operative society through the society on produce for export, you made no provision for assisting the limited liability co-operative society that was dealing in produce in exactly the same manner which was being sold within the Union. That was the point I wanted my hon. friend to take into consideration. He refers to the other securities. I have always been in favour of every legitimate security and have always had a sympathetic attitude towards the position taken up on this point by the general manager of the Land Bank. What took place was this, that a small limited liability co-operative society applied to the. Land Bank for a loan say they were going to get a loan on their produce. I agree with my hon. friend that produce must be in such a position that it is the property of the co-operative society in transit or in warehouses, and the Land Bank must have a hen upon it. What was the answer? Take the ordinary co-operative society of this country, the ground-nut society, the egg circle society, dairy societies, etc., throughout the country. The answer always was this, that if they wanted a loan against, their produce, say up to 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the value of that produce, the individual directors had to bind themselves jointly and severally for the amount of that loan. Many of them were small men. I have always said, as my hon. friend knows, make the directors to a certain extent responsible, make them take out a contingent liability of shares for a reasonable amount of money, but if you turn to a body of directors, in many cases small farmers, and they want a loan against their produce, say to the extent of £5,000, and you require these men to bind themselves jointly and severally for that loan, the position is that these people, if in the ordinary course of business they go to their bankers and ask for credit facilities, are told that they may be called upon to pay the whole of that liability for which they have bound themselves, and their credit facilities are considerably curtailed. I was under the impression that when the Bill of last year was introduced, the same provisions and assistance against advances on produce for export overseas would be given against the security of produce when it was in co-operative warehouses and when that produce was disposed of in the Union of South Africa. If that is not done I am sure my hon. friend will make it absolutely impossible for the limited liability co-operative company to prosper at the present time. If these co-operative societies, whether they be interested in the tobacco or dried fruit industry, want an advance solely against their produce, they have to go to the commercial bank and obtain money at a higher rate of interest than they could get upon export produce under the Act of 1924. I would say to the Minister that the advances should always be made low, that we should take care to avoid such an occurrence as took place in connection with advances on mealies at one time, keep your advances fair and reasonable, see that you have always got a first-class security, and have a complete lien on that produce when it is sold. I say that you should treat these people in exactly the same manner as though they were exporting their produce.

Speaking for myself, I must say that I am not at all pleased with the Minister’s answer in regard to the dumping duties. The Minister stated that he did not want to break the law. It was not very long ago that he told us that he had broken the law. He then said that when he had taken off the dumping duties the price of bread did not go down, but no sooner had he taken off the dumping duties than he gave notice that in a week or two he was going to re-impose those duties. I understand that during the time they were taken off only 500 tons of flour came into South Africa, which of course made no difference at all in the price of bread. There is no doubt that the effect of the dumping duties is that the cost of bread has gone up in South Africa. If you have not got cheap bread you Cannot go on, you cannot have industries and yon cannot have anything else. If I gave any advice to the Minister, I would say, “Keep your hands off the people’s food.” The bakers are using this dumping duty as an excuse for putting up the price of bread. Who is getting the money? The wheat farmer is not getting the money. He was just as well off without the dumping duties. The wheat farmer’s are deriving no benefit, the public is paying the highest price in the world for bread, and the milling industry, which employs 32 per cent. white and 68 per cent. coloured labour, is earning large dividends. The S.A. Milling Company’s 20s. shares are now standing at 52s., and they are paying a dividend of 15 per cent. I make bold to say, as a Labour man, that if anybody dealing with the people’s food is making 15 per cent. out of it, then it is time we had a food controller to deal with this question. Fifteen per cent. is too much, and if the Government is going to carry out the policy of putting taxes on food they should see that something is done whereby the prices of that particular food shall be controlled. An hon. member said that if the price of bread in South Africa was the same as in Australia, this country would save 2½ millions per year. That is something for the Government to think about, and certainly something for the Labour party to think about, and I am going to think about it. I hope the Minister of Finance will think over this matter. I feel strongly on the question of food and I always have done so. It does not matter to me whether the other side cheers or groans. My point is that we shall have to get the price of bread down in South Africa if we want to ran industry and if we want to compete. The Minister has always been fair, and I hope he will go into this matter to see if he can take something off the dumping duties.

In regard to the temporary clerical assistants mentioned under salaries, wages and allowances. I should like the Minister to explain the reduction in the total amount paid for salaries from £8 250 to £5,732

May I ask the Minister if be would be good enough to tell us what the present position is with regard to the much-debated question of the establishment of an old age pension scheme for the Union? The Minister is aware and hon. members are aware that this question was recently referred to a Select Committee, which reported—

The Minister agreed and the House agreed that this was taking the matter a step further, and I would like to enquire what the Government’s intentions now are.

I agree with the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in what he said with regard to limited liability co-operative societies. We were all given to understand last year that these societies would be placed in such a position that they could get an advance against their produce. I am one of the last men to wish for big advances or for the Land Banks to make advances without adequate security. Limited liability co-operative societies were much disappointed when they found that they could not get these advances. It is very awkward for directors to have to bind themselves collectively and separately for the amount required. If you want an advance of £5,000 and you have five directors, then each of those directors has really to give security for £5.000, which totals £25,000, and each director always has that amount against him. I really think some means can be devised so that these societies can get advances against their produce delivered.

I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has said. It is terribly difficult for limited liability companies to get money from the Land Bank unless the directors guarantee it. The Minister has asked how the security can be obtained. We have a tobacco co-operative society and in our memorandum and articles of association we have made provision for a guarantee. We therefore obtain credit from the commercial banks. The mistake with the Land Bank and other Government institutions is that if we have to wait for the money from the Land Bank and such Government institutions we shall be bankrupt by the time we get it. We should like the advances of capital to be made expeditiously to us when we have the security. We should of course not demand too high advances.

I only wish to discuss the matter of dumping. It seems to me that the House does not understand the question. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) made an appeal to the Minister to take off the dumping duty. Does the House understand what dumping duties mean? They mean that the people in South Africa shall not eat cheaper Australian flour than the inhabitants of Australia. The whole movement in the country is to develop our industries by protecting them. And why therefore not protect the wheat farmer? It has been said that a dumping duty on flour is no protection for the farmer. As things are to-day there is a tax of 1s. per 100 lbs. of wheat and of 2s. 11d. per 100 lbs. of flour. But that is not dumping. But just as the Minister did, I want to ask if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) wants the dumping duty to be abolished or also that tax? There is actually to-day no dumping duty. There is a shortage of wheat in the world.

Precisely.

Why then does the hon. member want to take it off? The serious position is that a distinction is made between the tax on flour and the tax on wheat, viz., of 1s. 11d. per 100 lbs. But hon. members forget that 200 lbs. of flour is 33⅓ per cent. more in value than 200 lbs. of wheat, which is imported. Therefore imported flour is taxed more, but higher than 33⅓ per cent. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has spoken about cheap bread, but cheap bread and expensive labour never go together. If we earn good wages we must also pay good prices for an article. It is alleged that the average dumping duty on wheat is 1s. per 100 lbs. This works out at about one-tenth of a penny on every lb. of flour. But when we are shown that the price of bread in South Africa is 1d. per lb. more than in Australia, then I say with all respect that we have not here to do with dumping, but with another leakage.

Where?

Well, there is such a long way between the producer and the consumer, and we must look for it there. I want to add this. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) must agree that as things are to-day practically very little wheat is milled and there is a slump. He will also know that wheat and flour were dearer some time ago than they are now.

It is still 28s. per bag.

It was 32s. I think that those who always complain of the dumping duty do not know much about the matter. It is not the dumping duty which makes bread dear, but the fault lies with the middle men. The tax which is to-day put upon wheat comes fortunately to more than 2s. per 100 lbs. We cannot say what the dumping duty is, because it depends on the difference between the price for which it was sold in Australia and for which it cart be imported here. We know that the Government of Australia some time recently took over the produce of the farmers and fixed the prices. The rest was then exported at any price, and our farmers must be protected against that.

My hon. friend says the price of wheat has gone up, and that it is not the dumping duty alone that has made bread dearer. We did not say that; but the dumping has assisted in that direction. The price of wheat is about 28s. to-day, and the normal price used to be 20s. and 21s., the latter price being looked upon as quite a good one.

That was pre-war.

Not at all. I remember it in pre-war times down to 16s., and since the war 21s. has been reckoned quite a fair price. My hon. friend defined dumping as selling to a foreign country at a lower price than the local sale price. Is it likely, when there is a short supply of wheat in the world, as there is to-day, that anybody is going to sell at a lower price than the best price he can get? The Minister tries to wriggle out of this business. The law gives him the power to impose dumping duties entirely in his discretion; that is to say, when stuff has been sold to South Africa at a lower price than it is sold in Australia; but no dumping has taken place.

Then I do not collect the duty.

Why is he still charging dumping duty to-day?

I suppose the department has the evidence that dumping is taking place.

Nonsense. In the proper sense there is no dumping taking place, and when there is a short supply, is it likely that anyone is going to sell in this country at a lower price than they can get in the ordinary way? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) points out the uncertainty of the business. What takes place is this. A man by his foresight sees that the price of wheat is going to rise, and he places contracts in advance at a price which is perhaps, lower than it is to-day, but under the dumping duty his foresight is being taxed.

That is what we want to put right.

As a result of the buyer’s foresight he will probably take some profit for himself, and also give the consumer some of the benefit of his advantageous purchase. The Minister, however, says, “Your enterprise and foresight are no good,” and consequently, as a result of the dumping duty, the price remains high. If the two Ministers who recently Wrote letters to Durban in regard to the price of bread had taken advantage of their position in the Cabinet to get the dumping duties removed they would have done more good than their letters would. It is a monstrous state of affairs that the very staple of life should be taxed in this way. How can we expect to establish any industries here under such conditions?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) asked a question of the Minister in connection with a certain section of the population, and it was in connection with old age pensions. I should like to ask the Minister a question in connection with another section. It is a small section, but an unfortunate one in the country. I mean the blind people. The reason why I bring the matter forward is because I recently came into touch with a very sad case of a man who attends the school for the blind at Worcester and has had a special education as mattress maker, but he cannot get work anywhere simply because he is blind. This man was born in this unhappy condition. It is not his own fault or weakness. There are persons who enjoy the support of the State, but these blind people are not assisted. I think that relief should be given. In one case that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the man went from factory to factory in Cape Town but could not get work. Finally, at the third factory, he got work, but on piece-work basis. He could not make more than four mattresses, and at the end of the day he got 2s. 8d., or some such sum. The blind man cannot make an existence in this manner. He cannot work as fast as other people. I only wish to mention to the hon. Minister that in New Zealand, for instance, the blind people are looked after. During the past year legislation has been introduced for a section of the population which provides that everyone above 20 years who is blind and not disqualified and who has lived ten years in the country shall get an annual pension. In England the “After-Care Department” looks after these people. I hope our Minister will seriously consider doing something. It will not mean such a great expense because the number is small.

I should like to say something about the dumping duty. I should like to refer the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) to the fact that there are large pieces of ground in the Transvaal which are suited for wheat culture. They are being prepared, and if the dumping duty is removed, the encouragement to make the ground ready for wheat culture will disappear. That is my chief reason in supporting the Minister in his attitude of not taking off the dumping duty. We in the Transvaal have great distances to contend with which one has to take into account. If we develop the wheat production in such a way that a surplus is produced, the price will regulate itself according to the world price and the fear of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has therefore no justification.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) that we are quite satisfied with 1s. on wheat, but I see that a difference of 1s. 11d. is still made on flour. This simply goes into the pockets of the millers and has to be paid by the consumers.

The hon. member is discussing an amendment of the law. He can ask a question.

I will then, in the form of a question, ask the hon. Minister why, if I take the position last year, the revenue from the tax on wheat was £142,000, while if the tax on flour and grain had been the same it should have been £380,000, and the difference of £238.000 went into the pockets of the millers?

During the discussion I could not help feeling how delighted you (Chairman of Committee) would be if your present occupation did not prevent you supporting with your eloquence these statements made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) said he did not think you could have cheap wheat unless you had cheap labour. The hon. gentleman is trespassing on dangerous ground. I do not know how that is appreciated by a certain section of the party of which he is a distinguished member. I do not agree with him. I do say if you have really intelligent labour you ought to be able to produce wheat under better conditions than now. I would like to impress on the House and on the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who I am sorry is not a wheat farmer as well as a fruit farmer, because then he would realize the difficulties, that I do not think the dumping duties make any difference whatever. Owing to conditions in the world there is a demand for wheat in Europe. A good deal of Australian wheat that would otherwise come here finds a better market in Europe. I have always felt as long as we do not grow sufficient wheat in this country to feed the people that it is our duty to see in every way possible that we import wheat instead of flour. It is the policy of Australia, naturally, to export flour and not wheat, because in every 100 lbs. of wheat with ordinary milling you get 73 per cent. of flour and 27 per cent. of various by-products. These by-products are of great assistance in building up the dairy and bacon industry in the country. One of the great difficulties in developing the bacon industry is due to the fact that we have a shortness of by-products. Whether millers are making more than a reasonable profit I do not know, but so long as we have to import cereal into the country for bread-making it should be our policy to see wheat is imported and now flour. There are times when, owing to the desire of a wheat-growing country to export flour instead of wheat, the prices between the wheat and flour are not what they otherwise would have been. Flour is really sold at an intrinsic value less than the intrinsic value of the wheat berry from which it is made. From the reply of my hon. friend to the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw), he was willing to meet the limited liability companies, but was doubtful about the security. If he asks the agricultural department to give him a copy of a Bill drafted by me for Mr. Lansdowne, he will find there was a simple clause whereby the Land Bank could give a loan on produce if the law had a lien on the produce.

Cape Town (Central) will not support that.

I think he will, because he is a member with an extremely fair mind, and any member in favour of the principle that you should make an advance against produce for the purpose of exporting it out of the country would be favourable to the making of an advance against co-operative produce when you are going to sell it in this country for the benefit of your own people.

What is a reasonable advance?

You can make am advance of 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.

What the hon. member is saying now involves legislation. The hon. member can only discuss administration on this vote.

I would be perfectly in order were I to move a reduction of the Minister’s salary, which is the last thing I would like to do. I am only pointing out how essential it would be to do something to amend the Land Bank Act to make advances of that kind. If he will go into this question he will find he will have the fullest possible security for the bank.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but he is discussing something involving legislation.

Old age pensions have been mentioned. I thought the matter had been disposed of. But with reference to what has been said here, I want to say that I feel strongly on the matter for pensions for worn-out people. But I am decidedly opposed to the general system of introducing old age pensions. Just imagine that men such as the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) can at the end of the week go and draw a pension of £1 3s. or £3! I am in favour of derelict people getting pensions, and if we go through the country we shall see how many necessitous and poor old people live in the country who have sacrificed everything for the country and the people. £200,000 or £300,000 will go very far in assisting such people.

I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) on the question of the price of bread. I only regret that the hon. member’s colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, was not present to listen to the speech. It was a question which particularly agitates that portion of the Union from which the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs comes. I want to ask the hon. Minister of Finance one or two questions about this duty. He has not taken us into his confidence and told us why he took the dumping duties off and then re-imposed them two or three weeks later. He has made out a case this afternoon that it was a question of being compelled to administer the law. The law was the same six months ago as it is to-day. If the law permitted him to take the duty off then, and afterwards reimpose it, why stand up now and say the law will not allow him to take it off to-day? I have looked at the law. I take it that the section which the Minister must act under is section 12 of Act 23 of 1923, the Customs and Excise Duties Amendment Act. That lays down the power to impose dumping duties and prescribes two conditions which have to be fulfilled. First of all, it has to be proved that goods are being sold here at less than the current market price in the country of export, and, secondly, the Minister of Finance must form the opinion and continue to hold the opinion that detriment is being done to a local industry. In regard to the latter point the Minister has, of course, to form his own opinion, but in forming that opinion he is necessarily guided by the technical advisers whom he employs. The Board of Trade and Industries would—

I have my own department administering the dumping laws.

I thought one of the functions of the Board of Trade and Industries was to make an enquiry into the question of dumping?

No.

When they presented this report to the Minister dealing with this very question of dumping, were they travelling beyond their functions?

They were specially entrusted to advise me and to investigate this question.

Then that meets my point. In its report the board says—

When you appoint a board of enquiry which presents the report that this board did last November, and it concludes by strongly recommending, first, that the report be published, and secondly, that the dumping duty on wheat and flour be removed

Why don’t you quote the portion of the report where they say that they do not think the duty has much to do or anything to do with the price of bread?

I cannot read the whole of this report, but I will read the portion that the Minister refers to, page 8—

1. (1) The prevailing high world prices of wheat and flour and the likelihood of those values being maintained at least until reliable forecasts of next year’s crops in the northern hemisphere are available, constitute an ample safeguard of the interests of the wheat farmers;
2. (2) there appears to be no real dumping of wheat or flour at the present time, owing to the expected world shortage and the growing demand for wheat and flour;
3. (3) the dumping duty, though a negligible factor at present, is still used as an excuse for maintaining the high price of bread; and—

Yes, that is so.

When I have to pay 8d. for a loaf of bread in Durban, instead of 6d., it does not matter to me whether the excuse is a valid one or not. I see from the pamphlet in my hand that the dumping duty has ranged in its actual imposition from 11d. per 100 lbs. up to 3s. 8½d. per 100 lbs. When an importer has to pay a dumping duty the amount of which he cannot calculate beforehand, he will take care to be on the safe side, and that is bound to react against the price to the home consumer. The Minister cannot absolve himself from responsibility. He refers the matter to a commission, and the commission in very strong terms reports in favour of the taking away of that dumping duty. The Minister has not done so, and I say he should give us a more adequate reason than his statement that the law requires him to impose this duty.

If two things are present, I am supposed to act.

The one thing is an objective question of fact, and the other is the Minister’s own opinion. I say his opinion should be formed on the advice he has received from the commission he has appointed to that end.

Oh, no.

Then we are entitled to criticize the Minister for not forming a proper opinion. We are entitled to ask this, if the Minister does not form that opinion and he still is of opinion that detriment is being done to local industries, how did he form that opinion? I take it that the industry he thinks will be injured is the farming industry and not the milling industry. If so, what were the representations made? Finally, I want to know what relief can the consumer expect in the immediate future in regard to the price of bread?

I seem regularly to be getting up-size with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He has said to-day that we get 21s. for wheat, and that that is enough. I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) had to live from it what he would say then? The hon. members opposite are busy telling the consumers that we farmers get too much for our grain. It is not so. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has more heart for our farmers. The leaders of the Opposition do not agree with him. I hope that the hon. Minister will help us not to import any more wheat. There are many especially of our poor farmers who produce wheat, and they should be protected.

May I say that I do not agree with the views that have been put before this committee by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), nor can I agree entirely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)? I cannot see anything objectionable in the principle of the dumping duty. Although it does not go to the length of preventing the importation of sweated goods, it does achieve a very useful purpose. In the interests of industry it is imperative that protection such as dumping duty should be imposed. The report referred to clearly shows that the increase in the price of bread was due to the rings that were formed, and not in any way to the dumping duty. Their only objection to the dumping duty was that it was being used by dishonest commercial people as an excuse for putting up the price of bread. The only object of the dumping duty must be to benefit industry in this country and the people in this country. Just as we have provision for controlling rents, so it is imperative that the Minister should take steps for controlling prices so that the benefit of industry shall go to the public of South Africa and not to a handful of people. I should also like to ask the Minister what is being done on the question of shop rents, in respect of which a commission was appointed. I asked the Minister a question as to the establishment of a State bank, and I understand his reply was that the Government have not considered the matter. If that is the case, I am very disappointed, and I am sure that thousands of supporters of the Government will be seriously disappointed also.

The hon. member cannot advocate a State bank now.

I was asking a question.

The hon. member must cut his statement down.

It is a matter which should take its place among subjects of first importance. It is of serious import to the country and is one of the first questions that the Government should have considered. I do ask the Minister to give us some indication as to when he will consider this matter, if he has not already done so.

I can somewhat understand the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) because he is a known free trader. He would like wheat and flour to come in absolutely duty free, and he will fight the wheat farmer until the day that he is no longer in the House. But may I remind him of the attitude of the Government of which he was a member with reference to dumping generally? The Smuts’ Government laid dumping duties on cement, sugar, fertilizer, asbestos, and certain other products of this country which were in danger of succumbing if other countries were permitted to dump their surpluses of such articles here at prices lower than there. To save certain industries in other countries, and to kill competition here, dumping was brought about. Why, then, did even such a free trader as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) assist his Government with such dumping duty? To prevent Union industries being killed. For the same reason it is necessary to give such protection to our wheat and flour. Or is the producer of cement of more value than the producer of grain? If the manufacturer must be protected against failure, why not the farmer? The Australian Government takes care that the farmer there does not get a lower price for his wheat than a certain fixed sum, and disposes of the surplus wheat or flour even at a loss in other countries. Must we allow the Australian to do in our country what the Australian Government prohibits him doing in his own country? Must we help the Australian producer at the expense of our own? I wonder whether the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) agrees with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)?

Do you agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)?

No, he is clearly also a free trader.

Now why does it follow, then, that I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)?

I did not say it followed. I only said I wondered what the attitude of my hon. friend was. If he does not agree with the hon. member who sits next to him (Mr. Jagger), then he should get up and say so. He should help me. Up to the present not a single member of the Opposition has repudiated the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has reproached the Minister of Finance that he has not followed the advice of the Board of Trade and Industries and removed the dumping duty on flour and wheat. He asked, “What is the use of the board if its advice is not followed?” Is that the attitude the hon. member for Bezuidenhout took up a few days ago when that board recommended the Government to double the import duties on flour and wheat? No, then he wanted to know how it could possibly be alleged that the Government was bound to follow the advice of such a body. That board at that time proved by figures that the doubling of the import duty would not result in an increase in the price of bread, but would encourage the producer of wheat. If the hon. member thinks to-day that one is obliged to do everything that the Board of Trade and Industries recommends, then I should like to ask him if he is in favour of the said import duties being doubled. The Government would commit a great injustice to the farmer if they allow South Africa to become the dumping ground of Australia or any other country. When they suspended the dumping duties for a short period last year the local wheat market at once got a knock, but was the price of bread altered by it? Not by a farthing. The Government lost £30,000 in dumping duties by it, and the importers only said, “Thank you, Mr. Havenga,” and put the extra profit into their pocket.

I am very pleased to hear that the commission are going more fully into this matter. We have either to be in the hands of the farmer or the speculator, and personally I would rather be in the hands of the farmer. If we do as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wishes, what would happen would be that when production is high and prices are low in America and Australia, the surplus of production over consumption in those countries would be sold for export to other countries at a lower figure than that charged for home consumption, but the merchants would not charge that low price here. They would base their selling price on the highest price they could get, and not only would the consumer not get the bread any cheaper, but it would debar the farmers from sowing wheat. The result would be that, in the course of a few years, the acreage under wheat would be less than it is at present, and naturally, in certain years the production in Australia and America would fall below the consumption. The final result would be that we should have no wheat grown in this country at all and would have to import at any price. Therefore we ought to safeguard the production in this country.

I just want to say a few words. At the recent election we went to the country on certain points of importance to the land. One of them was the protection of the industries and occupations of the country which have a chance of success in South Africa and not bastard industries. We went on the principle of the protection of our industries. The South African party did not dare to go in for free trade. At the last moment the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) resigned, and he is the little child that they then threw to the wolves of free trade. There was no party in the country that supported free trade. We are all protectionists except the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). Where is the occupation in the country which more deserves protection than the agricultural industry? And what phase of farming is more deserving of protection than wheat culture? And who has a greater interest in wheat culture than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)? Where does one to-day find the most shops per head of the population? Is it not in Malmesbury, Piquetberg, Ceres and Tulbagh, which are all wheat producing districts? And to whom does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) sell his goods, is it not to those shop-keepers?

In Ceres we have fruit.

Yes, there is fruit in Ceres, but the fruit growers stand on a different footing. They do not require this kind of protection, but I also represent Tulbagh and the wheat farmers of Ceres. Who is a better man for society in general, including the shop-keeper, than the wheat farmer? Who buys more than he does? Let me invite hon. members to go to a wheat farm. They will see that on a small farm large quantities of wheat are produced and many people make their livelihood. Unfortunately the soil of the Western Province where wheat is produced is so poor that we cannot always compete with other parts of the world. This the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will also find out if he compares the average production of Australia, Kansas, Missouri and other parts with the average yield per muid in South Africa. He will find that our yield is smaller. Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) now say that if the wheat farmer of South Africa cannot compete with the wheat of India, America and Australia that we should cease growing it? No, he will not say that. It is an occupation which supports many people and we cannot allow it to be killed. If we permit wheat to be imported cheap from such places as Karachi our wheat culture will be killed, and that would be a calamity to South Africa. For this reason protection is necessary. I will not repeat what other members have said in regard to what dumping is and what it means to the consumer. If we make it clear to the worker, the shopkeeper, and to the public what protection means to the country, and that the farmer requires it, then I am certain that they will be willing to pay the one-tenth of a penny more for a pound of bread, because they will appreciate that it is a matter of life and death to South Africa. I thus hope that the Minister of Finance will go on with the protection of our industries as he has done in the past nine or ten months. He has shown that he means well by our industries which have a possibility of establishing themselves in the country, and I hope that he will maintain the dumping duty if he considers it necessary for the protection of the farmer. I also represent consumers, but my electors appreciate that we cannot allow an important industry or occupation to die without the community suffering thereby.

I agree with every word that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said, but I would go further, and remove not only the dumping duty but the ordinary duty on flour and wheat, these being, in my opinion, the very last things which should be taxed for revenue purposes. I yield second place to no one in the House in a desire to foster industries, but only natural industries, those for which the raw material can be found in the country, and of which the country can at least produce all its own requirements. In this instance we have to import one-third of our flour and wheat and it is useless to try to foster through the customs an industry which has to depend partly on imported material, for that leads to profiteering. This is proved by the fact that the price of flour and wheat in this country is not based on what it costs to produce but on the cost of flour landed from Australia. The dumping duty only amounts to a fraction of a penny on a pound of bread, and it is extraordinary that a two-pound loaf of bread is sold in Durban at 4½d. and 5d. and 8d. in Johannesburg. Surely there is something rotten in the state of Denmark when prices vary so much as that for the same article. We have been told that the excess price of bread costs consumers £2,500,000 per year, and that this huge amount goes into the pockets of trusts. I do know that the small bakers have not had the money, for practically all the small bakers on the Rand have gone insolvent, and the baking trade there is certainly in the hands of a trust. Members have received pamphlets written by flour importers urging the abolition of the dumping duty, and we have just heard the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) contending that the farmers should be entitled to get as much as they can for their wheat. What is wanted in the interests of the public is a Food Controller, who will study the subject from the public standpoint and insist upon bread being sold at a fair price.

I hope that the hon. Minister of Finance will not remove the dumping duty. He made the experiment without any result and lost £30,000, which was a great pity and meant a heavy loss to the Treasury. Let me just mention one case, namely, the case of the people at Van Wyk Vlei in my division. For three successive years the farmers could sow nothing. Now last year they could sow a fair amount in consequence of the rains we had, but now it is not possible to get a price that pays. I heard this from one of the settlers who has 500 bags which he could not sell at a good price because he could not get it. This Government is in favour of protecting our industries, and it is no more than right that the wheat farmer should also be protected. I hope the Minister will not remove the duty.

Might I refer to one matter mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) with regard to the commission to be appointed in connection with the old age pensions. I understand an hon. member opposite suggested something should be done in connection with the blind people. I support that, I understand there are a considerable number of blind cases amongst the native people and there is practically no provision for them. In the event of this commission being appointed, is the Minister intending that the scope of the commission shall be confined to old age pensions only?

And to invalidity.

To invalidity only? I want to suggest that if the commission were appointed the scope of the enquiry might be made as extensive as possible so that the commission could inquire into the whole question of State insurance, and even take into consideration the possibility of extending it on the lines presently indicated by the Baldwin Government.

This question of dumping duties and tariffs is a complex one, and there is sharp divergence of opinion on all sides. A good deal of it arises from misunderstanding. The member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) makes a sweeping condemnation of anything in connection with dumping duties. I take it be includes a tariff as well on flour and wheat. There is a vast difference between a dumping duty and a tariff. I agree with all the hon. gentlemen who disagree with the maintenance of the tariff. I look upon a tariff as a most unscientific and unsound method of obtaining protection for an industry on the one hand, or for raising revenue on the other. When you have instituted a tariff, that is all you have done. You have lost touch with it, you have no control over it, and it is very seldom that a tariff secures the object you have in view, the prevention of importation of the particular article you are putting a tariff on. It is inconsistent to say that you put a tariff on to protect an industry, and at the same time expect to raise revenue, because the one is a negation of the other. If you are raising revenue as the Minister intends, on certain articles by a protective tariff, you are really either protecting your industry and not getting your revenue, or you are getting your revenue and not protecting your industry. The consumer pays at the finish, and he usually pays more than the tariff. If you are going to protect, protect absolutely. Let the country know what it is faced with in expenditure. If you put on a tariff of 20 per cent. at the port of entry, and expect to raise revenue from it, that 20 per cent. is not all that the consumer in the country has to pay. The importer wants his profit on the original outlay and on the 20 per cent. tariff as well, and when he parts with it to the wholesaler, he also wants his profit on the original cost, plus the original tariff, plus his percentage on the original tariff.

What is your remedy?

Bounties.

Where is the money coming from?

Where does the money come from when you pay it in the form of a tariff three times over? From the same people you raise the money from to pay a bounty with the difference that the whole of the country is interested in the institution of the industry with a further added control, because this House has it under revision every year on the Estimates. It decides whether the prices are right for the consumer, and whether the manufacturing conditions are correct. With a tariff you have to let go. On this question of dumping I do not agree with the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) a dumping duty is a different thing, it is not a tariff. It is to see that people who charge a certain price in the country of origin to the consumers do not charge less when they put it into this country. I hope the Minister will not agree to remove the dumping duty. If the Minister removes the tariff, I hope he will, then he has got to make other provision for protection of the local producer. We are not producing sufficient wheat in the country to meet our requirements.

How much are we short?

I do not know; I hope the Minister will tell us.

About one-third.

I think it is more, about two-thirds of our requirements. There are other forces at work with regard to prices, and the Minister must turn his attention, not so much to the removal of the dumping duty, that will not affect the price, but to the fact that the price is affected as it is due to the manipulation of those who get control of the commodity. You are not helping the farmer by building up a tariff on wheat, nor are you helping the consumer by a removal of the dumping duty. The position lies in the hands of those who control the commodity. You have to turn your attention to the milling companies and there make the most meticulous enquiries. My hon. friend has pointed out certain fluctuations in price as between Durban and Johannesburg. Will my hon. friend be surprised to know, if my information is correct, as I believe it is, that you have large fluctuations of price in the town of Durban itself? You have one baker selling bread there at 4½d. and others, the general body of them, selling bread at 8d.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I do not propose to deal with the question of dumping, which seems to have been very fully discussed this afternoon. From what one can see, a good deal of the discussion might have gone on in the caucus of the Government side, where they compose their differences. I would like to deal with one or two details of the customs tariff administration. Under the new tariff which has been imposed the customs administration are levying the maximum tariff either way, that is if the new tariff shows a reduction the customs are levying the old tariff, while, if the new tariff shows an increase, the customs are levying the higher rate. I recognize that under the Customs Act it is in their power to do that, but in the meantime the Treasury are getting a very nice thing, and it is going on for a very considerable length of time. But they go a little further still, and levy duties that do not exist under the present tariff and will not exist if the new tariff becomes law. I had an instance given me the other day which illustrates this point. Electric lamp-bulbs under the old tariff came into this country from the United Kingdom free of duty. Under the new tariff it is also intended that those goods shall come in free when they come from the United Kingdom.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member (Mr. Stuttaford), but I think this discussion should come under Vote No. 12.

Has not this tariff question as much to do with this vote as the dumping duty, I would ask?

The hon. member may proceed.

As I was saying, neither the old tariff nor the new tariff imposes a duty on these things when coming from the United Kingdom, and yet the customs people are leaving to-day a duty of 5s. per 100 lamps, that is the new tariff, allowing a rebate of three per cent. ad valorem, which is the rebate on the old tariff. Therefore, they are levying now a rate of duty which is neither law to-day nor is it proposed by the Minister of Finance that is shall be law in future. It seems to me a most extraordinary anomaly, because the customs also take up the position that they will not refund the excess of duty which has been paid on these goods when the new law comes into force.

You may criticize the Act, but you cannot criticize the administration, because it is according to the law.

It seems to me that the wording of the Act must be very curious when you have the levying of a duty which does not exist at present and which will not exist when the proposals of the Minister of Finance come into force. I would also ask the Minister if he cannot look into the question of the levying of duty on shipments by the same boat arriving at different ports. It does not affect us very much in Cape Town because we get our goods in very often at the lower duty, but when you get to the up-country ports there is no doubt that it hurts and does serious harm to the commercial community, who have to compete perhaps with commodities which we have imported at a different duty by the same ship which carries goods to them at another port. There is another point, and that is the way in which the customs authorities, I might say, persecute people who are coming from overseas as tourists, by levying duty on their field-glasses, cameras, etc. If an unfortunate individual brings a revolver or anything like that, so as to protect himself against our various revolutions and rebellions, he has to go and register it, if he is travelling round the country, at three different places. I do think that the customs should not necessarily be so meticulous in dealing with the tourist who is travelling here, and I hope the Minister will see that his department takes a more liberal view with regard to our tourists, because we are trying to build up a large tourist business in this country. These people bring a lot of money into the country, and I think it is a pity that when they set foot in this country for the first time they are handled by the customs in this very drastic fashion.

I was endeavouring just now to impress upon the Minister the necessity of looking into the advisability of introducing some control of the food prices to consumers. The discrepancy between the prices of bread as between Durban and Johannesburg, viz., 4½d. to 8d., becomes alarmingly apparent when we find that this discrepancy exists in the town of Durban itself, and it points to some other forces operating, which require close investigation by the Minister. To my mind the obvious outcome of it all is that he has got to institute some method of food price control, side by side with which you have got to find out what is happening with the milling companies. You have got to control these companies. They are responsible for a good deal of the difficulties that the producer, on the one hand, finds himself in, and the consumer on the other hand. You have the people placed in an extraordinary position in relation to the milling company. The milling company says to the producer the price shall be so much, and the producer can produce all the books he likes and prove right up to the hilt how much it has cost him to produce his wheat or maize, but it cuts no ice. The milling company has got him by the throat, to put it metaphorically. The milling company has got the people in this country both ways, the producer on one hand and the consumer on the other. An examination is certainly required in that direction. It is idleness to argue this way or that way about protecting our industry, when you have people controlling us in this manner. I want to ask the Minister if his memory is sufficiently long to remember—I do not know whether he made the promise himself, but certainly a good many of his colleagues, both in the Ministry and as humble followers, made a promise to the electorate that without delay, or at all events inordinate delay, there was going to be a State bank instituted—I want to know if he can remember that promise. I am not going to enlarge upon this matter because I know the Deputy-Chairman will rule me out of order, but I want to point out that the country has built upon this; the country is expecting it. I cannot put it more eloquently than it has been expressed by my hon. friend the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). It is likely to be a most important factor in the economic life of South Africa; in fact, the only rock upon which we can build our economic life. I will content myself with asking the Minister whether he remembers the promises which were made to the electorate in all parts of the country. The farmers in this country want it because they realize the time has come to get out of the financial grip of private speculation. The promises were made, and the country is remembering that those promises were made, and I want to know if the Minister remembers those promises, and, if so, why he has not yet started to investigate this question of a State bank. I find myself in consonance and collaboration for once in my life with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

I am against a State bank.

Against it? No, surely not. The hon. member is at last converted to the view that he, with others, must get out of the grip of the private bank.

You are wrong there.

At all events he raised the question, and we thank him for doing so. It is most desirable that the question should be fought out on the floor of this House. I suggest that action should be taken in the form of a Bill introduced by the Minister of Finance himself, desiring the House to establish the principle of the institution of a State bank.

We have had a fairly long and interesting discussion on the question of dumping duties, but I do not know whether we can usefully carry it any further. It is quite true that we had a suggestion from the other side that we, on this side of the House, should first compose our views, but I do not think there is any more unanimity on that side of the House. I started to put to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) whether he advocated the removal of the duties on wheat and flour, or whether he was merely against the principle of dumping duties.

I want to remove the dumping duties.

I really cannot understand the argument that you should give other industries protection when articles are being dumped into the country, and yet deny it to the farmers.

I said nothing of the kind. I am concerned with dumping duties only.

If there is dumping why should you not have dumping duty?

Is there dumping?

Exactly; is there dumping? As I previously told the House. I am only carrying out the law. The department responsible for carrying out the dumping laws is the Finance Department. The Board of Trade were specially asked by me to go to Durban to investigate the question of bread prices. We have to consider the matter as a whole, and the carrying out of the law casts on me a certain duty as Minister of Finance. What happened? At that time representations were made to us that bread prices were going up. The argument was used that it was due to the fact that we were then collecting an abnormally high dumping duty. I thought the dumping duties might have something to do with it, and I said that failing investigation I would abrogate the levying of those duties. The reason I did so was that the price of bread to the consumer was a serious matter, and although I broke the law I would have been prepared to come to this House and face the position. When we found out afterwards it had nothing to do with raising the price of bread, I took further action. I found out from the Board of Trade report that the dumping duties were in no way connected with the increase in the price of bread. That was a question of fact. When this was reported I said—

What you had to find out was what harm would arise.

As already pointed out, there are two facts I had to ascertain before issuing a proclamation: first, whether the article was being sold in this country at a lower price than the country of production. There was no question about that. I do not think the hon. member disputes that that was a fact. Then the second fact was whether in my opinion it would be harmful to a Union industry. I should say that when you have an industry like the wheat industry—and we know under what conditions wheat is being cultivated in this country—that it follows logically that dumping would very likely harm that industry. But I obtained evidence to the effect that as soon as the report came out that the dumping duties were being removed there were speculators rushing about the Malmesbury and other districts telling people that the Government had removed the duty and these people did actually buy wheat at their own prices. This news does not penetrate so easily into the country districts and there are always people ready to take advantage and to exploit the farmers.

Why should the consumer pay for that?

I have pointed out that my only duty was to ascertain whether this was likely to injure a Union industry.

Your own hoard says no.

Unfortunately, that duty was not laid on the board. That was a question I had to decide, and I did so. Then the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) again returned to this question of the ability of the Land Bank to make advances to those co-operative companies, and quite rightly he pointed out that the difficulty of the Land Bank was the question of security. He thought that it would be security for the Land Bank if the produce was delivered to the store of the co-operative society. As the right hon. member knows, in law that would not constitute a lien. I informed the right hon. member that I proposed introducing that legislation.

I wanted a clause.

He stated that the Bill he introduced would have given the bank a lien. I replied that I doubted whether hon. members would support him in that view. I question very much whether we should go any further than the Land Bank does at present and that is why I have very grave doubts as to the advisability of extending that right to the Land Bank. The question of making these warehouse receipts available is a thing that you can control and is different from what the right hon. member is advocating. I doubt very much whether the House would accept his proposal.

But you give advances against produce if it is exported.

Yes, but for a specific purpose; only in connection with the costs incidental to export.

No, no.

Yes, that is so. The hon. member for Troyeville was not in the House when I replied to his question last night. I did not say that the Government had not considered the matter, but that it had not come to a decision. In regard to lower shop rents, I must refer the hon. member to the reply which the Minister of Justice gave the other day to the question on the subject. If the Government should decide to carry out the recommendations of the report, I doubt whether the House would pass them. Several hon. members referred to old age pensions. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) referred to the report of the Select Committee advocating the appointment of a commission. The hon. member will realize that owing to the stress of Parliamentary work, we have not been able to give attention to that matter, but we will see whether we can get a good commission to go further into the matter. If we do, I do not see any necessity to restrict the scope of the commission to old age pensions, but should also go into the question of invalidity and other pensions. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw), and others, raised the question of blind persons. If they are destitute and cannot earn a living, that is a provincial matter, but that is also a question which I daresay will be dealt with when the broader question to which I have referred, is dealt with. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) referred to certain anomalies in connection with the administration of the Customs Acts. He might criticize the Acts but not the administration. We are merely carrying out the law which says that if the Minister of Finance announces any increases in the House they become effective at once. But the law advisers say any proposed alterations in rebates are not effective at once.

In the proposed legislation they are free but the customs are making us to pay 5s. less 3 per cent. ad valorem.

When Parliament does away with the rebate under certain circumstances that will be the law, but at present we must carry out the existing law. The rebate under the new proposals does not become effective until the law is passed. It does seem curious; but that is how the matter works out at present. I daresay when the previous legislation was passed, providing for the minimum coming into effect, and for the increased duties, the possibility of the general rebate being abolished was not contemplated. Then, in regard to the question of goods carried in ships that arrive at certain of our ports where the customs men do not give notice, that is so. Of course merchants could anticipate the position by clearing the goods, as Cape Town would have had to do.

They have not the documents.

That is an anomaly which I am afraid we cannot rectify. It happens under our present legislation. Then in regard to field-glasses, cameras, etc., brought in by tourists, I was not aware that the law was being unreasonably administered. The hon. member will realize that we have to be careful to protect the revenue. We have an arrangement under which they may be admitted free, and registered, and taken away within six months. We must have some protection or we would open the way to fraud.

It is not done in other countries.

Other countries perhaps do not rely so much on customs duties for revenue.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt,” £4,425,000,

What is the Minister going to do about sinking funds? At present our total contribution for sinking fund purposes is £423,000, which equals about 4s. of 1 per cent. When we compare that with that paid by other countries, it is extremely small. For instance, Australia’s sinking fund is ½ per cent. and Great Britain’s ⅝ of 1 per cent., or £50,000,000. With the exception of the last couple of years the Union has never paid less for sinking fund purposes than it is doing now. The time has arrived when we should make a bigger contribution. In addition to the £423,000 we also contribute surpluses to sinking funds, but sometimes there is no surplus. Why not have a fixed sum each year, say £1,000,000, or ½ percent. on our total indebtedness, and let the surplus be carried forward? It is true that I once opposed this, but one learns from experience.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has changed his mind on the question of a sinking fund. The subject has often been discussed in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Now that we have the hon. member with us, I hope it will very speedily be put into operation.

The Public Debt Commissioner’s report for last year showed that out of our total debt of £208,000,000, £67,000 0 were unproductive. I do not think the Minister can adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), as that would involve £1,000,000 a year.

£600,000.

While I do not think the Minister can fairly be expected to make sinking fund provision at this stage for the whole debt, I think an early start should be made with regard to the unproductive part of that debt. Of the £67,000,000 unproductive debt £35,000,000 are due to the war. It is unfair to posterity that this money was raised almost entirely by loans. This question must be tackled sooner or later. I would like to ask the Minister why, having started with making a sinking fund provision for the first loan he raised, the second time he went into the money market he made no sinking fund provision. There is one other question. I understand, if I follow the Minister of Finance rightly, dealing with this famous nest-egg, that he has got £100,000 a year, apart from the £3,500,000?

It accrues as a result of that £3,500,000.

Well, I want to know what is going to be done with that? Is it going to swell the sinking fund?

Yes.

I want to ask the Minister if he is satisfied with the cost of raising Union loans. I put a question on the paper the other day with regard to this, asking him what the average percentage of costs was in connection with the raising of loans. I am glad the question of a State bank has been raised in this discussion, because there is an important question showing what a disadvantage the Minister is under when he has to go to financiers for loans. The answer I got was that the average cost was £2 5s. 2d. per cent. I think that some of the charges are such that the average cost is really higher. In the raising of loans for Australia the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was able to save some £7,000,000, and the average cost was 5s. 7d. per cent. I want to point out to the hon. Minister that the figure of 5s. 7d. is apparently comparable with our £2 5s. 2d. I understand the Commonwealth Bank claimed they did the service at 5s. 7d. per cent. I regret we are following the orthodox way of getting these loans, and getting them underwritten, giving over the credit of the people to financial institutions and individuals for exploitation. The result is that we owe for some millions we never had as well as for what we actually received. I make it that our average costs of flotation is far beyond the £2 5s. 2d. given by the department. It is lower than the former Australian costs, which were in the neighbourhood of £3, if I remember rightly.

I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on the subject of debt redemption. We have advocated the necessity of making greater provision for many years, and we have always had pointed out during the last few years that we had not done sufficient in this matter. I have already given an earnest of the intention of the present Government in this matter in the future. I have shown to the House we realize the importance of doing something more in this respect. This year we are making more provision. The result of carrying out this policy is that I have undertaken in regard to future local loans to add a condition of 1 per cent. sinking fund. That is bound very soon to improve the position considerably. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) blames me for not carrying that out in regard to loans negotiated in Great Britain and other countries. I have never indicated that we were going to apply this condition to all future loans so raised. My information is that people overseas are not keen on having these conditions apply to loans there.

Why should they not be keen?

They prefer the loans to be for a long-date period. I pointed out also that next year and following years we shall have this £100,000 to go forward and increase the present year’s provision in regard to debt redemption. If we retain the provision in our existing legislation that surpluses should go for that purpose—and if we find we have a really good surplus—it might even be too much, but I am glad to hear the member for Cape Town (Central) on the question of deleting that surplus and carrying it forward for future years. I do not think we should approach the question of fixed contributions from the angle of the total debt. The hon. member must remember, in pointing out what other countries are doing, that we probably have a larger proportion of reproductive debt than other countries, and that alters the position. We fully realize the necessity of making adequate provision for debt redemption. I have shown we have done so this year as much as we could reasonably afford. When we got the nest-egg referred to we did not apply it to other things as we might have done, but I earmarked it for debt redemption, and I am going to carry out that policy. If we carry out the policy of the 1 per cent. on future loans, hon. members will find the conditions will be more satisfactory.

Take the Auditor-General’s estimate of the unproductive debt, which is £70,000,000, and not the Treasury’s, £63,000,000.

I am not going into that question now. The hon. member knows there is a conflict of opinion. I think there is one question which we must all agree upon, and that is that we certainly should not regard the post office as unreproductive. If we treat the post office in the same way as we treat the railways, it would be revenue-producing. Therefore, I think we should at once eliminate the post office from that calculation. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has again raised the question of the comparison between the costs of raising loans in Australia and this country. I must say that the figures quoted by him which the Australian Government is supposed to be paying are not comparable to the Union figure. I will give the hon. member the exact position. With regard to the point which has been raised as to the expenses incurred in connection with the issue of securities, I may mention that our existing legislation provides that the expenses of all loans over five years may be charged to Loan Account, and those for a shorter period may come out of revenue. Now I come to the question raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). The expenses include the discount at which the loan may be issued, bonus of interest, underwriting commission, brokerage, advertising expenses, etc. These are all included in the Union figure, which I gave the hon. member in reply to his question the other day. The Australian costs of raising loans referred only to loans floated in Australia, and do not include discounts or bonus of interest, but only commission, advertising, etc. The hon. member will see that makes a very big difference to the cost. When they go into the English market their expenses of raising loans do not compare unfavourably with our expenses. If the first two items are excluded from the cost of raising the Union loans, the comparison with the Union figures is not unfavourable to the Union. I will give the hon. member the figures in regard to local loans. We have raised local loans since Union to the amount of £57,637,000 at a total cost of £575,881 17s. Of this latter figure discount on issue price accounted for £226,234, premiums on conversion £142,995, bonus of interest £83,923 10s. 4d., giving a total cost of raising these local loans in South Africa of £453,153. Taking commission and brokerages we have a figure of £110,862, and advertising £11,800; so that we have 4s. 5d. per cent. compared with the Australian figure of 5s. 7d. That is the comparison and not the figure quoted by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). It is only fair to say that Australia includes payments to the Commonwealth Bank for certain services which in the Union are performed by the Treasury and which of course are not included in these figures.

May I have those figures?

Yes, I will give the hon. member full information; it is rather complicated, but it will show him exactly what is the position. As I said, you must deal with the question as a whole. When Australia goes into the London money market she employs exactly the same machinery as we do. I will not go further into the matter now, but I will give the hon. member the information he asks for and he can pursue it on a later occasion if he wishes to do so.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions,” £2,208,000,

I think it is my duty to say a few words about this vote. We have £2,208,000 on the estimates for pensions, an increase of £351,000, which is very much for the small white population of this country, and if the amount is to be increased every year to the same extent, where shall we get to in the future? I admit that what I am saying here touches the vested rights of people, but that does not mean that we can make no alteration. I have no objection to an official paying a certain portion of his salary and that the Government administers that for him in order to be able to pay a pension, but it occurs every year that a large amount has to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers for pensions, and a small part of the public reap the benefit. And yet there is a large part of our people who live in the greatest poverty who help to pay the pensions. It is alleged that the officials work for the State. I ask: Who does the most for the State; the official in his office, or the man who has stood in the forefront and made the land inhabitable? I think that it is necessary for the Government to go into the matter to find out if the pensions cannot be so regulated that more people can have the benefit of them. I favour old age pensions, but we feel that a general old age pension is impossible.

The hon. member cannot now discuss old age pensions.

Thank you. I now want to come to the war pensions. I am very glad that the Government has gone into the various departments to find out how matters stand. The report of the War Pensions Commission exposes one of the greatest scandals. We there clearly see that the heads of departments ruled the country under the former Government never went into the matter, and we were governed by the head officials, who do not sympathize with all classes of the public, and are not responsible to it. We know how we got those officials. The Dutch-speaking are kept in the low positions, and an injustice is done to them as is proved by this report. But the appointment of the commission is not enough. The Government must take action as well, and if, in this case, it is found out that Mr. Haussmann is actually responsible, he must not be kept one day longer in the service. If he, at the cost of a portion of the public, has abused his position, he must not remain in the service. According to this report, he has abused his position, and I want to mention some instances. We have, e.g., the different treatment of two fathers. In the war of 1900-’2 a father lost two sons in the field. He is in needy circumstances and is granted £36. We have another case where two sons did not even die in the field, but from influenza, and the father gets £140. I want to go further. A person lost two arms in the war. He also received a severe wound, and can do very little work today. He received notice that his pension was withdrawn without any reason being assigned. If we have to do with such cases we feel that great injustice is done to a part of the people and, in each case, we find that it is a Dutch-speaking person who has to suffer. The hon. members opposite get a fit if we advocate that the two races in the country should be put on an equal footing. If the positions were reversed I wonder what we should hear from them; but we Afrikaans-speaking people do not make our voices sufficiently heard when we suffer injustice.

I cannot neglect to say a few words on this vote in connection with the treatment of the old burghers. From the report of the commission which was specially appointed to go into the question of pensions, it appears clearly that under the former Government they went out of their way to do injustice to the old burghers. I am glad that the present Minister of Finance will do justice to these people, but I agree with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg), and I want to emphasize that if officials abuse their position the Government should intervene and take steps to see that such a thing cannot happen again in the future. In connection with this vote, I see that provision is made for hospital and medical treatment of old soldiers. I shall be glad to know whether this includes old burghers. There are many of them who are in great penury and have nothing from which to live. When we travel we meet these people. In their best years they devoted their lives to the country and now that they are old and worn out they have nothing to live upon. I should be glad to know whether if such persons, for instance, need a doctor, they will also fall under these provisions.

No distinction is made.

Then I am thankful, and have nothing more to say on this point.

I should like to say a word of warning with reference to what the former two speakers have said in connection with the responsibility of officials for what has occurred. I agree that if an official does not do his duty and acts wrongly, then he must be punished, but we must investigate carefully who is actually to blame for what has been done to the detriment of the old burgers, and if we look at history, then we find that intentionally, and against the law, hundreds of people were deprived of their just rights and that it was not the whim of one or other official but the reprehensible policy of the former Government. I say, therefore, that we must be careful in transferring the sins of the previous Government upon officials. It is a fact that more than 800 of our old burgers, who, according to law had a right to a gratuity in accordance with the decision of the second commission, were deprived of such gratuity. Who now is responsible for the actions of the officials? The Government which was then in power, nobody else. No one can deny this. We also know with what intention it was forsooth first given to the men and afterwards again taken away; for nothing else than party reasons. That was at the bottom of it, or, in other words, the proximity or remoteness of an election played the chief part. I think that our Government should go to work very carefully.

On what vote is the hon. member speaking now?

I am talking about pensions which should be granted to the old burgers. But, further, I should like to add a word in connection with pensions which are paid to people across water. According to information which, I think, was given to one of the hon. members of this House, the amount which is paid by us in pensions drawn oversea is no less than approximately a quarter of a million pounds sterling. Now I would like to tell the hon. Minister of Finance in this connection that we have the greatest difficulty to get settlers to come to this country to help to push it ahead, and for that purpose a body has been created which costs a large sum of money to bring people here, while at the same time the people who have lived long enough in the country to draw a pension are freely allowed to go out of the country to spend money to the amount of nearly £250,000 per annum overseas. Is this fair and right? As my hon. friend here just tells me, the number of these people is 2,000. This is a large number in a white population of only million of whites. I do not wish to lay it down as a law of the Medes and the Persians that everyone who draws a pension should spend it here, but the principle must be laid down.

The hon. member is again suggesting new legislation.

That is not my present intention. I should also like to ask the hon. Minister if he thinks it fair that until quite recently if the unhappy sufferers from miners’ phthisis who go oversea the widows and children of the sufferers lost the right of the allowances for sufferers from miners’ phthisis? Do they not compare very unfavourably with the persons who draw pensions and are entirely fit and leave the country to spend their money overseas? I want emphatically to ask for an answer hereon, and I hope in any case that the matter will be considered, because £250,000 is a very large sum, and it is paid direct by the Government. It comes directly, actually, out of the pockets of the taxpayer. I think that no one who has not special reasons should be permitted to leave the country to spend his pension out of it.

I see here an amount of £500 on the estimates for the Oud-Stryders Bond, and I would like to know, and I think the Transvaal and the Free State would like to know, how this amount is to be spent. In nearly every village in the north there is such an association, and I should like to know to whom the Minister is going to give the money. Two years ago the pensions Select Committee passed a resolution and recommended the House, and the House approved of the recommendation, that an Oud-Stryders Home should be established and that ground should be given to some of the oud-stryders in cases where they are still in a position to cultivate it. I should like to know if the Government intends to do anything in the matter.

I want now to go a little more fully into the report of the Pensions Commission. I know that the Minister is aware that it is a serious matter. Before the election the people complained that an injustice had been done them, and now the dissatisfaction is worse. The report of the commission has now been published, and it proves that their complaints were justified. The report of the commission justifies the complaints of the people that they were deprived of their rights by the pensions department from beginning to end. If there were ever scandals which took place in the administration, then it is the conduct which is brought to light in this report. We find from beginning to end that the commission mentions that provision is made in section 45 of the Act that the cases of the second war of independence must be treated on the same footing as the cases of the world war, but yet the commission clearly shows that this has not happened.

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

When the adjournment took place at 6 o’clock I was showing how section 45 of Act 43 of 1919 was not carried out by the officials of the department and how officials took upon themselves the blame in connection therewith. I do not in any way wish to exonerate the officials but nevertheless we feel that the blame does not so much fall upon the officials as upon the former Government which is responsible for the Administration. How often has it not been referred to in the press, how many letters have not been received, and at how many congresses has attention not been called to this injustice? Yet we find that the former Government did nothing to improve the position and to remedy the injustice. The former Government is to blame for the conditions. It is a pitiful position. It is easy to say that economy was necessary but I do not think that anybody will say that economy should take place at the cost of the burghers who sacrificed their lives for an ideal. Some of them of course were killed but can we allow their dependents, the wife and children to suffer for the sake of economy? Must economy be effected at their expense? I have already referred to the differential treatment of persons wounded in the second war of independence and in the world war. I want to give a few more examples of it. The first is the case of gratuities and this has given rise to great dissatisfaction. There are people to whom pensions were granted in the first place. Then the commission came, mostly a one man commission, a doctor, and the pension was altered into a gratuity, but the gratuity was not sent. They got nothing. The people who once had a pension thought when their pensions were altered into a gratuity that they had drawn something to which they were not entitled. We read in the report—

In these cases nothing at all was paid because it was said that they had received more in pension than the gratuity would have been and I quote again from the report. There is a great deal to be said for this argument, and had the department been consistent and applied the same reasoning in all cases, your Commission would probably have had some hesitation in questioning it, but the fact is that in all Great War cases, under similar circumstances exactly, these gratuities were not withheld, but were paid out in full at once without question. Why then was this difference made? It caused great dissatisfaction. I see that there is £30,000 on the vote and I hope that the Minister will see that the full amount to which the “oud-stryders” are entitled is paid out. Then we find further with regard to gratuities for cases in the world war where married men are concerned that provision was made for the payment of 10 per cent. extra for the wife and for each child. Why is this not the case with regard to persons in the second war of independence? Why the difference? The Act lays down all cases must be treated on an equal footing. In the third place I want to mention the difference which is made as to capacity. When a man’s incapacity was originally 20 per cent. and he was re-examined and his incapacity was fixed at 40 per cent. then he of course got 40 per cent. but here too a difference was made. In cases in the world war it was fixed that he was entitled to the 40 per cent. from the beginning. But in cases in the boer war it was consistently refused to pay the arrear monies. Why the difference? We read here—

This is the only case where an exception occurs. We admit that mistakes were made, but it is remarkable that so many mistakes were made and always at the cost of the oud-stryders. Then another case which I wish to quote. And this is where a parent had lost two or more sons. He is then entitled to a pension of not exceeding £144. The commission had two cases before it and the report reads as follows—

In the second case, W.H.J. v. R., also had two unmarried sons who fought with the Republican forces in 1899—1902. Both sons were killed at Holkrantz in May, 1902, and the father, who is 83 years of age, very feeble and poor, only receives £36 per annum. This old man is a widower, has six married children all in poor circumstances, and is living with his son-in-law.

Why then has this distinction been made? Then the case of officers. It is laid down that the gratuity for officers exceeds that of the men and it is found that in the case of the second war of independence express instructions were given that the same gratuity should be given to officers as to men and the gratuity was that fixed for men. In the case of Gen. Kritzinger, e.g., £75 was paid instead of £250 to which he was entitled. It is a very unfortunate position and it has aroused much dissatisfaction. I can assure hon. members that oud-stryders of the Transvaal and the Free State feel that the former Government has done a great injustice and they are watching to see if the mistakes are now being rectified.

Because I know that in my constituency there was also much dissatisfaction in connection with the payment of pensions I cannot omit to say a few words to express my thanks for what the Government has done to remedy the injustice permitted. The report is not to the credit of the previous Government nor of the officials concerned. We as members of Parliament cannot express ourselves too strongly over the conduct of the officials. The chief pensions officer did not hesitate to say that he took the responsibility upon himself, and we feel that there was great dissatisfaction about the great injustice that was done to the burgers who had done their duty, and I repeat that the former Government did its duty. I am glad that there now is a commission which can investigate the matter, and I hope that where injustice has been done the commission will see that it is rectified.

With reference to the pensions I feel that a really great injustice has been done to persons who had been granted pensions and which have been withdrawn from them sometimes for no reason. I find a paragraph in the report of the commission which I will read word for word. It is to the effect that Mr. Haussmann, the chief pensions officer, says that many of the applicants for pensions were not accustomed to earn and receive more than £3 or £4 per month, and thereby a great many were kept back from applying. I consider that the members, and the farmers especially those who fought so long for their country, can rightly protest against such an expression from an official. And I think that such a person is not worthy of retention in the service any longer. There are still a few mistakes left over that I want to mention. There are certain persons who draw no pensions at all and yet were wounded, because the time for application has expired. It was difficult for the people to prepare their declarations seeing that many of the officers had already died, and accordingly no pensions were granted to them. I hope and trust that the Minister will make provision for pensions for them. Further, I hope that the burgers who were in the second war of independence will be placed on the same footing as the fighters in the world war. We ask nothing less than equal rights. It is the wish of the people and the people will be satisfied with that.

At the commencement of the session I asked the Minister of Finance a question about the amount which is paid in pensions to people living outside the Union. I make bold to say that the answer received was a considerable surprise and also caused a certain dissatisfaction amongst many people in the country. I think that this amount we have to vote for pensions is included in an amount of about £240,000 for pensions which is paid abroad every day.

I am sorry to point out to the hon. member that he cannot suggest new legislation. He can direct the hon. Minister to the unsatisfactory position.

I submit to the ruling and will only point out the unsound position. As regards legislation I only wish to say this that in my opinion—I have considered the matter a great deal—it will not be necessary to introduce legislation but that everything that is necessary can be done by administrative measures. The position is unsound—

I am sorry that I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that point further.

May I then ask a question?

Yes.

I want to ask the hon. Minister if he will give his attention to the condition of things which is here created and if he will take into consideration the fact that we do not alone send money out of the country but that where we to-day hear so much about maintaining a white population in South Africa and the necessity of the immigration of whites we are engaged in reducing the white population, of South Africa in permitting people to leave the country to spend their pensions oversea. I think that the argument which is employed is that the cost of living is too high here. This is no longer valid to-day. People coming from Europe say that the cost of living in South Africa is lower than in Europe. I have here a cutting from the “Cape Times” in which mention, is made of quite a number of men who landed in Australia with their families and are described as civil servants from South Africa retired on pension and who took a single ticket to Australia and are therefore going to reside there.

I must ask the hon. member to sit down. He is again engaged in showing that new legislation is necessary. I have twice said that I cannot permit it.

May I then point out that in other countries the matter is regulated by administrative provisions.

The hon. member cannot continue in that way.

I see that £860,000 is paid in war allowances, of that £643,000 is paid to those who took part in the world war and £175,000 to the burgers of the second war of independence. This shows what a great distinction is made to the detriment of the burgers. I wish to support what has been said by other members in this connection. We are very thankful that the Government has taken it upon itself to satisfy the people in respect of the great injustice which has been done. In my constituency great injustice was done to the burgers who never had the opportunity of appearing before the commission. I understand, however, that the Government will go so far as to make further enquiries. Paragraph 7 of the report reads—

Then examples are given. I hope that the Government will earnestly consider this report because we shall not be able to satisfy the people if we do not carry out this report. There is another point that I wish to mention. It seems as if the war of 1899-1902 has been pushed into the far back ground All perspective is lost and that period is overshadowed by the world war. Just as in the case of the oud-stryders a great difference was made so a distinction is also made at the expense of the old republican officials in relation to the present-day official. I have here a petition which I will hand in later. It is from a postmaster of the old republic and it is not an isolated instance but is typical of many others. It is the case of Mr. Godfrey, of Potchefstroom, who worked in the Transvaal until the second war of independence. His service was then broken and great injustice was done to him. They did not only use their previous pension contributions but notwithstanding the promise of the former Prime Minister they were retired when they reach the age of 60 years. He was retired after a service of 38 years in the republic and in the Union. There never was any party politics in the postal service of the old republic. It was the most efficient in the Union and they brought the postal service to where it is to-day. After the war of independence those officials were however treated as if a break had occurred in their service and they come on the lowest pension scale.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

Contribution to pensions and reserve funds. Mr. Godfrey contributed to the fund and he was placed on the lowest scale. The Prime Minister will remember these cases.

The hon. member is suggesting new legislation.

No, it is not new legislation, but I am simply suggesting that he contributed to that pension fund.

To pay him a larger pension can only be authorized by legislation.

No, it is not a case of new legislation. The amounts have been paid in.

Yes, but the hon. member is asking a little more.

No, and I will give the details of what he paid in.

Only legislation can authorize the payment of a larger sum to him.

With all respect I wish to suggest Mr. Chairman whether you are not carrying the matter of legislation too far, and consequently encroach upon the rights of members. We are here to vote money, and I hope that you, as a protector of our rights, will concede our full freedom and right. The Chair is constantly ruling that legislation is necessary and I hope that you will consider the matter.

I am only following the practice of years. I must protect members, but also the practice.

I am confining myself to the practice. The old practice was that when an official in the service contributes to the pension fund—

If the hon. member continues with that point I shall have to ask him to sit down.

On the point of the practice, I only wish to say that on this vote most of the contributors to the pension fund were from the republic, and the break in his service is counted against him, and he loses his contributions.

I must ask the hon. member to discontinue his speech, on account of continued irrelevance.

I would like to mention a few more cases where distinction was made between cases of the world war and the second war of independence. I have just come to the case of blind people. They get 100 per cent., plus 50 per cent., plus 35s. per week attendant’s allowance. Wonderfully enough, in the case of the second war of independence, neither the 50 per cent. nor the 35s. was paid. The only reason that one can find is that they are cases of the second war of independence. I think this is scandalous, whether it was done by the previous Government or by the officials. One can find no words to condemn an economy at the expense of the totally blind. Then I must still mention the case of mistakes made with reference to gratuities. In cases of the world war it was considered that mistakes which were made could not be corrected, but in the other case an enquiry was held whether steps could not be taken to see whether money paid too much could not be reclaimed. Another grievance is that the people who investigated the cases of the war of independence could not speak Dutch. I hope that Messrs. Louw and Beukes, who brought the cases to the notice of the commission, will again be appointed on the new board. They enjoy the sympathy of all, and will moreover see that too much is not paid. The oud-stryders have no representative on the commission, while the British Empire Service League is represented on the pension board. The Oud-Stryders Bond is not represented. Why not? I am glad to see that provision is now made to give £600 to the bond of oudstryders.

I should like to ask a question about the burger’s pensions. I will at once say that the action of the previous commission was not right. I have seen people who were fighting and many of them were shot to pieces, and they are to-day in want. With such cases the commission did not deal properly. And what I consider very wrong is that pensions were taken away without assigning reasons. Another commission was then appointed and yet justice was not done. The new Government then tackled the matter again, and I should like to know what is now going to happen in the matter. Will the people who are entitled to pensions have to go up for a further medical examination, and will they be disappointed again? I know of a man who was badly wounded who recently received a cheque for £30, and he must be content with that for his whole life. I did not know what it meant, and made enquiries, but I could not find out. I was told that under the report of the old commission the people had to receive so much or so much, according as their wounds were classified at the date of the war, but the commission then subtracted an amount for restoration since that time. I feel strongly about this, because it means that some people who fought for the country have been scandalously treated. They get £15 and do not know what it means. I said to them that they had better take it, because half a loaf is better than no bread. I should like to have an explicit answer from the Minister.

It will perhaps shorten the discussion if I get up at this stage to say a few words in connection with pensions. Hon. members are naturally deeply interested in the matter in view of the report. It is to be understood. I do not think that it will serve any purpose to go any further into the matter of who is to blame. The commission found that certain distinctions were made in the administration. When grievances exist against the administration then I, as Minister, take responsibility for the administration of the department upon myself. I think that the criticism which has been made upon officials is not quite just. The officials who carry out the work have a great responsibility. The administration is perhaps one of the most difficult things which can be entrusted to anybody. As for the head of the department of pensions, I will just say that I, as responsible Minister of the department, after what I have seen of his work, have full confidence in him. The commission found a number of instances where a difference was made between cases of the second war of independence and the world war. It is unfortunate, but it has little purpose to enquire who is to be blamed. As far as I can find out one of the reasons is possibly that the cases of the world war were dealt with by one official while the cases of the second war of independence were actually dealt with by an entirely different official. Be this as it may, I do not think that we should include the officials in our criticism. As to the future treatment of the matter, I have tried—I think hon. members know this—to obtain as competent a board as possible to enquire into the matters and to get members on the board in whom the country has full confidence, and they will now go into all the matters and conclude them. As hon. members possibly know, Senator C. A. van Niekerk has been appointed as chairman of the board. A man who as chairman of a previous commission gained great experience in this connection and who enjoys the confidence of the House. A man of whom we can, moreover, be certain that he will sympathize with the persons who are entitled to pensions, but who, on the other hand, will also understand the importance of the matter and will protect the interests of the country so that too much will not be paid. Another member of the board is Sir William Campbell, who was chairman of the W.S.L. a body which has continuously been busy enquiring into the cases of the world war. He is also a person who enjoys full confidence amongst the people, who fought in the world war, but who, on the other hand, will also understand the responsibility of the position and will appreciate his duty to the taxpayer of the country. The third person is Mr. Wolmarans, member of the Provincial Council for Krugersdorp, who will particularly sympathize with the oud-stryders of the second war of independence and will be familiar with the circumstances. I hope that they will investigate all the cases and will come to a conclusion which Parliament and the country will consider final. I have told them that if people have actual grievances, and if they think they have been treated unfairly, the people should be given another chance of appearing before them. Many of the cases can be disposed of on the papers already in the department, such as, e.g., the cases which the hon. member for Bethel (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has mentioned. If a man who gets a gratuity is not satisfied, then he need not accept the amount, but he can lay an objection with the appeal board and he wiíl be given an opportunity of probably appearing personally before the board.

But they do not know it?

The commission has only just commenced its work, and they have still to decide what notices will be issued. I almost think that all cases of grievances are already filed with the department. There are 2,000 names of people who wrote to the previous commission that they were dissatisfied. All the cases will be gone into, and if they get a cheque and are not satisfied they can complain and the matter will be gone into again. Of course hon. members must understand that everything really depends upon the point of incapacity. That is a matter which the board must investigate. There are some wounds which on medical examination will appear to be no hindrance, and in such a case, according to the Act, a person is not entitled to a pension, but only to a gratuity. There are perhaps cases which at the moment appear unfair, but which upon closer enquiry will be found to have been treated quite correctly. Of course it is difficult in the cases of the second war of independence. The people were wounded more than 20 years ago, and it is not easy to investigate the grade of their wound. It is easier in the cases of the world war where immediately after the wounding the wound was examined. This was not the case in the instances of the second war of independence, otherwise perhaps many of the people would to-day be drawing fairly high pensions, but in the cases which are already so old it is difficult to fix the grade of the wound, and even here it will sometimes appear that an unfairness has been done, while that need not be the case. Then various members have asked what will happen in the cases of persons who are legally entitled to a pension, and who have either not made applications or do not know about it. The Act provides that the applications must be sent in within a certain time but we have laid down in this House that notwithstanding the fact that the time has expired the Pension Committee can approach the House by means of a petition in such cases and that the matter will be regarded as falling within the proper time. If the board approves such cases can be dealt with again by the pension office. There is no other way for such people. Another reason why possibly a distinction was made is that the E.W.S.L. has done much work to help the Administration to get cases investigated. Representatives of the War Service League are constantly at the office of the department to explain various points to the Administration. This helped us very much as had it not been so we should have required a very much larger staff. Therefore the Government paid a contribution to the League. If the Oud-Stryders Bond will assist in that way they can do much useful work and help us to get matters put right. That is why this year an amount has been put on the estimates for that association so that they can work to protect the interests of the oud-stryders. Then the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), if I understood him rightly, mentioned the grievance that in the case of some oud-stryders their full period of service was not taken into account. The hon. member must remember that such cases can only be put right by a petition to the House and if it is approved then the pension committee can go into the matter again otherwise not and the full service of the man can be taken into consideration. Then several members referred to the amount of £250.000 which is paid in pensions to people who spend the money out of the Union. I have already said that the Government does not intend to introduce legislation against it. Hon. members will clearly see that it will not be right. The officials gave their services to the country and when they were appointed there was no provision that they were to spend their pensions here.

But what about the future?

In the future this matter will not be of great importance. We are not appointing people from abroad any more. We are only appointing Afrikanders and the question will therefore not be of great importance in the future because the Afrikanders will spend their pensions in the country.

The Minister must not go deeply into this matter.

No, Mr. Chairman, I will not be long, but I should like to add this, that the pension office here in South Africa on behalf of the British Government does not pay out an amount of £250,000 but an amount of £500,000 in pensions of persons who have been retired on pension in England. If we therefore stop the payment to persons who go to England the British Government will also stop the payment of the half-million drawn in this country, but in the future I do not think this will be a burning question.

I have got up a few times to speak but I did not get the opportunity. I feel strongly about the report on pensions. I am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is going out because I wanted to ask him whether he knew about the difference which has been made, which has so wilfully been made.

Read the report.

Yes, I have read the report but I do not know whether the hon. member has done so. I am an Afrikander and still feel for my country and for the Afrikanders. I do not know whether he any longer cherishes that feeling. I want to know from the hon. member for Standerton, who fought with us in the second war of independence, if he knew of the difference which was made. I feel hurt that under his Government such an unjust deed was committed towards a portion of the people. That is one of the things which caused bitterness in the country during the South African party regime. Is it strange then that a portion of the country long for secession? I know that I may not talk about secession now, but it is no wonder that it existed if we see that such unfair things were done to a portion of the people, whether it be a Nationalist or Labour or South African party Government that is in power, if it does not do justice to all sections to the public the bitterness will arise and continue. It is the duty of the Minister to find out whether those officials are responsible for the unjust treatment, and if that is the case then it is the duty of the Government to take action. I am glad of the Minister’s statement with reference to the other burgers who have not yet received pensions. I have names of them here, but I will not take up the time of the House in reading them out. I should like to be enlightened about a few other matters. I have mentioned it on another occasion. I see here that an allowance of £362,000 is put down for reorganization and retrenchment for reasons of economy. I cannot understand this. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister. How can one reorganize for economy and then still pay this amount for the purpose. Further I see that the pension fund and the contributions thereto have been increased by a considerable amount, £128,000. As a new member I want to say that it is an unjust thing to take such an amount out of the pockets of the general taxpayer for pensions. The officials are so well paid that they should themselves contribute to the pensions fund. I say that if the country goes on like this increasing the pension vote by £351,000 per year where will it end? We must make an end of it. The amount will hereafter become quite too much for the people.

I do not wish to go back to the old Boer war.

You know nothing about it.

At the time of the Boer war I sent more volunteers to the Boers than the whole lot opposite.

Why did you not go yourself?

I could not go, but if I were to be put in prison for everything that I did in the Boer war then I would still be there to-day. I want to go back not to the Boer war but subsequent to 1910. I want not only the man that fights but also the man who works to get a pension. There are officials in the Cape who before 1910 were in the service under Mr. Merriman, and who lost five percent. of their salary as temporary deduction. The deduction was never paid back, and the people were pensioned on those amounts, and now their pensions are too small.

Such an alteration can only be altered by legislation, and it cannot now be discussed.

I only wish to ask whether nothing can be done for these people. Whether the Minister can remedy the grievance. I have not much else to say. I am not a fighter, and I did not do any heroic deeds.

The old burgers who were wounded in the Boer war will learn with satisfaction what the Minister has said. There are, however, people who were wounded in the Boer war and appeared before the commission, but have as yet got nothing, because every applicant is required to furnish two sworn declarations of two people who witnessed the wounding. It is very difficult in many instances to get those two persons. The applicant possibly gets one man because it is so long ago, but they cannot get two.

There has been considerable fraud.

Yes, I agree, but there are people who I know were wounded and cannot get two sworn declarations. I hope the Minister will meet them and be satisfied with one declaration. There are persons who took part in the Boer war and are to-day in absolute want. I constantly get letters from such people. In my neighbourhood there are dozens of them who did their duty in taking up arms, who suffered and fought, and who now are in difficulties and in great need. Something must be done for these people. Some of them are old and absolutely in want.

I am rather concerned about these war pensions reports, because I find in the estimates under pensions that we have a large sum laid down for ex-military men in military hospitals. You will find the total sum set aside for treatment in hospitals for pensioners is £29,000, of that sum £25,000 is set aside for treatment in military hospitals. That is one point I am very anxious to get elucidated, because in the whole of the enquiry great stress was laid by medical men—it will be well known to hon. members there is what is called dual control on the medical side—and great stress was laid by the director of medical services, the military side, on getting pensioners into a military hospital, and the whole object was to give an excuse for their continued existence. We know well that hospitals are necessary where you have a military force, but the expense has got to be met by the Defence Department. They must not be kept up however by war pensioners, because in many cases it is an injustice to the pensioners, to force them into military hospitals not for attention, not for a cure, but to find an excuse for the continuance of the military hospitals. I am concerned to find so large a sum is set aside by the war pensions department for the treatment of ex-soldiers. Boers and British in military hospitals. That requires explanation, and I hope the Minister will give it. The whole outlook of the commission was in the direction of not insisting on ex-military men going into military hospitals, particularly Roberts Heights. A great deal of injustice was done by forcing them into this hospital for observation detention and treatment.

What do you suggest?

That more of them be treated on the spot in local hospitals. I don’t know whether the hon. gentleman has read my report, the minority report, if he has he will find I have reported wholly against it from my own personal observation. Senator van Niekerk and myself paid more attention to that side, and reported adversely on the administration of the hospitals. I am concerned about these men being forced into the military hospitals, Roberts Heights particularly, because their complaints were pretty well justified. Men have undoubtedly lost their jobs, and those who have not lost their jobs fear that they may do so, through being sent into these military hospitals, notably Roberts Heights, for treatment or observation, as the case may be. Their employers will not part with them for that time; they do not like the broken time. There is another item of considerable importance, namely, the new appeal board suggested or recommended by the commission. The commission is very definite in its recommendations on that question, and I want to know whether the Minister is going to give effect to it, or whether he is going to keep the old appeal board. The old appeal board gave satisfaction to no one. There is another point on which I should like to ask the Minister for some information. We found in the course of our enquiry that a great deal of dissatisfaction existed, and a tremendous amount of injustice was caused by the officials of the department not giving sufficient information to the persons concerned. As a commission, we had to drag information out of the officials of the department. In point of fact, if any person, whether for pecuniary gain or out of pure sentiment, took up a case on behalf of one or many pensioners labouring under grievances, he found it a most difficult thing to obtain any information from the department concerned, and the person to whom the pensioners and the country owe the fact that you had an enquiry into the whole concern was a man who had himself reason to complain bitterly about the matter. I refer to Mr. Louw. The country has to thank Mr. Louw that we have, at all events, removed in part a large amount of the injustice. Mr. Louw himself was a member of the department. He got no satisfaction, it is only fair to say that he was not forced out of the department, but he chose to go because he was a single man and not a married man. But when he got out, with all the information that he had at his disposal—and quite rightly, despite whatever officials in the department may care to say, in view of the large measure of injustice involved—he started to publish these facts. I will grant quite frankly, and he would grant frankly also that he was out to make a living out of this. He wrote to various men who were entitled to part sums or whole sums, saying that for a certain consideration he would endeavour to get for them the money they were entitled to.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I must say that the answer of the Minister of Finance was heard with a certain amount of disappointment. The report of the commission shocked the whole country. The reading of the report hurts us and now it is said that the same people who acted unfairly will again be entrusted with the control of the funds. The hon. Minister has said it is not for us to say whose fault it was. Yes, but that has already been decided by the commission. The commission makes it clear in its report, i.a., in paragraphs 2 and 5. The same people who showed a lack of sympathy will again administer the funds. There is naturally a feeling of irritation amongst the people who have been treated so unjustly and when they learn that the same officials will remain on the unrest will not decrease. I have had to do with hundreds of cases. Daily some of these people come to my chambers. Daily I get letters from people who have been unfairly treated. The people expect to be better treated, but now their anxiety will increase when they learn that the same people will attend to the matter. I have not the least confidence in these officials to be now entrusted with the work of the Boer War pensions. I am the last one to attack officials but my request is that the matter should be put in the hands of other officials, in the hands of people who have sympathy. Sympathy can not be created by the report of the commission. It must be in the heart of the persons themselves. The department took as its rule: no application, nothing done. This the commission describes as an action unworthy of a Government department. The report teems with complaints. The commission mentions cases of officers who have been done an injustice. Is there not a great danger that an official who forgot in some instances will forget again? We feel very strongly. Where there are outstanding cases of actual injustice, cases of lack of sympathy, of forgetfulness, there I cannot again trust that they will do justice to the poor people. I ask that the pension administration shall be placed in other hands than it is to-day.

I must say at once that things have taken place with reference to the granting of pensions which cannot be defended. We cannot bring home to the respective officials the facts of their complicity. One point that should not be forgotten, however, is that at the appointment of the first commission there were about 80,000 applications the officials had to deal with. This made matters complicated. We must also remember that the war of independence took place more than 20 years ago and the greatest mistake made was that of the doctors who had to fix the measure of incapacity of the people. They were Afrikander doctors, but they were not in a position to find out what the incapacity of the person was 20 years ago. The result was that there were hundreds of thousands of burgers whose wounds were estimated too lightly with the consequence that the people got no pension but a gratuity. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is going to carry out the report. I think that there will no further cause of complaint if the report is carried out. What I, however, feel very strongly, and on which the burgers do likewise, is that they are sent to the military hospital at Roberts Heights for examination and treatment. It, will be much better if the people are examined and treated by the doctors in the district, who can be paid for it. We felt that the staff of the hospital there was unnecessarily kept on and was not answering its purpose. I also feel that the commission which the Minister has appointed enjoys the confidence of the whole people. I have sat together with Senator van Niekerk and he is the very man. He is sympathetic to the burgers and there will be no complaints in the future.

I see on the estimates a vote for pensions and allowances to ex-soldiers and then also £500 to the Oud-Stryders Bond. I looked for something else but cannot find it, namely, something in connection with certain hopes of the oud-stryders. Perhaps I must look under the head “various” or under “allowances,” or something similar.

If the hon. member cannot find it he may not speak about it.

I should just like to ask whether it is there. I mean the question regarding the 5s. per day which was promised by the old republic.

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

May I then ask if the Minister will tell us whether the expectations of the oud-stryders will benefit with reference to the erection of a home and the granting of ground.

I want to ask the Minister if in view of the injustices which have taken place persons who have suffered there-from and have been refused pensions will have an opportunity of applying again.

I was trying to impress on the Minister the necessity of his insisting on his Department giving all possible information to those people who are already heavily handicapped, because they are up against a brick wall of a Government Department, and thus enable every man, woman and child, especially the women and children, to get what they are entitled to. They can only get that information in a roundabout way, unless the Department gives it. I understand the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) read this portion of the report in regard to Mr. Beale, but it will bear repetition as it epitomises the whole outlook of the Department. One of his department, subsequent to Mr. Louw leaving the department, put the case of a man who had a surviving spouse, and he wrote to Mr. Beale, who was his superior, asking whether the surviving spouse should not get part of the payment. It turns out that there was no surviving spouse, but this paper was sent back to the enquirer endorsed—

Yet the fact remains that that widow was entitled to a pension, and as the commission here rightly says—

That was our considered opinion. I, and some other members of the commission, were inclined to use stronger language. Mr. Beale admitted, himself, in examination, that the fact that he had written on one paper, which referred to one specific case, would have the effect on the whole of his department, that they would understand that that was the policy to be pursued. Though that time is passed, and though the commission has enquired and reported, we yet have to learn whether the policy of the department is going to be altered. I understand the Minister stated that he has appointed a committee, and gave the personnel—excellent men no doubt—who are going to enquire into these individual grievances; but that committee will only settle the grievances that exist, and then go out of being, and there will be nobody to enquire into future grievances, such as reassessments. The Minister must not forget that he still has the same officials in his department from Mr. Haussmann, the chief pensions officer, downwards. I want to pay a tribute to one man, Major Pirie, whom the Minister has put in charge of both sections, namely, the Boer war and the great war, so that we shall have continuity, collaboration and co-ordination of policy. That should have been done long ago, and I think a good deal of the injustice has resulted from the dual policy. Mr. Beale is still there, and all those officers whom we found we had to corkscrew information out of, and who were not giving information to people who required it. It is very difficult for me to realize that there is going to be any real alteration in the conditions while these people are in charge of operations. Whilst we honour the loyalty—generosity if you like—of the Minister, as one realizes he has to defend his heads of departments, he has sufficient warranty in this report, which was very carefully considered and well watered down before being printed, to clear out the whole of that department, with the exception of Major Pirie and his medical section. I am glad the medical section is to be put on sound lines at last. I was considerably astonished to find that these people were left in charge after a general reorganization had been resorted to. I want to know from the Minister whether he is going to institute that appeal board, because the other has broken down. I also want to know whether the Minister is going to take the ruling of Mr. Haussmann, as to what constitutes pre-war earnings or the commission’s recommendation, which is diametrically opposed to it, or whether the Minister is going to go a step further and take the suggestion in the minority report which goes further than the majority finding on that question. All these things are of vital importance and of vital interest to ex-war men, and it is not wise or right, and it is a painful course to adopt on the score of economy, to maintain, in their positions, officials who have proved themselves unsympathetic in the past; unable to carry on their department properly, and incapable of administration, in my opinion, on the one hand and do this injustice from the financial point of view and not take the opinion of the commission in regard to pre-war earnings.

I want to know how the commission, which has been appointed, will get into communication with the persons to whom an injustice has been done. I want to know whether the commission will deal with the cases of the dissatisfied or only with the requests which have not been granted. Will the people be given notice? The office knows all the cases and can call up the people. If a Government notice is issued then hundreds will hear nothing about it.

I think the Minister has taken the right course in appointing the commission. I wish to call attention to the enormous amount of pensions. The ordinary pensions amount to £2,208,000 and the railway pensions to close on £400.000. This amount is steadily increasing. Our pensions have grown from £1,445,000 in 1921 to £1,516,000. One would have thought that the war pensions would decrease instead of increasing. In Great Britain they are decreasing at the rate of about £2,500,000 a year. Some check should be exercised as the country cannot stand this heavy burden.

It is quite true that this pension list is mounting up, but I don’t quite see what the hon. member’s argument is. Does he suggest that we should alter the pension law?

No, I don’t suggest that.

What is the remedy then? Our officials have contributed to the pension fund and, unless the House is prepared to say that the pensions are on too generous a scale, I do not see what I can do to put a stop to the increase. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) raised the question of hospital allowances. These estimates were framed before we had the commission’s report. I am carrying out the suggestion not to have dual control any more. The military hospital at Roberts Heights is under the Department of the Interior, but I am putting that right and I have laid it down that these people will be entitled to be treated in local hospitals unless their cases are exceptional. I have not yet decided about the appeal board. There are still several outstanding questions to be decided, including that of pre-war earnings. I have carried out the recommendations which can be carried out, but as far as the general question is concerned I have appointed this board, in which I think the public will have confidence. They will practically have the determination of all the questions mentioned to-night, so I do not see how hon. members can say that there will not be sufficient consideration.

What about the future ones?

We will see to the future. Government is responsible for the administration of every department, and if anything goes wrong I shall be to blame. What I deprecated was putting the blame on individual members. Some of them might be to blame, but so far as one is concerned all the remarks that have been made were not justified. In future I shall take the responsibility.

You won’t know anything about it until you have another “bust-up.”

Yes, I shall. The hon. member need not be afraid about it. I have given the board a free hand, and where an injustice is done people can have their cases gone into again. We have to get finality for this very, very difficult question.

That is not quite sufficient. I raised the point of lack of information.

That information will be given by the commission.

It is not information with regard to grievances that already exist. The commission can only give information where they have an actual grievance cited. I am talking about information on the policy of the department. What is a man’s right on his first application? Or, if a man dies is his widow informed of the fact that she is automatically entitled to a pension? It is no good talking about this committee getting information about cases. I want to prevent the manufacture of further grievances. Will the Minister see that all the information possible is given to everybody concerned.

I must on behalf of the people I represent again ask my question about a matter of great importance for them, namely, what is the position with regard to the 5s. per day and the home and the ground for oud-stryders.

As the hon. member knows the matter was dealt with by the commission and a decision come to. The Minister of Finance is busy to carry it out by giving preference to burgers in the grants of ground. The Minister of the Interior is seeing whether it is practicable to get a Home for oud-stryders. It looked as if it was impracticable and that is why we told the oud-stryders bond that they must find out how many necessitous old burgers there were.

I concur with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I gratefully accept the statement of the Minister that he will take upon himself responsibility for complaints. The Minister cannot, however, have an eye to everything. Only when again there is great dissatisfaction in the land will there be another Commission appointed to make enquiries, and the State will again have to pay. There is only one way of putting the matter right and that is to have a sympathetic official at the head who will treat everybody fairly. The portion if the people have lost confidence in the head official—

Leave it to the Minister.

No. I cannot, because I represent voters, and I will insist upon it that that official shall be dismissed. He has abused his position and is not worth keeping on. I insist that another official shall take his place.

On the question of the amounts of these pensions, we agree the Minister is bound by the laws in force as to scales of pensions, but it will be interesting to have some little information on how these items have gone up during the last year. Sub-head (a) superannuation allowances, £323,000, an increase of £61,000 since last year. It seems rather extraordinary so many people should have retired on pensions last year to make up that amount. Sub-head (c) compensation allowance for loss of office, through re-organization and retrenchment, an increase of £54,000; war allowances, an increase from £840,000 to £860,000, an increase of £20,000. I agree, obviously, the Minister is bound by the law which provides for these pensions, but it seems curious. In spite of the fact that everybody is getting older, surely a certain number must be dying out each year.

They live very long proverbially.

Yes, but they can’t double in number. In spite of the fact that another year has elapsed since there was any war in respect of which they have received pensions, yet the amount of money payable for pensions has increased no less than £20,000. I think it would be interesting to have some information on how these increases have occurred. I have no wish to question the fact that pensions have to be paid, but it would be interesting to know why they have increased so much.

With regard to the increase of £61,000 under subhead (a) the increase for 1925-’26 was due to the increasing number of officials who retired on reaching the age limit under the laws in force, and primarily due to the fact that under legislation passed a few years ago, officers are entitled to commute one-third of their pension and a large number take advantage of that privilege. £50,000 for commutations against £8,000 in 1924-’25, which was largely understated. We never know how many will ask for commutation and provision has to be made because they are entitled under the Act. Subhead (c) increase £54,000 compensation for loss of office owing to re-organization and retrenchment. The question was put during last session as to whether we were retiring a number of officers. From time to time the Public Service Commission goes into the question of staffs, and if they recommend an officer should be retired, that officer is entitled to compensation. That amount has not been incurred in one year.

But pensioners die off occasionally.

The other matter is “D” War Allowances. There is an increase of £20,000 under this head. I can give the hon. member the particulars, but he will see that we are now called upon to revive a number of pensions that were cancelled. In quite a large number of cases pensions have been improperly cancelled. This commission is going into that matter and as some of the pensions are restored, of course, the amount is increased.

I would like a reply from the Minister about the five per cent. deduction made in the time of the Merriman administration. It was an absolute injustice to the civil servants of the Cape Colony.

I do not know what the actual complaint of the hon. member (Mr. P. J. Louw) is. Does he complain that these people, because this five per cent. was deducted originally, now suffer in their pensions? I am informed that they are not suffering in their pensions because of the deduction made by Mr. Merriman.

I think the explanation which the Minister has been good enough to give us is quite satisfactory. The only thing I would suggest in regard to (A)—Pension Allowances—is that, as a large proportion of the increase is due to lump sum payments, those payments are non-recurrent, and I would throw out the suggestion that in future there should be a distinction drawn in these columns between the lump sum payments which are non-recurrent and those which are pensions and, therefore, recurrent.

Vote put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and debate adjourned; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.

Perhaps this is the proper time to ask my hon. friend, the Minister of Lands, about a matter which I know he has given a great deal of attention to, and, as he knows, I have also been considering the matter, namely, whether it would not be advisable for him to put a clause in this Bill whereby he, as Minister, would be empowered to make grants of land for recreation purposes in connection with the Settlement at Sundays River. As my hon. friend knows, a considerable amount of money has been expended on pleasure grounds and recreation grounds in connection with Sundays River, but they have never been transferred. I believe it was the intention of the old Sundays River company to transfer to the various sports organizations. Under this Bill all these properties become Crown lands, and with the best intention in the world my hon. friend cannot meet these requests without the formality of long proceedings before the committee on Crown lands. I have sufficient confidence in my hon. friend and in his reasonable desire to meet requirements of this kind, that I would like to see a clause included leaving in his hands the power to make grants for this particular purpose. Otherwise there may be great difficulty, and although my hon. friend may be anxious to meet requirements of this character, without such a clause, it would be impossible to make such grants. My hon. friend knows that various representations on this behalf have been made to the Government. Where you have large numbers of people of that sort gathered together, and where you desire to keep them for their recreation in the vicinity of the land, instead of going into the town, it is absolutely essential that you should have recreation grounds and sports grounds where they can put up their clubs, football grounds, cricket grounds, etc. I hope before the report stage is reached, that the hon. Minister will go into the question and be prepared to bring forward an amendment to enable the Minister for the time to make grants of this character.

I have had this matter under consideration, and I may say that it is not only for recreation, but also for other purposes. My hon. friend will find in the report I laid on the Table to-day, that there is an idea to grant a piece of land for the use of a co-operative society. As my hon. friend knows, however, the kind of thing he proposes can only be done by both Houses of Parliament. Though I am quite desirous of meeting wishes of this kind, it would be rather invidious if we were to make this distinction for Sundays River, and all the other districts would have to go through the usual course. I do not anticipate any difficulty. One request is in course of being fulfilled, and as far as recreation is concerned, I am considering that at the moment. I cannot make a definite promise, but I hope before Parliament prorogues, that I shall be able to put that through also. I think it better to leave matters where they are, and not make a distinction here.

I know my hon. friend is in favour of making grants of this character. The reason I raised the question was that I felt we should not allow the session to go over without taking the necessary steps to place power in the hands of the hon. Minister in order that he might be able to deal with matters of this kind. I entirely agree with what he said with regard to facilities for co-operative societies.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, schedule, preamble and title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended adopted; third reading to-morrow.

I wish to propose an amendment at the end of the clause—

It will not be necessary to make any explanations. Hon. members will remember how the ostrich farmers asked the Government to put a levy on feathers and to use the proceeds’ for advertising purposes, the specific request to the Government was to have it in the form of an export levy. The original request was that the Government should so amend the Agricultural Grading Act, or rather the idea was to make provisions under the Agricultural Grading Act for the levy of an export duty which could be used by the farmers in the industry for advertising abroad. It was then necessary to alter the Agricultural Grading Act or to introduce the new Levy Bill and instead of altering the Grading Act the Minister can now go and introduce this amendment into this Bill. I do not think that any objection can exist because it is the specific request of the farmers in the industry.

Clause 1 deals with applications in connection with levies on factories. I do not think the hon. member’s amendment can come in under this clause.

If any difficulties exist then I think that it will be better for me to withdraw my amendment and that a new section should be introduced after section 3. 1 thus withdraw my amendment. The proposal of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will also not help us, because sub-section 2 of section 2 stands in the way and section 3 only makes the levies legal in terms of the Government notice.

I only wish to tell the House that I cannot see any valid reason for the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) because I proposed an amendment on page 446, which makes the proposal of the hon. member superfluous. But if he insists on it Can nevertheless possibly be included.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 3,

I move—

My hon. friend means that if a certain amount of money is paid up there shall be no further levy.

Exactly.

Is that necessary, because the Government have it in their own hands to enforce that levy or not? If the ostrich feather growers come to my friend and say they find in their own interests that it is inadvisable that the levy should be gone on with my hon. friend will have to get the consent of the exporter to pay the levy. You won’t have any power to levy it. My hon. friend has, I consider, the power in his own hands after he has had the £14,000, or he has also the power under section 2 that we have already passed, for the ostrich farmers themselves to come forward and say “We do not desire any levy.” I think he is rather tying himself up. I want to give him powers that he is anxious to surrender.

I do not think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) quite understands the position. The ostrich farmers held a meeting and made the specific request for such an amendment. It is their specific request.

I might point out to the hon. gentleman that I recognize as much as he does the enormous interest that Oudtshoorn has in the ostrich industry, but there are other large areas in this country that are also interested in that industry, and we consulted them when this levy was considered and undertaken. I would say to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) that he need not be a bit afraid, for when he looks at clause 2 he will find that ample provision is made for the withdrawal of the levy on the ostrich farmers as well as anybody else, and that instead of doing the ostrich farmers a service, he may be doing them a disservice. I am certain that if all the ostrich farmers in the country had been consulted, and had realized that in the Bill which my hon. friend is introducing, they had as much power to compel the stoppage of the levy as they had of asking that it should be brought into operation, they would not have pressed for this amendment, because it really ties the hands of the Minister, and ties the hands of the ostrich farmer himself. I would like to ask the Minister how much money has been raised already, £8,000 or £10.000?

£5,000 has already been paid in.

It really would be a pity if, in future, the Minister should consider that it is necessary to continue this levy, and the ostrich farmers desire to continue this levy, and we should find that we have contracted ourselves out of all legal power to collect it at the ports.

I think that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) does not quite understand the matter. Section 3 as it is here only makes provision to legalize the levy which is made in terms of the Government notice of 1923. Therefore it was necessary to put in the section. It therefore only relates to the specific notice. But if the amendment is put in then the ostrich farmers will also be able to make use of the same provisions as the producers of the other products which are included in the term agricultural produce for these purposes. First the farmer in the ostrich feather industry asked for a levy of £8.000 and subsequently for a further sum of £5.000 to run up so that the total was £14.000. As soon as this amount is made up further monies will not be levied, but now they want a further sum of £1,000 to use if necessary for the organization of the industry in our country. This then is not sent to the committee in London. Therefore the further £1.000 is necessary.

May I suggest to my hon. friend if he is afraid there is no means of withdrawing sub-section 2 of clause 3, which provides for the 2 per cent., that if the Minister would agree to a proviso to that clause whereby 50 per cent. of the ostrich feather farmers may express the desire that the levy should no longer remain in operation, then I think my hon. friend would be met in every way; and we should still be in the position of the agricultural department going on with the levy if such was the desire of the farmers. Otherwise there would be no possibility of going on with it again without fresh legislation.

There I differ from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Just like the bacon farmers and sugar farmers the ostrich farmers in the future will be able to make use of the provisions of the Act. But the amount which must be provisionally collected is limited to £14,000.

In section 12, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort will see, I have an amendment to also include the ostrich feather industry. I hope that there will be no further objections.

If the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) will agree, that will meet me.

I hope the Committee will not accept this amendment. It is an extraordinary suggestion of legislation. As the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) stated, there is no legal sanction for making this levy. There was no unanimity of opinion among the ostrich feather farmers with regard to this; it was necessarily a voluntary levy. Some believers in the sheme elected to pay, but others said: We do not believe in this; we will pay it if it is legal, but otherwise we are not prepared to pay for it. Now it is proposed to legislate to make interest payable on a levy for which there was no legal sanction. It does seem to me to be a most extraordinary thing to put into a Bill and I hope the Minister will not press it.

I hope the hon. Minister will fully accept the amendment. The request was made at the time by brokers as well as farmers but only the farmers fulfilled their obligations. The brokers did not contribute their share, alleging that it was not legal. Now it is legalized and everyone put on the same footing. I think it is no more than fair to those who contributed their portion.

I rather object to this amendment, but not for the same reason as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I object to only six per cent. being charged, as I think it ought to be a great deal more, for when the levy was introduced, I was Minister of Agriculture, and I received applications from practically all the ostrich-feather exporters imploring me in their interests, and the interests of the producers, that this levy should be introduced. If there are certain people who have not played the game, then they come off very lightly if they are fined only six per cent.

I must say that I appreciate the action of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to-night in connection with this matter. The Minister of Agriculture lent the money to the people, but the section which probably could best do so did not pay it hack. The Government had to borrow the money and pay 5 per cent, interest itself and so the Government must claim the interest. I thus hope that the hon. member for Post Elizabeth (Central) will no longer insist upon the point. I think this proposal is as fair as possible.

I am not convinced by all the eloquence raised against me. When the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) talks about not playing the game, then he is coming perilously near to talking nonsense. There was a difference of opinion whether the levy was effective or not. The ostrich feather market is worse to-day than it was before this committee started work. These people said: “If the law says we must pay the levy we shall pay it.” The law has never said so. To charge interest on a levy for which there is no legal sanction is a most extraordinary procedure to ask us to agree to. If I am alone in this House I shall vote against it.

An amendment by the hon. Minister to omit sub-section 2.

The amendments were put and agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On new clause 4,

I move—

Are we not making ourselves ridiculous by an amendment of that character. He has already had his desire that the levy shall not exceed £14,000 unless it is desired by the farmers to do it. Subsection 2 says—

That has been deleted. We have voted on it.

You will deal with ostrich feathers then under clause 12? What you move now is just the same as that you have deleted.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.