I move—

Whilst it is competent for a member to move the postponement of a Vote until the remainder of the Votes in the Estimates have been disposed of, it is not competent to postpone a Vote until certain other Votes have been disposed of, and I am therefore unable to put the motion.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services”, £158,191.

I want to say a word to the Committee with regard to an item down under sub-section (e) of this Vote, “expenses of commissions, £10,000.” I asked a question February last as to whether the Minister of Finance would lay upon the Table a statement showing the number of commissions, committees and other investigating bodies appointed by the Government since they took office. That statement was laid on the Table on the 27th March, and I have it in my hand now. It shows that the Government since it took office has in about eight months appointed some 24 commissions, committees and other investigating bodies. Some of these are departmental and have not resulted in any cost to the State beyond the time of the officers concerned, but the others have proved very costly, and I find that the total cost of commissions during some eight months of the present Government regime has amounted to £17,500, which, of course, is a very large sum; although it is only fair to say that a large proportion is covered by the cost of the Currency Commission. That cost the State up to the 18th February, £7,592 for two commissioners. Of course, one understands that technical men brought from overseas must be well paid, but even so it does seem an extremely large sum of money. I think this is a timely opportunity to make a protest against this policy of the Government appointing commissions on all and sundry points that seem to arise. The late Government was partial, I admit, to appointing commissions, but it was mild compared with the present Government, which seems to appoint them almost without reason. What is to me a peculiarly obnoxious feature of the Government’s policy with regard to commissions is the policy of appointing members of its own party sitting in this House on practically every commission.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister if this £10.000 includes payments for commissions for last year?

I am dealing with the question of the Government appointing its own members on these commissions. I have been going through this list of commissions which the Government has appointed up to the 18th February, and I see that no fewer than 15 members of Parliament have been appointed to one or more of these commissions, of whom 13 are members sitting on the opposite side of the House or sitting on the cross-benches, and two are members sitting behind me. These two were appointed to the Pensions Commission, which was understood to be a parliamentary commission. I think, speaking generally, that it is inadvisable that members of Parliament should be appointed to these commissions.

Why?

I will tell the Minister why. It is because we sit as the final court of appeal; we have to decide upon these matters, and it is better that commissions of investigation and enquiry should not be constituted to a large degree from members of Parliament. Sitting as we do as a final court of appeal in this land it is far better that commissions should not be drawn from members of Parliament. But one particularly obnoxious manifestation of this practice of appointing members of Parliament on commissions has been revealed in the present session. This has been where members on the opposite benches seem to have used their office of commissioner for the purpose of collecting propaganda to be used against the late Government. We have had the indecent spectacle of the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) standing up in this House and using information which he obtained as commissioner for this purpose, and relating evidence which had not been placed before the House. If an hon. member quotes from a report which has been laid upon the Table, no exception can be taken; but the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo), and also the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), having been appointed to commissions of enquiry, stand up and tell us in this House what they found as commissioners, not referring us to the evidence, because that is not before us, but stating what they found as commissioners, and using that information as a stick with which to beat the former Government. The limits of political decency are being exceeded, and it is time we made a protest. It is wrong that members of Parliament should to any large extent be appointed on commissions, and certainly it is wrong that they should be appointed apparently for the purpose of raking in the political ash-pit to see what particular bits of political propaganda they can extract to throw at the heads of the late Government. Members of Parliaments are paid a salary fixed by law and when we passed our Constitution in 1910, we said a member of Parliament shall not hold any office of profit under the Crown. It seems to be becoming a common practice—

What about Native Affairs?

We specially departed in that particular instance by Act of Parliament; but to provide a large number of members with jobs, during the recess, in sitting on commissions, and getting three guineas a day, is not right. It is time a protest was made, and I hope the Minister will discourage such a practice in future. I wish particularly to refer to the shop rents commission as an illustration of what I have referred to. We have had a most extraordinary thing. We have had the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) appointed to sit, by himself, as a commissioner to enquire into this question. Whatever his virtues may be, this hon. member was the very last man in this Union who should have been appointed as that commissioner; because he had gone throughout the Rand protesting against the high rentals, and saying that legislation must be brought in to curb shop rents. They may, or may not be excessive; but it was wrong to appoint a commissioner who cannot, under the circumstances, be expected to be impartial. If a man has expressed pronounced views on a point, and stated that legislation should be brought in, he should not be appointed to enquire into grievances in this connection and to report as to how these grievances should be met.

There is precedent for it.

If it is following precedent, it is a bad one, and it should be departed from. I see we spent £318 in getting the views of that gentleman on this point. These views are given on two sheets of paper, and I say the country has made a bad bargain in spending that money. I read this report, and it is the lamest I have ever read in my life. He sums up the views pro and con, as expressed to him, and then, without giving any indication of the evidence, comes to the conclusion, without supporting it by evidence or argument, that shop rents should be controlled in a particular manner. A more bald case has never been put by any commission, and the money might as well have been taken to the end of the breakwater and thrown into the sea.

I should just like to ask the hon. Minister a question on item F of this vote. I see there an amount of £11,500 for war graves of the great war and £1,000 to the associations which look after the war graves of the second war of independence. I do not know whether the hon. Minister knows in what condition most of the graves are of those who fell in the second war of independence. I hope that in subsequent years he will make better provision to effect an improvement in such conditions. I know from experience how difficult it is to get hold of a sum to do anything to the graves. Therefore I hope that the Government will do something more in the future.

I should also like to bring to the notice of the Minister that a large sum is being voted here for the graves of people who fell overseas. It is not to make up the graves but simply to maintain them and I think that it is a very large amount for the purpose. Only £1,000, however, is put in the estimates for the graves of burgers of the second war of independence. The former Government did nothing, and last year for the first time put £1.000 for the purpose on the estimates. The people then formed local committees to make up the graves. It is difficult to collect money because in many districts it is people from other districts who have been buried there. I should be very glad if the Minister will give more so that the people will know that they will get a contribution from the State if they collect an amount. In Bethal the people stood together and a little money was collected, but although so many men did not fall there, over £700 will be required. What then of the other districts of the country where we lost many men? In Natal there lie many of our men whose graves are exactly the same as when we buried them there during the war. If he will assist in making up the graves the people will themselves see to the maintenance of them.

I was not here yesterday, but I understand a discussion took place in connection with the Pensions Commission which sat to enquire into the grievances of the late war, and I have heard that there has been an attempt on the part of many hon. members, both inside and outside the House, to comment on the shortcomings of the late administration.

The hon. member cannot discuss the question of pensions at this stage.

I am sorry Mr. Chairman, because I only wanted to do bare justice to the late administration, but will revert to the matter at the first fitting opportunity.

I agree entirely with what the former speakers have said about the graves. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Gen. Muller) knows my district well and the conditions that prevail there. Perhaps there were more cases in the world war, but I should like to see that more than £1,000 is made available for graves here. The matter should now be disposed of once and for all. Committees exist and are being formed but without the aid of the Government the position remains unsatisfactory. It is the duty of the House to put the matter in order. It need not be done with pomp and circumstance. A simple memorial so that the remembrance is retained. Some years ago I noticed at Simonstown the condition of the graves there of a number of persons who died in captivity. I must say that it broke my heart that day to see the neglect of the graves. I do not know whether possibly later the municipality put the graves in order. When the graves are once put in order then the committees that are appointed will themselves see to it that the graves are kept in order. I shall be glad if the Government see their way to dispose of this matter. We, who have the privilege of enjoying the fruits of what those who gave their lives obtained, must see to it that provision is made to have sufficient money for disposal to erect memorials for them.

I am thankful that the Minister has put this £1,000 on the estimates, but, as the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has said, it is too little. We have been asking for it for the last five or six years, but only last year the Government made a start in providing £1.000. I hope that it will go into the matter and next year will put more than £1,000 on the estimates. £1,000 is hardly enough for the maintenance of the graves. But the graves must first be made up and a memorial obtained and this costs money. A small amount will then be necessary for maintenance. Our people have formed a strong committee in my division and a portion of Bethel and we will maintain the graves. The great thing is that we should first have the memorial.

I wish to identify myself in the strongest possible terms with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to the wholesale appointment of members of Parliament on commissions. There is no doubt that the practice which has been described as finding “jobs for pals” has obtained the widest possible scope in these appointments The particular appointment mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely, that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) to the Shop Rent’s Commission, is of a particularly scandalous character.

The hon. member should moderate his language.

It is very wrong for the Government to have made such an appointment and equally wrong for the hon. member to have accepted the appointment. The hon. member’s pronounced views on this question should alone have been a deterrent to the Government from appointing him. He had presided at public meetings, called to condemn alleged high shop rentals. I hope such an appointment will never be made again.

It seems to me that hon. members opposite are now only awakening to what we endured for the last, 14 years. When we were in Opposition the Government appointed various commissions and members of Parliament also were on the commission. The old Government, therefore, also followed the principle, but never appointed anybody from the Opposition. Neither on a temporary nor on a permanent commission. Never ha? anybody from this side of the House been appointed on a commission. Now this Government has departed from that.

It is a mistake.

I don’t wish to concur in it but supporters of the Opposition outside the House have been appointed on permanent commissions such as, e.g., on the Board of Industries. I am in favour of the point of view of other parties always being taken into consideration. I think it is right I only hope that if the Opposition should one day still come into power

Hear, hear.

Yes, it is very doubtful, but if it happens then I hope they will follow the example of this Government. I, therefore, think it is unfair of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to criticize this Government for appointing members of Parliament on commissions. I am sorry that no hon. members from the opposite side have again been appointed. Perhaps there were no specialists on the other side but South African party men have indeed been appointed from outside the House. It is, however, desirable, I think, that hon. members of this House should be appointed on commissions because one thereby gets a better insight into affairs and a member is consequently able to clearly explain a subject. I hope the Government will not change its policy on this point.

I wish to know, Mr. Chairman, whether Vote No. 8 has been passed, as there is some uncertainty on the point in this corner of the House.

I understood he withdrew his motion very clearly.

I did not hear it.

I put the vote after that. I waited a little time and gave an opportunity for discussion.

There are important matters on No. 8 for discussion, and I understood it was standing over.

I am sorry I cannot go back. In order to revert to a vote which has been passed it will be necessary to obtain an instruction from the House.

I wish to support the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) as to what reached this corner of the House. We could not hear an intelligible word of what was said at the Table, and may I say that your voice, though inexpressibly sweet, is not always inexpressibly clear, sir. It was an astonishing thing to me to learn at the Table that the vote had been passed, because it is a vote that every one of us representing Natal came here to speak upon. I think there was a misunderstanding that justifies our going back to reconsider this Vote.

If hon. members had got up immediately I might have been able to do something, but hon. members have allowed half-an-hour to pass, and I could not do it now even if I wished to.

I raised the question on the first opportunity I had.

I do not know what the position of other members is in my neighbourhood, but I must say that the last word that I heard was that the Minister asked that this vote should stand over. We consequently made no objection, because we were under the impression that the vote was standing over.

When the Speaker is in the Chair any hon. member can propose to take Vote 8 again. But it cannot be done now.

Might I say, sir, that you have referred to the delay which has taken place. The hon. member came to me after he had been to the Table, and asked about the procedure he should follow, and I said if there has been a mistake it is the proper thing to raise the matter before you. Very often motions are moved and withdrawn, and hon. members here don’t hear of the matter the Chairman is dealing with at the particular time. It is very awkward, because the hon. member told me, and I asked him to raise the point. It is unfortunate that when the hon. Minister moved the vote stand over and then withdrew it, hon. members here were under the impression that Vote 8 had not been put, but that you were asking for the withdrawal of the proposal the hon. Minister had made. As hon. members on the opposite side had the same misunderstanding, I think it is only fair that you use your powers to rectify it.

I am sorry that hon. members did not catch it. They would have done so if there had been less hubbub, especially on that side. The only thing to do is to get an instruction of Mr. Speaker.

Would it be in order for one to move for an instruction from Mr. Speaker in connection with the misunderstanding? I do not desire to do that out of any disrespect to the chair, but to take that course on your own suggestion, that you would like to go back but cannot do so without an instruction from Mr. Speaker in that direction.

What can be done is that a motion is made to report progress and ask leave to sit again, then Mr. Speaker would be in the chair. Otherwise I must go on with Vote No. 9.

Then immediately after Mr. Speaker had vacated the chair we could go back again into committee?

If the hon. member desires to propose to report progress, I will do so.

If no one in the House objects, cannot you go back to this vote?

It is not a matter for the committee to decide. It is a matter for the whole House.

I move—

We shall be in an embarrassing position if we report progress, and then the House will not allow us to proceed. I am afraid when that is done, we may find it impossible to proceed with further business so far as the Estimates are concerned, and that will be embarrassing.

I am anxious to avoid that. As you have heard the opinion of the House, will it not be in your power to revert to the vote?

I am not permitted to do it.

There will be an opportunity for every member to say all he wants to say about the provincial administrations on a Bill which is going to be introduced into the House. I submit, Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances, hon. members are unreasonable in pressing for the reconsideration of this matter when they can say all they want to say later on.

Would I be in order to move that Vote 9 stand over until Vote 8 is considered?

It has already been considered.

Can I move that we reconsider Vote 8?

You cannot do that.

Then I move—

I must have a distinct understanding on this. We might be faced with the position that we cannot go on, and we want to get on with the business. A Bill is coming forward and several stages of it have to be considered, and further opportunities will be given to hon. members to say whatever they like on provincial matters. I do not wish to interfere if there has been a misunderstanding, but hon. members must not expect the Government to be put into that position.

I think you can easily give a guarantee to the hon. Minister that we have no desire to delay the ordinary business, but the hon. Minister must have considered that there would be a certain amount of legitimate discussion on Vote 8. Otherwise he would not have moved that it stand over until Vote 9 was taken.

I realized that we were going to have a lengthy discussion on the matter, and I wanted to avoid a double discussion as I was bringing another Bill forward. We are now in the same position. If, on Monday, we have a discussion on the Bill I am bringing forward, I thought members would not like to discuss it again.

Would it not be better to let Vote 8 stand over?

It has been passed without discussion.

Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) withdraw?

Yes.

Then with the leave of the Committee the motion is withdrawn.

Am I to understand that Vote 8 is not under consideration? I, however, do not believe that the Government will deprive us of the right of discussing the matter. I did not hear the vote put. I understand the difficulty and I do not wish to put any difficulty in the way of the Government, but I know also that the Minister of Finance does not wish that our mouths should be closed.

At this end of the House we cannot hear a word of what is being said from the Chair. I must raise my voice now, because I do not wish the same thing to happen as happened on the last vote. I find that the last vote was put through without anybody here knowing what had happened.

If there was a little less noise on that side of the House hon. members would have heard better. Not only did I speak but the Minister also spoke.

There was no noise here.

I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that before we agree in the ordinary course of business to report progress this evening at five minutes to 11, he will agree to report progress ten minutes or so earlier, so that when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair this question which we have now been discussing may be raised.

If necessary, that can be done, but I take it that even on Monday or any time afterwards this question can be raised.

Is the Minister going to reply to the point which I raised on this vote which is being rushed through again?

What does the hon. member mean by “being rushed through again”? I ask the hon. member to withdraw that expression.

I withdraw that expression, but I substitute this, that you were on the point of putting the vote before the Minister noticed that he had not replied.

Must I understand that Vote No. 8 is disposed of? Or can we still talk about it?

The hon. member means Vote 9.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has raised the question of the large number of commissions that have been appointed by the Government during its tenure of office. I would have thought that the hon. member would have pointed to one of these commissions which he thought was unnecessary. There has been a change of Government, and a large number of important matters had to be dealt with.

Shop rents is one.

Let me tell my hon. friend that that matter was discussed last session. The Government then intimated that the question would be considered and a commission would be appointed, and I heard not a word of objection against that proposed course.

Did you tell us that the proposed commissioner was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh)?

That is a different point. The hon. member said that an unnecessarily large number of commissions had been appointed, and then he comes to the appointment of a particular commissioner. That question has been discussed on a previous occasion, when I explained that I had appointed the hon. member for Krugersdorp as the commissioner. I do not think we would have been able to find anybody in the country who had not some sort of opinion on this question before. What we wanted was information.

There is not much information here.

The hon. member may say that he is not satisfied with the report, but what we were after was that information had to be gathered in regard to a particular subject. Of course, the hon. member need not accept the expressions of opinion by the commissioner on the point, but on that matter the House Can form its own opinion. I submit that there is nothing in the report that would justify any allegation that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is not a fit and proper person to undertake this responsibility. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised the question of the principle of appointing members of Parliament to commissions. That is not a new principle; it was resorted to by the previous Government. There are many members of the House who hold a very strong opinion on the point that members of Parliament are perhaps the most competent persons to be appointed on commissions. The hon. member may have his own opinion, but I do not think it is one that is shared by hon. members of the House.

*The war graves have been mentioned by several hon. members and it has been asked why such a big difference exists between the amount for oversea graves and graves in this country. I want to say that the position with regard to the oversea graves is that there is a general commission for graves which looks after the graves of all the powers that took part in the world war and each one pays on a pro rata basis to the number of graves that there are of sons of the Country. The total number of graves is 555,379 of which 4,985 graves are of South Africans, and we pay the pro rata share. That is the estimated amount that we shall have to pay for graves in Europe which appears here on the estimates. With reference to graves of fighters in the second war of independence the House last year adopted the principle of making monetary provision of a fair amount that may be necessary for persons of the second war of independence. Last year we put £1,000 on the estimates for the purpose. The women’s federation of the Transvaal was asked to make recommendations to the commission as to how to divide the amount up. Last year it worked well and the amount of £1,000 was enough last year for the applications that came in and we believe that the amount will be sufficient for the coming year as well. Hon. members must understand that the whole amount that will be necessary in the future will not be claimed in one year. The commission is occupied with the matter and, if necessary, the amount will be repeated again next year. But on the experience of last year the amount will be sufficient for this financial year.

I do not wish to speak about the personalities of persons who have been appointed on commissions, but I wish to let it be known that I am opposed to members of the House of Assembly being appointed as members of commissions. It is said that the old Government did it, but I always understood that the new Government was going to put everything right. I also once had the honour of serving on a miners’ phthisis commission during the recess, but the members of that commission got no payment. But it looks so invidious for members of the House of Assembly who have to judge about the work of the commissions to be appointed to serve on commissions. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) says that members should serve on commissions because they get enlightenment there about affairs. But it is expected of members of the House of Assembly to read the reports of Commissions. I think that it is a wrong principle and that the public are dissatisfied therewith. It only looks as if work is being given during the recess to members who have nothing to do. I have nothing to do with the personnel of this commission as individuals. I have nothing against the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), but the principle is entirely wrong. If we do not raise our voices we shall hereafter have such work being given to all the members who have no occupation. The payment is £3 3s. per day. I know that the Nationalist-party always bombarded the previous Government about the appointment of commissions but we never appointed so many commissions.

I am surprised that hon. members opposite who sat for 14 years behind the former Government—I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys)—which always appointed commissions—now protests so much, and it was always men of their party.

Without payment.

Clearly the hon. member got no payment and he says it because others did get paid. There are many burning questions which must be immediately tackled by the Government, but before it could do so it of course required information. Therefore rather numerous commissions have been appointed. But I have got up to get a little more information about the graves of the second war of independence in our country. The hon. Minister said that he had consulted the women’s federation in the Transvaal to see bow to divide up the amount which is available. I should like to know what he has done with regard to the Free State, how he got information about the graves in the Free State.

In this connection I may say that in the case of the former £1,000 no application was received from the Free State because they have their own fund there, of which the interest is available for war graves. They are not assisted out of this £1,000. The fund was established by the Crown Colony Government.

I must join issue with the Minister of Finance on his reply to me on the question of commissions. I want to deal with the general principle of appointing members of Parliament to serve on commissions. I admit that in one or two isolated instances extending over a period of 14 years the late Government did appoint members of Parliament to serve on commissions, but that was done very rarely, and I do not think more than three or four instances occurred in which such members were appointed. In the first eight months of Pact rule no fewer than 13 back bench members of the Government have been appointed in one capacity or other to serve on commissions, and that is what I object to. With regard to the general principle as to whether or not it is desirable for members of Parliament to serve on commissions, this is a question of policy which the Minister must naturally decide for himself; but I again venture to submit that it is an undesirable thing and is liable to cast upon the Minister the imputation that during recess he is providing jobs for one or more members of his party. When one sees 13 back bench members on the Government side of the House appointed to commissions in eight months one wonders if that policy is to be continued. When one finds some of them making use of their seats on a commission to come back and make our flesh creep and our blood curdle with some of the things they have found out but have not put in reports—when it reaches that stage—it is surely evident that the practice is a most undesirable one. May I remind the Minister that we laid it down in our constitution that a member of Parliament should not hold any office of profit under the Crown? It is an evasion of that to pay a member of Parliament, who is a member of a commission, three guineas a day and call it expenses when we know they do not spend the odd pounds, and I say it is wrong. I want to deal now with this question of the appointment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) to this commission. The Minister said he disagreed with me.

I must point out that this is a matter of the past. The hon. member cannot discuss anything except the item “expenses of commissions.”

With all due deference, I am not discussing so much the name of an hon. member but the question of a man who has expressed strong views on a question being appointed on a commission to investigate that question.

The hon. member may discuss that question generally.

I join issue absolutely with the Minister when he pooh-poohs the idea of the fact of any particular gentleman having expressed strong views on a question being a disqualification for service on a commission dealing with that question. I remember the instance to which he referred me. He said that gentleman was appointed only to collect evidence and that he was just as capable of collecting evidence as any other person who had taken up a less strong position, but he forgets the terms of reference to that commission, which were—

He was not asked to collect evidence.

The hon. member cannot refer in detail to the commission appointed last year.

I am using this to illustrate the general principle only and to bring home to the Minister the inadvisability of appointing persons to serve on commissions who have expressed strong views on that very point. I cannot do that without alluding to a particular instance. May I say the Minister was wrong when he stated the main function of this gentleman was to collect evidence? His main function was to report to this House and the Governor-General on the advisability of controlling rentals. When you have a person appointed who had gone up and down the Reef holding public meetings—

You must not pursue that matter. The matter is one which could have been appropriately discussed when the Estimates of Additional Expenditure for the last financial year were before the House earlier in the session or, as a question of policy, when the salary of the Minister of Finance was before the committee under Vote No. 5.

If that is the attitude you take up, Mr. Chairman, I move that we take Mr. Speaker’s ruling on this point. I am discussing the iniquity of the Government in appointing a man to preside over a commission who has expressed strong views. Whether it was done last year or five years ago, I submit that I can allude to the Government’s actions as pointing a moral in regard to what I say they should do in future.

We are getting to a fine pass when, instead of protecting members’ rights, the conduct of the chair seems to be to take them away.

Order.

Order. I ask the hon. member to withdraw that expression.

I perhaps will withdraw that expression.

The hon. member must withdraw that expression unconditionally.

Yes, I withdraw it. Here is a case that occurred last session. If we cannot allude to this case now, when can we allude to it? I think it is a monstrous state of affairs. I think it is a perfectly legitimate thing to discuss this particular case which has taken place since last session, and if we cannot discuss it under this vote, where can we discuss it?

I do not think the hon. member states the position fairly. He wants to deal with a certain thing that happened in connection with expenditure that occurred last year. This House dealt with the additional estimates where the money was voted to this particular commissioner, and the House then dealt with the question on that occasion. Now we have a vote provision for commissions in the future. The hon. member may be right in discussing the general policy of the Government in connection with the future, but he is discussing the action of the Government in this particular case. If there was anything wrong with this, it should have been discussed on the Treasury vote when my salary was under discussion for two days in this House. That was the place to discuss policy and administration. Here we are merely voting the money for any future commissions which the Government may appoint. I do submit that the hon. gentleman may be entitled to discuss the general policy of the Government in regard to future appointments; but it is not right for him, as he is attempting to do so, to discuss this particular appointment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

I think the Minister has rather given the case away. The House is asked to vote £10.000 for defraying expenses in connection with future or possible commissions. Under the circumstances, are the privileges of this House to be so curtailed that we cannot point out to the Minister principles which should guide him in the future in connection with future commissions?

I do not object to that.

But the Minister is objecting when he says we cannot point cut the mistakes of the Government in the past as a guide for the future. I say you are taking away the privileges of members of this House. I understand that the rules of the House are that you cannot discuss a Bill that has passed this House in the existing session in which the House is sitting, but that you can discuss anything that has taken place at a previous session. I would like him to consider what this House is coming to. It is coming to a state of affairs different from what we old members of the House have experienced in the old days of the Cape Parliament, on the lines of which this House is supposed to follow. I never remember in those days any desire to curtail legitimate criticism of members, no matter how inconvenient they might be.

What does the hon. member mean by his insinuation? Does he mean that I deliberately try to curtail legitimate criticism?

I am not questioning your ruling, but I demand my right and privilege, as a member of this House, to point out to Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Speaker, or whoever he may be, whenever I consider the rights and privileges of this House are being curtailed, and with all due respect to you in the chair—while you are in the chair nobody desires to give you more respect than I do—but I have to respect myself and my friends and the constituency I represent and have to plead, as I have always pleaded, for the fullest rights and privileges, the free-est and fullest discussion of any question that affects the general interests of this country, and what I meant to convey was this, that it has appeared to me—I may be wrong—that the time has come when hon. members on whatever side should not be afraid to stand up and plead for the privileges of hon. members in this House. It is not out of any disrespect for the chair that I plead for these privileges, but I do so out of respect for our Parliamentary institutions which are the safeguard of the liberties of every section of the people of this country.

I am sorry that my hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has used such words here Let me say that I sympathize with the matter because I desire that all possible rights of members of the House should be maintained. But I only wish in that connection to point out that I, as a member of the Opposition, often suffered under the same whip, and I always felt, and I said it, that the rules of debate were too strict in the House.

And have you another opinion now?

No, I am of the same opinion still. But if we feel that our rights are being encroached upon, then we should call the attention of the Chairman or the Speaker to it, and then we, as a House, must decide if we will extend them. I feel the same thing as my friend opposite, and therefore I realize that when the Chairman has given his decision we must not take it amiss of members if they want the ruling of the Sneaker. We cannot take it amiss then that they wish further enquiry. I sympathize with them, because I have often felt that the Chairman or Speaker should give us more opening and opportunity. If we look at the matter in this spirit, then we can possibly extend our rules hereafter a little to make that practicable.

Frankly I do not understand what the Prime Minister has said—whether he is in favour of the ruling or against it—but it should be understood that none of us on this side of the House are making an attack on the chair, but are merely asserting our right to discuss this subject. We are asked to vote money for future commissions, and we are fully within our rights in pointing to certain happenings in regard to past commissions That is all we are doing. We are not attacking any particular member of the House, but we have an outstanding example of wrong procedure in appointing a past commission, and we have a right to quote that case to prevent similar procedure in the future; otherwise we would not feel justified in voting the amount.

There is a point of order. Do you wish to push it?

No, if you are satisfied that we are in order in quoting past commissions in order to illustrate our contentions as to future commissions; then we are quite satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, before you give us your ruling may I remind you that the Minister of Finance raised the issue by saying that in his opinion the fact that a particular person had expressed strong views on a point was no reason for disqualifying him. I cannot reply to that argument unless I am allowed to do so by dealing fully with this particular case.

Well, I adhere to my ruling.

Then I move—

Agreed to.

The question is whether the Speaker’s ruling should be asked on the following point of order by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

House Resumed:

I have been requested by the House to take your ruling on the following question—

It is a question by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member in discussing sub-section (e) Vote 9, proceeded to specifically discuss the appointment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) on a certain commission. I held, the appointment stood in connection with expenditure incurred last year, and it was pointed out by the Minister of Finance that the appointment could have been discussed on the Estimates for the Additional Expenditure, and I held on this vote it could not be specifically discussed.

I am addressing the committee on this vote of £10,000, and I tried to get the committee to accept two principles, one, that it was undesirable that members of Parliament should be appointed to sit on these commissions, and two, that it was undesirable that any man who had expressed strong views on a particular subject should be appointed as commissioner, and I referred to the appointment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) on the Shop Rents Commission, to which he was appointed notwithstanding that he had taken a leading part in the question of shop rents on the Rand and took an active position in advocating the limiting of shop rents. The Minister of Finance replied and said he saw no reason why members of Parliament should not be appointed to commissions, and why the fact of a gentleman having expressed a strong bias on a particular question should debar him from being appointed commissioner, and he went on to add that in this particular case the function of the commissioner was to conduct an enquiry, and that he was as capable of conducting an enquiry as fairly as anyone else. In reply to the Minister, I pointed out that the terms of reference were not to enquire into the facts, but to advise the Governor on the advisability of controlling rentals. I was going to carry it further by pointing out this instance as showing how undesirable it was to appoint a person who has expressed strong views, when I was pulled up by the chairman, and that was the point on which we desired to get your ruling.

I do not think the hon. member was correct in saying I laid down a general proposition that there was no objection to appointing a member who had expressed a strong bias on any particular commission. I said I had no knowledge in this particular case. I said I thought it would be difficult to find anyone who had not got strong views. As far as the Government’s action in this particular appointment was concerned, during this session of Parliament I brought forward estimates for the allowances paid to these commissioners. The matter was discussed and an appropriation Act was passed. So far as the criticism is concerned of the Government policy, the matter should have been properly discussed yesterday under the Treasury vote when my salary was under discussion. I felt when he was discussing this matter, there was no harm in incidentally alluding to it, but be went farther in discussing the Government’s action in this particular appointment, and I submit the chairman’s ruling was quite right in saying the matter was not in order.

Before giving your ruling, sir, might I be allowed to point out the position I tried to put before the hon. Chairman of Committees? Not alone in this particular case, but for generally protecting the old and established privileges of this House and of the Cape House before them, I tried to point out to the chairman that the House is asked to take a vote of £10,000 for furnishing the Government with moneys in connection with the appointment of future commissioners, and I said if discussions of examples of this sort are debarred from members of this House or bringing forward and impressing on the Government the inadvisability of such appointments in connection with future commissions, our privileges will be very much curtailed. If the House is going to grant £10,000 to the Government for the purpose of appointing commissions, I felt strongly that our privileges as members of the House would be materially curtailed and interfered with, if we were not to bring to the notice of the Government and the House, the inadvisability in future, of making appointments of the character the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) referred to. I think you will acknowledge that is a very important point. I know Bills which have gone through this House during the present session cannot be referred to in the course of another debate, but there is nothing to prevent us talking on matters of a previous session-matters of administration. I believe that was one of the arguments raised against the right of my hon. friend to pursue the discussion. The Minister said it was expenditure incurred last year.

Voted this year and the Appropriation Bill passed this year.

But we were not referring to the Appropriation Bill; we were referring to the appointment of commissions. We were trying to impress upon the Government the inadvisability in the general interests of this country in future of appointing to commissions persons who will consider owing to previously expressed opinions which made them biassed in their judgment, persons who had expressed in the strongest manner possible views on matters on which they were asked as impartial judges to advise the Governor-General in connection with the particular affairs entrusted to their consideration. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I would desire to impress upon you the point that we are very jealous, especially the older members of the House, of the privileges we possess as representatives of the people.

I wish to submit that the great Parliamentary privilege is this, that before you vote supply you can discuss grievances. That is really the foundation of our Parliamentary practice.

That’s the point.

With all due deference, I will submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this item were incorporated ultimately in the Appropriation Bill, then you would not rule out of order the point of discussion raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell). We are dealing in committee now with a special point which will ultimately be incorporated in the Appropriation Bill, and if you can discuss in broad principles on an Appropriation Bill this particular question, then I submit that on this particular item we have a perfect right to bring forward the grievances we feel in connection with the administrative conduct of the Government in the appointment of commissions. I understood one of the Minister’s points was that you could not deal with this point now, but you could have dealt with it at the time when the Additional Estimates were before the House.

You did do so.

It has always been held from the chair that the policy of the Additional Estimates was fixed by the previous estimates, and that you can only then come along on the Additional Estimates and say whether you agree with the amount or not, but you cannot discuss the policy or conduct of the Government in making such a payment of money voted on previous estimates. Now we are voting new supply, and before we vote new supply we claim that we can avail ourselves of the settled and old Parliamentary practice and privilege that we can discuss the conduct of the Government in the past before we give them supply in regard to that administrative act of the Government. I submit that if committee of the whole House has not the right to discuss an administrative act of the Government in regard to a particular point on which we have to vote money, it will be a most grave and serious curtailment of our Parliamentary rights.

May I say a few words with reference to the practice that we should follow? While we must always grant as much liberty as possible to properly discuss all matters we must not permit the time of the House to be unnecessarily taken up. It seems to me that the view of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is correct, that we have here to do with a sum of £10,000 for commissions, a sum which is asked of the House for commissions which may yet be appointed during the duration of this year. There I entirely agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that we should here have the right to say generally that the Government should take or not take this or that step. Take the appointment of commissions. I think it is quite right when anybody in his criticism approves or disapproves a certain line of conduct that he may also refer to cases which have already happened in the past and in that way to illustrate the view that he approves or disapproves. I believe that what has happened this afternoon rests upon a misunderstanding more than anything else. Now in connection e.g. with the remarks which were made about the appointment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) one can quote such a case with two objects. It may simply be quoted as an example and to point the Government to the policy which will be best for the future and to say that such and such thing must no longer be done. But on the other hand instead of so using it as an example such a case can be mentioned to practically base the whole attack on it. And not to regard it as a side issue and to merely quote it as an example. In the case of the vote of £10,000, we must thus not lose sight of the main thing and treat such a matter of the past as the principal matter. I admit the difficulty of the Chairman and the Speaker to intervene and to say that a member can go so and so far in the quoting of an example in support of his argument. We cannot go too far in this matter because then we would open up the whole past and there would be no end to criticism. Now, as regards the discussion this afternoon, I must honestly say it was more or less correct for the Chairman to decide as he did in saying that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) exceeded the bounds and discussed the appointment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp too much. On the other hand I think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went a little too far. It is difficult for a Chairman or a Speaker to always regulate matters so that good feeling is maintained, and that must be the object in the first instance. But I must say that I cannot take it amiss of the Chairman that he said to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that he went too far although I can well understand the feeling of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because I know while I myself was still in. Opposition how I often had objections to certain limitations.

I am not a lawyer, but there is one fact that has a distinct bearing on this point. One of the reasons alleged for the ruling in regard to the appointment of this commissioner is that it is in last year’s Estimates, and therefore we have not the right to call it in question now, or at least to discuss it now, although, as a matter of fact, my hon. friend only used it by way of illustration. We had only yesterday a long discussion on pensions, and there was the old criticism as to the bad administration of the Pension Act. Now that has a distinct bearing on this case. I simply want to call attention to that fact.

Hon. members who have addressed the chair on this point of order are perfectly correct when they say that very wide scope is allowed in a discussion of matters that refer to the redress of grievances. Full scope is given to hon. members to discuss almost anything on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. Further opportunity is given on the salaries of the various Ministers concerned. Later on, when the Bill to give effect to the Estimates is brought in, very wide scope is again allowed to hon. members to discuss and air any grievances they may have with regard to the administration of the country; but I take it as an established rule that in committee hon. members must confine themselves to the items under discussion, and the policy of the Government is not allowed to be discussed except when a motion is made for the reduction of a Minister’s salary. With regard to the points that have been brought up now, I may say that as I have pointed out on previous occasions it is very difficult indeed for me to decide a question of this nature, because, as hon. members will have seen, on the one hand there are hon. members who say, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), that they merely wish to refer to the matter “by way of example” or “incidentally” whereas, on the other hand, other hon. members say that. the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was making an attack on the Government in connection with a past appointment, on this item of £10,000 which is the subject of discussion. Now the item of £10,000 which is being discussed is in connection with commissions still to be appointed. The commission that is said to have been referred to in the discussion is one in connection with which the necessary money has already been voted and which was discussed when the Estimates of Additional Expenditure which were before the House some time ago. Under these circumstances the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was entitled to refer to the appointment by way of example or incidentally; but from what I can gather, and from what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us in this discussion, he seemed to be going rather further than that, and I understand that the view the chairman has taken is that the hon. member did not merely refer by way of example or incidentally to the commissioner appointed, but went further, and according to the chairman and other hon. members, he was attacking the Government on the matter of policy. Under these circumstances I do not think I am called upon to give any ruling. It is a question that the chairman himself must decide as to where the line should be drawn. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that on the second reading of the Bill it would be competent to discuss this matter, I agree with him entirely. It would be quite open to hon. members to discuss the matter on the second reading of the Bill, but in committee the discussion must be confined to the items before the committee and should not go beyond them.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. The House is being asked to vote £10,000 for the purpose of defraying expenses in connection with future commissions. Will I be entitled to say that I refuse to vote that £10,000 until I have an assurance from the responsible Minister that a person who has expressed opinions which I would think would make it impossible for him to serve as an impartial judge on a commission, shall not be appointed?

The hon. member would be perfectly entitled to take up that attitude, but not to base any argument or attack on the Government on the appointment of a previous commission or commissioners. He would be quite entitled to the view he has expressed. House in Committee:

The CHAIRMAN stated Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

I would now like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to give this Committee an assurance that in appointing commissions under this vote, for which we are asked to vote £10,000, he will now recognize (no matter what has been done in the past) that it is an undesirable thing that a commissioner should be appointed, no matter who he may be, who has taken part in political propaganda on the particular question on which he is to be appointed. For instance, supposing I should persuade the Minister that it was necessary and desirable to appoint a commission on local option, I would not expect him to appoint me as chairman or sole commissioner, to advise the waiting country whether local option was a good thing or not; nor, had he been in power in 1922, and had wanted to appoint a commission into the events which happened on the Rand in that year, would I have expected him to appoint the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). I think he will have no difficulty in agreeing with me that whatever lapses the Government may have made in the past, it is desirable that we affirm the principle that no one who has gone out openly and expressed definite views on any question should be asked to sit as a commissioner to advise the Government on that question. I do not think there can be any doubt as to the desirability of that principle. The Minister said everybody must have views of some sort or other on those various political questions that arise. I grant that; but what I claim is that the open expression of these views which should disqualify a man from being a commissioner. What confidence can we have in this particular report when we know it was made by a gentleman with particular convictions?

What about the Low Grades Mines Commission?

My hon. friends are always referring to the past. I understand that I may not refer to the past, and I am referring to the future now. I come now to this other point—that it is really, without any lightness of expression—most undesirable that members of Parliament should look forward to membership of commissions as part of their yearly remuneration. It is a bad thing that a member, when seeking election, should say, “I need not look after my own livelihood during the six months Parliament does not sit, because I may legitimately expect to be appointed a commissioner.” In one or two instances, extending over fourteen years, it happened, perhaps, under the late Government, but the gentlemen appointed were not persons who were looking for jobs.

I would ask the hon. member who has just sat down, whether all the virtues of mankind are contained in the hon. members on his side of the House, who, if they were appointed as commissioners in the future, would be men who would not be looking for jobs? Maybe the hon. member is right in that respect. Perhaps the whole of the wealthy class are represented on that side, and do not need to look for a job in any direction, or are rising barristers who are able to do their private work sitting in this House while listening to debates.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes. When hon. members on that side of the House go down into the mud and start throwing muck about—

Mr. Chairman, is that in order?

The hon. member is not entitled to make that remark.

I withdraw. If, in the future, the Government were to appoint the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) to sit on a commission or to be chairman of a commission, to enquire into the sufferings of livestock when travelling on the railways of this country, we say it would be an excellent appointment, because he knows a great deal about the question. I have every confidence in his integrity, and believe that after listening to the evidence he would come forward and report on the facts as he found them, and not according to any preconceived ideas. If he were to do that, hon. members opposite would not have a word to say. Let us take another point. According to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), if a man takes up a certain line of action, he cannot be trusted to sit and listen impartially to evidence and come to an impartial decision. What becomes of the judges who have been appointed from the political parties in the past, who are sitting on the bench and are supposed to be impartial, and who have to try political offences and cases in connection with industrial disputes? These are men of integrity, and we can trust them to deliver judgment according to the facts of the case. If the Government, in the future, were to appoint a commission in connection with local option—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has a low opinion of himself, because he tells us that he is so bigoted, that his ideas are so founded on ignorance and prejudice, that he could not be trusted, because he would bring in a biassed report.

What confidence would the public have in such a report?

The hon. member has evidently a much poorer opinion of himself than other members have. If hon. members opposite have nothing to hide or to fear from the investigations carried out by these commissioners, why are they so opposed to them?

We have no means of checking their statements.

The hon. member has paid an excellent tribute to commissioners, for if the commissioners had been “duds,” the hon. member would not have attacked them. If the hon. member’s argument had been based on reason or on definite charges, that he could substantiate, the House would have listened to him in a different way from what it has this afternoon. The matter has been brought forward merely from the point of view of party propaganda, and it is late in the day for hon. members opposite to take objection to the principles of the members of this House sitting on commission. If the Government had appointed a member to sit on the Native Affairs Commission at a salary of £1,000 a year, it would only be following the example of the late Government. The principle is the same, or worse, for membership of the Native Affairs Commission is a permanent appointment. Not only has the Opposition attacked the appointment of members of Parliament on commissions, but it has also attacked the Board of Trade. I venture to assert that whoever the Government may appoint on commissions, unless it asks the opinion of the South African party, those appointments will be absolutely worthless from the point of view of hon. members opposite. They have not realized the fact that the South African party is no longer governing the country, or that they no longer hold the reins of office, those reins being now held by men who are governing the country wisely. If they cannot get a better stick with which to beat the Government they must have a very poor case. It has been asserted that some statements are blood-curdling. What harm has been done by any statement made in this House by any member who has served on these particular commissions? Members who have served on commissions have, in the face of extreme provocation from the other side of the House, exercised a great deal of moderation and restraint. Many of us could indulge in an outburst based on what we have heard in the country, but we have refrained from doing so. I hope hon. members opposite will refrain from a repetition of to-day’s attack, as for every brick you throw from that side of the House we can throw two bricks at you.

You are trying to frighten us.

I am sure my hon. friend does not imagine that the majority of people are so unbiassed as he is himself, and that he having held very strong views they would not interfere with his superior intellect in his desire to deal fairly with arguments brought before him. He has forgotten that the Native Affairs Commission was appointed by an Act of Parliament, and special provision was made for placing members of Parliament on that commission, so that they would be able, when native affairs were discussed in Parliament to inform hon. members what views they had formed as members of the commission. The Prime Minister will remember that during the sittings of the National Convention, the functions of members of Parliament were fully discussed, and it was the deliberate opinion of the Convention that members of Parliament should not be remunerated for any service which they rendered to the State outside Parliament. In the discussion of the Convention it was pointed out that it was inadvisable to appoint members of Parliament as members of commissions, as it was felt that a member of Parliament, being a strong supporter of one phase of thought or another, might more likely be biassed than a person who is not a member of Parliament When commissions are appointed and members of Parliament have a desire to sit upon them they are able to bring a certain amount of political pressure to bear on the Government of the day to secure their appointment. In the old days a member of a commission received an amount which was supposed to cover his remuneration and subsistence allowance. I can well conceive that there are cases in which it is advisable in the interests of Parliament and the country that a member of Parliament, because of his special knowledge of the subject, should be a member of a commission, but in that event he should not receive three guineas a day, but should be paid only his out-of-pocket expenses. If that were done it would meet a great deal of the objection to members of Parliament becoming members of Government commissions.

Why didn’t you do it?

The hon. gentleman always gets excited. I devoutly pray that my hon. friend will never be in a position that I must be compelled to address him as I have just been addressing the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

I assure the committee that I am very glad of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, because there can be no doubt, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said, and I think we also feel, that it is very undesirable that members of Parliament should be compelled to get a part of their salaries from support which they actually get from the Government and from public funds. The history of this matter is clear. English history is full of examples which must not occur here. It shows that members of Parliament became sycophants of the Government and lost all independence of action. There is no doubt that the same thing can happen in the way of commissions, and it depends entirely on the way in which their services are used. For this reason I think we should be very careful when we use members of Parliament. At the same time we must remember that we have relatively a small community from which to select the men required to serve on the commissions, etc., and the result is that the Government feel that it must have recourse to members of Parliament to get those men, because members of Parliament are in the most general sense suited thereto. It is unfortunately the position, and I do not think that we will be quit of it for a long time. I am pleased about the discussion because we should always feel that it does not take place more than absolutely necessary. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) asked the Minister of Finance if he did not in principle disapprove of a member of Parliament being reduced to looking for a part of his income from commissions. I admit that this should not be the case, and for that very reason we shall do our best to prevent that being the idea of members of Parliament that they must look to the Government to see that they shall get their full salaries. He criticizes the members that were on the commission in that they only belonged to one party. I want to point out that the former Government went much further.

Not much further.

Still a good deal further. I will admit that in the commissions that have been appointed more use has been made of members of Parliament. But the previous Government was in power for 13 or 14 years and they knew where to put their hands on the men immediately. We came into office suddenly and we had a large number of things in respect of which commissions had to be appointed, and it is not such an easy task to at once lay your hand on the right persons. His other question was with regard to the representations of all parties on the commissions. In this respect the former Government did not set a good example. They took far too little notice of the other parties. Well, I can only say this, that we all felt at the time that we all had a just complaint about it as members of the Opposition, and the present Opposition will have every right to complain if it happens again. Just one thing more. The same member also mentioned the question that he hoped the Government would not appoint people who had already committed themselves with reference to the matter. I will concede this at once. As far as possible such people shall not be appointed, however good and honest such a person may be; we know that he is more led by unknown than by known motives, and it is clear that such a person who is interested in the matter should not be appointed as judge. I do not wish to enter into the appointments which have been made, but in general I agree entirely with him.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, High Commissioner in London, £48,211,

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to certain facts appertaining to the South Africa House in London and to ask him what steps he will take to remedy this state of affairs. The proportion of South Africans employed in the High Commissioner’s office in London is absurdly low, and it has not been sufficiently realized how bad the position is there. I want to refer the House to the figures. It appears from the figures, and I understand they are correct, that there are employed in the office 116 people. Of this number 42 are officers holding permanent positions. Of this 116 people only 18 are citizens of the Union, and only 10 of this 18 are people born in South Africa, I need only state that fact to show that it is an impossible state of affairs and I think it is a severe criticism on those who have been responsible in the past for administering that office and I do hope that this Government will make every endeavour to remedy that state of affairs, for, after all, only South Africans can conduct our affairs overseas properly, only South Africans can conduct the propaganda work necessary to advertise South African affairs overseas. Another matter which is known to the House also to have been a matter of constant complaint, particularly among Dutch South Africans travelling overseas, is that it is almost impossible when they go into South Africa House in London to find anybody there who can speak to them in their own language. I find that out of 116 officers employed in the High Commissioner’s office, the number of unilingual officers there is 110, all English unilingual officers. The number of Dutch unilingual officers is nil. The number of officers who are bilingual is six and of those, only two can write Dutch. That is a state of affairs which, I hope, will be remedied by the present Government, but I would like to know from the Minister whether our present High Commissioner has been given instructions immediately to set about remedying this state of affairs. At Australia House in London all officers holding designated posts are transferred from Australia, a policy which, I hope, our Government here will also follow. At Canada House I understand that they do everything in their power to encourage their students and undergraduates at the British Universities to take not only permanent positions in Canada House at the end of their studies, but during vacation, to fill temporary positions wherever they can do so. That is a policy that ought to be followed by the High Commissioner of the Union in London, and I am told that there are many South African undergraduates who would be only too willing to do that sort of work, and that there are some who, after their studies have been completed, would be only too glad to take positions at South Africa House. This is the type of young South African whom we ought to employ, remembering again that out of 116 people employed, only 18 are South Africans and 10 of those South African born. The state of affairs now in our High Commissioner’s office may be illustrated by a little story which I have every reason to believe is authentic. It appears that a man went to South Africa House to enquire about Natal. He was met by a clerk with a blank look of amazement, who said—

I believe that a change ought to come and to come quickly. I would like, in closing, to ask the Minister what has been done in this regard since the Government has been in office and what its intentions are.

Part of the expenditure in connection with the High Commissioner’s office in London is, I understand, in connection with the purchase of various materials required in South Africa. I have been given to understand that the policy of buying has been changed and that the policy of the Government is in future to buy in South Africa. I do not mean by that that it will necessarily buy South African goods, but for goods that require to be imported from England, tenders will be asked for from firms in South Africa. I do not see any reduction made in any way in the expenditure in connection with the High Commissioner’s office, but it would appear that if this is to be the case there will be a considerable reduction of expenditure in that office. One would assume so, at any rate. I would be glad if the Minister would give us some information as to what the Government’s policy is in this regard, because, from information I have got from various quarters, it looks as if the only result will be that the requirements of the Union Government are going to cost them very considerably more than those goods cost them at the present time, that there will be no benefit to the Government—the same goods will come—but there will be an intermediate profit paid to some firm here which, I consider, is not a legitimate profit, because it is a case where the South African middleman is not necessary. I believe that the South African middleman does play a very useful part in South Africa, but in this particular case where the Government wants special things which are not generally stocked in South Africa, to go and buy them through an extra source for the sake of calling it buying in South Africa, seems to me to be sheer waste. I may have misunderstood what exactly the Government’s intentions are and I would like the Minister to say what their policy is.

I want to emphasize what my hon. friend Sir William Macintosh has just said about the buying, but, before doing so, I wish to say that I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water). I believe that we ought to make transfers of young fellows from our own service here on this side to the High Commissioner’s office in London. The whole place, in fact, ought to reek of South Africa. The biggest part of the men employed there without a doubt should be, as we find is done in Australia House, South Africans, who know all about South Africa and talk South Africa. I hope the policy of the Government will be to send young South Africans there and get them thoroughly initiated into the business, so that you may have men there who come from South Africa and who know all about the country. With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend (Sir William Macintosh), part of the work of this office, perhaps the biggest part of that work, is that of buying not only for the railway department but for the Government generally. I would like to know what is the policy of the Government now in regard to buying, because we have heard recently that there has been some alteration in the system. I do not make any allusion now to anything you may buy in South Africa, say South African goods. That is another policy altogether. You must buy on the other side things which you cannot produce here, such as paper and the like. As we understand it, all tenders now have got to be received in South Africa; then, furthermore, we also understand that these tenders have got to be received through agents or some firm in South Africa, and not direct from manufacturers on the other side. That can only have one effect, that it is going to lead to increased cost. As my hon. friend points out, someone has got to make a profit on this side. If an agent for a firm must be appointed here to get orders, then the Government have to pay the cost of that agent in one shape or another. I am not against firms in South Africa tendering, if they wish to. They have a perfect right to do so; but what I do strongly object to is that tenders should only be received in South Africa through firms here or agents here. That can, as I have said, only lead to increased cost of these goods. I believe it is the duty of the Government to spend the people’s money to the best advantage, and not pay to middlemen or agents when they can get it direct from the manufacturer. That is the policy I acted upon in the railways department, and I think it is a sound policy. It is the duty of the Government that they should get the best value for the people’s money, which they spend. I agree with my hon. friend in asking what policy is to be pursued in this regard.

I am very pleased to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) on this point. What happens if you purchase German or English goods through agents out here? You are only paying more for the article than you would have to pay if your agent in England or Germany purchased them first hand. I hope the Government will consider this matter.

I want to impress upon hon. members that my remarks in the past and this evening are in no way personal. What I say is not meant to be personal against any member of South Africa House. I want to support what was said about the employment of South Africans. I do so, particularly, because we who go into South Africa House at present do not feel at home. There is not a single person to attend to you; you have to go up to a girl at the desk and tell her what you want, and then she will call a man in uniform, and you then see three or four persons before you finally get to the High Commissioner, or whoever it is you want. In any Government office in London there is practically no ceremony at all; you are taken direct to the person you want to see. I went to South Africa House as a stranger. I was particularly careful not to give my name or where I came from. I asked them for information with regard to settlement in South Africa. The first man I saw advised me strongly not to attempt to go to South Africa. This was an official. I then went to a gentleman I knew, and asked him if I could get information with regard to settlement. He then took me to another employee, who gave me information. It is the stranger who requires information, and it is the stranger who should be assisted in every way if we wish to get men out to this country. I tested the position and I found that strangers were not assisted. I was told by several gentlemen that they could not get information at South Africa House with regard to settlement in South Africa, and that when they did get information it was in the form of advice not to come out here. What is the use of paying money for this sort of thing? In Australia House you are at once conducted upstairs, where a clerk attends to you and gives you all the information you require. My own experience was that he gave me too much information. That is the difference between South Africa House and Australia House. Then, in regard to our own affairs. Our books are shown in a very bad way. They only have a porter in charge, who is unable to give you any information. I asked where I could get certain South African goods, and they gave me an address in Long Acre. The man there said he had never stocked them at all, and had never heard of them. What I want to put is this, that unless we can improve conditions there we are wasting money. On the other hand, I want to impress upon the Minister that unless he is prepared to spend more money to put the affairs of South Africa House in a proper condition, so as to be of benefit to the country, then we are also on the wrong track. We should spend more money where necessary, and reorganize the whole of the House. I would suggest, and, indeed, urge, that a good commercial man be sent over from South Africa to reorganize the whole of the House, and we can then carry on as Australia House is carrying on now. In Australia House, if they cannot supply what you want, they send a clerk with you to where you can get the goods. I want to ask the Minister if he has seen the statement made by the hon. the administrator yesterday in the Provincial Council. He has actually found it necessary to spend £140 to assist one of his executive to go to England, because he finds the High Commissioner usually puts a junior clerk on to do his purchases. I think that is a statement that should be gone into carefully by the Minister, because if the High Commissioner, in making important purchases such as those required by the Provincial Council, should put on a junior clerk to do it, and we have to send a member of the executive from this country to look into the matter, it is time we looked into what is being done at South Africa House. I want to impress on the Minister the necessity of looking into affairs there. I think every South African who went there in an ordinary capacity came away thoroughly disappointed with what is being done. People are not made to feel at home. On one occasion I wanted some information about South Africa, and I went to South Africa House and asked for books, and they gave me the South African Year Book, stating that was all they could supply. That book was a year behind, and I told them before I left South Africa I had got a later edition. That is a condition of affairs that should not be permitted to continue long, and I hope the Minister will see that the conditions are changed at an early date.

Before the Minister replies, I should like, in fairness to the High Commissioner’s office, to state my experience in 1923. I had occasion then to see the High Commissioner on some matters of business, and I had no difficulty in getting access to him; was treated with perfect civility and had no difficulty whatever. My hon. friend complains that it took some time to get through janitors in to the High Commissioner, but my own experience was that I was treated with perfect courtesy by everybody on the several occasions on which I went there. On the question of advice, I did not go to get advice, therefore I cannot speak from personal experience; but while in England at that time—two years ago—I came across a number of people who were thinking of coming to South Africa and taking up land. They asked what I could tell them about it, and I nearly always said: Do you want to go to Rhodesia or to the Union? They generally said—

I said—

And they invariably replied, “Yes.” I said—

And they replied that they were treated civilly and given a great deal of information and advice. They were advised not to be in a hurry to make up their minds and not to buy land before leaving England. They were told where to go when arriving in Cape Town and were advised to be careful to see where they deposited their money. I can say nothing whatever of the commercial side of the matter; but if people are to give personal experiences in connection with the High Commissioner’s office, during the regime of the late High Commissioner, it is only fair to say what one found oneself.

I must support the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G B. van Zyl) in this matter. I believe the late High Commissioner gave instructions that no one could see him without giving him two days҆ notice, unless you had a title or something of that sort. I say that because Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, who arrived in England by the same boat as myself was able to see his royal highness, the High Commissioner; but when I went there I had to give two days’ notice. Not only so, but a certain gentleman in this city, I believe one of the principal quantity surveyors in Cape Town, who will bear out my statement, having been treated in exactly the same way, and there are dozens of others.

On a point of order; is the hon. member right in referring to the past administration and what was done two years ago?

The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) may proceed.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) gave his experience, and I thought I was entitled to give mine; but I think we need not discuss the past. We have got a new High Commissioner and I believe there will be a new order of things. According to the newspapers, he has already been visiting different markets on the Continent, and if he carries on in that spirit, by interviewing business men and visiting industrial and business centres South Africa will reap the benefit.

I have been a frequent visitor to the High Commissioner’s office during the past few years and have pleasure in bearing public testimony to the courtesy and attention that I have received. I am disappointed with one thing in this vote, and that is that no monetary assistance is provided for the admirable work of Lady Frances Ryder. I am sure that if hon. members knew the value of the work which that lady—and a host of friends she is gathering round her—are doing for South African students, both young men and women, they would be greatly gratified and show their gratitude by voting some money for the purpose for which she has established her office. It is a fact that no young man or woman coming to England in almost any capacity need be without friends for longer than 24 hours, if they take advantage of the good work going on there. Great care is taken that they are made acquainted with people that their parents would like them to know—I put it that way—and they are looked after generally. It is a pity that this work is not recognised on the Votes. One has a feeling of regret, when one goes to South Africa House, that it compares so badly, as an advertising medium, with the offices of New Zealand or any of the provinces of Canada which have offices in London. Wembley has shown that we could make as good a display as they; but very little is done towards that end. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has pointed out, our products, such as they are, stowed in the basement; they do not seem to have been changed for many years and they have a shopworn appearance about them. Our products are certainly shown at great disadvantage in comparison with displays from other Dominions. In spite of having secured what has been called the finest site in Europe for our Government Office in London, we do not seem to be making as much of it as we might. Another point is the absolute necessity of a frequent change of staff in the High Commissioner’s office in London by sending a certain number of South Africans there and replacing them there by those whom they relieve in London. That system would prove of great advantage to the country, as the staff in London would be kept up-to-date in Union matters by men from South Africa; and in return some of our departments here would have available the latest information regarding conditions on the other side at first-hand by members of the staff transferred to this country from the High Commissioner’s office. I have noticed in London certain land speculators of not altogether undoubted reputation with regard to their past history were using, by means of public advertisements, the High Commissioner as a reference. That should not be allowed, and if it is persisted in I am sure it will lead to great disappointment in many cases among intending settlers. Nothing will retard land settlement more than a large number of failures, such as we have had in the past; these failures may be traced as a rule, to definite causes, which are that people have come out to South Africa under inducements amounting to misrepresentations, and, unfortunately, these misrepresentations have appeared to be backed up by using the High Commissioner as a reference. That is a very undesirable state of affairs, and should receive the Government’s immediate attention.

I am surprised at the discoveries of hon. members opposite and at the head office in London, and that they say that it compares so badly with others because we have on the estimates a vote of over £48,000, and should be able to expect that a better state of things should exist. The salary of £4,000 for a man—I do not wish to be personal in my observations—seems to me terribly high. I think the new High Commissioner is a competent man and the most competent person for the appointment. But I cannot agree with the principle of £4,000 for one man and £1,350 for the secretary. Then I notice other high amounts. Two house attendants (boilerman, etc.) are down for £226. For the cleaning of the office alone £1,000 is paid. I do not know the building, but I cannot understand the vote. £200 for newspapers and books. They are all large amounts.

It is often reproached in the Nationalists that they will not allow any immigration into the country, what we do not want is deceived immigrants. We should like the immigrants who come to South Africa to find that they can immediately adopt the country as their fatherland and which has not less money than what one already has. It is actually a fact that people who have invested their money in land companies and who want to come and live here cannot get the necessary information beforehand about conditions in South Africa. The result is that they come here and find that they have been deceived, and we have disappointed people, and, what is still worse, the withdrawal of investments, which gives a very bad name to the country. I do not wish to mention names, but right through the country there are instances where people have invested their money, such as ex-British officers, and who have found out that they have made a mistake. It is said that people should keep their eyes open, but I think that the office of the High Commissioner in London should have information available about the land companies who sell ground here for cotton farms etc., so that they can fully inform people about the conditions in South Africa. There is another small thing I want to speak about, and that is the £500 which was granted last year to the students’ club in London. It is not down this year. I can quite understand that it is not fair to pick out a small cortege of students to make them a grant. But I want to ask if it is not possible to make the three centres for students, Edinburgh, London and Amsterdam, each a grant. I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and he probably knows it, that the students who go abroad to study feel lonely and homeless, and it is necessary for them to have a home. I know personally that the club which was opened in Edinburgh in 1893, with the help of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), is in financial difficulties, and we must help our sons a little who go from here to study in Europe to find a home overseas.

I wish to draw attention to the policy with regard to tenders for work in South Africa at the High Commissioner’s office in London. Some time ago I understand the Government made a statement that as far as possible materials for work would be supplied from South Africa. There was an advertisement asking for tenders for material in connection with the electrification of the Cape Town railways, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to this. It was issued in Great Britain on the 24th of October and in South Africa on the 13th of November. The consulting engineers responsible for these articles were stationed in London, and any technical information required was to be obtained from the London consulting engineers, and then the tenders had to be in hand, not in the railway office in South Africa, but to be delivered to the High Commissioner in London not later than the 10th December. The material could have been made by engineering firms in this country and the material could have been supplied by merchants in South Africa, yet the tenders had to be in London on the 10th December, 1924. It was a physical impossibility for the South African merchants or manufacturers to comply with the conditions of the tenders. That is something worth looking into. I hope the Minister will take particular notice, because these merchants and engineering firms are employing a great number of men in this country, and when tenders are called for materials it should not be made impossible for South African manufacturers and merchants to supply them.

In my career as member of the Land Board certain revelations came to my notice, and I think it is my duty to call the attention of the House to them. I do not wish to blame the office of the High Commissioner, but in England future settlers in South Africa are, in my opinion, not sufficiently warned against exploitation by speculators in this country. The speculators have their agents in England, and they tell the people who intend to come here any old thing and the people are misled and deceived in a terrible way. I have, for instance, in my mind the case which, as hon. members know, recently was before the Supreme Court, where evidence was given that settlers were deceived in a shocking way. They came here and now have not a penny left to make a living with. I wish to mention a case which came under my notice. The Government owned ground along the Olifants River at £25 per morgen, and in the instance to which I refer, five morgen were sold to settlers for the sum of £1,200. The man who bought the ground came to the Land Board and asked what he should do to get out of his difficulties.

Who in the world is so stupid?

Yes, I grant that it is stupidity, but the people are deceived by the agents of the speculators. I hope that the report of the irrigation commission will assist in making an end of this scandal. Instances have come under my personal notice of settlers who live not far from my constituency, and they asked what they were to do to get quit of a sale which they had already entered into at a scandalous price. Anything is told the settler. They are told that they can get 12 or 15 lucerne harvests a year and that they will be able to grow oranges larger than anywhere else in the world. A stop must be put to fraud of this kind.

You don’t want any settlers.

I say that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the Nationalist party is concerned, that we do not want the riffraff of Europe as settlers. I want the Government to fix a better test of the financial position of settlers. I believe that my information is correct when I say that if anybody wants to come to South Africa as a settler he is asked what his balance is, and if he mentions an amount, it is taken as correct, and so people come here without possessing the means to further swell the unfortunate stream of unemployed. We object to that, and I think that in the past the Government also gave the preference on jobs to immigrants, although there were so many unemployed in South Africa. I see in the papers that Sir Charles Crewe said a few days ago that three farms had been made available—

I knew nothing about it.

Well, I hope in any case that it will not happen any more in the future. The settlers must not come here under false representations. I know of a case where a number of ladies, I think 25 or 30 came here who had bought ground in London to commence bee farming. Yes, my hon. friend laughs, but the ladies came to us and were in a helpless state, and asked for advice, because they did not know what to do in their misery. An end must be made to the gambling with reference to settlers in South Africa. The pamphlets of the publicity office are also such as to bring one under a wrong impression People must be warned against representations like those that say our country can still support twice as many sheep as at present and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said that the country can carry four times as many. It is a mistake to mislead the people, and I hope that there will be an end of it.

As other people have been giving their experiences of the High Commissioner’s office in London, I may as well give mine. When I was there, two or three years ago, I had no difficulty in getting attention. I certainly found once or twice that I had to wait to see the High Commissioner, but that was because he was engaged with other people. Other members of the staff were always willing to meet me and give me any help I wanted with regard to going to entertainments in London and other meetings.

Did you have to give two days’ notice?

No, I did not require to give two days or any other notice, and I don’t know anyone else who did. I was struck by the unsuitability of the premises which we have in Trafalgar Square. The place seemed to me to be very dingy, and was badly furnished, and it was not too clean, and when I spoke to some of the officials about it they said—

It seems to me that if we are to have a good place, a place that we can be proud of, and not be ashamed of, we shall have to spend a good deal of money, not only in keeping the place going, but in the erection of buildings that will be suitable for such a country as South Africa. One of the members, I think it was the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), stated that he expected that under the new High Commissioner all these troubles about interviews, etc., would be done away with, but when we see from the newspapers that this gentleman spends a good deal of his time on the Continent, I do not think he will be much more available to visitors than the previous High Commissioner was. It has been suggested that the staffs at the London office should be changed from time to time, that South Africans should be sent there from this country, should stay there some little time, and then come back and others should be sent in their place. That may be a good way of letting these young men know what London is like, but it certainly would not tend to the efficiency of the office there. I think that suggestion should be carefully considered before it is carried out. My principal point is that we should give the High Commissioner’s office a good deal more attention than we have been doing and that, if we really mean it to be the centre for South Africa in London, we should spend more money on it, to make it more worthy of our country.

I want to say a few words in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). Last year I noticed that in the Estimates the settlement advisory officer, who used to be attached to the High Commissioner’s office, had been removed, and I was informed by the Minister that prospective settlers were advised by members of the staff. I think the matter is of such importance that there ought to be at the High Commissioner’s office a specially qualified man who personally knows about farming conditions in South Africa, and the chances of successful settlement in the country, quite apart from the mere knowledge which may be gathered from books and pamphlets. We want it to be known that settlers of the right type are welcomed in South Africa.

They always have been.

I said I am glad that they are welcomed by members opposite, but I do say that there is probably a little more enthusiasm about the welcome now than there was in the past. I think what we want at the High Commissioner’s office is a man specially appointed, an ad hoc official, for this purpose, and this purpose only. It is not sufficient to leave it to a clerk; it is not enough to give information through pamphlets, which are often misleading to the readers. With regard to the hon. member who asks why men are such fools as to be taken in, I ask him if he would be immune, I defy any enthusiastic young fellow to read some of these pamphlets without feeling that he is going to be a multi-millionaire in a few years. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said, with reference to settlement schemes, “The only question they ask is, what is your balance?” What we want to ask is, what is your character; are you prepared to get down to it and be a worker? We want a man in the High Commissioner’s office who can reliably inform men as to their chances on the land in South Africa, and can to some extent judge as to a man’s suitability for land settlement.

Irrespective of capital?

No, not irrespective, because we want a man with sufficient means not to be thrown on his beam ends, and not swell the ranks of the unemployed, which are already too full. The hon. member raised a question with regard to a statement purporting to have been made by Sir Charles Crewe the other day. The association of which he was speaking realizes that prospective settlers on the land should be given the best chances of training in farming before they embark on farming themselves. I hope they will be able to carry out the scheme of training they have in mind.

I want the South African settler to have the same privileges.

I want to press this point of an adviser. I say that our future in this country lies so much in the land and its proper development that it is absolutely essential that the official in the High Commissioner’s office should be fully qualified to give advice to prospective settlers, and that it should not be left to a junior clerk to hand to applicants for advice pamphlets of companies anxious to sell land or pamphlets which may give misleading information. I would like to see restored the grants to the South African Students’ Club in London, because it is the centre of South African students’ life in Europe. I do not want to raise a controversy, but it is up to us, if possible, to do something to see that South African students in Europe should have a rallying point and a home from home, which these grants help to supply. I would like some provision made for a subsidy for that purpose. It does excellent work for the welfare of our young men who are so far away from their homes for several critical years of their lives.

I should like to ask the Minister if he will tell the House what is the position in regard to the lease of South Africa House. From personal observation, as well as from what has been said by previous speakers, I am satisfied that sufficient use is not being made of this site, and I hope when the Minister is reconsidering the lease he will take into consideration the question not only of reorganizing but of rebuilding on the site, in order to take the fullest advantage of the position.

There are two small questions I should like to ask the Minister. There is here an item of £900, for overseas travelling, subsistence and transport, page 23, sub-vote “B”. That is a new vote, and perhaps the Minister will give us some information about this. Then I want to ask, also, what is being done in regard to Wembley. I see from the papers that the exhibition is going on, but there is nothing down on the Estimates for it, and I do not know what interest the Government are taking or what is being done in regard to it; whether any of our officers have been sent over, and whether any assistance is being given to exhibitors.

I think it is highly essential that, attached to the High Commissioner’s office, there should be an official who would be able to give practical information to intending settlers. Undoubtedly, intending settlers go there to seek information, and this official should be qualified to advise them. They are men of varying capital, and it is only right and proper that the office should be equipped with such an official. It is quite understandable that with the pamphlets which have been showered on intending settlers, many have been misled and one only has to travel on the mail-boats to hear the captains tell pathetic stories of men who have come to South Africa on the strength of these pamphlets, and bought land unseen, and who came out as first-class passengers but returned within 18 months as steerage passengers. That has been a great drawback to this country, but it could be obviated. The 1820 Settlers’ Association is doing very good work, but that is not sufficient. At present settlers are casting their eyes on South Africa, and this country has a great future in regard to small farming. Don’t let the Government be parsimonious, but let this official be a qualified man.

In the previous issue of the Estimates I find that the trades commissioners are brought up under the same head as the High Commissioner in London. In these estimates the trade commissioners are dealt with separately. I would like to know whether other arrangements have been made and whether the trade commissioners can act entirely independently of London because we always found that their work was seriously hindered in that they had always to keep in touch with London to the detriment of the producers. I would like to know in how far trade commissioners in Europe and America can act independently of London.

It is quite true that the Government has made a new departure in regard to the buying of stores. Formerly the position was generally that tenders were called for overseas, and we had very serious complaints from merchants in this country that they did not get a chance of competing on equal terms in the supply of stores required by the Government. Then we had the position referred to by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) of tenders being published in London a long time before they were published in South Africa.

That is a mistake.

Very strong representations were made that this policy be altered. Taxpayers claim that they should have an opportunity—not of having a preference—but of competing on an equal basis with the overseas people. We recognize the justice of that claim, and we have reorganized our buying department, and state that tenders must in every case be called for in South Africa first, and we must see if we are not able to fill our requirements in that way. Overseas firms who have their agents here can tender in this country.

Why don’t you call for tenders simultaneously? You are going to pay more.

That need not necessarily be so. Our conditions are that the articles must be satisfactory both as regards quality and price, and we are given assurances by merchants here that they will be able to supply us on equally satisfactory terms, but where they cannot do so we shall go overseas.

Why not call for tenders simultaneously?

I am told that is impracticable. I believe there are some administrative difficulties in the way. Generally the principle is that we are going to make an attempt first to see if our requirements can be filled here before going overseas, and we are not going to put our people at this disadvantage of not having an equal chance of tendering, even although they might be in a position to supply what is required in a satisfactory manner, both as regards quality and price. Then another important question was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), and that is the position in regard to the staffing of the High Commissioner’s office. Why I deal with the two subjects together is because they have a certain bearing one with the other. I believe it is quite true, I have not checked the figures, but we have very few South Africans on the staff, and a still smaller number of bilingual officials. We want to rectify that. Appointments in the last few months have all been bilingual South Africans. The position is not being dealt with yet, because we shall have this reorganization of staffing if we have to make our purchases in South Africa. We shall require a less number in the High Commissioner’s office and more in South Africa, so far as our buying is concerned, if we are going to buy in South Africa. I told the new High Commissioner, who is going across (Mr. Smit) that one of the first things I wanted him to do was to report in regard to the staff and reorganization with a view to remedying this position, which is admitted on both sides of the House to be unsatisfactory. When I get that report I shall ask the Public Service Commission—and recommendations will be made by that commission—I shall ask them to give attention to this matter. It has been pointed out that we should have a frequent interchange of staff. People have gone there as South Africans, and have remained for a number of years, and have lost touch with South Africa and South African conditions. That is unsound. It will be a serious matter from the side of expense, if we have to transfer all these officers in short periods of time. We shall have to consider that, and I hope it will be possible to bring about a substantial improvement in that matter. I am awaiting the report of the High Commissioner before doing anything. I do not want to make changes until Mr. Smit gets over there and makes his report. Then the question was raised, generally, in regard to the treatment of South Africans in the High Commissioner’s office in the past. There seems to be a difference of opinion in that regard, and of course, it is impossible for me to judge as to the correctness of either view. One thing has come out, and Mr. Smit will report upon it, that the premises are very unsuitable for the purpose for which they were intended. As members pointed out, there will be the question of expense to be considered. I don’t know how it will be possible to make them more suitable except at considerable expense. The question has been raised about the attitude adopted by the High Commissioner advising intending settlers coming to South Africa. That is a matter which my hon. friend the Minister of Lands will be in a position to deal with. Generally, the High Commissioner has, in the past, and the new Commissioner will continue to do the same, namely, they have been very careful to warn intending settlers not to be misled about the advertisements with regard to the getting of land in South Africa. They advise them to come first and inspect their land before purchasing. That is, generally, the position.

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

When the committee suspended business I was dealing with the question of the nature of the information which was being given by the High Commissioner to intending settlers in the Union, and I pointed out the difficulty, namely that we were not in the position of Australia and other dominions perhaps which were actually “boosting” the possibilities of those countries in regard to land settlement. We are adopting a very much more cautious attitude; we are really warning these people. Consequently, it would be very difficult to carry out some of the suggestions of hon. members in regard to attaching officers specially to that department with the idea of encouraging or getting settlers to come perhaps at a greater pace than they are doing now. Perhaps later on, on the vote of the minister of Lands, hon. members may be able to get some more information on that matter. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) raised the further question of the vote for subsistence and transport, £900. This is a new service and is for the subsistence and travelling expenses of the new High Commissioner and his family to England, and the expenses of returning Sir Edgar Walton and his family to South Africa. That is an extra provision that was made under that head for the transfer of the two High Commissioners respectively from and to South Africa. In connection with Wembley, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked me what the position is in regard to that. As he knows, the Union is participating in Wembley again, but we have made no extra provision on the Estimates, because there was a balance over from the funds provided last year sufficient to carry on, and what we are really doing is to give the same facilities in regard to services of officials, etc. Mr. Lane has gone over to take the place of Mr. Canham, who has been retired, and he is looking after the business there on behalf of Union. A question was raised as to the discontinuance of the grant to the students’ club in London, £500. Hon. members will see, of course, that this is one of the very few places where I introduced economies. We had a discussion last year, and I pointed out the difficulty of justifying this grant to one students’ club where we have not been able to give it to the other students’ clubs. In Edinburgh, as was said this afternoon, they made application and they have certain claims. Then we have got other centres in Holland and many other universities where our South Africans go. If we are to continue the grant to this particular club, I do not see how we can justify not giving it to any others. On the ground principally of expense, I do not think we could justify it, especially as nowadays we have not such a large number of South Africans proceeding overseas for study. They are now able more and more to get the education and training they want in this country. Mainly on the ground of expense and economy, this item has been deleted from the vote. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) asked me what the position was in regard to the lease of Morley’s Hotel. It expires on October 10th, 1930.

*The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has called the attention of the House to the extraordinarily high salary of the High Commissioner in London. Hon. members must understand that the living for that individual there is exceptionally expensive. I believe that in the case of the previous High Commissioner and also the present one the cost of keeping a family there is about £2,000 a year. Hon. members have no idea of the difficulties of getting a house there or of the high charges for living in an hotel. Then with regard to the cleaning of the building. It is a large building, and the work is done under contract. The lowest tender for the work was accepted. As to the costs of living allowances to officials, our officials are on the same basis as the British officials. We cannot of course put our officials on a lower scale. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has asked why provision has not been made for the expenses of trade commissioners. The vote has been transferred to the vote for the department of mines and industries. This was done because we are making provision for a trade commissioner on the continent and later perhaps also for a trade commissioner in America and others, and because we think that the control will be better through the department of mines and industries. This is transferred from the vote “High Commissioner,” which falls under the department Finance.

I should like to say a word about the question of simultaneous tendering. I should like the Minister to consider making tenders simultaneously in London and in South Africa.

One matter which has not been raised in this discussion, and which is of some importance, is a question that was raised in the Provincial Council yesterday.

I am not aware of that at all. I have no information.

The position is this: the Provincial Council have appointed one of their members to proceed to England to investigate the question of contracts for their requisite stores—that is the contracts dealing with the supply of educational requisites in this country. The High Commissioner in London is representing the whole of this country, the Provincial Council as well as the House of Assembly, and it seems a remarkable action for a responsible body such as the Provincial Council to take. The Administrator is alleged to have stated that the High Commissioner would delegate a junior official to carry out these contracts. It would appear that the Provincial Council do not trust the High Commissioner and therefore sends one of its own representatives. It seems to me that if each provincial council is to be given power to send out its own officials in this way, then what is the use of the High Commissioner at all? In a Bill which is to come before the House, the Government are making provision for the other provinces to have requisite stores; and if we are to allow provincial councils when they re quire anything in the shape of stationery or anything else to send their own representatives to London to negotiate, then we are going to cut the ground from under the feet of our own representatives. I feel the Minister should deal with this question. We should make the provincial councils of this country realize we are the governing body and that our London representative is theirs as well.

The hon. member cannot deal with the question of provincial councils.

I am dealing with the High Commissioner. If the provincial councils wish to take away the power of the High Commissioner we send to England surely this is a point which is connected with the High Commissioner. I am not dealing with the provincial councils at all. I want to point this out to the Minister of Finance, that already we have a High Commissioner, and we have representatives in England capable of dealing with these matters, and I object, on principle, to any provincial council sending its own representative to negotiate in London for its requirements. I hope the Minister will tell us his views.

I can understand the hon. member criticizing the conduct of the High Commissioner’s office in regard to the manner in which they have dealt with the requirements of provincial councils, but I have already replied that I have no information as to whether the High Commissioner’s office has not done its duty, if that is the allegation. As to the action of the Administrator, that is not under discussion, and I hope he will not pursue it. If the High Commissioner is not performing his work properly I shall deal with that, but, of course, I have no information. The action of the provincial authorities, I submit, we cannot discuss.

If there is no complaint from the provincial authorities as to the conduct of affairs on the other side, then I contend I am entitled to ask a question. Does the Minister think it is in the interests of this country that the Provincial Council should be entitled to negotiate directly, and send one of its representatives in the form of a member of the executive council, to Europe? Should the council not deal with the High Commissioner, who is nominated and appointed by this House?

That was not the point the hon. member raised just now. The machinery is there at the disposal of the provincial council at present, but I do not think there is anything to prevent them making their own arrangements as long as they keep within the four walls of the Constitution

Is it right?

That is another question.

What the hon. member is complaining about is that there are two capable officials travelling to Europe, and yet here is a member of the provincial council sent to buy these requisite stores.

I understand the hon. Minister was asked by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) if he would consider the desirability of having a well-qualified South African in the High Commissioner’s office in London, to advise people as to farming conditions out here, so as to prevent misunderstandings and hardships to people coming out here full of hope, only to find themselves involved in considerable loss and expense before being able to go back. Some time ago a special officer, Mr. Boshoff, was sent over from the Lands Department, and he did very good work. He was followed, subsequently, by Mr. Mason. I understand that both these officers have been withdrawn, and if they were attached to the High Commissioner’s staff, I think this is a favourable moment to raise the question of the appointment of a suitable man for this kind of work.

This is a question of Land Settlement policy. Mr. Boshoff was a land settlement official, and was never an officer of the High Commissioner’s department. I hope the hon. member will raise this question on the Land Settlement Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Inland Revenue,” £140,161,

I should like to ask the Minister what is the position now in regard to the lease of certain gold-bearing ground on the East Rand. I want to bring another grievance to the notice of the Minister. On the death duties, as I am informed, if a man is domiciled in South Africa, you tax him not only on the whole of his estate in South Africa, but also on that abroad. That is hardly fair. It is only right to say at once that the same thing is done by the British Government. A man may be domiciled in Great Britain and have part of his estate in South Africa. They charge duties on the estate in South Africa as well. I understand the position is that the South African Government have not been able to come to terms or a settlement with the Imperial Government in this matter. It is rather a pity, I think, because it comes very hard when there are double death duties to pay. It is unfair in my opinion. Why should not the Union Government, as well as the Imperial Government, confine their exactions to that part of the estate within their own jurisdiction? I hope the Minister will try to come to terms with the Imperial Government and get this matter settled. It has been brought to notice strongly quite recently.

I hardly think that question comes under the administration of the Inland Revenue Department. The present position is the result of existing legislation. I know it is a burning question, and I believe my predecessor and the hon. member for Standerton dealt with the question when attending the Imperial Conference in London, but could not come to any arrangement with the Imperial Government. Representations have been made by the interests concerned. The question will receive further attention and we will see what can be done. Then in regard to the East Rand property; if the Geduld is the one referred to—

Yes.

The Government has not accepted the lease. The first lease was turned down, and subsequently a further tender was received, but I do not think a decision has been arrived as yet in regard to that.

A question has been raised by a correspondent. He says that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue asserts that income tax takes precedence not only of general bonds but special mortgage bonds. I would like to know whether the Minister is still maintaining that right.

This vote now amounts to £141,000, and we see that the staff has nearly reached 400. A great deal of the energies and time of this staff is devoted to collecting revenue on behalf of the provinces. Some of the taxes which the provinces impose are very difficult to collect and fall upon a very large number of people, so that quite a large proportion of the staff of the Inland Revenue Department is devoted to collecting revenue on behalf of the provincial administrations. Has not the time come, when the Minister is recasting the financial relations between the provinces and the Union, for him seriously to consider whether he should not place this on a scientific basis? I do not say that he should encourage the provinces to set up separate departments. We know what that means. It certainly would not make for economy, but what I suggest is that the Minister should consider whether the provinces should not be made to pay their rateable proportion of the expense incurred under this vote. Why should we continue to run this service to the provinces for nothing? Why should we provide this large and expensive staff to collect revenue for them? The Minister is trying, very laudably, to reduce the relations between the provinces and the Union to a more businesslike basis than before. He has a Bill coming before the House presently.

The Bill deals with the question of financial relations which you are now discussing.

I am discussing this vote. This money is being spent for services that do not pertain to the Union, and if that is the present position, it is time the Minister considered how long this unsatisfactory and anomalous state of affairs is to be allowed to continue.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he will investigate the question of persons evading the death duties by giving property to their children before they die, but hold a general power of attorney or some other document which naturally dies with them. I believe this is generally done to escape the paying of death duty, and I would like the Minister to consider the devising of ways and means whereby legislation can be passed to prevent this scandal being developed to a larger extent even than at present.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I have recently been promoted from the provincial council. When I used to ask for returns of taxes the reply frequently was that as this was a service that was being performed gratuitously by the Union Government, the provincial authorities did not feel that they could call on the officials, who had not the time to get out information. I think it is time that the provincial councils should contribute their share towards the collection of these different revenues. I feel that until some definite demarcation is made there will be a certain amount of dissatisfaction. If the provincial council requires returns of certain provincial revenues it should be justified in asking Union officials to provide these returns.

I do not see what the last speaker and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will gain or what the country will gain by disturbing the present system. We have one set of machinery collecting the taxes, and what these gentlemen want is either that we should establish two sets of machinery, at double the expense, or that the provincial councils should pay their share of the cost of collection. I deal with that question in the Bill, and that is left to the decision of the Government, but I do not see what we are going to gain. If the provinces must repay the Union, then they will probably put on extra taxes.

Why not carry this out to its logical conclusion?

You cannot always do this. We are making the best possible business arrangement, and I think it is the most economical arrangement that can be made. As far as possible we avoid having duplicate systems of collection of taxes between the provinces and the Union. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) asked whether we claimed preference in respect of income tax over special bonds and pledges. That is not so, but we do claim preference over general bonds. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), this is a matter which requires legislation and which we can consider when we deal with the Estate Duties Bill.

In the Inland Revenue Department report, page 19, the provincial collections for the Cape for 1922-23 are given as £919,000. In another part of the report the cost of collection is given at 1.78 per cent. I agree with the Minister in opposing the starting of a new tax collecting establishment by any province, but what is there to prevent him saying to the provincial administrations, our total cost of collecting these taxes is 1.78 per cent. of the total collections. We will charge you 1.78 per cent. on £919,000. This would probably, prevent the provincial authorities from laying extra taxation on. And furthermore the Minister is changing the whole system under which he is subsidizing the provincial administrations. The existing system is pound for pound, but we have gone away from that system and a grant is to be given, and I do not see why they should not pay a percentage of the total cost of this collecting. One of the great items of cost in this vote is collecting tin-pot taxes for these provincial authorities. There is the tax on betting, £20,000, and also on crayfish canning companies, £2,600; that is going to be done away with, and that is a good thing too. There is not much sacrifice there. Then there is the entertainment tax. In the Cape it is £56,000. Collecting these small amounts brings up the cost and if he charges them 1.78 per cent., which it generally works out at—sometimes at less—he is doing it very cheaply for them, and they should not have the least objection to paying it.

In the Bill I retain the right, if so advised, to make the provincial councils pay for the collection, but I do not see that we are going to get much by it. We will, however, consider it. There are other services which we render to them at present which will also have to be considered then.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Customs and Excise,” £224,089,

I should like the Minister to give me information on one or two points. With regard to the item Customs Investigation Officer £4,000, can the Minister give us any approximate idea of what we get in return for that expenditure? Then there are two small items under head F, Incidental Expenses. There is a grant to native labour association, £180. For what purpose does the customs department make this grant? There is an item, telephones, Durban to Lourenco Marques, and in the next vote there is £1,250 for telephones.

Durban has municipal telephones.

Then there is an item, officers attending lectures. I can understand that many of the lectures given are dry, but why should they be paid to attend them?

I want to call attention to the delay in publishing these customs returns. We have just got, within the last few days, the returns for December, 1924. I think the Minister should wake up the customs department and let us have the returns a little earlier. The value of the figure depends a good deal upon the promptness with which they are issued. I am told that at one time they were issued within one month of the finish of the year. Some consideration should be paid, in my opinion, to those immigrants who come in from overseas. A certain number of families are coming out to South Africa to settle here. Many of them bring out their furniture, on which, generally, they are charged the full customs duty. This, frequently, is a heavy drain on the resources of the settlers. I believe that in Canada bona fide immigrants receive a considerable remission of custom duty. The capital that settlers have is nearly always limited, and some consideration would be well deserved.

I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the case of certain customs officers at Durban who joined the department in 1902-҆3, and they were promised that, as occasion arose, they would be transferred to the fixed establishment. A number of them have retired, others have been placed on the fixed establishment, but eight men are still unfixed, although they have rendered excellent service to the country over a long period of years.

I wish to call attention to the item of £3,000 for motor transport. It is time to stop this extravagant use of motor cars. I hope the Minister will see that the use of motor cars by officials at the State’s expense is considerably curtailed.

As to the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox), it was considered on several occasions by the previous Government, which, however, did not see its way clear to do anything in the matter. I have gone into their case, but I cannot give any relief, as I do not think they have any real claim. I can assure the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) that we are getting a very good return from the customs investigating officer in New York, and the extra duties that we have been enabled to collect as the result of his labours amounts to thousands of pounds. We are sending a second officer to assist him. At Durban and Lourenco Marques the telephone belong to the corporations. As to the grant of £180 to the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, we have an officer to protect the interest of the customs in regard to natives returning to the mine. The Union Government has to pay the Portuguese authorities 7s. 6d. for each native to allow him to bring in a certain weight, and it is to see that we do not pay more than we should that this officer’s services are required. I will enquire into the late publication of customs returns. As to charging customs duty on settlers’ furniture, we might look into that in connection with the legislation before the House. I intend to give full attention to the question of subsistence and travelling expenses. As to the payment of officers attending lectures, I suppose it is a grant we give to some of our officers in connection with the Transvaal University College.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 13, “Audit,” £72,724,

What is my hon. friend going to do in regard to the audit of the accounts of irrigation boards? I believe their accounts are audited when the Auditor-General can get them, but some of the boards are very lax in sending in their accounts, and I understand that the audit department cannot send a man round. Thus the work of auditing the accounts is left to officers of the irrigation department, but that is not a satisfactory system. The work should be left entirely to the Auditor-General, who should be given extra assistance, if necessary.

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; House to resume in committee on Monday.

To clear up the position I propose the following amendment to the effect that the levy shall take place on the export return on the customs docket. I think that if we pass this section 4 as I propose it will be more effective and clear. I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

There is no branch of agriculture which offers greater possibilities in its development than the dairy industry, and in connection with the dairy industry the manufacture of cheese is one of the most promising branches. There are many portions of the Union which are peculiarly suitable for the production of cheese of a quality that will compare with any of the world. In the last five years cheese produced in South Africa has twice won the gold medal at the London Dairy Show in competition with cheese from all parts of the Empire. This is a great achievement. I was recently approached by a member of a big importing firm in London with the idea of handling our dairy products and particularly cheese; butter was not so well spoken of, but our cheese was described as being equal to any that is made in any part of the world. There are many opportunities of developing this industry but organization is necessary, and this requires money. As far as local consumption of cheese is concerned we are the smallest cheese eaters of any country, but with propaganda and advertisement we might very largely increase local consumption. Two bodies representing the producers of over 70 per cent. of the cheese made in the Union have especially asked that cheese be included amongst those articles mentioned in Clause 12 of this Act. I trust the Minister will accept this as it is an established industry which is well-organized and which would benefit greatly by its inclusion in this Bill. I hope it is not a matter I need urge on the Minister and I trust he will see his way to accept the amendment.

I move—

I hope the Minister will accept that. What the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) said is quite correct. We are producing cheese of a high character, especially cheese coming from Griqualand East. I would like to see the Minister take power to include any agricultural product grown or semi-manufactured and introduce a levy on that particular product whenever the producers of more than 50 per cent. of that product are in favour of that levy. The Minister, by accepting an amendment of that kind, would have power to do it, not off his own bat, but when the producers come forward and desire the Minister to take up that attitude. We agree with the levy principle. It has proved itself in fruit as a thing which is going to be of great advantage to the farming population of this country, and whenever they desire it for cheese, fruit, tobacco, or wines the Minister should be prepared to broaden out sub-section 3 and give himself the power to apply it to these other articles. At Oudtshoorn, with the idea of increasing their output, the farmers had a desire for a levy on lucerne. There is no good moving in this unless the Minister will assure me of his support. It is wanted and desired by all agriculture unions in the country, expressed time after time at their various public meetings and the principle is endorsed by the Minister’s own agricultural advisory board. If he accepts it he will be doing much, not only to assist the principle of self help, but generally in connection with the agricultural development and progress of this country.

I feel that we must go to work very carefully with regard to the levies not to take a step which we will afterwards regret. I want to leave the decision on the amendment entirely to the House. Personally, I have no objection to it, and even if it becomes law I shall still not apply it before careful enquiry is made as to whether at least 50 per cent. of the producers are in favour of such a levy. I have here a letter from Johannesburg and those who write say that they represent 51 factories and more than 50 per cent. of the factories, and they urge that cheese should be brought under the provisions of the Bill. I also have a telegram from Griqualand and the factories there also urge this. But the question is whether the producers are indeed inclined to accept it. I have no objection, but will leave it to the House Three products have been included, and if it is desirable a fourth product can also be included. Hon. members know what the feeling of the producers is, and they will be able to decide, although in any case careful enquiry must first be made whether 50 per cent. are actually in favour of it, because we must not impose a tax which we will subsequently regret.

I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture has expressed his readiness to accept the amendment. The original Bill provides for three kinds of products and now a fourth is included. It is a thing with regard to which we must go carefully to work. I have confidence in the present Minister that he will go carefully to work. But Governments come and go, and we do not know who will be the Minister in the future. There may be an unsympathetic Minister of Agriculture, and he can apply the levy holus bolus. The factories of Griqualand East ask for a levy. To-morrow, or the day after, they will ask for an export levy and we in the Free State are not so well organized. We there are in a difficult position. We must first try to properly organize the people, and then, perhaps, a levy may be a good thing. I want to ask the Minister to be very careful. He must first ascertain whether 50 per cent. of the producers are in favour.

Might I point out that if my hon. friend would kindly read the Bill he will find if this amendment is put in, and the amendment I suggested, it cannot be brought into operation unless more than 50 per cent, of the producers are in favour of it. It does not put unlimited power in the hands of the Minister. I would like my hon. friend to disabuse his mind of these affairs. You remember the discussion we had about grading, and if it got to a particular grade it would be impossible for anybody to use that grade. This shows how the suspicions with regard to this Bill are going away. Surely now, we are in a better frame of mind, and are not churlish enough not to allow a cheese factory to be placed in the same position as a bacon factory. That is all my hon. friend (Mr. Gilson) asked for Surely it would be churlish to prevent a butter factory from being placed in the same position as a bacon factory or the sugar-cane industry. All we ask is that the principle adopted in regard to these three or four items specified in the Bill should be applied to farmers dealing in other products in that they should have an opportunity under the same machinery to ask the Minister to bring their products under the operation of this Bill.

Fifty per cent. of the producers are organized, and fifty per cent. of them are unorganized.

It will not be introduced unless you can put your finger on fifty per cent. I do hope my hon. friend the Minister will take his courage into both hands on this question and persuade his friends there who are objecting not alone to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), but to see whether he will not be able to meet the demand which has come from all the agricultural associations of the four provinces, and has been strongly supported by the advisory board that advises my hon. friend and by the great bulk of the farmers who are trying to improve their products in this country.

I hope the hon. Minister will he careful with regard to this matter. It is quite clear that he himself had not decided what to do in this matter, and, therefore, it would be a good thing if the Minister were first of all to get a few more particulars about the matter. The great difficulty in the cheese industry to-day is to get markets for our surplus. The production in the last few years has much increased. In 1910-’11 the production of cheese in South Africa was about half a million lbs. It rose in 1924 to 5½ million lbs., that is ten times as much in 15 years. Our consumption in the country is about 5 million lbs. There is thus already a surplus of half a million lbs. To this must be added about one million lbs. per annum that we import. The difficulty, therefore, is to find markets for the surplus. For the provision to have a levy for the export of cheese as in the case of ostrich feathers there is possibly much to be said but here they come with an inland levy on cheese. That is just where we differ from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). In the Bill which he introduced last year he included all agricultural products in South Africa. But we have here only included a few special cases and now hon. members come here and say “why not include cheese?” If we do this we shall one of these days also have to include mealies, etc. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort wants to include everything. The position will then be such that every hon. member would be able to bring in an amendment to include other products. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort would support them all. But why also include cheese? The large factories in South Africa are organized but there are a large number of small factories that are not organized. In my constituency there are also about ten of these small manufacturers. The people are not organized. My advice to the Minister is not to accept the amendment but to allow the matter to stand over to first obtain information from the large manufacturers as well as from the small cheese factories. It will not be difficult to obtain very quickly the opinion of the small manufacturers as well and then if necessary the Act could be amended on a subsequent occasion. Personally I am afraid of extending the principle too far and therefore I should like us not to go so far as to pass this amendment. It seems to me that as soon as cheese is brought under the Act we may just as well go so tar as including all products.

I would just like to say to the hon. member for Ladybrand that I have repeatedly had deputations to see me from the cheese factories. They are in the position that many of them will have to shut down if we do not meet them. The position is that last year on account of the drought not much cheese was produced. But now much cheese is being produced and we shall have a surplus. Cheese is also imported and if we export we cannot compete with the prices abroad. But we must export otherwise the prices in the country will sag on account of the surplus. The factories sit and look at each other and no one wishes to export. A levy will help matters and we will, of course, make it as low as possible. As I have said 51 and 31 factories have respectfully requested a levy. I shall however first ascertain whether 50 per cent. of the producers want it. He says that everyone could now come with such an amendment. That is not the case, because I have not received remonstrances from them. I think that the position is clear. On my side there is no difficulty. I think hon. members can leave it in my hands.

I am very pleased to see the Minister is favourably inclined to accept this amendment. I regret that the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) is not in his seat, as he has stated that the cheese factories in the Free State are against my amendment. I may tell him that Mr. Wood, the chairman of the Tweespruit Dairies, which organization manufactures probably more cheese than all the rest of the factories in the Free State put together, has signed, as chairman of the South African Cheese Manufacturers’ Association, the memorandum from this body supporting this suggested amendment. Further, many other cheese factories in the Free State are members of this organization, and are anxious that their product should be included amongst those covered in this Bill. The Minister is quite right; we are just reaching a critical stage in the dairy industry. We can only deal with the position if we can enforce some sort of levy which may be used to subsidize export. This year we have, according to the agricultural census, about half a million pounds surplus. We have already exported some hundred tons, and have had to take considerably lower prices than are obtainable in this country. It is not to be expected that the bigger organizations, who have so far undertaken this export, are going on making a loss while the smaller factories are taking the benefit of big prices which such stabilizing of the local market ensures. It is the small factories that are going to feel the pinch most when the prices drop. We cannot demand a levy under this Bill; the Minister may at his discretion allow a levy to be imposed. Those interested in the dairy business have fought very hard; they have given many years to organization, and the position to which the industry has now been brought has been at the expense of those who have borne the heat and burden of the day. In view of the organization of the industry, in view of the representative communications that the Minister has received, I am sure he will feel, and members opposite will feel, that the large majority of people interested in the manufacture of cheese are very strongly in favour of this being included in the Bill. I do appeal to them to withdraw their opposition and to turn a sympathetic ear to the representations of those who have a very large percentage of the producers of cheese behind them in this matter.

The reasons that have been given by the hon. member are the very ones why I shall vote against the amendment. As soon as an industry is in difficulties recourse is had to steps of this nature, and the consequence is that the difficulties increase further. When the maize farmers were in the same position a few years ago they came to the previous Minister of Agriculture with a proposal practically similar, and the Minister was not prepared to agree to the matter. Why then if it is refused in the case of mealies should it be conceded for cheese? I was never in love with levies. Already four articles have been included, and I hope that we shall not extend it, and not long afterwards find that producers of maize and wool (if the prices remain so low) will also wish to bring those products under the Act. But the worst is that the money realized from the levies, which is used for advertisement and pushing the industry, was previously paid by the State and now comes back on the farmers. It is very easy for one or another to come and say that he represents 50 per cent. of one or other products, but we must not forget that there are many very small factories or farmers that make cheese. They are not aware of the levy, and we do not know what they wish. I feel that I cannot consent to extend the three products which already fall under the Bill.

I have always felt that our attitude with regard to this Bill should be one of hasten slowly. We must ascertain clearly whether the matter is succeeding before we go further. It must in the first instance be confined to the specific industries that ask for it. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) now at the last moment wants to drag in another product of which we know nothing. If we do this we are doing exactly what we always said we would not do. He says that a large percentage of the farmers who are organized are asking for it. But even then I still say that they should have organized in advance and should have approached members to convince them that it is necessary. The other industries did this. I agree with the previous speaker that it is the duty of the State to put sound agricultural industries in the position to work themselves up and to develop. It has always been the industries that have been neglected by the State that have asked for a levy in their despair to be able to do something for themselves. If we go on in this way we shall hereafter get to the position that the Minister will be able to say at any time that he cannot get any money from the Treasury, and that the best way of developing the agriculture is a levy. No, the agriculturist is the backbone of the country. Agriculture requires the support of the State, and the inland services must be looked after out of the Treasury. The Agricultural Grading Act is for the markets abroad. The exporters of cheese can make use of them. They do not make use of them, and they now want a general inland levy on cheese for services which should be rendered by the Treasury. We must go slowly and wait and see if the Bill answers well, and if it succeeds we can go further.

May I disabuse the mind of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). He has a copy of the estimates before him, and he states the tendency of the levy will be to place on the farmers expenditure that was formerly undertaken by the State. That is not the case. If you take the Agricultural Vote you will see it has not been reduced on account of this Bill. This Bill provides for the producers doing, in their own interests, things this House will never vote to have done for them. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) appealed strongly to the Minister not to accept this proposal in regard to cheese. Does he not realize how churlish he is? The great industry of his district is ostrich feathers, for which a levy is provided. Why should the other industry not apply for a levy? Another hon. gentleman stated that he did not think it was in the interests of the dairy farmers. He stated that if it had been considered in the interests of those associated with cheese making, they would have applied for it long ago. The Minister for Agriculture will tell them that they have applied long ago. They have been knocking at the door of the Government for several years.

You did not give us to understand that last year.

Excuse me, I did. The farmers of Griqualand East, when the department were not able to increase the number of inspectors, voluntarily agreed to a levy of an ⅛d. a lb. in order that there might be an extra inspector, and that the Government brand might be on their cheese so that they could send it to the European market. Other people are anxious to do the same thing. It cannot be done unless the people ask for it. Why should the hon. member be like a dog in a manger? The Minister does not take power to force this on the people. He only takes power by law if the majority of the people ask for it. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should take his courage in his hands and lead the House in this matter, irrespective of the fact that a few members, who do not understand the significance of the amendment, may be against it.

I have never been very much in favour of this kind of legislation, but in this case I really cannot understand the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). He obtained a levy for this industry and does not now wish to assist this industry with the same benefit.

No, the hon. member does not quite understand the position.

Yes, some of the younger hon. members look with contempt on us, but I repudiate the insult with contempt. I know only too well that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn was in great difficulty about the levy last year after his election.

But I have now got it.

I only wish to point out that the hon. member has now got what he wants but that he does not want to give to other industries what he obtained for his own. The Minister has made it clear by the letters that he has received that the people themselves are asking for it, otherwise I would not have been so much in favour of it. He read a letter on behalf of I think 51 factories that ask for it. I must say that I also am a little doubtful, but if the people themselves ask for it I think that we cannot refuse it. I don’t go so far as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort as to say that all agricultural products should fall there-under, but let us now include cheese. I am glad that the hon. Minister is prepared to agree to this. I would like to tell hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), that they must not be unreasonable. My difficulties have been removed because the people themselves have asked for it, otherwise the Minister next year will certainly have to come and include it. Then hon. members opposite have said that these things should be paid for out of the Treasury. Now if there are progressive farmers in the country who try to do something to advance their industry and are prepared to pay something therefore, we should agree to it. The Treasury will benefit thereby and the industry will profit. This is not a party matter, and I hope that hon. members opposite will no longer raise objection.

I hope my hon. friends across there will withdraw their objection to the very reasonable amendment. If it is good to apply the provisions of the Bill to one agricultural product, it is equally good to apply it to another. Really, I do not see why there is any limitation at all. I hope that hon. members opposite will not lay themselves open to the charge of looking after their own industries only. If any industry desires to come under the provisions of the Bill for Heaven’s sake let them have the opportunity. If hon. members opposite cannot be persuaded to withdraw their objections, I ask the Minister to take no notice of them. What on earth is the use of having the Bill at all if it is not to be made use of? I ask hon. members opposite to stop their opposition to the amendment.

I just want to point out that it is very doubtful whether this Bill will be a success. We shall first have to test whether it is a good thing. I think that the result will be that the big companies will get the benefit and that the small producers will have to suffer. I wish, however, to point out that the three products which are included are in the hands of a limited number of associations and the levy on ostrich feathers is only upon the feathers that are exported. That is not the case with cheese. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is right that if we do this for one product we might as well do it for other products. The difference with regard to cheese is that in that case quite a number of smaller factories exist in the country who sell their cheese just in their limited surroundings. They will also pay the levy which will actually only be for the benefit of the big producers. The people on the country side have not been consulted with regard to the matter. There are farmers who make cheese themselves and sell it to their neighbours. He will suddenly now have to pay a tax to advance the interests of the big companies. We must be very careful, and it will do no harm to postpone the matter for a year. It is very late to bring forward a proposal so suddenly. I cannot assist in compelling every cheese farmer in the land to pay the levy.

I am literally astonished at the opposition coming from hon. members on the Government benches. They are keen on advocating that the ostrich feather industry which is a dying one, should be included as against the virile growing industry of cheese making. As long as the fair sex will shingle and bob their hair and wear small hats they will never go in for ostrich feathers, and one of the hopes of the South African farmer lies in cheese factories. They cannot export cattle, so they must make some use of them, and the best use is to manufacture an exportable article. What hope has the country got if we are going in for this sort of thing? I appeal to the broadmindedness of the Government to drop this party spirit and allow this amendment to be introduced. The amendment is that you will only be able to introduce it if 50 per cent. of the producers want it.

We, and especially I, are placed in a very difficult position. In my constituency there is a large cheese factory, but things are in a bad way with the factory. It requires help. I know that a deputation has been to the Minister to ask for protection because if it is not given then the factory will have to shut down, and it will be a great pity because it is a modern factory, and only employs whites. I will, in this instance, therefore rely upon it that the Minister will first obtain information that 50 per cent. of the producers are in favour of the protection, and I will support the amendment. I think that we must take the word of the Minister and must strengthen his hands. I believe that there are approximately 300 factories that produce cheese on a large scale. And I think that with few exceptions the factories are all in a poor way, and many are on the point of closing down if they get no assistance. It would be a great pity, because this is a young industry in our country, and can become one of great importance. Therefore I will gladly assist in supporting them, but I hope that the hon. Minister will first give us more information that he is certain of it that 50 per cent. of the people ask for it.

I think this question is engendering a lot of unmerited suspicion. Cooperation will never be extended, as it should be in agriculture, unless we get rid of suspicion, which always arises in argument of this kind.

In what way?

In the way that it is always suspected, that the people who are going to control these levies are going to do so to the disadvantage of everyone else. The object of this Bill is to encourage the production of agricultural products, and aims at their better marketing. What is the position of the agricultural industry as a whole? You had before you recently the last agricultural census for 1922-’23, and we have this state of affairs revealed, that the total agricultural production of the country, so far as the average wholesale market price is concerned, was £87,084,846. The price on the farms for this production was £64,668,924, so the farmers of this country spent £22,415,922 in marketing their products, which is equal to 30 per cent. The object of this Bill is to try and bring about some measure of co-operation which will save a considerable amount of that £22,000,000. If the scope of the Bill could be widened to include other branches of agriculture, the resulting co-operation would enable us to save a considerable amount of the £22,000,000. It would bring about the co-operation which would naturally follow the organization of the industry outlined under the Bill, of which the agricultural industry stands so much in need. In considering this matter of cheese and dairy products, it must be remembered that these are the greatest products we have in the country. The product of milk is more valuable than maize and wool. The total value of milk alone is £17,000,000 a year, and the organization of the dairy industry on suitable lines is one of the most valuable steps we could take. I do not think the inclusion of these products would interfere in any way with the functions of the Government. It would not mean that the agricultural department would spend less. The farmers would still get their skilled advice free. But it will enable agriculture to govern itself on business lines. Every branch of agriculture needs organization, and this can only be done on the lines set down in this Bill.

I don’t intend to deal at length with the arguments of hon. members opposite who are opposing this amendment, since in reality they are, in so doing, opposing the Bill itself. The point they are endeavouring to make is that any levy on cheese will press very hardly on the small producer. Do they not realize that whilst they are quite willing to support the Bill as it applies to bacon and sugar, any levy on those industries will inevitably be borne by the many small suppliers of the pigs and sugar cane to their respective factories? Do they not realize that as farmers we should stand together, that our whole industry is in need of organization and assistance such as this Bill will afford, the best form of all assistance, namely, self-help, and this attempt to prevent the inclusion of cheese, for reasons which I must confess I cannot fathom, is not fair play. I am not asking for this inclusion as a member of any political party, but as a farmer asking for the assistance of his brother farmers in developing his own industry. If our efforts in this direction are to be regarded with suspicion by those engaged in the same occupations as we are, the outlook for the agricultural industry and any attempt to organize is black indeed. I am not convinced, and I am not going to be convinced, that this opposition represents the opinion of the majority of hon. members opposite, nor will they be swayed by the arguments of the few hon. members in this corner over there who are attempting to damn the inclusion of the cheese industry in this Bill. If these opponents are not prepared to accept this amendment then I shall press it to a division.

I do not think that the hon. member has the right to say that we on this side of the House have no sympathy with the farmers. The matter from our point of view is only whether the farmers actually want the levy. The cheese factories in my constituencies want it and therefore I am going to support the amendment. In principle I still have objections to a levy. But when the cheese factories themselves ask for a levy then we are obliged to meet the people. I have an interest in a cheese factory and I know that the cheese factories of Griqualand have made a name for themselves which is first-class in the country. They impose a levy on themselves.

Why don’t they continue with it?

Other factories who are not in the same position also ask for it. The cheese factories in my division also want it and a deputation went to the Minister. The question only is whether the majority of the producers want it. Mention has been made of butter. Hon. members possibly do not know that the future in connection with the butter market looks very bad. My only objection to the amendment is that we have not yet had proper authority from the factories to vote for it. My constituency is favourable, but there is an important cheese factory in Senekal and I do not know whether they are in favour of it. The one in Bethlehem is in the same difficult and parlous position and they would like something to be done to put them in a position of getting the services of an official to grade the cheese, etc., in order to put us in a position to compete on the world market, and that is why they ask for a levy. All the assurance that I have is the letters that have been read by the Minister, and the request I have from the cheese factories. I will support the Minister.

The amendment has been introduced and supported by hon. members who are themselves dairy farmers and I feel that we have not the right as farmers to oppose them. The people will themselves have to pay the levy and I do not think we are entitled to refuse to allow them to come under the Bill. I think it is especially unfair of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) who has had the industry of his district included under the law to now oppose the inclusion of cheese. I think that we must acknowledge that the levy on eggs and fruit helps to advance those industries and that it had a good effect and I hope that the cheese industry will also hereby be developed. The production is increasing and markets must be found. For this capital is necessary and a levy is the means of raising such capital. As for the small cheese factories I do not think it is against their interests. On the contrary, the more cheese that is exported, the more they will have an opportunity of disposing of their cheese in the home market. I make an appeal to hon. members to no longer oppose this.

I think that we ought to go back a little to what happened a few years ago when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) introduced a similar Bill into the House. I am in the same position that I occupied then. My argument was that we could not go and give the Minister the power to declare at any time that a levy should be put on a product because every product should be dealt with on its merits and it could then only be included under such a Bill when it was clear that was demanded and what the consequences would be of such a levy. I also suggested at that time that what should be done is to adopt a general law such as this and then from time to time to come to Parliament with regard to every article so that Parliament could consider whether the Act should be made applicable to that article. That is actually what is happening here to-night with this difference that three products have been named at once. This is done because the matter has been so long before the country and the people concerned, that we feel that there can be no objection to make the Bill applicable to these products. We can more or less know what the economic effect if the levy will be. To show what may happen if we are not careful I will give an example, suppose people can produce a definite article in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg because they have there a suitable market. We then find possibly that people in the south also lay them-selves out to produce the same thing, but they cannot send it profitably to Johannesburg nor can they export it. It seems to me that it is not fair to lay a levy on the producers in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg to make the produce payable for the other producers. There may, however, be cases where a levy is necessary and in the interest of the country in general, e.g., when the products are indispensable in time of war. We must now decide here whether we will include cheese under the Bill. It seems to me that there is no more reason for excluding cheese than in the case of bacon. The misfortune is, however, that the producers did not bring the matter to our notice sooner, so that we could get the feeling of the public on the matter. The consequence is that I stand here to-night—and I would really like to give my vote for it that cheese should be included—and I feel doubtful just like the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister has not taken up any definite position and that we have not yet reached the stage that we as a body are in a position to say that this should take place in the interests of the people. I shall vote for the amendment, but this does not yet mean that cheese will be put on the list. I am of opinion that the Minister should first make certain that those that want it actually represent the percentage of the producers required, and I also want to see that he finds out from the others what the merits of the question are, and if they are in favour of the imposition of a levy. The levy is a matter that must depend on what is considered in the interests of the country, and I think that with these conditions we should not vote against the amendment inasmuch as the Minister has told us that the cheese production is in his opinion in a very difficult position.

Even if over 50 per cent. of the cheese factories ask the Minister to impose the levy it is still within the discretion of the Minister whether he puts on the levy or not.

I do not wish to oppose the amendment further, but I only wish to reply to the accusations against me by hon. members that now I have got the privileges for the ostrich feather industry I do not want to grant it to other industries. Hon. members do not understand the position. We obtain an export levy for the ostrich feather industry and this now comes to the same thing as other products under the Agricultural Grading Act. That is another matter. Then I only just wish to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that my interjection was not meant contemptuously.

I also will not talk any more about the matter. We have put our views, and hon. members who do not agree with us have given their views. But I want to protest against the accusation that we are not progressive. Just because we are progressive we are careful in accepting a new principle before a thorough enquiry has been made and we are certain that it will be a success. I hope that it will be a success for the cheese industry, but I doubt it.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

Clause 13 and the title having been agreed to,

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on Monday.