I have to announce that, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, Mr. President and I have accepted—

1. (1) a bust in bronze by Kottler of the late General the Hon. J. B. M. Hertzog presented by a committee representing the donors; and
2. (2) a portrait of Marie de Quellerie van Riebeeck, the first wife of Johan van Riebeeck, bequeathed by the late Mrs. A. C. Purcell.

The bust will be placed in the Queen’s Hall and the portrait will be hung in a suitable place to be decided on. Papers and correspondence on the subject are being laid upon the Table of the House.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I appoint Mr. Trollip as a member of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

I move—

In moving I hope I may be allowed to explain that this has been drafted as a purely consolidating Bill in dealing with which it is intended to act in terms of the ruling of Mr. Speaker during last session.

Is that to stop opposition?

No, just for information.

I second the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time; second reading on 31st January.

I move—

It is not fair, Mr. Speaker, to expect us to take the second reading of this Bill on that date. The Minister of Finance has already proposed to take the second reading of another Bill on that date. We do not know the contents of this Bill because it has not yet been laid before us. I therefore ask the Minister to put down the second reading for a later date, as we are very anxious to have an opportunity first of all of perusing the Bill.

I am prepared to make it Monday. I therefore move—

I second.

When are we going to get the Bill.

Tomorrow.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to; Bill to be read a second time on 31st January.

I move—

I second.

I want to ask the Hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that this Bill is not yet in the hands of members, and in view of the fact that it is a particularly important measure, to agree to the second reading being put down for a later date.

I make this request particularly because other Bills have already been set down for Monday.

I emphatically desire to protest against the procedure now being adopted by Ministers in connection with Bills being introduced here and the date for the second reading of which being fixed. This is a departure from the procedure followed in the past. In the past we had the opportunity of having the Bills before us before the second readings were announced. Today we have the position that Ministers who have had six months and more to publish these Bills have failed to do so, and yet the dates for the second reading are fixed at a time when we have not even got the Bills before us. I feel that it is no more than just that when a Minister pilots a Bill throught the House, and particularly when he goes to the extent of fixing the date for the second reading, the House at the very least should have the Bill before it, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give us an opportunity of properly perusing those Bills. We have a long session before us. We hear people talk about the session lasting six months. Why then all this hurry?

Motion put and agreed to.

This Bill a though a measure of public policy adversely affects the private rights of persons in the localities dealt with. It must therefore be treated as a hybrid Bill and at this stage be referred to the Examiners to report in terms of Standing Order No. 182. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, it will be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

This Bill regulates the water rights of people in my constituency and there is a great deal of difference of opinion on the subject. I should like to know whether the procedure is to be that after the second reading the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee, and I should also like to know whether I am allowed to move that it be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading.

In accordance with the statement I have made the Bill, being one of public policy which in my opinion adversely affects private rights distinct from the public at large, must under the Standing Orders of the House be referred to the Examiners after the first reading for report as to whether the persons affected have been duly notified.

But you said that that would happen only after the second reading, and they may be opposed to the principle contained in the Bill.

No, the reference to the Examiners takes place automatically before the second reading.

But I understood you to say that this would happen after the second reading.

No, the procedure under the Standing Orders is that if the Bill after reference to the Examiners is allowed to proceed it must be referred to a Select Committee after the second reading. The honourable member will have the fullest opportunity to consult the Clerk of the House as to the procedure laid down by the Standing Orders and decision from the Chair.

I shall avail myself of that.

Ordered accordingly.

S.C. ON LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

S.C. ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

I move—

I second.

I want to raise a question this afternoon on this proposal of the Minister’s with regard first of all to the lack of opportunity which the House has had in previous years to discuss the Committee’s reports when they are presented to the House. It has been brought up on many occasions — in the last fifteen or twenty years there have been only two occasions when the House has had an opportunity of discussing the reports of this Committee. Last year it was particularly unfortunate that the House did not have an opportunity, of discussing the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee. It was particularly unfortunate because in the recommendations which were made by that Committee, and made I think quite rightly, on the evidence placed before it, a very great injustice was done to certain public bodies and to certain public men and I want to suggest this afternoon that steps should be taken first of all to relieve the Committee of some of the enormous pressure of work which has been placed upon it. If you consider the work which a Public Accounts Committee has to do today with regard to the item of expenditure on war measures, one finds that that expenditure is more than double the total list of civil expenditure before the war, and one must agree that there is a great necessity for a very close watch of that expenditure. I want to suggest that the time has come, as a temporary measure, for the Committee to be divided so that a special Finance Committee should be set up to watch war expenditure. It is quite obvious that in the time at the disposal of the Committee it is impossible for them adequately to examine the accounts presented to the House. What happened last year? The Committee very rightly decided to devote the bulk of its time to the examination of the Defence Accounts. It actually left a matter of only three weeks or less to examine the whole of the rest of the accounts in the Auditor-General’s statement. As a result, the Committee made a recommendation with regard to one matter which appeared in the Auditor-General’s Report. I refer to the question of the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estates. Very drastic criticism was made by the Auditor-General of these accounts and the Auditor-General, in submitting these accounts, quite naturally drew the attention of the Committee to the items which appeared in his report. The Committee was faced with this position, that it did not have the time to examine those accounts properly, or to call witnesses to explain them, and to put the position before them. Now, first of all, the Committee raised a very difficult question, namely the question of the examination by the Public Accounts Committee of Provincial Authorities. That has always been a matter in respect of which this House has hesitated to act. But in addition the Committee had no statement before it giving an explanation of what had occurred, either by the Provincial authorities, or by the persons who were really the accused individuals in the matter. The result was that without taking evidence or calling for a statement from the persons concerned it— the Committee—received a statement from the Government. Law Advisers, a statement which the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Blackwell, then said was one of the most serious he had ever noticed. And he made the recommendation now contained in the report. I do not intend to discuss that report now, but the report said that an enquiry—a full enquiry—was essential into the whole matter, and it pointed out that the Committee found it impossible to complete its enquiry in the time at its disposal. Now, that shows that the Committee did not have the time to go into matters fully. In fairness to everyone concerned I want to say this: As a result of the appointment of a Judicial Committee which the Government appointed in response to the request of the Public Accounts Committee, the individuals concerned have been completely exonerated. The Judicial Committee has published its report and it completely exonerates not only the Provincial Executive, the Provincial officials, and the person most concerned, Mr. Ivan Solomon — it completely exonerates them from all charges of corruption, and it says that there was nothing to disturb the purity of the Public Service in what had occurred. And far from there having been any waste of public money the Committee found that there was in fact a saving. I want to suggest to the Minister now that he might consider altering the work of this Public Accounts Committee, and I want to ask him first of all to give the House an assurance that it will be given an opportunity at the end of each session to discuss the report of the Committee, and that, at a time of abnormal war expenditure, the Public Accounts Committee will be divided into two parte—so that a war expenditure committee will be appointed to deal with that side of the work; in the third place, I want to ask the Minister to place the Judicial report on the Citrus Estates’ Enquiry before the House, and to give the House an opportunity of discussing the recommendations contained in that report.

I wish to move as an amendment—

I believe that it is true to say that quite apart from the fact that we are now engaged in the greatest war in history in the defence of democracy, democracy in all the democratic countries is being very severely questioned. Democracy as we know it is exemplified in the Parliamentary system of government. It appears to me, and I have a considerable body of public opinion behind me, that our Parliamentary system does not function in the manner it should, and this particular amendment is intended to bring to the attention of the House at least one respect in which the Parliamentary system itself can be reformed in such a way as to redound to the general benefit of the people of the country and Members of Parliament themselves. I have chosen the Public Accounts Committee. I notice you are looking at me, Mr. Speaker—if you are going to give some kind of a ruling, it is quite possible for me to move a similar resolution to the one I have just moved on every motion on the paper, so I think it is just as well that you should allow this discussion to take place on the motion now before the House rather than have me raise it on every other motion.

The hon. member cannot anticipate discussions on other motions.

No, sir, I am not even anticipating your ruling. The point was this. I understand that sessional select committees and particularly the Public Accounts Committee, do represent one of the main features of machinery by which our Parliament functions. I myself was on the Public Accounts Committee, for two or three years—as far as I know at least. I have been on the Select Committee on Railways for a number of years, too, but I am going to make this confession to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that I have refused for a number of years to attend any sessional select committee, because, while I don’t mind being a nonentity as a Member of Parliament in this House I refuse to be a nonentity upstairs, and sit on the Select Committee which can do nothing. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) for some unknown reason has now suddenly magnified the Public Accounts Committee into some body which is not only very important but has got to such a degree of importance that he wants to cut it into two halves. On the other hand, I want to suggest to him that the Public Accounts Committee is a waste of time. It goes into accounts that are two years old. It makes recommendations which are never accepted, it makes reports which are never read and never discussed. Who wants to discuss them? We don’t want to discuss things which happened two years ago. Besides, on these sessional committees you are only allowed to raise matters which are dealt with in the Auditor-General’s Report. If you raised anything that is outside what is dealt with by the Auditor-General you are ruled out of order. You may know of some crying scandal of the greatest maladministration, but if it has not been dealt with specifically by the Auditor-General you are not allowed to raise it in the Select Committee. So what useful purpose do these Select Committees serve? I don’t believe that the Select Committee on Public Accounts serves any useful purpose whatever in this House. The hon. member has told us about the way that Select Committee is overstrained. Well, I fail to follow what the hon. member means. The Select Committee on Public Accounts makes reports which mean nothing. They make recommendations which are automatically turned down by the Treasury. I have not got the facts with me but I believe, Mr. Speaker that, consistently almost every recommendation made by the Public Accounts Committee over the last fifteen years has been turned down. In other words, you have a Select Committee composed of members of this House, they sit two or three times, they cross-examine—and this is one of the points I want to bring to your attention—the head of every Department of State submits himself for cross-examination to the Public Accounts Committee.

Examination, not cross-examination.

My hon. and legal friend tells me that there is a difference, but at least the head of every Department of State submits himself for examination by the Select Committee. It costs the country a considerable amount of money; we delve into all kinds of matters and at the end of the enquiry the report is printed, and no one pays any attention to it, least of all the Treasury. I believe it is fifteen years ago since the Public Accounts Committee of this House suggested very strongly that the time had arrived when the land laws of the country should be codified. That has never been done. The time has now arrived when I think members of Parliament should rise and ask what their position is. We as a new House were elected seven months ago. The Government of this country adopted the attitude—I presume the Prime Minister was mainly responsible for it—of saying “There you are, 150 newly elected members of the South African Parliament, you have been elected by the people of this country, but the Government of this country and the Prime Minister do not want to see you for seven months.” I am not going to suggest that some of us are good-looking enough as individuals to be looked at, but the fact remains we were elected by the people of this country to represent them, and ostensibly the people …

May I ask the hon. member to come back to his amendment.

Yes, I am working up to that; I believe it is quite relevant I am trying to paint the background of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. As you know, the Select Committee on Public Accounts is assumed to be the most important sessional committee elected by this House, and I am choosing the Select Committee on Public Accounts on which to hang my argument. My argument is concerned with the status of the ordinary individual member of Parliament, and the method under which we are helping …

The hon. member is extending the argument beyond the scope of the motion and his amendment.

I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I suggest in the amendment, and you have accepted it, that the House refuses to appoint a Select Committee on Public Accounts until such time as the Government considers the position of sessional committees, and until such time as they confer power on these Select Committees, which will give them a controlling power over the departments concerned. Let us take the case of the Public Accounts Committee first. We have in later years in this Parliament—I believe it is one of the things occurring in all democratic parliaments — we have developed a habit of passing a particular Bill and adding at the end of it “The Governor-General shall have power to make regulations,” and we find subsequent to the passing of the Bill in this House — this applies to Finance Bills and applies to regulations — regulations are more and more being made which go far beyond the legislative powers which Parliament itself has envisaged. We find that the department, or the officials of the department entrusted with the power of making regulations, go far beyond the powers Parliament has actually envisaged at the time the Bill was passed. That is the kind of thing I believe, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to call a halt to, and that is why I suggest here that our sessional select committees should be full time bodies. They should be given power both during the time when Parliament is sitting, and more particularly when Parliament is not sitting, to override the decisions of the department concerned. In other words, we have the Public Accounts Committee dealing with the Treasury; we have the Native Affairs Committee dealing with the Native Affairs Department; we have the Irrigation Committee, and so on. These committees, I believe, should be full time committees, and they should be entrusted with powers. Regulations, for instance, dealing with the various departments should not be promulgated unless they have received the assent of the majority of the committees. These committees, I consider should function in a way which would benefit both the State generally and the people of this country by initiating new legislation. These committees could have an overriding say on the method of finance. How many times, Mr. Speaker, has the Government had to come and ask the House to ratify the expenditure of a considerable sum of money for which no provision had been made? I remember, and you sir, were in the House when once we had to ratify the expenditure of £1,000,000 on locust extermination alone, a sum which would never have been spent had there been a responsible committee to go into the expenditure. Many instances such as that arise. We are endeavouring to focus the attention of the House on this matter, and the time is particularly opportune, I believe, because we have with us 56 new members who have just been elevated to this House. I want, however, as a member who has been here for some considerable time to tell them that if they think they will have any say in the Government of this country today, they have another thing coming, and it will only take them two or three days to find that out. But I believe the time has arrived when we ought to alter that state of affairs, and the alteration that is necessary appears to be on the lines of these select committees. I believe that if the House were to decide to keep select committees in being all the year round and decide to give them some overriding power—I am not wedded to the particular wording of this amendment, I do not want to place the Minister in a position of inferiority—but the fact of the matter is that at the moment the Ministers are complete and utter dictators, and we as ordinary members of the House have nothing whatever to say in the government of the country. All we have indeed is a say, and when the Government puts down the guillotine we have not too much of that either. We have spent a lot of money and a lot of energy getting public opinion behind us, and the people look to us not to come here as “yes” men or as “no” men, but to use our intelligence to stand up for the ideals and principles which we adumbrated during the election and to take our share in the government of the country. We are not doing that to-day, and I believe that as a result the country is suffering. We have got a dictatorship; it is the same in all democratic countries, and is not peculiar to South Africa.

The hon. member is wandering very far.

It is very difficult to raise this question except as a direct motion, because it is a commentary on the way we conduct our business here, that it is impossible to discuss the House of Assembly in the House of Assembly. That was a ruling given by Mr. Speaker last year. It is impossible for us to discuss the House in the House unless by direct motion. I have endeavoured to do it on the lines of an amendment which I am prepared to press to a division. I am satisfied that the hon. members who have been elected here agree with me, and that the new members of the House also agree that they would not like to serve on select committees which are mere registering machines. On these committees members have to put in a considerable amount of work, but the reports of the committees are never considered and never discussed in this House. I feel that if the Government were prepared to give some consideration to the granting of powers to these sessional committees, which would give them not necessarily an overriding power over the department concerned, but at least give them some say in the working of the departments concerned, the Government would be doing a good turn to the people of the country and taking a step in the direction which must sooner or later be taken, namely, to form a Parliament into a machine capable of tackling a complex situation, and a situation which will become more complex in character after the war.

I rise to second the amendment. It may seem presumptuous on my part as a new member, to second a motion which criticises the administration of a House of which until now I had not been a member.

It undoubtedly is.

But I feel that I am justified by reason of the fact that I have come fresh to the House of Assembly unaccustomed as the older members of the House will be, to the practice and habits of the House. Therefore I come as a representative of the public, the members of which are gravely concerned and seriously perturbed about the administration and government of the country. There is general recognition on all sides of the need for reform in our parliamentary institutions as such.

Order. Order! The hon. member cannot pursue that subject under a ruling given by Mr. Speaker last year—he may only do so by means of a substantive motion or the introduction of a Bill. The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House and the amendment.

I understood the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) to say that sessional committees furnish one means by which this House can be reformed, and if I am permitted to deal with that I would like to proceed on those lines.

The hon. member cannot deal with the reform of the House except by substantive motion or Bill.

The Public Accounts Committee and other committees appointed through the sessional committee in terms of the motion submitted by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) will go a long way towards improving the administration of the Government of South Africa. At considerable length the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) referred to the introduction of regulations which went far beyond the intention of the House and far outside the scope of the Bills presented to this House. I submit that along with that, along with the introduction of a considerable number of regulations, a necessary consequence which flows from that is the appointment of a number of controllers.

The hon. member is quite out of order.

I shall confine myself, Mr. Speaker, to the Public Accounts Committee. The criticisms which have already been levelled by the mover and by the hon. member for Fordsburg are criticisms which are wholly justifiable. In another House not ranking in importance with this House, but a legislative body of elected people, a similar experience has been recorded; we find there the same practice existing that members elected by the citizens of South Africa and sent to Parliament in order to take their share in the administration of the government of the country, find themselves almost without any rights whatever.

I am very much afraid I must again ask the hon. member to come back to the question before the House.

The volume of money expended by this country is reaching almost globular sums, and the position is such that members of the House should have a more direct controlling say in the expenditure of these moneys, and the only means by which they can exercise adequate control and guard the interests of the citizens of this country is by having a greater share in the administration of the country; that, in turn, can be provided by an alteration in the method in which sessional committees and in particular the Public Accounts Committee, is appointed. I submit Mr. Speaker, that this amendment submitted by the hon. member for Fordsburg should receive the closest attention of the members of this House, and I accordingly urge the House to pass this amendment.

As a member of last session’s Select Committee on Public Accounts I merely want to say that the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock), is of the greatest importance because we, as members of the Select Committee, have long since felt that we spend a great deal of time on the Committee in the examination of witnesses and the perusal of reports of the Auditor-General, but that we have practically no opportunity, after our reports are published, of discussing those reports in this House. The investigations carried out by us concern most important matters, they concern large amounts of money that are spent—especially by the Department of Defence — but no discussion ever takes place in this House, owing to the fact that the reports are laid on the Table when the House is practically on the eve of its prorogation. In connection with the suggestion made by the hon. member I want to say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with that suggestion, especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister today again proposed that the House was to sit in the mornings, and as a result of our experience during the last session of Parliament we can testify to the fact that it is extremely difficult for members on the Select Committee on Public Accounts to get through the work and yet again be in the House when the House meets. Consequently, as a result of the special conditions created by the motion of the Prime Minister in regard to morning sittings, it becomes extremely difficult for us to do our work. On the other hand, I want to point out that there are certain objections to the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Pretoria, namely that the Committee should be divided into two. It involves the danger of the continuity which should exist being disturbed. It appears to me that if there is one committee in connection with which there should be continuity and unity it is the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There is the further fact that if there are two committees one has to divide one’s party strength. It may be easy for the Government party, which has a large number of members at its disposal, to have two sets of representatives on the two Select Committees, but it is not so easy for the Opposition Party which is in the minority, and it appears to me that if the suggestion is agreed to it will place the Opposition at a disadvantage. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) although I do not agree with the rest of his proposal, I do think that there is cause for consideration being given to the proposal made by a previous Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the present Mr. Justice Blackwell, namely, that in cases of special importance such as one has today, it is desirable, and one should consider whether such a committee should not continue its investigations after the conclusion of the session. The argument against such a suggestion, of course, is that in such circumstances the Committee cannot report to this House, but in practice it makes no difference, because in any case the Committee is not given the opportunity of discussing its reports here. I am sorry the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) does not realise that both sides of the House are interested in his suggestion and that there is no need to have a party division on it—as he had this matter in mind he could have taken the trouble either yesterday or this morning to consult members on this side of the House as well, so that we might have been able to consult each other in regard to the suggestion, because the matter he has raised is of the utmost importance in view of the fact that we had the experience last session of the Select Committee on Public Accounts having had to sit four days in the week and it happened on several occasions that we were unable to be present here in this House owing to our being engaged on other matters. I therefore feel that something should be done, as special conditions sometimes necessitate special measures being taken. It may assist the position if the Committee were divided into two sections, but I personally am not in favour of doing so because it would not be fair to the Opposition which has not got such a large number of members at its disposal as the Government side has.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has raised some very important issues although in a very exaggerated manner but I do feel that the Government should realise that these are issues that have engaged the attention of the country, and that members of all sides of the House believe that some steps should be taken to raise the status of Parliament and to improve the efficiency of its control. But I realise that it is not possible to deal with this matter on a resolution of this kind, or even on an amendment of this kind. In fact, the acceptance of that amendment— which I think the hon. member for Fordsburg does not himself anticipate, he says he is only doing it in this way to gain the attention of the House—is not to be expected; but I think that the Minister of Finance and the Government should give some assurance to this House that they will, at an early date, consider some amendment of the workings of this House and of the workings of sessional committees, so that the country shall feel and Parliament shall feel that Parliament has a more effective say than at the present moment in the matters that come before it. But apart from that I think the Minister should give some assurance, firstly that steps shall be taken as far as he is concerned to see that reports of the Public Accounts Committee—which I think are much more important than the hon. member for Fordsburg would like to admit—should be dealt with by this House during the session and not merely published for general information. I think that arrangements could be made by which interim reports could be submitted to the Minister, and those interim reports on important matters could be dealt with by the House, which would give them due consideration. Secondly, I do think that the Minister should take into consideration the desirability of altering the Rules of the House in such a way as to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit even when Parliament is not sitting, in order that cases such as the one referred to by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) shall be avoided in the future. Thirdly, I feel that the Minister should, in addition to what is being done by the Public Accounts Committee, and I say in some cases quite ineffectively— take a further step. Heads of departments are beginning to have a Public Accounts Committee complex. The very fact that they come before that committee every session must have some effect on the manner in which they carry out the work of their department. But in addition to that I think the Minister should definitely consider—and it is within the provice of this committee—referring the war regulations to the Public Accounts Committee, just as he refers the war expenditure to it. Today we are in the position that we are living under war conditions; but even before the war a great many activities were being carried out under regulations, and today more than before the war, a tremendous amount of work that used to be done by Parliament, is done by regulation, and Parliament is virtually without any control over the regulations and the way they are administered. I was told this morning by a very important controller that he was surprised that the people of this country escaped going to gaol as much as they did escape. There are, he said, so many regulations that it is quite impossible for the ordinary member of the public to keep pace with them.

The House is not discussing regulations.

But I am giving the reason why the Minister should submit these regulations, and why the controllers who administer them should appear before the Public Accounts Committee, so that the committee can examine them and cross-examine them, and the committee will thus exercise some influence and control over the controllers. What we want is to have a sessional committee which will examine and see that the regulations are efficiently and justly administered. I think that these are matters which the Minister can deal with without any amendment.

We are engaged this afternoon in discussing a matter of first-class importance. We have had thoughtful speeches from the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock), and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and from the hon. member who has just sat down. I agree with the last speaker that we do pot at the moment wish to embark on any amendment that will make the position of Ministers in administering their departments difficult but we certainly want to attend to the matter of primary importance before the House this afternoon. The most important document published in this country is the Auditor-General’s Report. It is accepted by every responsible person as one of the best safeguards which the ordinary man in the street has against fraudulent and improper conduct on the part of anyone connected with the finances of the country. But the effect of the Public Accounts procedure today is to smother that report. It has succeeded in fifteen years out of the twenty-two, that I have spent in this House, in smothering that report. The Public Accounts Committee has had members and heads of departments on the carpet; it has cross-examined them, and it has browbeaten them. And to what effect? That as a rule the report, however sweeping in its condemnations, and whatever language may be employed, goes to the limbo of forgotten things because the report is seldom brought before this House. The Public Accounts Committee is singular in that respect. Almost every other select committee has the privilege of bringing its report before this House. The Public Accounts Committee is probably the only committee of this House which has not got the privilege of having its report discussed. Most important matters were dealt with in the reports submitted by the Public Accounts Committee last year. Matters affecting the conduct of members of this House in connection with the sale of farms to the Government were raised. The conduct of those members was scrutinised with the greatest care, and held up to the light. Now, what was the nett result of that investigation? If the Public Accounts Committee had said that the matter was not one for them to investigate but that it was a subject for the House itself to deal with, as a question of privilege, some action might have been taken. But no action was taken. The result of the enquiry was completely to bury the allegations which had been made before the Committee — and which had been fully investigated there. I hope the Minister of Finance will regard this as a matter which reflects very badly on the administration of the finances of the country, and that he will see to it that for the future every report made by the Public Accounts Committee is brought promptly before this House, and that time and opportunity are given for a discussion of the recommendations made.

It is quite clear to me that the Labour Party does not comprehend the present form of Government of this country and that they are dissatisfied with the present Government of the country. Even members opposite are dissatisfied. The hon. member who has just spoken tells us that the country, the public outside, is now more or less tumbling to the fact of how little say a member of Parliament has in the Government of the country. He feels that the Government of the day is not ruling the country in the way he would like to see it ruled. In other words, if you will allow me to put it that way, he feels that the Government has made a mess of things. Now he wants to introduce a motion to assist the public, and the idea apparently is that those select committees should help the Government out of its mess. Well, first of all it is the Government which is responsible for the government of the country. That is what the Government is paid for, and that is what it is there for. Parliament meets here and the Government is responsible for what has happened in the country. If members opposite are dissatisfied with the way in which affairs have been run and the way the Government has governed the country, then they should vote against the Government and defeat the Government. They will not succeed in changing matters by motions of this kind, and they will not succeed in making the country and the public realise that they want to put things straight. It is the Ministers who say how matters are to be arranged; it is the Ministers who are responsible for the regulations that are drafted and promulgated, and if regulations are promulgated which hurt, regulations which should not be there at all, then it is the duty of those members to approach the Ministers, criticise them and insist on matters being put right. If the Ministers refuse to do so then they have the opportunity in this Parliament of voting against those measures, and of getting changes introduced in that way. They cannot expect a select committee to put such matters right. We should also bear in mind that on every select committee the Government supporters are in the majority. They go to a select committee and the Government tells them what has to be done. The other members are there only to see that they do not carry on in too disgraceful a manner. If anything has happened in a department, statements are made before a select committee, and eventually the report appears before this House, when every member has an opportunity, of discussing the question. I fail to understand why this change, suggested by the hon. member on my left, should be introduced. Members over there are supporters of the Government, and they cannot come to Parliament to raise matters here and expect select committees to put these things right. They cannot secure a greater say in the government of the country by means of select committees. Now those hon. members tell us that they do not want to dominate the Ministers but that they only want to have committees to advise the Ministers. The hon. member who spoke last complained about the multiplication of regulations. I remember that long before I was a member of Parliament the Government started governing by means of regulations. This position has become worse and worse, and it is a matter which we on this side have protested against repeatedly. It is the hon. member’s duty to assist us and to tell his Government that it must introduce legislation and that the country must not be ruled by means of regulations. It’s no use imagining that select committees are going to improve this position. Is the Government going to take the responsibility, or are the select committees going to take it? No, the Government has to be responsible to this House. The position is quite clear — we cannot, simply by appointing select committees, absolve the Government from responsibility; we cannot try to do our work in that manner. On a select committee matters are often decided by a cast of votes. If the majority introduces a report, then the minority also has the right to introduce a report, and the minority report can be discussed in this House together with the majority report. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside), (Mr. Pocock), however, did touch on a matter which is serious and that was when he said that the work which the Select Committee on Public Accounts has to cope with is too much for that committee. I have had the honour of serving on that committee and I know that there is no more important committee than this one. It is a committee which works hard and does good work but there is too much work. That is quite evident. Then there is another consideration, namely that when the House sits in the mornings it is very difficult for this committee to do its work. Possibly the position may be alleviated by appointing two committees, but if that is done so many members will have to go to the committee meetings that very few will be left to attend the sittings of Parliament. Leave will have to be asked then for the committee to sit while the House is sitting, and that means that members who should be here will be on select committees, with the result that they will not be able to do their duty to their constituencies. I feel that something has to be done but I do not know exactly what, nor do I want to assume the responsibility of making a suggestion. If two committees are appointed it may perhaps be possible not to sit so long, but I do not know whether they will be able to do all the work that has to be done. Last session the procedure was adopted of submitting reports from time to time on certain subjects so as to enable the House to discuss those matters. I do not want to take it upon myself to say what particular scheme should be pursued, but I feel none the less that something should be done. It is also a wrong idea that the Select Committee on Public Accounts in the way it sits at the moment must be able to advise the Government. The position in England at the moment is different. There we find that during the war the Select Committee on Public Accounts is in session even when the British Parliament is not in session, and that committee is there to assist the Government with advice, but in the long run it is the Government which has to decide whether it is going to accept the advice of the committee or not. In regard to the regulations I only want to point out that it is members opposite who have voted in favour of the country being governed by means of regulations. They are the people who gave the Prime Minister the power of governing the country by regulations. Now they have become dissatisfied with the Prime Minister’s regulations, and they want a Select Committee to put those regulations right. I can quite realise that they are getting somewhat irritable and that they are dissatisfied with those regulations.

What was the verdict of the elections?

If it were not for the war, the hon. member would not have been here at all. It is quite clear that the public and members opposite are dissatisfied with the regulations. The Labour Party have declared openly that they are dissatisfied, and even members on the Government benches have declared themselves dissatisfied. We can quite appreciate the fact that they are dissatisfied, but they should not try to put things right in this way.

The principle underlying the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) is so important that I wish it had been raised in a more general form than in an amendment to this motion. There is, however, this to be said for having raised the matter in this form, that the Select Committee on Public Accounts is in a better position, or could be in a better position than any other Select Committee of this House to control the actions of the administration. The fact of the matter, of course, is that under the present arrangements which the hon. member for Forsburg has objected to, that Select Committee has no power whatever. The hon. member has reminded us that the Select Committee is constantly making recommendations that are automatically turned down by the Treasury. The Committee is always attempting to lock the door of a stable from which the horse has already escaped. But even if it makes recommendations as to the future and as to future practices, these recommendations are never listened to, not even when apparently they have been adopted by this House. The complex administrative machinery which is built up now is necessary under existing economic and social conditions, and yet the very necessity of the complexity of the administrative machinery is robbing this House of the practical opportunity of controlling the administration. If Parliament—not merely the Parliament of the Union, but any Parliament — is to control the administration effectively in future, it can only do so by means of delegation.…

I must ask the hon. member not to pursue that subject too far.

No, I shall not do so. The Public Accounts Committee is as good a body as any to which to delegate those functions in that regard. This amendment is an attempt to put forward in rudimentary form a practical proposition for dealing with the dangers of bureaucracy which today threaten the democratic system.

This amendment frankly and obviously is an attempt to increase the power of sessional select committees and therefore of individual members of Parliament who constitute their personnel, and I think that is very necessary indeed. A citizen of South Africa, not a private member of Parliament, and therefore presumably a person of average intelligence, said to me a day or two ago that only two sets of people had any power whatever in the Union of South Africa today; the first set were the Secretaries of Government Departments, who bossed their respective Ministers; and the other set were the controllers who bossed up all the remainder of the people of the country. I mention that, and I think it is relevant, because it illustrates the feeling of the whole electorate and nation. The people are desirous that sessional committees of this House and that individual members thereof shall have greater powers, and that the suggestions of these sessional committees and of individual members of Parliament shall have very much more consideration during the session, and also in the time of recess. I mention that, because it is very necessary that the country’s mind shall be at rest in a time of war such as we are now experiencing, and perhaps even more particularly so on the eve of a peace which may well bring forward even more difficult problems, worries and upsets. Mr. Speaker, I seriously submit this to you, that it is entirely useless for a sessional committee to be only a sort of advisory body. Under present arrangements it may be able to pass pious resolutions and give exhortations of a moral kind, but these things are an absolute waste of time unless results are achieved, and time is money, and therefore money is wasted which can be better employed. It is useless to have these sessional committees simply as advisory bodies, as is the case at present, and I submit very strongly that as the veriest minimum acceptable to my Party the reports of these bodies should be placed fully before this House, and that the House should have the time to consider any such reports, and that a decision of this House as a whole should be taken on these reports and should be carried out after full consideration and being duly approved by this Parliament as a whole, even against the so-called opinion of the Minister, which may possibly really be only that of the Secretary of a Department. In the last resort I submit that this House must rule the country. That is not so even in the case of considering the reports of the Pensions Committee. Many times we have felt very strongly that an individual case should receive very different treatment from what is recommended in the report. Well, we are met with the simple statement that the Minister is not in favour of it. We do feel, and the country feels, that when we have taken counsel together and fully considered the evidence, our finding is not lightly to be brushed aside. In this very dangerous time it is wisdom to increase the prestige of democratic bodies, including Parliament, and not lessen it. Great danger lies in any attempt, or seeming attempt, to do the latter.

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) in its general tenor, if not in the details of its construction, and I hope the Government will give it the consideration which is its due. It is clear from its reception in the House that it reflects the feeling of members of all sections of the House, that behind it lies a feeling of uneasiness about the direction of government in this country. This amendment has, of course, been sprung upon us, and all that we can do with it in the circumstances is, in general terms, to show the Government that there is a strong support for the attitude it represents. But. I just want to say that there is something more to it that should be considered than that the report of the Public Accounts Committee should be made available earlier, and more effectively, to this House. Something more than that is required, if the Public Accounts Committee as a sessional committee, and other committees, are to become again an effective part, of the democratic machinery of this country. As I have seen from my own experience the effect of the sessional committees as they now function is, if I may put it that way, to immobilise members of Parliament. Members of Parliament, if they are at all conscientious, spend endless hours attending committees where the work before them is simply that of following up isolated episodes in the history of and conduct of Government Departments. While they are thus engaged, the issue of policy escapes them. Questions of policy are not dealt with by these committees. Indeed the narrow limits imposed on them prevents them from dealing with such questions. After five dreary years of experience on the Railway Committee, I can speak with deep feeling on this matter. According to that experience, whenever any attempt is made to get on to questions of policy, members are told that that is not their business. And the complexity of the work of this House itself has made it increasingly difficult for members to exercise any real control over policy here. In fact, policy has steadily drifted out of the hands of Parliament altogether, into the hands of members of the Civil Service; or into the hands of people not elected by Parliament or to Parliament, but chosen by the Government from among people who could probably never have got the suffrage of the people to put them here. It has been the practice of successive Governments in recent years to wipe out even the old type of Commission where representatives of all sections of the House and all parties in the country might meet on the common ground of national interest to discuss questions of national policy. By all these means, the essence of the democratic system of government has been undermined. Now what the hon. member for Fordsburg is aiming at, I assume, is to get some of that essence restored, and it is an aim which should have the support of all of us who are desirous of preserving our form of government. If we are indeed to preserve it, its machinery must provide some place where members of this House can meet and discuss the business of government outside the immediate sphere of party politics. Possibly the member for Fordsburg is right and the sessional committees should provide this meeting point. It is a suggestion worthy of consideration and I trust the Government will accord it that consideration. In any case,, I trust the Government will appreciate the spirit behind this discussion today and get itself to restore something of the spirit of democratic practice in this country.

It is desirable that we should take this opportunity to enlighten the Government as to the feeling of the public outside on matters of this kind. The Public Accounts Committee is the most important Select Committee appointed by this House. It has to review every phase of the expenditure of the Treasury. It is a Select Committee which it is almost impossible for a member to be a member of, unless he is considered to have an abundance of brains.

Were you on it?

Yes, I have been a member of it. That being so, one does appreciate that people outside the House and outside the Government pay attention to the reports of this Committee. I have known matters brought up in this House as a result of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and no action taken, and all this has made people wonder what is the matter with the Government, wonder why no action has been taken as a result of the recommendations of the Committee. The simple reason is that when the Committee has made its report it has been too late for any action to be taken by the House. The report of the Auditor-General is placed before the Select Committee, and by the time the Select Committee reports and members of Parliament get the report, the report is out of date. One wonders whether they really think it necessary to have this Committee at all. I do make this appeal to the Government. They do not appear, for some reason or other to be aware of public opinion outside the House. They think that a long-suffering public will tolerate anything. It is really time that the Government made it their business to sound public opinion; they would very soon find out that all is not well with the Government. The Minister, when he replies, will probably say: “We have the confidence of the country, look at our overwhelming majority that we have received.” Let me assure him.…

I think the hon. member is going far beyond the question before the House. The House is not discussing a no confidence motion.

I, like previous speakers, find it difficult to keep within the strict bounds of the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). I want to assure the House, and I think the hon. member for Fordsburg will agree with me, that this was the one way a private member could raise in the House a subject which is causing considerable concern outside, and that is the whole reason for this debate this afternoon. I would like to suggest that it is time that the Prime Minister reviewed his Cabinet! I would like to suggest that time is long overdue.…

Order, Order! Will the hon. member come back to the question before the House?

I would suggest that as the Public Accounts Committee has before it the Auditor-General’s report and nothing else, that they have to review the actions of every Minister—whether the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Labour, and all the rest of them; and that it is very difficult to advocate reform in this committee without bringing in a particular department that the Auditor-General’s report itself dealt with, and I trust you will bear with me when I attempt to bring to the notice of the Government that some measure of reform is long overdue, and it is dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee. You have to study the Auditor-General’s report, and that report delves into the activities of every Minister, so I think you will agree with me that the scope of the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg justifies, as it were, touching on the fringe of each Minister’s department; and with your kind permission I intend to do that very briefly in order to expedite this debate. I believe that is the opinion of this House, and that every member of this House is definitely dissatisfied with the way some of our Ministers are handling their departments; they are bringing into being controllers and it is going to be very difficult in the near future to discover a man who is not a controller. The usual thing when a controller is appointed is that he must know nothing whatever about the particular commodity of which he is controller.…

That has nothing to do with the question before the House.

I am merely attempting, as the Auditor-General has to do in his report to bring to the notice of the Government matters of concern to people outside this House, matters to which the Auditor-General has directed attention in his report. I do not wish to prolong that further, but I do suggest it will be in the interest of the public and of this House, and of this particular committee, if the Ministers do decide to take over their departments; and I am sure when that is done there will be less criticism of this particular committee which we are now discussing, because I feel that the Ministers are really overworked, which accounts for the Auditor-General having to direct the attention of the House to so many matters. If all the Ministers were not so overworked, if they did not find it so necessary to pass on matters, to pass on so much of their work to staffs that are themselves overworked, when they should be dealing with the controllers …

I wish the hon. member would come back to the question before the House.

I feel sure that this House is indebted to the hon. member for Fordsburg for raising the matter, as members possibly may not have been able to bring it before the House at a later stage on account of the restrictions we members suffer from. I do not agree altogether with the terms of this amendment, but we do hope that the Government will take some notice of the representations that have been made, and restore to this country the democratic form of government which we all pretend exists in this country, but which I am afraid has been handed over chiefly to the controllers.

It is perfectly clear from the discussion which we have had here today and on previous occasions that there is very definitely a feeling of dissatisfaction in regard to the position of affairs so far as this most important committee of the House is concerned. I myself have served on that committee for many years. It takes one hours and days to draft the reports and then they are brought to this House and placed on the Table—one could almost say that they are chucked on the Table, and that’s the end of them. One does not see them again, and the Government does not give the House the opportunity of going into matters. Objections are raised today from the Government side in the first instance, from all sides of the House, about the position of affairs being unsatisfactory, and the view is expressed that it is unsatisfactory for such a committee to sit and to discuss such important matters over a whole session, and then to have its report to all intents and purposes consigned to the wastepaper basket. The reports are placed on the Table of the House, but the House is not given the opportunity of going into them, and the Government has time and again had its attention drawn to the fact by all sides of the House that things are wrong, that those reports should be discussed. Every year, however, towards the end of the session, one finds that the reports are not dealt with, or if they are dealt with they are disposed of late at night during the last night sitting of the session. It sometimes happens that they are discussed when members are tired, and want to go home, and when the session has entered it’s last phases. In order to help the matter along I want to move an amendment—an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). I move—

The amendment will then read—

I second.

I am sorry to have to say first of all that it would appear to me that some hon. members do not properly appreciate what the real object of this amendment is. May I be allowed to remind hon. members, and also Hon. Ministers, of the fact, of which they are aware, that there is not a single complaint in this country which is not made against Members of Parliament. If anything goes wrong, no matter whether one belongs to the Opposition or to the Government Party, or whichever party it may be, the Member of Parliament has to remedy everything that goes wrong: whether he has any previous knowledge of the matter or not he is held responsible for everything. He is held responsible even for matters which he has never had the slightest opportunity of going into. He is held responsible even if he knows nothing about the matter, and in view of the fact that we, as representatives of the people, from time to time have to bear the responsibility, or rather take the blame for things that go wrong, I feel that hon. members will agree with me that we, being in that position, should have a greater say, especially in regard to the financial affairs of this country. As has already been indicated during this debate by several speakers, the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee amount to nothing more than a post mortem examination in regard to matters which are already two years old. For that reason primarily the departments are by that time disposed to bury everything that the Committee may recommend. They think all these things are two years old, and they hope that there will be no recurrence of these happenings and so it goes on from year to year. This Committee is one of the largest and most important committees the House has, and matters referred to it should be thoroughly gone into. As I have said, those things are buried, but that is not where they end. When the effect of those things is felt in the country individual members are held responsible by their electors. I know you will not allow me to mention instances in the respective departments. Not everyone has the backbone and the courage which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has had to say that he will assume the responsibility for everything. I must say I am sorry his colleagues have not always followed his lead in that respect. Some of his colleagues have blamed Members of Parliament for matters for which they are not responsible.

You have done so yourself.

I am blamed and taken to task just as my hon. friend over there is. There are certain things for which one’s electors hold one responsible. They hold one responsible in respect of things of which one has no knowledge. That being so, it is not logical, as Members of Parliament all feel that our system should be rectified somewhat, that we should now tackle this whole matter? We are making a very minor suggestion here as a result of which we shall be able to get things done more effectively by distributing the administration of the country in such a manner that members, who in any case are being blamed for things today, will be given the opportunity of going into matters themselves. Is there a single hon. member here who can tell me that he has not been held responsible at some time or another for things of which he has had no knowledge at all? Cannot the work be so divided that part of it can be done during the recess instead of everything having to be done here in a hurry? Members can then come to the House and report: “We have done this, and there is our report. And then they can get approval or otherwise of Parliament, where every member will have a say. Not a single member has spoken here today who has not drawn attention to the fact that this is a most important question. For that reason I hope that the Minister concerned will avail himself of the opportunity of telling this House whether the Government intends carrying on with this old way of doing things, which has long since outlived its usefullness. It is not a question of policy, it is a question of a system of which all of us are very tired because all of us are blamed for things without our having the opportunity of going into matters. The public has very high expectations of Members of Parliament. Departmental heads sit ensconced over there.

The hon. member is going very far now.

All members of this House are convinced that we as Members of Parliament should have a status in the government of this country far above that which we have now, and only then shall we have an opportunity of ridding ourselves of the blame which is so often cast upon us.

What is your Leader doing in the Government?

Let me say this to the hon. member, that it is not a question of which Government we have, or which Government we have not got; it is a question of the system. Don’t let us split hairs. Do not let hon. members read something in this amendment which is not there. We are criticising the system, a system which in the olden days of the donkey wagon may have been very suitable but which today, in these days of aeroplanes, have outlived its usefulness. I say that we are unjustly blamed; that is why we now want a greater say in the affairs of the country, and that is why we are asking for a carefully considered reply from the Government in which the Minister concerned will tell us what the Government intends doing.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), the burden of whose complaint was that he had no say, that he had nothing to say, but took twenty minutes to say it, made the remark that this Public Accounts Committee, the appointment of which we are discussing now, is the most important, of all our sessional committees. That is perfectly correct. But he went on to say that it represents an utter waste of time. There I do not agree with him. It is a most important committee, and it does most important work. He also said that its recommendations are never accepted. There also I do not agree with him. Many of its recommendations are accepted by the Government, and many of those recommendations lead to concrete action. And if the hon. member will recall the days when he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he will recall how, at the commencement of each new session, a report is given on the action taken arising out of the resolutions passed at the end of the previous session. The Treasury considers the Public Accounts Committee a most important body. The Treasury regards the Public Accounts Committee as an adjunct of the Treasury, to act as watchdog of the departments.

They regard it as a nuisance.

No, my hon. friend is quite wrong there, and I think if the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was here, he would not have queried that remark of mine. He would have admitted the fact that we do appreciate the co-operation and assistance of the Public Accounts Committee. The Treasury does not regard it as a nuisance; it regards the existence of the Public Accounts Committee as of the very greatest importance. In so far as it functions as a watchdog over the departments, it has a very important function to fulfil in the control of public finance. It happens time and again that the Treasury takes the initiative in getting matters referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The Treasury, I repeat, regards this Committee as of very great value, and we are always ready to consider ways and means of making its work more effective. It was, I think, the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) who made the remark that the effect of the working of the Public Accounts Committee is to bury the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General. Very far from it. The Public Accounts Committee very often gives new publicity to the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General. It is the Public Accounts Committee that gave publicity to those land deals to which the hon. member for Pinetown referred. It is the Public Accounts Committee which gave publicity to a certain incident to which the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) referred, and it was because of the action of the Public Accounts Committee that a long and expensive commission, presided over by a judge, was appointed. No, the Public Accounts Committee does not exist to bury the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General. It helps to give the main points in those reports their correct publicity. The Treasury and the Minister of Finance welcome the existence of that Committee, and I have no other desire in regard to it than that it should function as effectively as possible. Now I come to the remarks of the hon. member for Sunnyside. But let me first of all say this. This debate has, to a large extent, been coloured by our experience last session. The hon. member for Sunnyside commenced by referring to the enormous amount of work the Public Accounts Committee had to do last session. That is quite true; but has this House already ceased to hear the echo of the words “Cost-Plus Contract”; has the House forgotten to how large an extent that controversy between the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) — the George battler and the Kensington bruiser, took up the time of the Public Accounts Committee and of the House. Last year’s was not a normal session, quite apart from it being a war session. Even as a war session it was not a normal session. I have every reason to hope that our experience of last year as regards the Public Accounts Committee will not be repeated, and though their task will be a heavy one, I think they will find it easier to get through their work than they have in the last year or two. The hon. member for Sunnyside made three points— the first was the desirability of having a discussion of the report of the Select Committee at the end of the session; and the hon. member for Winburg has moved an amendment, based on that point. This is not a matter which lies entirely with the Government. My hon. friend whistles. Last session we would have been perfectly prepared to arrange for a discussion of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. We had the time, but we had not the evidence. We had not the printed blue book; and because of that it was not worth discussing the report. We had not even the printed report, because the Public Accounts Committee only delivered its report towards the end of the session. But may I remind hon. members that I made it perfectly clear last session, and the suggestion was followed, that it was always open for the Public Accounts Committee to put forward an interim report during the course of the session; that if there is any matter of particular importance the Public Accounts Committee can report on that at any time. I believe last year the Public Accounts Committee worked to a programme of reporting defence matters before the Defence Vote came up for discussion. The reports were in the possession of members of the House.

Were the reports discussed?

I understood from the hon. member for George that he desired to have the reports available when the Vote came up for discussion. But I merely want to make it quite clear that it is possible for the Public Accounts Committee to submit interim reports.

When was the Public Accounts Committee report last discussed.

I cannot tell my hon. friend, but it is always possible for them to come forward with interim reports, and if they want these reports discussed it is possible to do so. If the reports and evidence are available we shall make the opportunities for doing it, but obviously if a report is laid on the Table three days before the end of the session and not printed, you cannot discuss it.

There were two interim reports last year.

I understood from the hon. member for George that all they wanted was to have those reports in the House, so that they could refer to them when they came up for discussion.

It is not for them to request, but for the Government to give the opportunity for discussion.

Let the Public Accounts Committee come along with an interim report, and if they want it discussed it will be discussed. But there is another point. It is quite wrong to suggest, as has been suggested here, that when the Public Accounts Committee has reported at the end of the session, and the report has not been discussed, that that report is pigeon-holed and that is the end of it. That is not correct. My hon. friend is aware that the Public Accounts Committee makes its recommendations; those recommendations are dealt with individually by the Treasury and the departments concerned. The Treasury has to reply to the Public Accounts Committee when next it meets, on the points raised in those recommendations. It is therefore quite wrong for anybody to form the impression from what may have been said here this afternoon, that the fact that the report is not discussed in the House means that the report is simply pigeon-holed. The suggestion has been made, too, by the hon. member for Sunnyside, that we should have two committees. I am inclined to sympathise with the views of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that the disadvantages of that would be greater than the advantages. But, let me say again, if the Public Accounts Committee wishes to consider this or any other suggestion and to come forward with it with a view to making its work more effective, we shall be only too happy to consider it. We welcome the activities of this Committee, and we shall always be glad to do what we can to make its work more helpful. Finally, the hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the commission appointed as a result of the activities of the Public Accounts Committee last year. I do not think the Government had any option but to appoint that commission. The Public Accounts Committee made its recommendation on the basis of the views set out by the Auditor-General and the law advisers, and having that recommendation before us we could do no other that accept it. A commission was appointed; the commission has reported; and its report will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it is available, and members will then be able to judge for themselves as to the manner and extent to which those who have been accused have been vindicated as a result of the report of that commission. I have no doubt whatever, Mr. Speaker, that there will be further opportunities of discussing this matter in the House. Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Fordsburg’s amendment. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) said that the underlying principle is a very important one, and I agree with him that it is a very important principle. It is so important, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me to go to the very roots of our constitution. Our constitution has as one of its underlying principles a subdivision of governmental functions. If my hon. friend will look at the Act of Union he will find after the first two chapters—there is first of all a chapter on executive government, then an entirely separate chapter on Parliament, and further a separate chapter on the judicature. You have these three functions of government— executive, legislative and judicature. The principle of our constitution is to separate those things. There are other constitutions which do not separate them, but the principle of our constitution is to separate those things. I say, therefore again, what the hon. member is pressing for does go to the very roots of our constitution. This amendment which has been moved suggests that Select Committees of this House should have a controlling power over the departments concerned. That means two executives, two executive governments. The Act of Union has created a controlling power over the departments; it has created an executive in the form of Ministers, the Cabinet.

Responsible to Parliament.

Undoubtedly. But you cannot create in this Parliament a committee which will exercise executive functions. Of course you can alter the present position. But I do want members to realise that the alteration they are proposing here goes to the very roots of our constitution. Our constitution separates these functions. The hon. member for Fordsburg asks what he has been elected to do. He has been elected to perform a legislative function. He may in due course be called upon as a Minister to perform an executive function, but he has not yet been so called upon, and it seems to me to be the very essence of our constitution that we should separate these two functions—the legislative and the executive functions. I can see nothing undemocratic in that. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mr. Ballinger) made an eloquent plea for the powers of the democratic machine to be established on a democratic basis. There is nothing inconsistent with democracy to have a responsible government accountable to Parliament and to the people, but it does not mean that you must have a Committee to give instructions to departments over which your Ministers preside. Our constitution is conceived on the assumption that you have your executive and your legislature. The executive is responsible to Parliament. The legislature is not called upon to perform executive functions. It may be said that there is something wrong with our constitution and that it should be improved. Hon. members are free to say that, but they should realise that in saying that they are saying something in conflict with what has been laid down in our constitution as a result of the process of evolution out of which it grew and of the exercise of the wisdom and experience of those who designed it. It may be that they will persuade the people of this country to change the constitution and that essential feature of it, but in the meantime the constitution under which we work is a constitution which separates the legislative and the executive functions of government and that being so I feel that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg.

Amendments put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I move, as an amendment—

The motion itself deals with one of the most important, matters affecting unredressed grievances of soldiers that have ever come before the House. It is only by way of petition that a soldier who has suffered disabilities in connection with his pension can finally appeal to this House, and my objection to the motion before the House is that it makes possible a system under which a large class of people who have grievances must approach this House by way of petitions and another more favoured class can approach the Government, and the Government in turn can transmit to the Select Committee signification of its pleasure to give pensions of certain kinds to the persons concerned. I maintain that that is surely bad in principle. The rules of this House are very particular to lay down how a petition is to be worded, and how it is to be treated. Every kind of precaution has to be taken to see that the petition conforms to the rules laid down in the Standing Rules and Orders. But the Minister comes before the House with a motion today, as he has done in previous years, which allows the Government to transmit to this Committee Minutes recommending pensions. I strongly object to that. Most bad pensions have been granted through that method, and there are innumerable cases in which pensions should not have been granted at all which have finally been endorsed by a method under which the Government recommends to the Select Committee that a pension should be granted. It is with a view to putting all men on a basis of equality so that petitions go through the front door and not by the backstairs that I move my amendment. I object to one set of people being in the position that the Government can recommend a pension from the outset, without placing on the Select Committee the onus of discovering whether there is any merit in their petition. I object to the Government merely transmitting to the Select Committee a Minute recommending the granting of a pension irrespective of its merits. I maintain that that is not the way to treat a Select Committee of this House. A Select Committee of this House is generally considered to be the appropriate body which should consider these matters, and for such a Committee to receive a Minute from the Government recommending such pensions, is putting matters in an improper relationship. The Committee is the proper body to deal with the petition. Rule 270 of the Standing Rules and Orders lays down how a petition is to be treated if it is to be referred to the Select Committee of Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, and that Committee deals with pensions, grants and gratuities not authorised by law. It is a very important matter. Where these petitions are not authorised by law, or where they represent an appeal by a soldier to this House, there should not be others who are going to receive favoured nation treatment in regard to their appeals. I therefore move the amendment which I have just read.

I second and hope the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. There have been a number of cases which have been brought before this House in years gone by and I believe I am correct in stating that the Government regret having granted these pensions in view of the events which have occurred since. I do not want to go into details. I feel that we all regret some the pensions which have been granted in view of the conduct of certain individuals since 1939. I say that there can be no objection to everyone being treated in the same way. Why should it be possible in a democratic country for one individual to be able to get the ear of the Government in a certain direction, by the Government sending a Minute to the Select Committee suggesting that certain cases should be dealt with in a certain way. I have served on that. Committee for some years, and I and others have felt that it was wrong that some petitions should be dealt with in a way different from others. They should all be dealt with in the same manner. It will not handicap any person if his petition was presented in the same way as other peoples’ petitions. There is a feeling that when the Committee is appointed and the Government in power have a majority on that Committee, and we have heard it said that if a person can get the ear of the Government and can get a Minute from the Government to the Pensions Committee that Committee will obey the instructions contained in the Minute and the pension will be granted. I submit that that is wrong. There is no harm in the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Durban (Pinetown) (Mr. Marwick). It will not prevent any man from getting a square deal—it will simply mean that everyone will be put on the same level and I therefore appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment.

This motion contemplates matters going to the Pensions Committee by two routes, one by petition and the other by way of Minute, but while these two routes are followed in the initiation of matters, all these matters are dealt with thereafter according to the same procedure, and all have to be reported on by the department. In all these cases reference is made to the department, and in all these cases in exactly the same way a departmental report is submitted, and in all these cases the Committee comes to a decision. There is nothing in the nature of favouritism in the handling of these two classes of cases. Now, why is it necessary for some matters to follow the one route, in other words to go to the Committee by way of Minute, and for other matters to go to the Committee by way of petition? There we have two classes of cases and I think my hon. friends who have spoken have overlooked the fact that we have two classes of cases. We have the class of case initiated by the Government where the Government, for reasons of State, thinks it desirable to ask the Pensions Committee to consider a particular pensions proposal. For the life of me I do not see why the Government should not have the right just as members of this House have that right. But there is still another class. There is the class where a matter has gone to the Pensions Committee by way of petition, and has then been referred to the Government for consideration. Under our procedure that can only go back to the Pensions Committee by way of Minute from the Government, and if we were to accept this amendment it would have the effect of excluding that class of case as well as the other class of case to which my hon. friend has referred. As far as both classes are concerned it is necessary to maintain that route. I think it is necessary that the Government should retain its present right of taking the initiative in asking the Pensions Committee to investigate a particular matter.

Amendments put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

The purpose of this is merely to enable matters not disposed of last year to be dealt with now.

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER stated that the petitions were upon the Table.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Before calling upon the Minister of Finance to move the next motion of which he has given notice, I wish to remind hon. members that on the motion for the House to go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as well as on later stages, debate must be confined to the subjects contained in the Estimates and the reasons for the increase of expenditure. Discussion should not re-open the question of policy involved in the original grant.

I move—

This motion is one which is usually introduced at the beginning of a session. Its object is to make provision to combat expenditure which has been found essential but could not be anticipated during the previous session. The estimates which we have before us, and on which I ask the House to go into Committee, cover a wide field; more than half of the votes are affected, and, generally speaking, we are dealing here with comparatively small amounts. I therefore expect that as usual the discussion on these estimates will take place mainly during the Committee stage, and that in all probability it will not be necessary for us to spend a great deal of time on the discussion of the motion now before us. It is necessary for me, however, in introducing this motion, to deal with two points. First of all it is my duty to tell the House what the effect of the adoption of these additional estimates will be on our general financial position. Secondly I think I should refer the House briefly to the principal items contained in these initial estimates. Hon. members will not expect me to go into all the details or to deal with all the items, particularly insofar as they concern other departments, but as I have already said, these estimates can be discussed principally when we are in Committee, and when the different Ministers will be able to give the necessary information and the necessary details. To begin with I want to say a few words about the effect of these estimates on our general financial position. Hon. members will perhaps, remember that according to my Budget speech made towards the end of February, 1943, our expenditure from Revenue. Account was expected to amount to about £100,540,000; of that £48,000,000 was for defence, while a further £48,000,000 for defence appeared on Loan Account. On the other hand at that time we reckoned on revenue to an amount of £99,990,000; including the revenue from additional taxation for the year 1943-’44 and the surplus carried over from the previous year, and we would have been faced with a deficit of about £550,000. Hon. members will, however, remember too, that during the session we made provision for further items of expenditure to an amount of about £2,930,000. The principal item among those, headed “Expenditure”, was an amount of £2,000,000 for defence. This was due to an increase in the pay and allowances of soldiers. We reckoned that this would cost us a further £4,000,000 during the financial year, and of that amount we placed £2,000,000 to Revenue Account and £2,000,000 to Loan Account. The second main item in respect of which we made provision during the session was in connection with the paying off of farm mortgages, that is to say certified farm mortgages. Hon. members will recollect that an Act was passed last year under which the Government was to give a subsidy, to be added to amounts found by the farmers themselves in reduction of the capital amount of their subsidised farm mortgages. It practically meant that we would have to make provision this year in advance for a sum which we would otherwise have had to find by way of interest subsidy over a series of years. We reckoned at the time that for that purpose we would need £500,000. Well, there were a few other items as well. It was found, however, during last session that the surplus for the previous year would be much larger than we expected at the time the estimates were drafted— larger to an extent of over £2,000,000. In consequence thereof it was not necessary to levy additional taxation when we decided to increase the pay and allowances of the soldiers. But it will appear from what I have said that the deficit, as we calculated it at the end of the session, was a great deal larger than we estimated it to be at the time the estimates were submitted to the House. The deficit, as we estimated it at the end of the session, was £1,135,600. Of that £500,000 was in connection with the redemption of farm mortgages which, as I have already said, can practically be regarded as a payment in advance of expenditure which otherwise in all probability would have to be met later on. We therefore start off with the deficit of £1,135,600, as estimated last year. We are now asking on Revenue Account for an additional amount of £2,676,400. On the basis of last year’s revenue there will therefore be a deficit of a little over £3,800,000. In regard to the estimate of revenue, it has turned out that our expectation of revenue from the gold mines has been placed a great deal too high. The country, and hon. members are aware of the fact that last year there was a considerable decrease in the production of the gold mining industry, and also in the profits of the gold mines, and in consequence, in the amount of taxation which was received by the Exchequer from that source. Fortunately, however, our other sources of revenue will produce more than we had expected. The amount which we are getting out of other sources of revenue, which are exceeding the original estimates, will, as far as I can see now, be sufficient not merely to cover the drop in the yield of the gold mining taxation, but also to cover the other deficit which I have just mentioned, namely the deficit of a little over £3,800,000. This, of course, is a provisional estimate, and I am not committing myself to it. I do believe, however, that I can give the House the assurance with a reasonable amount of safety that the adoption of these estimates will not have the result of our closing the year with a deficit. Then in the second place we come to the provision which is being asked for in regard to loan funds. The House will notice that we are asking for an additional amount of £730,000 to be made available from loan funds. Hon. members will find this on page 2 of these estimates. On the other hand, however, there will be savings on loan votes to an amount of about £2,089,000. I also expect that last year’s estimates in regard to revenue from loan account will be exceeded. Our position so far as the loan account is concerned therefore is that notwithstanding this additional provision of £730,000 we shall be better off and not worse off at the end of the year than we had originally expected. Both in regard to the Loan Account and the Revenue Account I shall supply more details to the House when I make my Budget speech. Hon. members may perhaps have noticed the fact that there is nothing for defence on these estimates. During the last few years there invariably was a vote on the additional estimates for defence; this year there is no such vote for defence. Last year we voted £100,000,000 for defence, viz. £50,000,000 on Loan Account and £50,000,000 on Revenue Account. In these estimates no additional amounts are asked for in respect of defence. I do not, however, wish to leave the House under the impression that we shall come out with the £100,000,000. More money will be required, especially for payment for aeroplanes and other war material to the United Kingdom and also for payment for the maintenance of forces beyond the Union. Those amounts, however, do not require to be squared up before the last month of the financial year, that is to say not before March. When that time comes it will be easier to state the total amount of war expenditure. I therefore propose to ask for the necessary additional provision for defence in the second additional estimates which are usually submitted to the House in March, and which in all probability will be submitted again this year.

Can you give us the provisional amounts?

No; I have already said that I should like to know what the position is in regard to those amounts before giving any indication as to the total position of the Defence Amount. I expect by that time to be able to give the House the final position—I think that during my Budget speech I shall be able to tell hon. members what the final position is. Insofar as I am able to make any arrangements now, I shall be able early in March to submit the position to the House. Then I come to the second point to which I have referred, and I should like briefly to direct the attention of the House to the principal reasons for the increases and for the provisions which we are making in these estimates. First of all I want to deal with the Revenue Account and in that connection I first wish to refer to a whole series of items which are spread over practically all the votes, namely the additional amounts for salaries, wages and allowances. These are principally the result of additional amounts which are paid to Government officials in consequence of increased cost of living. They are the result either of increased cost of living, or of improved scales of cost of living allowances, or of the special war allowances which have been introduced. On the various votes of the Revenue Account and the Loan Account hon. members will find that the joint amount for this purpose runs to about £313,000. To that must be added that under several votes it has been found possible to find the necessary amounts for this purpose from savings on other items. In the second place I want to refer to Vote No. 8, namely Pensions, under which we are asking for an additional £561,000. This is principally in connection with war pensions, in consequence of the fact that unfortunately more people have been killed or wounded, or more people have contracted diseases than we had anticipated. For that reason we have had to ask for a good deal more money than we originally did. An additional amount of £224,000 is asked for in respect of pensions and allowances in respect of this war, and an amount of £44,000 for the payments by the Special Grants Committee. In the second instance, provision is made there for an additional amount of £283,000 for old age pensions and pensions for war veterans. This amount is principally due to the increased allowance for cost of living. I also refer in the third place to Vote No. 20—one of the agricultural votes. I first of all want to refer to Item A.2. Hon. members will recollect that I have already mentioned last year’s Act on Farm Mortgage Interests, that we have made provision for an amount of a little over £500,000 as subsidy in respect of capital redemption. This Act has proved to be a great deal more popular than we had expected. We anticipate that we shall have to spend not £500,000, but £900,000, for this purpose. This, however, brings with it, as hon. members will appreciate, a reduction in the provision of interest subsidy, and for that reason we are asking on this item an additional amount of £285,000. It is not unlikely that when we get to the second additional estimates I shall have to ask for a further amount for this purpose. It means that we shall be spending more money for this purpose, but it will be money well spent and it is money which in all probability we would have had to find sooner or later. On the same vote I want to refer to the provision in respect of the Deciduous Fruit Industry. Provision is being made here for two years. Until recently we assisted the Deciduous Fruit Industry in its war difficulties by way of a guarantee of the pool account. We have now closed off that account for the year 1941-’42 and for that purpose an amount of £210,000 is asked for here. Since this last crop, however, we have followed a different system, and we have done so as a result of the report of a Commission which we appointed at the beginning of last year to go into the conditions of the industry. It has been decided to allot a fixed amount by way of subsidy, an amount which will not be increased or decreased, and which has been fixed at £280,000 for this year. That amount hon. members will also be asked to vote. I further refer to Vote No. 21. There we are concerned with a subsidy which has been provided with the object of stabilising the price of foodstuffs for the consuming public. There is a comparatively small amount in regard to the stabilisation of butter prices, which has made it possible to stabilise the price of butter for the period from November to March. There is, however, a very much larger amount in connection with bread. As hon. members know we work on the basis of a fixed bread price of 6½d. per 2 lb. loaf delivered and 6d. over the counter. It means that we shall have to find a net amount of £1,550,000 for this crop year. Of that we have to pay out £660,000 before the end of March and the remaining amount of £890,000 we shall have to provide for on the estimates for next year. Those are the principal items on the Revenue Account, and jointly they represent the major portion of the total amount asked for here. In regard to the Loan Votes it is not necessary for me to say much. Of the amount of £730,000 which hon. members are asked to vote, £400,000 is intended for the extension of standard supplies. There is £360,000 under head “C” in connection with telegraph and telephone services and £100,000 in connection with police. It is necessary to ask for these amounts in consequence of certain circumstances which have arisen. First of all, there is the fact of the increased price of stocks. Secondly, we are faced with the fact that the general shipping position has improved, and that larger quantities of stocks are now reaching us. Thirdly, we also have to look at the matter from the point of view of postwar reconstruction and it is desirable for us now already to increase our stocks, and we are busy doing so. The only other item of any importance is the item of £99,000 under the heading of “Forestry.” Of that, however, £60,000 is required in consequence of the increase in the cost of living allowance to which I have already referred, and the remaining £39,000 is intended for the extension of exploitation of forests. As hon. members know, there is a great increase in the demand for all kinds of timber, and we are therefore able to dispose of a great deal more timber. The additional amount asked for will be more than covered by the additional revenue which we shall receive. I believe I have said enough to supply the necessary information in connection with these estimates without going into any details which perhaps it may not be so suitable for me to do at this stage. I trust that I have given the House the necessary information, and I hope the House will now be prepared to accept my motion to deal with the matters mentioned in these estimates in Committee.

I second.

It is fairly late in the afternoon now, and we have these estimates placed before us only this morning. The estimates are not quite as innocent as the Minister of Finance tried to make us believe. We have had certain information now about some items, but. I think I am entitled to ask the Minister to accept the adjournment of the debate.

Will you be prepared to go into Committee without delay?

Yes.

Then I shall accept the adjournment.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned, to be resumed on 26th January.