Before you proceed to the business of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask permission to make a statement on a matter of importance. When the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill was referred to a select committee on the 17th February last, I made a statement to the House setting forth the general course and the results of negotiations which had taken place between the Union Government and the Government of India. I then defined our attitude towards the holding of a round-table conference, which was the immediate objective of the Government of India, and which, as then understood to be proposed, was not acceptable to us. I stated definitely that we were not, and could not with any justice, be opposed in principle to conversations with any outside Government, but that on the contrary we were strongly and in principle opposed to any conference which was one-sided, insofar as it would admittedly have been expected from ns to make concessions in connection with our proposed legislation while there would, apparently, have been a failure to counterbalance these concessions with corresponding prospective advantages. We did not consider the round-table conference, as then proposed by the Government of India, to be otherwise than one-sided, and as such to have the appearance of an unjustified interference from outside with our domestic affairs. After my statement on that occasion, negotiations were resumed between the two Governments on the assurance on the part of the Government of India that their attitude was not correctly understood, and on the assurance on the part of the Union Government that, consistently with their previous standpoint, they still considered the door open to the holding of a conference, if satisfactory assurances could be obtained as to its nature and scope. With the very valuable assistance of informal conversations between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself on the one hand, and the leader and the secretary of the Government of India deputation on the other, a formula was agreed upon which, if accepted by this House, will form the basis and determine the nature of a round-table conference, which, before our legislation is further proceeded with, will make a serious and honest attempt to arrive at a real and effective, but at the same time, an amicable solution of the Indian problem. This formula definitely excludes the possibility of a conference which could justly be interpreted as a mere attempt from outside to prevent the Union Government from dealing with its own problem in its own way, and which, as such, would be resented by the people of South Africa, and is and would remain unacceptable. On the contrary, it definitely ensures the cooperation of the two Governments in exploring all possible methods of settling the Asiatic question in South Africa on the basis of the maintenance of western standards of life by just and legitimate means. The formula reads as follows—

The Government consider the assurances which the Government of India have given under the formula to be sufficiently satisfactory to justify the holding of a conference and to postpone the proposed legislation until the results of such a conference are available, and they have accordingly recommended this course to the select committee. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that the successful issue of the proposed conference will almost exclusively depend upon the extent to which public feeling in India as well as in South Africa will allow the respective Governments to co-operate with each other in finding a real and effective solution of the problem. It is equally evident that the new and favourable atmosphere which is required can only be created by the utmost circumspection and self-control, and let me add, by the absence of suspicion and by the presence of faith on the part of the leaders and the peoples of both countries. Under these circumstances I have a right to appeal—and I know that I shall not appeal in vain—to the good sense and the wise discretion and the patriotism of the hon. members of this House when they shall proceed to discuss the report of the select committee or the Asiatic question generally inside or outside the House before the conference is held. I have an equal right to appeal—and I know that I shall not appeal in vain—to the good sense and the wise discretion and the patriotism of the press and the people of South Africa. If Parliament should think it worth while to agree to the holding of a conference, then it is surely worth while to make the most of the opportunities which that conference offers in the interest of South Africa. Before concluding. I desire to place on record my very high appreciation of the way in which the select committee has dealt with this most serious and important question. I may say, without any reservation, that every member, without exception has from beginning to end approached the problem without any party consideration, but from a broad South African point of view, and with the sincere intention of serving the best interests of our country. I also desire to express, on behalf of the Government our very great satisfaction with the way in which the Government of India, including the members of their deputation, have conducted the negotiations and other relations with the Union Government and the select committee. By looking upon the subject of our negotiations, and by practically dealing with it as a matter solely concerning South Africa and India, they have made a valuable contribution towards the practical recognition of the status of both these countries, and by inspiring confidence in their ability and sincerity, they have laid the foundations of that sincere and friendly co-operation between the two Governments which alone can assure the successful issue of the conference, and lasting friendly relations between the two countries. I now beg to lay on the Table the further correspondence which has taken place between the Government of India and the Government of the Union in regard to the Reservation of Areas and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill. With the special permission of the House, I now beg to submit the report of the select committee, reporting the Bill. The report is a very short one, and is of so much importance, not only to us but also to the Government of India to-day—the Government is making an announcement in India—that I think I should take the liberty to ask the House to consider the report now. I lay upon the Table—

I move—

seconded.

I think there is only one course open before this House, and that is for all of us to support the Government in the action they have taken. Whatever view we may take of the merits of this very grave and difficult question, there is no doubt that the Government, in considering that further negotiations are necessary, have been actuated by the desire to avoid unnecessary friction, and to come to a solution which may be generally acceptable to India and to this Government. They have reopened negotiations, and have come to an agreement with the Government of India to hold a further conference. There is only one course open for members of this House, and that is to support the Government in the action they have taken, and whether or not we agree on the merits, we are bound to support the Government in the course they have adopted. I only express the wish that the further negotiations and the conference which will ensue will lead to results which will be really to the benefit of this country, and effect as far as possible a lasting solution of this great question. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to give us any information as to the conference, and where it is proposed to hold if. If it is premature I do not want to press for the information, but no doubt this whole matter will be viewed with grave concern and anxiety by public opinion in South Africa, and whatever the Government can do to allay and to pacify public feeling will prove helpful in the solution of this great question. From our side of the House I assure the Minister we have no desire whatever to embarrass the Government in the solution of a question which has proved a most thorny one for all Governments in this country. We have not the least desire to create difficulties for the Government in this matter, and We can only give the Government our blessing, and express our sincere wish that the negotiations which will now be entered upon may lead to a solution which will be satisfactory, and will safeguard the interests of this country as far as possible in this very difficult matter.

I entirely agree with what has been said by my leader, but there is one point I wish to raise. What does the Minister mean when he says “so that no vested rights shall be created,” and that the proposed Act when passed will be made retrospective. Transfers are being passed every day in Natal to Indians, and they are buying property on a considerable scale from Europeans, which will probably multiply during the period of delay. If I sell property to an Indian, get my money and leave the country, how are you going to take away that property ? Whom are you going to for redress? I am sorry that steps have not been taken in the interim to stop the purchase of land by Asiatics in Natal. I submit, when this legislation comes to be passed after the conference, you will find it will be impossible to make it retrospective and to cancel the transfers which have been passed to Asiatics in the meantime. I want to warn the House and the country that that is going to be the position. The same is going to happen in regard to licences. Are you going to cancel the licences as from the day that they were granted ? How are you going to do it ? From the practical point of view it is impossible, unless the country is prepared to compensate these people and take over their assets.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

objected.

Bill to be read a third time on 30th April.

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 1 and 2 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I do not know whether I can congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) on this Bill. When it was introduced last year everyone was satisfied with it because the Bill was of such a nature that it satisfied the people in connection with the labour problem. In fact the first Bill was so satisfactory that the Prime Minister received it with open arms. That proves that the Bill was necessary, but after the attack on it by the Labour Party the enthusiasm of hon. members opposite and of the Prime Minister weakened. Consequently the hon. member for Ermelo was induced to water down the Bill. Although the hon. member has done his utmost to pass a Bill which would satisfy the people, he has now so watered it that nobody will be satisfied. This does not detract from the hon. member having tried to get a good Bill and to advance the wishes of the farming population of the Free State, Transvaal and Natal. Owing to the opposition from the Government benches and the Labour Party that was, however, not possible.

Also on account of opposition by members of the South African party.

Now I want to point out that when we introduce anything which is in the interests of farmers hon. members on the cross benches are the first to oppose. As for me, I am not quite satisfied with the Bill, and I believe that the public on the countryside will also not approve. Half a loaf, however, is better than no bread, and I shall vote for the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill lead a third time.

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact of the difficulty that has arisen in the Transvaal in regard to licences? I understand that when the Minister introduced the Bill last year it was not his intention that the municipalities should be penalised, but they have been, as the result of a judgment of the Germiston magistrate, and are likely to suffer severe financial loss. I hope the Minister in his reply will indicate his intentions in the matter.

I move—

I do this in order to call attention to one or two matters. One is too optimistic to anticipate that complaints from supporters of the Government are likely to receive the same cordial consideration as that given to complaints from the South African party. Last session criticism was directed at the Minister’s policy arising partly out of his acceptance of the Baxter report which, in the past, was bitterly criticized by us, and partly as to the method of securing revenue for the provinces. The Minister adopted the principle of imposing special licences in order to secure certain revenue for the Provincial Council. That was provided for under the Licence Consolidation Act, and it was pointed out that a very serious hardship would be imposed on a large section of the population. We were told that it was necessary for the Government to provide additional revenue for the provincial councils. One of the reasons for the Minister accepting the position was that he desired to relieve the mining industry from the employers’ tax. The result has been that the mining industry—more fortunate than the small people—has been able to satisfy the Minister that some relief should be granted to it, and consequently he did away with the employers’ tax, and made a present of £180,000 to the gold mining industry. At the same time, he introduced his licensing policy, in consequence of which a considerable section of the population, more particularly in the Transvaal, has to pay dual taxes.

The hon. member can discuss administration as much as he likes on the estimates, but he is not allowed to advocate an alteration of the law.

I am not discussing an alteration of the law, but the position which has arisen. The law as administered, apparently implies that certain people in the Transvaal shall pay licences to the Consolidated Revenite Fund for the benefit of the provincial revenue, and also to the municipalities. If the law is administered on that basis, it means that, while the Minister is opposed to the doctrine of dual taxation, as far as the mining industry is concerned, he accepts it as far as the small citizen is concerned.

On a point of order, I want to know where we are The hon. member is not complaining about faulty administration, but the effects of the existing legislation. If that can be discussed under the rules, I shall not have the slightest objection, but I understand it is against the rules of the House to discuss legislation in Committee of Supply.

Before you give your decision, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the question I am raising relates to the administration of the law, whether people are to pay dual licences, or whether, in accordance with the decision which has just been given by the magistrate of Germiston, they have only to pay the licences to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kentridge) can ask me whether that is the law as it stands, but he is, of course, questioning my administration of the law, and I submit that is against the rules of the House, as indicated by the Chairman yesterday and to-day.

If the law is to be administered on the basis of dual licences, then I am reliably informed by revenue officers of the Johannesburg Municipality that it would mean a loss to the Johannesburg Municipality alone of something like £10,000 per annum, inasmuch as small people are not in a position to pay these dual licences, and a large proportion of the small people in respect of whose licences, as it is, the licensing officer has found great difficulty in collecting his revenue, will be driven out of business, and there will be loss not only to the provincial council, but also to the municipality, which will have to be made up by additional taxation either by the provincial council or the municipality. If, on the other hand, the law is to be administered on the basis of the decision just given by the magistrate of Germiston, then it means that the municipalities in the Transvaal will lose thousands of pounds per annum, and these municipalities will have to impose new taxation in order to make up that necessary revenue which is being taken away from them. In any event, the small people are being hit to an undue extent largely in order to save taxation on the mining industry. I would ask the Minister whether he intends to administer the law on the basis of dual taxation, or on the basis of the decision given by the magistrate of Germiston, and, in the latter case, what he proposes to do in order to secure some revenue to the municipalities to make up for the loss which they will sustain.

Surely the Minister is not surprised at this attack. He has in his Pact Government certain Labour party members, and they have been forewarned in the speech given by the hon. member at Port Elizabeth when he used the following expressions—

The unfortunate part is this, that the hon. member overstates his case. He speaks in regard to the remission of the employers’ tax, and says that the mining industry gained to the extent of £180,000. I believe that the whole of the remission of taxation in regard to that matter amounts to £180,000. He now comes here and says that whilst this side of the House were the friends of the mining industry, the Government is now going over that way and becoming the friends of the mining industry. We have heard something about the psychological moment. There is a pschological moment, I understand, when the Labour party must be ready to receive the kick-out from the Nationalists, for so the Minister of Posts said at Port Elizabeth. Is this the psychological moment? I would warn the Government that the psychological moment is arriving, or it has begun, at any rate, because recently the hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. de Milliers) said that they would be perfectly justified in kicking out the Labour party.

Will the hon. member (Mr. Nathan) please confine himself to the vote ?

Yes. Having delivered myself of that, I will say that there is a certain amount of force in the points raised to-day in regard to certain licences and fines which in the ordinary course of business have gone to the municipalities. In this morning’s paper our attention was drawn to the fact that revenues which have hitherto accrued in the shape of fines and licences to the municipalities will, by this decision of the magistrate of Germiston, go to the Government. I hope the Minister will take that matter into consideration, because it is a very serious matter for these municipalities.

I do not want to touch on the very sarcastic personal remarks which the hon. member (Mr. Kent-ridge) has made in regard to myself. I only wish to deal with the merits of the question which he has raised. The hon. member has said nothing which goes to show that there has been any faulty administration of the licensing question. He has complained about the effect which the legislation passed by this House will have. I understand that is not a question which we can now discuss under the rules of the House. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has also referred to a decision given by a court in the Transvaal in regard to these licences. That is not unexpected. It is laid down in section. 11 of the Provincial Subsidies Act of last year, where, in the first place, we deliberately transferred to the provincial councils the proceeds of licences which formerly went to the municipalities in Natal. Then section 12 lays down that the proceeds of certain licences shall in future go to the provincial administrations, and we provide the schedule of licences about which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is now complaining. That is the policy of Parliament, as laid down in this Act. As far as the municipalities are concerned, we said that, in addition to the licences which were imposed by this House for the benefit of the provincial councils, in regard to those callings, or trades, or occupations that require inspection, it was open to the provincial councils to impose additional licences for the benefit of municipalities. This House laid down the principle that licences generally had to go to the provincial councils, but in the case of licences in a municipality which require inspection, it was open to the provincial councils to legislate as far as the imposition of such licences is concerned for the benefit of municipalities. If any muxicipality is losing the revenue from these licences, it is due to the neglect of the provincial council to legislate for the imposition of those licences. The hon. member now drags in this question of the repeal of the employers tax in the Transvaal. That policy was laid down last year. The hon. member now charges me with partiality towards the mining industry, but, as I have stated, that is the policy of the Government and the policy laid down by the House.

I would like to repeat a question which I was putting to the Minister last evening when the House adjourned in regard to a matter upon which a deputation, of which I was a member, went to see him in Pretoria as to the administration of the Adulteration Act, more especially in view of the amendment of that Act made this session. I think we may take it that the best course would be to place the administration of that Act under the Excise Department. There is a further matter to which I would refer arising out of the administration of the Excise Act. It is generally known that a large amount of spirits, as methylated spirits, goes into consumption without paying excise. This is a matter that the Minister should take in hand in order to protect his revenue, and also prevent a large amount of injurious and poisonous spirits from going into consumption doing an immense harm to the people. I know the Excise Department inquired into the matter some years back, and from that besides losing a very big amount of revenue on account of excise unpaid on spirits which go into consumption, they are allowing a lot of methylated spirit's to go into consumption to the detriment of those who consume them.

I am very sorry to have to disturb the usual placidity of the Minister, and I am sorry if he is hurt by any remarks I make, but I would like to tell him in connection with these matters, that we are equally hurt, although we may not show it so much, at the manner in which we are treated by the Minister, in marked contrast to the manner in which he treats hon. members opposite. He has not yet replied to the point I have put to him. He tells us that provincial councils have the right to legislate, but he cannot show us anything in the law to deprive municipalities of these revenues.

After the Minister has clearly shown that an alteration would be needed in the law, I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on that point.

The Minister has put on certain duties in order to protect certain industries and the development of them. I would like to ask the Minister whether in the case of these industries ceasing to exist or not requiring protection, he will consider the necessity of reducing these duties. An instance I can give him—

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss any reduction of duties. He must confine himself to questions of administration.

I am suggesting that in the administration there should be some automatic method of removing duties when they are no longer required.

The Minister is not permitted to alter any duties unless by an alteration of the law. The hon. member cannot circumvent my riding

The question I really want to ask is in regard to the fact that some two years ago a very considerable duty was put on packing paper. In the customs list it is called kraft paper. It was in order to protect the industry for making packing paper in this country, This was a considerable burden to all the distributing trades. The industry which it was proposed to protect failed, and it therefore protects no industry to-day.

I must warn the hon. member that if lie goes on I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

I will ask another question of administration, which, I think, will be in order. The various departments of the Government are supplied with free services in printing, stationery and advertising to the extent of £182,000 a year. Some of these items are very large. For instance, the post office was supplied to the extent of £26,209 in the year 1925.

I may point put to the hon. member that printing falls under the Interior vote. The present vote is the Treasury.

The Treasury have replied on this matter, I think, on the Auditor-General’s report. If you will allow me to state my case, I think you will find I am in order.

I will ask the Minister to make certain whether this falls under his vote or not.

No.

There is a small matter I would like to call attention to. Under the heading of Supply Office, page 16, allowance is made for ten clerical assistants to the Government buyer instead of three, which involves considerable extra expenditure. I see in the High Commissioner’s vote there is no decrease there, so, on the face of it, it is not apparent why seven additional assistants should be wanted on this side.

In that connection the Government appear to have adopted a policy of wanting to buy all their supplies in South Africa. I can quite understand that, in regard to what is manufactured, grown or produced in South Africa, but they seem to buy overseas supplies through agents of overseas firms in South Africa. What is the benefit of a policy of that kind ? You maintain an expensive office and staff in London for the purpose of buying supplies overseas. What is the good of placing orders in South Africa which have to go through an agent’s hands, and on which he gets commission, when you can buy direct through the London office? I do not agree with it at all, because it means extra expense to the Government, and I am astonished that the Minister, who is out for economy, should tolerate a thing of that kind. He should be out to buy in the cheapest market. You are spending trust money, the taxpayers money, and you should get the best value for it in the most economical way.

The whole of South Africa and particularly the South African party, is lieaping encomiums of praise upon the Minister. My hon. friend here, in discussing the Minister’s administration, did not speak in a sarcastic way when he said the South African party was behind the Minister. Before he got into office the hon. members on that side were not at all with him, but now we find them taking a sharp turn and telling the world what a wonderful administrator of finance he is. We do not think that he is such a wonderful administrator. We think he is particularly good, but not so wonderful. There are matters in which we think he is wrong. He might raise funds through a State bank, and he might see that there is not dual taxation in the Transvaal, as there is to-day, and there are many other things in which we think he is wrong. We think this caution which he brags about is wrong in South Africa to-day. It is no use pacifying your enemies at the expense of your friends, and that is what he is doing to-day. These hon. gentlemen sitting in front of me are wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

You are a sheep in wolf’s clothing, I suppose.

They will swallow my hon. friend up. They are waiting for him. We are here to rescue him. He is only a little lamb. The Nationalists are going against the promises made at the last election. They promised a State bank. We ask the administration to carry out those promises. We are asking our right hon. friend not to go down the slippery drain he has started on, to pull up and take a little advice from his friends, even if they are back-benchers. We ask our hon. friend—because be is our friend—to answer these questions we are putting to him. We ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours to do the same. What do they do ? They take no notice of their friends at all. We might not exist. They talk to their enemies on the other side. The more they praise the Minister the worse it is for him. They are setting traps for him. We ask these Ministers to pay a little more attention to us, because if we do not have attention paid to us there will be trouble. No, we never make threats. We only ask our friends to listen a little more to us, and pay a little less attention to those members who are out to break the Pact. We are out to keep the Pact together.

The Government has adopted a policy of buying an increasing quantity of our departmental supplies in South Africa. It is a policy with which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) does not agree, but it is what a large portion of the people desire—that, as far as possible, we should give a preference to the local manufacturer, and to those who are in business in this country, who are taxpayers and maintain staffs here. It is subject to a certain qualification, which is that price and quality are satisfactory. When the quotations are reasonable, we have deliberately adopted a policy of purchasing our requirements here. At present the staff of the High Commissioner’s office is being re-organized, and we have had an inspection by representatives of the public service commission and that report is now being considered by the Government. The Government will see how far it will be possible to have a decrease in the staff of the buyer’s office, but as we require to purchase a certain portion of our requirements in London, it will be necessary to have a staff in London, and I do not think it will be possible to have a considerable decrease in the staff there. I do not think there is anything in the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to which to reply. Although he has repeatedly come back to complaints about my administration, his complaints have little to do with administration. With regard to his complaint of my omission to adopt a certain policy, I do not know whether it will be wise or fruitful to discuss our differences of policy now. He said that I did not pay attention to what is said from that side of the House. I repudiate that entirely. I have treated all sides of the House with courtesy and with the utmost consideration, no matter to which party hon. members belong.

I put a couple of matters.

Yes; the hon. member raised the question of the advisability of my department taking over the administration of the Adulteration Act, at present administered by the Agricultural Department. I will discuss that with the Minister of Agriculture, and see what can be done in that direction. My department, I may say, is very much alive where it is a question of revenue, and if the hon. member will give instances, I will look into them. I am not aware that the administration of the Excise Act is in any way at fault.

I thoroughly agree with the policy of the Minister of Finance that, in purchasing departmental requirements, we should, as far as possible, buy them in South Africa, and encourage our houses in this country. But when it is necessary to get material for development, it is the duty of the Treasury to see that we get that material as cheaply as we possibly can. I understand, in many cases, the goods are obtained from representatives of foreign firms which have an agency here.

We buy them from firms here who are agents.

Whoever the agent, he must get his commission, and the Government can purchase cheaper without a commission.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt ”, £4,567,873.

I would like to ask the Minister again what he is doing with this continual growth of public debt. During last year, according to the Minister, our debt in London increased by something like £5,000,000 —a further strengthening of the economic ties of Empire—and the interest charges are growing daily. By continuing the old "sane and cautious policy”—and let me remind the Minister that “sane” is only another word for “mediocre” policy and “cautious” for “timid”—he is piling up a burden on the people and retarding the development of the country. For every pound of development he is paying two pounds. Notwithstanding that the Prime Minister has definitely pledged himself to the national control of credit, the Minister of Finance, in a previous debate, spoke against a State bank. Is the Minister definitely flouting pledges made in regard to this policy ? He has just told us that he is always courteous. I have always said so—he is always courteous —to his enemies. If he interprets courtesy to us by a contemptuous silence, we have nothing to say, because he is always contemptuously silent to any complaints that may be made from this side. I hope he will get away from that “courtesy” and adopt the courtesy towards us which the hon. members of the South African party get from him.

I see my hon. friend has got on the vote—

during 1926-’27, £185,000. How can the commission do it, because they have not gone into working yet. Have they taken over that place at Colenso ?

Yes, it was transferred from the Railway vote to the Electricity Commission.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) expressed regret last night that there had been a vote on party lines in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We invited his friends to vote with us, and regret very much that they did not, and that under the circumstances the hon. gentleman should bring up here the question of the committee having divided on party lines. We consider this estimate a fair way of providing for redemption of debt. It was not done in the hon. gentleman’s time of large deficits, when there were no surpluses to go to debt reduction. I do not particularly care for the redemption of loans, except that it is a general policy popular from the market point of view. The people who deal with our stocks like to have sinking funds kept up, so that the market can be lively. We are always borrowing with the one hand and paying back with the other, the net result being that financiers benefit largely by this continual turnover. When we go to the other side of the water for loans, we place ourselves in the hands of foreign banks ; and notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance has said of the great advantage to the National Bank in joining Barclay’s, it is also joining up our credit with Egypt and other countries, including the West Indies. Yes, when Egypt wants money, Barclay’s Bank may draw from us for Egypt, instead of vice versa. We have seen Egypt in difficulties before. We remember that Lord Milner and Lord Cromer went to Egypt to pull it through its financial muddle, and that may occur again. It is a pitiable mistake, and we shall probably reap the reward in future of our want of courage in losing the opportunity of backing up our National Bank so that it could preserve its South African character. Owing to constant borrowing on the other side, we are getting more into the hands of banks there, and we are paying £47,000 for carrying on this business of ours in London. Should we not be able to manage our own loans, say, from the High Commissioner’s office? I would like to ask the Minister definitely, in regard to this item—

—whether this £20,000 in excess of what the banks draw for doing our business in London is commission on Treasury bills in any way ; because I notice that Treasury bills are put in here—£10,000,000 of them—at rates of interest varying from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. That is such a moderate amount that if this is all, it is quite apparent it pays better to issue Treasury bills than borrow at 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. We also have to pay on £7,000,000 of money which we never got. That is high finance. I want to ask the Minister whether, in addition to this 3 or 4 per cent. on Treasury bills, the banks are making a commission out of us—whether there is discount on the top of it—so that we can clearly understand what it is we are committed to in regard to this vote. I think there must be something of this kind, as otherwise we are borrowing at a very low rate for floating accommodation.

Did I understand the Minister to say that the Electrical Supply Commission have taken over Colenso ?

I do not know if it has actually taken over the working, but, so far as the finances are concerned, they are being provided for in this financial year.

They are, I understand, paying the actual cost the railway was put to in building that station and fitting it out, but not paying the amount which it cost the railway to raise the loan. It seems to me that the Electrical Supply Commission are going to gelt all the benefits there are as against the users of the railway, and I put it to the Minister that when the commission takes over the power station, they should pay the full amount it cost the railway. I think it is 2½ per cent. they lose by that.

I do not know what arrangements were come to with the railway administration. That is a question which the hon. member might put the Minister of Railways. All the Treasury has to do is to deal with the transfer of the liability. I did not deal with the actual conditions upon which it was done, and I cannot give that information now. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has dealt with the question of expenses for management, £70,000. That is made up of various sums. He has asked whether anything is included for Treasury bills. Yes. An amount of £3,000 is provided for. That is for the borrowing of probably about £2,000,000 this year on Treasury bills in London. We pay 1s. per cent, brokerage, and 2 per cent. commission. As far as the management of the stock in London is concerned, that is paid to various people in connection with various arrangements. We are making the most advantageous arrangements as far as doing this in London is concerned, and the same arrangements as other dominions. Notwithstanding that Australia has a State bank which arranges local loans, when they go to London to raise loans they employ the same agents, and they do not get their loans any cheaper, nor do they pay less for management than we do.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions,” £2,291,000,

I should like to ask the Minister for information with regard to sub-vote L—

I expected to find more details on the next page, but there one finds exactly the same thing, only that “infirm” is replaced by invalid. Of course, invalid is the correct word. Now I want to ask whether allowances will be given to all persons aged or invalid. I expected to find the word "necessitous” or “in necessitous circumstances” there. That would mean that allowances would only be given to Oudstryders who are not able to look after themselves or have no children to do so. As things stand, the allowance may be granted to rich people, to Oudstryders who have a large income from a farm or other source. They could surely come under the definition “aged and infirm.” Now I should like to know from the Minister what conditions there will be for the grant of an allowance to Oudstryders. Is an age to be fixed? What services must such person have rendered as Oudstryder, or is it sufficient that he was a member of a commando under the old Republic? In what circumstances has he to be, has he to be necessitous and poor? And what if he is supported by his children? It has always been the custom in South Africa for children who can do so to look after their parents just as parents look after their children. It has, in fact, often happened in the Pensions Committee that people have appeared who are old and too weak to earn their own living, but who had children who could look after them, and were in such circumstances that they could look after their parents in their declining years. I understand the Minister made a statement a few days ago about the Oudstryders’ Bond, but I cannot remember whether the bond is only to make recommendations or to pay out the pensions. I should also like to know whether such payments have already been made, and by what department’ In short, I should like to have some information from the Minister in connection with this vote.

I should like to ask the Minister about sub-vote C—

for which we are asked to vote £338,000. Is this a special item, or the ordinary course of business that such people leave the service every year with a view to retrenchment ? I see that the amount for the previous year was nearly the same. It is a large amount, and I should like to know how it is arrived at, because this is not the usual retirement on pension by officials. Then there is the item D, war allowances. This is not for allowances as a result of the great war about which I want to ask a question, because the amount has been reduced by £13,000 in comparison with last year. One would expect the amount to be reduced every year. In the case of the war allowances for the South African war before 1914, there is, however, a tremendous increase, viz., of £105,000. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that includes the applications for pensions to the Pensions Committee which is now sitting, and whether the recommendations of that committee are included ? Or are we still to wait for the recommendations of the committee, so that this amount will be still higher?

I should like to have, in connection with sub-vote (L) some indication of the line of action the Minister is going to pursue in the awarding of this £30,000. Is he going to appoint a small body to enquire into each case? And is he going to take note of what the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) said? Suppose a man is to-day in receipt of quite a fair income which makes any State support necessary, is that man going to get it or not ?

With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I should like to give the informatin asked for. I think I have done so before. I said it was the intention of the Government to make the amount available in anticipation of the establishment of general old age pensions, to give small allowances to the Oudstryders in the most necessitous state. This is not applicable to all old people, and hon. members will see that there is only a small amount available, and it will not go very far. The age has been fixed very high, 70 years for Oudstryders and 65 for their widows. We must insist that the Oudstryders shall be in absolutely necessitous circumstances, without children who are successful and healthy and able to help them. If we are not careful we shall not be able to help other needy cases. The amount is £2 10s. per month for each of these persons. The procedure to be followed is that the Treasury will pay the allowances and decide who is to get them, but we are using the machinery and organization known as the Oudstryders’ Bond—which can be compared with the B.E.S.L. which looks after the interests of people who were in the Great War—for this purpose. Applications are sent to the bond, and that body sends them on to the Treasury. The Treasury also receives direct application, and when they come in we ask the Oudstryders Bond to enquire through the magistrate or the police or other prominent persons whether the applicant is really in need and has reached the age of 70 years. If so the allowance is given. Certain amounts have already been paid out, and we are paying out as fast as applications come in and we can make the necessary enquiry. Then the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) asked for information with regard to item C. As the hon. member knows, from time to time during recent years and even to-day, it became necessary to retire certain officials who had not reached the ordinary age, and in order to give Parliament full information there is a special vote in all these cases. As the hon. member sees, the amount has been considerably reduced this year, the reason being because the estimate last year was too high. The reduction is £24,000 and that is what was spent last year less than the Estimate. Then he referred to the increase in the amount that we are paying this year for war allowances. The amount which we have to pay to persons in connection with the second war of independence has increased, but the amount for people concerned in the world war has diminished. The reason is that unfortunately a large number of persons who took part in the second war of independence often did not know about their rights and did not make application within two years, as required by law. Parliament then decided that if they sent in petitions to this House, they would be referred to the Pensions Committee, who in turn could make recommendations to the Treasury. Now a large number of applications have come in, and we are investigating them. The House is being asked to decide the matter and to approve of the grant of the pensions. The applications go to the Select Committee, as a formality, and to avoid this we have done away with the acceptance of the petitions by the House. The Committe is now investigating arrear cases.

Is the Minister doing the correct thing in placing the vote of £50,000 for hospital and medical treatment of ex-soldiers and £14,000 for artificial limbs on his Estimates? Should they not be charged against the Defence Vote seeing that they are a legacy of the great war ? I am not begrudging the expenditure of this money, but I think it should be charged to the Defence Department.

This expenditure is very analagous to that on pensions—both result from our participation in the great war. I do not think it would be right to debit these amounts to the Defence Vote.

It is no use passing pension laws if the method of allocating pensions is left to the cold interpretation of officialdom. It is necessary under the regulations for any man incapacitated during the war to prove that such incapacitation was directly due to war service. I know a man who served in East Africa where he was wounded. He became a confirmed invalid and is unable to earn any thing. He has a wife and three small children, and he was told that he had no claim for a pension as the Medical Board would not certify that his injuries were due to military service. The Pension Boards should give a more elastic interpretation of the powers vested in them. This poor fellow is unable to work and is steering for the gutter; his services are an eloquent claim for more liberal consideration. The proposed provision of £30,000 for the old republican soldiers is inadequate. No section of public opinion would cavil if the Government increase the amount fourfold.

The hon. member is pleading for additional funds. He cannot do that at this stage.

The case referred to by the hon. member who has just spoken is not an isolated one by any means. What action has been taken to make it generally known that the two years period in which claims had to be made has been extended ?

Apparently we have reached the chief criminal in regard to pensions and medical treatment of ex-soldiers. The Minister should go into the whole matter very seriously and meet the deplorable cases that we hear of. Why is not a better system instituted than carting invalids up to Robert’s Heights to be treated there ? I understand that economy is at the bottom of it. Some of these men have a dread of going to Robert’s Heights hospital which is certainly in a deplorable condition. I do not know what would happen if somebody dropped a lighted cigarette on the tinderlike floors. I am afraid there would be a holocaust, and seriously doubt if patients could be got out in time. It is deplorable to think that a man who has served his country in a time of stress, and to whom we promised all sorts of things before he went, when he is seriously ill, is taken away from his family to Robert’s Heights, possibly to die there, all to save a few pence in regard to cost. I trust that the Minister will institute some system by which a man can be attended to in the hospital nearest to him. Such a thing as economy in £ s. d. should not enter into this question of our obligations to the men who have served us in war.

I should like to ask the Minister’s attention to a question of the administration of the Pension Act in relation to a South African who went overseas with the South African Expeditionary Force, and who was subsequently transferred to a force which went to Mesopotamia. I refer to the case of Major Thorburn, M.C., who went originally to France as a private of one of our South African infantry regiments and who ended up as major of the Dunsterville force. He contracted typhus in Mesopotamia and returned to South Africa in 1924 a physical wreck, considerably after the period of the demobilization of the forces. His case was dealt with by the Military Pensions Board. This officer was obliged to go before various military doctors and be examined. I under-stood, on enquiring into the matter from Col. St. Leger and Dr. Sanders, that his disability had been established to the satisfaction of the Military Pensions Board, but now we have this curious anomaly, that a South African who went from South Africa with the South African expeditionary force is ruled not to be a South African for pension purposes. It seems to me to be one of the most cruel cases that has occurred. Major Thorburn is now told that his claim must go to the Imperial Government. He was not one of the noncontingent soldiers who went from this country on their own, but he went with our expeditionary force. He was obliged, owing to the delay which took place in consequence of his being employed in Mesopotamia, to pay his expenses back to South Africa. On top of that, his claim for a disability pension is rejected on the ground that he is no longer considered a South African, although he was inspired by the same patriotism which took other South Africans across the seas. I have the greatest confidence in the Minister’s fairness, and I hope that he will make this case the subject of investigation, because, if the law does not provide for such a case, I trust the Minister will endeavour, to the best of his ability, to see that the injustice to which I have drawn attention does not continue any longer.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to subhead K, artificial limbs and appliances factory. One would expect that as time went on the money required for that purpose would decrease, but I see that there has been an increase in this vote from £11,425 to £12,951. I do not object to the expenditure if it is necessary, but I think we should have an explanation as to why there should be an increase.

I am very pleased that the Minister explained why sub-votes J and K should come under his department, but if the expenditure on hospital and medical treatment of ex-soldiers, and on artificial limbs and appliances, arising as a result of the Great War, should come out of his vote and not from the Defence Vote, how is it that, when the British Government gave stores to South Africa, the money derived from the sale of those stores went to the credit of the Defence Vote? If the Treasury takes on liabilities for hospital and medical treatment of ex-soldiers from the great war, then I think it also should have the money which accrued from the sale of the stores. I believe the cost of defence in this country amounts to 14.9 per cent. of our total revenue, and, if you include these other items, the cost would be proportionately increased. My only desire is that we may be able to arrive at a correct conclusion as to what is spent on defence, and what is not.

I want to say a few words to supplement the remarks made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) with regard to the case of Maj. Thorburn. I have a personal interest in this, as this officer was serving under me in North-West Persia at the time he contracted this illness. I have no doubt it is technically correct that charges in connection with his disability should not fall under the South African Government. The expedition in which he took part came under the Indian Government. I would suggest to the Minister that he should instruct his officials to prepare a case for the consideration of the Indian Government. I have no doubt all sorts of objections, probably the lapse of time, and the usual red tape proceedings will be brought into play, but it certainly is not a matter that ought to be let drop, and I am quite sure that if representations are made to the Indian Government they ought, and will, no doubt, receive full consideration. It is certainly a case for which compensation is necessary. This officer has suffered a very severe disability and it is not right that no notice should be taken of the state of health he is in in consequence of his service.

I also wish to say a few words about the hospital at Roberts Heights. I think the position there is a scandal, and that a change should be effected. I have been told that people are afraid to go there because conditions are so bad. Wounded soldiers will not be able to receive proper treatment there, because the building allows the wind to blow through it, and that is a miserable state of affairs. Therefore, I also want to direct the Minister’s attention to it, so that the hospital can be improved, and an alteration brought about in the condition of the poor people who are taken there from all parts of the country. Many die there, and some become so sick on the way that they also die. As the money is now being voted, we must see that the Roberts Heights hospital is so improved that the people who go there enpoy proper treatment.

I am surprised to (see the misapprehension which exists in regard to this matter of hospitals. It seems to be quite a burning question, but may I inform hon. members that long ago I gave instructions, and they have been carried out, that any pensioner who has to receive hospital treatment need not go to Roberts Heights hospital. The department pays for the medical treatment in any well-conducted hospital that can accept such a pensioner.

Nobody knows about it.

I can only say that nobody is forced ; that is the position. The hospital itself my department has nothing to do with. It falls under defence, but as far as pensioners are concerned, for which my department has to pay, we do not force them to go to Roberts Heights, and we accept liability for their treatment in any other hospital. In regard to surgical operations, for instance, they can select their own medical practitioner to perform the operation. As far as the grievances are concerned, hon. members know what the position was as disclosed by the report we had some time ago. They know the steps taken to deal with them. We have at present a commission which goes about the country, and is prepared to investigate all legitimate grievances. I think that is a commission the personnel of which enjoys the confidence of the whole country. I can assure hon. members that they deal with every case in the most sympathetic manner. In every case where the department does not see its way clear to accept the recommendations of the commission, the practice is that all those papers come to me personally, and I give a great deal of time and attention to investigating them. All ex-soldiers and Oudstryders receive the most sympathetic treatment. It is difficult for me to deal with the case mentioned by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen). He knows the procedure laid down by the law. There is an Appeal Board. They go into the question ; they hear the evidence, and then they decide as to whether the disability is due to military service or not. After the Appeal Board has decided, and if there is still a grievance, I am still prepared for all the papers to go to that commission and for them to make a recommendation to me. I can assure the House we try and treat these people as sympathetically as possible ; but I can also assure the House that there are a number of what one might call professional grumblers. There are not many of them, but you cannot satisfy these cases, simply because they have not a claim. I cannot pay out for any claim which is not justified. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has raised a question about the increase in the amount provided for the artificial limb factory. I must admit I always held the same view as he does, but I am informed that, unfortunately, it seems that this is going to be a permanent institution. They tell me that from time to time, even now, the limbs worn by these ex-soldiers get worn out and have to be replaced. The increase is largely due to the fact that the Government decided to replace the wooden limbs with modern limbs. We decided it was due to ex-soldiers that they should receive the best possible article on the market. Therefore, there is a slight increase in that connection. I am informed that this factory will probably have to be carried on for a very long time.

The recipients will die off in time.

Until that event happens, we will have to make provision. I am informed there is no prospect of a decrease in this vote in the near future. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) have referred me to the case of Major Thorburn. I have not the particulars now, but I will go into that, and see what can be done. If his claim was rejected it was probably due to the fact that the law did not entitle us to deal with the matter; but, wherever we can do so, we are prepared to give any pensioner any possible assistance. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has again returned to this question of my department being responsible for the treatment of exsoldiers, instead of the Defence Department.

We are responsible for the same reason that we are responsible for the pensions. With regard to the other question, the people who gave us these stores fixed that condition. The proceeds of all such sales could only be applied to defence purposes. It was the condition attached to the grant by the grantor. I am glad that the discussion has shown that there does not exist very great dissatisfaction with regard to the administration of this difficult question of pensions, and I can assure hon. members that it is largely due to the work which is being done by this Grievances Commission. There are hundreds and thousands of these grievances, and they are being dealt with. The department is sympathetic, and we are trying to remove all legitimate grievances, and that is about as much as we can do.

Some of these military pensioners are suffering from permanent disability, and in addition to a pension they are entitled to medical attendance, and to drugs. They are instructed that they are to get these drugs from the district surgeon. In a particular case, which has been brought to my notice, such a man went to the district surgeon, who said he is allowed £10 for drugs, which did not cover his expenditure. I would like to ask the Minister to give that matter attention, and see that proper representations are made through his office to these district surgeons, if the allowance of £10 is not sufficient to cover the cost of drugs and medicines to which these men are entitled, I think it is the duty of the department to make the necessary provision.

I am surprised to hear that. When a man is entitled to any medicine he is entitled to get it, and if my hon. friend will bring the instance to my attention, I will go into it.

I want to express satisfaction that the Minister was able to put £30,000 on the Estimates this year for the Oudstryders. It is difficult to ascertain the figures to know how many Oudstryders there are and how many will have to be assisted. The fact that provision is here made for one thousand who will each get £2 10s. per month will, I think, be regarded as a matter of importance, and as a benefit which the House is conferring. We understand why the Minister is not asking for a larger vote and does not increase the amount. There is a matter which affects other people that I also want to mention, and that is the way in which pensions are granted to people who are not by law entitled to them. That is the class about which the House votes for their cases to be referred to the Pensions Committee. Indirectly this comes under the administration of the Minister, and I shall be glad if he will suggest how we can go to work better in this respect. A large number of people send up petitions to the House, and the cases are often urgent, but petitions stream in in such numbers that it is impossible for the Pensions Committee to deal with all, so that there remain petitions of last year that have still to be dealt with. I should like the Minister to suggest some means by which urgent cases can be met, something not yet provided for.

I should like to express my thanks for the readiness of the Government in coming to the aid of the Oudstryders. I want to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that a large number of those who took part in the war on the side of the Republic and then migrated to Griqualand West, are still living there. I hope that in their case too, provision will be made. There are large numbers entitled to pensions and there were some who made claims and filled in the necessary forms. I admit that in many cases pensions will not be granted, and I think that their cases should be considered with regard to the granting of pensions.

I would like to make quite sure that the Government pays all expenses of the nearest hospital or do patients pay the difference between Roberts Heights hospital charges and those of the local institution. There should be no extra charge to these unfortunates who need medical assistance. Will the Minister tell us, when they have their own surgeon or medical attendant, do they pay themselves, and for a specialist ? What is the—

M2 on the Vote?

The amount is given on the pound for pound basis to the Red Cross Society of the Cape and the Transvaal in connection with training these people for civil occupations. A pensioner may be entitled to certain medical benefits, which are of course different in different cases. What we have done is, it is not necessary for the patient to go to Roberts Heights and be treated by the Defence Force doctors, or the doctors mere. He may select his own doctor, and the Government is liable, according to the regulations, whatever these benefits may be.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations,” £5,483,182,

I want to refer to item A, Administrator of the Transvaal, £2,500. I have previously drawn attention to the fact that this Administrator has not the confidence of the people of the Transvaal.

Question.

I am prepared to quote evidence in proof of my statement. I have the highest personal regard for him. He is one of the most brilliant South Africans we have. He is brilliant in an educational sense, and we are all very proud of him in regard to that acquirement, but he is not the success, as an Administrator, which he was as the head of a University ; and we are entitled to ask that this amount of salary provided for him be wiped off, and that he be asked to recognize what that action really means. I admit it will be said that he has a contract and if we do not provide this £2,500 he may have an action at law against the Government. I am not sufficiently versed in the law, however, to know whether such is the case. So far as Provincial Administrators are concerned, we were assured that the will of the people should prevail and in regard to this particular administratorship undoubtedly the will of the people has not prevailed.

Question.

He has been requested by his provincial council to resign and has declined.

Not the whole of the council.

The clear majority of the council, in open vote, passed a resolution asking the administrator to resign, and he, recognizing the value of his appointment, to everyone’s astonishment, declined to do so. Since then we have seen that legislation brought forward by the Administrator in the Transvaal has not been passed again, showing that he does not enjoy the confidence of the council. But my chief complaint is in regard to what the Minister of Finance has admitted ; that he agreed to an arrangement last year by which the Transvaal lost £180,000 and had to make that up by local taxation of the people. I know that those who are in favour—as the Chamber of Mines are—of doing away with provincial councils are delighted at anything which will lower the regard in which those councils are held ; and the Administrator may be in sympathy with them. But at any rate the Provincial Council of the Transvaal has certainly been made additionally unpopular owing to that £180,000 deduction from the subsidy which the Minister frankly tells the House he absorbed into his own Union revenue. No doubt this may be due to the Administrator not perhaps being familiar enough with financial matters to make the fight he ought to have made with the astute Minister of Finance. In fact the Minister admitted that he did not give them the fair amount due on the education basis, but they accepted that sum.

I never said that.

Well, I understood the Minister to say he came to this arrangement because it was accepted by those who came here to adjust financial relations.

No.

Well, I will show how stupid the Administrator was in accepting the trap that was not laid for him. In the “Pretoria News” of 25th October last it is stated that Mr. Hofmeyr declared in the council that the statement that his executive committee had acquiesced in the removal of the employers’ tax was totally incorrect ; so the Administrator himself is trying to throw the responsibility on somebody else, and the Minister of Finance is willing to throw it back on the Administrator! I brought up this question last session, but got no support from Transvaal members; but I think they have now tumbled to its importance. Indeed one hon. member reprimanded me for being parochial and one feels the sting of being so called, but I am willing to be stigmatized as parochial on a matter of £186,000 taken unfairly from my province, just recently it was affirmed by a deputation that came down from Johannesburg that the Transvaal provided 70 per cent. of the revenue of this country.

Nonsense.

We know that it was at least 53 per cent. some time ago, hut now the Revenue Department do not make up the statement in such a way that we can tell what it really is, but we certainly know the largest portion of the revenue, including railway, comes from the Transvaal. I want to refer to the subsidies, the allocation of which is supposed to be on a perfectly equal footing for all provinces. It is based on education only; apparently so that if education is taken over by the Union Government the finances are already arranged for.

The hon. member is now criticizing an Act of Parliament. He is not allowed to continue in that direction.

Surely I am entitled to refer to the subsidies under that Act, as to how they are made up, and can make a comparison with last year to show that this subsidy is based on the attendances of scholars and in no other way, and the differences respective provinces have to provide from local taxation.

I must point out that these subsidies have been provided in terms of the law, and the hon. member is not allowed to advocate an alteration.

Very well, I am going to point out how the law has worked out, and first of all I want to show that while £180,000 has been handed back to the mining department, it has not come into provincial or Union revenue. In addition, £112,000 is to come out of the Union revenue for the increase proposed this year in the estimates for the Transvaal subsidy. Taking the two items, the hon. the Minister of Finance is now out of pocket some £300,000, and I cannot, therefore, congratulate him upon his transaction under his financial subsidy arrangement for the Transvaal province.

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss provincial subsidies now.

But I am entitled to show the relative amount of the subsidies—and that they are not being worked out according to law.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now—it is an Act of Parliament.

I am entitled to point out what the provincial councils will have to provide for education alone by local taxation in consequence of an insufficient subsidy to all but one of the provinces. [Time limit.]

The Minister, in his budget speech, referred to certain financial assistance he proposed to give to the provinces for hospital accommodation. Can he give the House some information on the subject now?

The special grants to the provinces are unfair in that they affect the subsidies and local taxation.

I cannot allow it. These grants have been laid down by Act of Parliament. The hon. member is suggesting that there should be some alteration in that. We cannot discuss that now.

I do not see anything in the Act of Parliament referring to these grants.

The basis upon which these grants have been made has been laid down by Act of Parliament.

I move—

The hon. member cannot, by moving these reductions, circumvent my ruling.

I stated in my budget speech that I was prepared in the loan estimates to make provision for proper hospital accommodation at Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town; Natal has also approached me. Provision will be made in the loan estimates of the provinces to enable them to provide the necessary accommodation.

I want to ask whether it is not possible to give a sum for medical inspection of schools.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that. He can only refer to administration, and not to a matter which does not appear in the Vote.

I respectfully submit that the question of grants alters the whole question as to the amounts that have to be provided for subsidies to the provinces. We have just to accept the subsidies as they are with their injustice to the Transvaal, and I am not permitted even to point out the injustice of the incidence to local taxpayers. I move—

I will subsequently move that the special grants be deleted, and the Act be simply carried out in regard to these subsidies for education on a common basis.

I think we may safely leave this matter in the hands of the Minister, because it is well known to everybody, who has had the honour and privilege of knowing the Administrator of the Transvaal, that he is not alone, as the hon. member (Mr. Hay) has said, a highly-educated gentleman, but he is a gentleman in every sense of the word, and a very capable man at the work which he has been entrusted with. The hon. member (Mr. Hay) must be aware that, by law, it is provided that there shall be an Administrator in each province. If this item is deleted, there will be no money wherewith to pay the Administrator of the Transvaal. The hon. member (Mr. Hay) made a speech recently at Port Elizabeth in which he made use of language to the following effect—

I am afraid that has nothing to do with the vote.

I am very sorry; I thought it had. I accept your ruling. It is strange to me that the hon. member has just singled out this one gentleman, because there are other Administrators, and he has not said a word about those officers. I hope that the committee will not be guided by the persistent eloquence of the hon. member.

I hope that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) will withdraw the amendment which he has moved, because to delete the item of £2,500, as far as the Administrator of the Transvaal is concerned, is not really dealing with the matter in a perfectly just manner, if the hon. member will pardon me for saying so. After all, the position that the hon. member has complained about has been brought about largely through no fault on the part of the Administrator, but through the action of the Government itself, and particularly the action of the Minister. The Administrator, in a speech that he recently made, repudiated the suggestion that he was responsible for the arrangement by which the Transvaal revenue is losing this £180,000, and he put the blame on the Minister. One of the points made last year was that the Government should not have retained in office, as Administrator of the Transvaal, a gentleman who was in sympathy with the policy of the South African party, but there is this to be said that the Administrator is pursuing a policy to-day which a large number of supporters of the South African party, including a doughty baronet, are doing and that is approximating to the policy of the principal section of the Pact Government. It has been suggested—I do not know what value to attach to it—that it is proposed that when the term of office of the present Natal Administrator comes to an end the Administrator of the Transvaal should be removed to administer the affairs of Natal, so that an opportunity will be given to appoint a member of the Pact to the administratorship of the Transvaal, and create a vacancy for Sir Abe Bailey.

I believe, after what has been said, that I would be wise in withdrawing this amendment, merely pointing out the injustice to the Transvaal as I have done. I withdraw the amendment to delete the amount for Administrators pay, and while I withdraw that I want to move the reduction of C, “Special Grant to Natal, £75,000." Last year it was reduced from £100,000 to £75,000. We anticipated that it was going to be reduced this, year to £50,000, and that it would slowly disappear. It must disappear in process of time, as it is not a fair thing. That brings me to the special grant of £75,000 in the case of the Orange Free State, in which I also move reduction. I think the time has come when it should be stopped. These two special grants being removed, the whole of the country could be treated on a fair basis as far as education is concerned. I, therefore, move—

I think the hon. member would be well advised to study the manner in which the subsidy to each province is allocated.

The hon. member is not permitted to debate the allocation.

May I criticize the administration of the amount allocated to the various provinces? In that regard. I want to ask the Minister, now that he is making the subsidy from Government funds to each province on a per capita basis, if he could not devise some means whereby a closer supervision could be exercised in the matter of education. We are all intensely interested in what our children imbibe in learning, or education. We want to know whether they are being really educated, or whether they are having their minds warped and poisoned. To me, the most sinister feature of present-day education is the persistence in educating along strictly narrow and biassed national lines. The readers and manuals present only a one-sided picture of history which portrays in the worst light every person or nation who has, by national circumstance, been opposed to us in war or diplomacy. This is aggravated to a great degree by the personal bias which, in many cases, actuates the teacher in supplementing and explaining the written word to the pupils. I do say that education so carried on in South African schools is not the kind of learning which is intrinsically and in essence education. It is poisoning the child’s mind, because he will grow up a rampant antiinternationalist. I feel that this has a great deal to do with our national future. So long as we teach our children history and geography on purely educative lines, on lines not poisoned by national or anti-national prejudice, then, of course, their education is useful. But when these two subjects are used to inculcate into the minds of children ideas which it will take them all their lives to live down, then we are handing on to future generations something which will not be to the benefit of this country or conducive to world peace. There is no doubt every great war in history has been the result of persistent and deliberate propaganda among the rank and file of the nations involved. More especially does this apply to the aggressors; but it can also provoke aggression. Take the last great war. You will find that propaganda was intensively inculcated into the children of France in the class-room ever since the Franco-Prussian war. You find the result in the war of 1914-'18. We want to educate our children in this country, so that they will recognise that there are clever people and brave and heroic people in countries other than our own, so that they would recognize that we have not a monopoly of the virtues of mankind. So to deceive youthful minds, that it will take them all their lives to find out the truth, is something which should be called criminal. I do think, in the interests of the future of this country, in the interests of our children, that a closer vigilance should be exercised over the curriculum, more especially in regard to these two subjects of history and geography.

The hon. member has no doubt raised a very important question as to whether our education is on the right lines, but I do not think we can be expected to start a discussion on education. I can only say that education is a provincial matter now. If you cannot trust those authorities to deal with the matter, Parliament should make other arrangements, but while it is so, I do not think it is right for ns to concern ourselves too much with this question. So I can only say we do not intend to lay down any special provision in regard to this grant, so as to force the provincial authorities to embark in certain directions as far as education is concerned.

Amendments put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services,” £161,692,

I see a new item—the payment of compensation arising out of the Witwatersrand disturbances of 1922. It seems peculiar that, four years after, we should have an item of this sort, Perhaps the Minister will explain what it is and why it is. Then there is the item the Cape Town-Durban Mail Boat Service, £27,000. That would look as if the contract is to be continued. It is a matter in which a great many of us are interested, and desire to know what is going on. Perhaps the Minister can tell us.

There is another new item—Exchange of Remittances, £10,000. Perhaps the Minister can give us some information in regard to this.

Under B, does the Minister propose to do any minting of coins, medals or decorations for countries outside the Union? It has been brought before the committee once or twice, and it might be advisable to consider whether we could not do some minting for some of our neighbours. There is also the question of the Rents Act. What is the intention of the Government and the Treasury in this direction? Do they propose to continue it? I should also like to support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) with regard to the amount paid for the mail boat going from Cape Town to Durban. During the last two or three years, I have brought up the matter. I presume it is being continued, and the House would welcome information as to what is the position of the mail contract at the present time.

There is this administration of the Rents Act, £5,000. It was made a permanent Act. Surely, with a lot of building going on, the pressure for new houses must be eased tremendously, and I think the time has arrived when the Government should contemplate the advisability of repealing this Act and not interfere at all as regards rents.

I see a new item here—H—

We would be pleased if the Minister would be good enough to give us some explanation of this—we are not all financial pundits. I should like to support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), and ask for the fullest particulars with regard to the £5,000, payment of compensation arising out of the Witwatersrand disturbances, 1922.

With regard to this item of £5,000, which is compensation in connection with the Benoni Trades Hall—is not that what the building is called? The mineworkers’ hall at Benoni, the Government have decided to pay this compensation on the same principle on which compensation was paid for similar losses. The previous Government appointed a commission to inquire into losses sustained as a result of the action taken by Government troops. Certain special terms of reference were framed by the Government at the time ; there is no doubt that this compensation falls within these terms, and I do not know why the previous Government did not take action, because they did not think that action should be taken against the persons responsible. The evidence is very strong that the building was intact when taken over by the Government forces, and subsequently the building was destroyed. An hon. member suggested the other night that it might be regarded as—

as this building was the headquarters of the revolutionaries. I do not know whether it belonged to the revolutionaries. I think there were innocent people who were interested in this building, and, when it was a centre of operation of the revolutionary forces, that did not entitle the Government forces to maliciously destroy it afterwards. Owing to the fact that it falls within the class of loss for which compensation wa3 paid, the Government thought it had no option but also to accept liability for this loss. With regard to the Cape Town-Durban mail-boat service, all I can say is that we are continuing to make provision for this service, because the whole question is bound up with the mail contract; and, as to the mail contract, I hope that hon. members will raise it at a later stage, as it falls within the department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Two hon. members have raised the matter of £10,000 in connection with the exchange of remittances. If hon. members will turn to the Departmental Treasury vote of previous years they will find there was nominal provision made. The exchange has gone the other way now, and we have made provision for a ½ per cent. on £2,000,000. That is why provision is made for it. An hon. member has asked my policy with regard to the minting of purely South African coin. I think it would be a very desirable thing if people who bring gold to the mint should be able to get purely South African coins minted if they so wished, but to do that an amendment of our Coinage Act would be required, and it is because I have not been able to introduce legislation like that that this is not done. We could still mint English sovereigns for those who want them, but I think it would be a good thing, in due course, to alter the Act to provide for the minting of purely South African coin for internal circulation. In regard to the Rents Act, the Act was made permanent last year or so and, at present, the Government has no intention of dealing with the matter with a view to its repeal. It will have to continue on the statute book until such time as the country has made up its mind that the necessity for it no longer exists.

I wish to ask for information about the sum of £8,000 for war graves. Last year it was £8,500, It is a large amount. Can the Minister mention the number of graves—they are all in Europe? Then I should like to have information about the amount of £1,000 for graves in South Africa

As for the sum of £8,000, it is provided as our share in the amount payable in connection with the joint funds established by Great Britain and the other dominions to look after the graves of those who fell in the world war. It was agreed that we should pay a certain share. An Act has now been passed by the British Government by which a fund is being established, and, instead of annually voting an amount, we are going to make one payment, and then a fund will be established out of which the graves will be maintained in the future. There are about 4,985 graves of South Africans overseas, and the total number is 555,379. Our share is .89 of the total, but next year the amount will not appear again, because we shall now pay a globular amount, and no further contributions will be made. As regards the graves of burghers who fell in South Africa in the second war of independence, the hon. member will see that we are continuing to vote an amount for this, and as the applications come in they are dealt with by the Treasury and the necessary amounts paid. Hitherto, the amount that has been voted was sufficient. Usually the applications are received through the Women’s Federation at Pretoria, who send them in, and we grant the amount. Provision will be made for an amount until it is no longer necessary.

With regard to item K, I do not think the impression should be allowed to get abroad that this £5,000 compensates the Mine Workers’ Union for the loss of the hall. It is a very welcome amount, but that hall cost something like £17,000, and to raise that money very many mine workers, who are the owners of their own dwelling-houses, mortgaged them to get cash to put into this building, and, as a consequence of the destruction of the building, were very substantial losers. That is not a matter which affects the Government, but I just want it to be known that the Government has not compensated these people for anything near the full value of their losses. The hall is now rebuilt and reconditioned by voluntary labour, given gratis, and is available for the air force when it again needs a target to perfect its marksmanship.

In regard to this item H, “Exchange of Remittances, £10,000,” do I understand that that will be paid to the banks ?

Yes.

Well, the position is, we have £100,000 continually to the credit of the Government at the Standard Bank, and £100,000 in the National Bank, kept to credit; so that we are lending these two banks alone £200,000 without interest, and yet we have to pay exchange for remittances. I think the hon. gentleman ought to reconsider the position. Is he going to the Reserve Bank to get these remittances arranged ? If so, I beg to remind him that this bank is entrusted with the monopoly of note issue, which should be a State function entirely. Now, to an institution of shareholders, the issue of Government notes is handed over to add to their profits. It is indeed time that the Minister studied the advantages and economy of a State bank to carry on our business, both here and in London. There would then be little necessity for any charge on exchange and remittances to various points.

The position in regard to this exchange on remittances is that at one time during the year, when the position was rather difficult, we actually issued an advertisement calling for tenders. We were prepared to accept a satisfactory tender, not only from a bank, but from any individual who was prepared to send money across for us. We pay not a penny more than we are forced to pay. The most of our exchange work is done by the Reserve Bank, but if any other institution or individual would at any time come and tender to us to remit our money for less than the Reserve Bank, or any other bank is prepared to quote, we would: accept that tender. The hon. member says, why should not the banks do it for nothing, seeing they have certain privileges and they have a certain amount of Government money on deposit? That is in terms of a contract under which the banks perform certain very valuable services for the Government. They do all the cashing of our cheques, the remitting of our revenue all over the country—

Very good of them.

No, it is something that is to our mutual advantage. The Currency Commissioners, when they were making up their report, said the Government had to look forward to the time when the Reserve Bank should hold the deposits of the Government—should be the bankers of the Government. I would like to carry out that recommendation, if the Reserve Bank had branches all over the country and was able to perform these services; or if it could make satisfactory arrangements with the commercial banks for the service which the other banks are performing, we would be very pleased to give the business to the Reserve Bank, but at present it cannot do it. Until such time as we can make more satisfactory arrangements, I am afraid this arrangement will have to stand.

In view of the very satisfactory position of the Reserve Bank is it not time it was asked to do something in regard to its notes, a tremendous number of which are in a filthy condition. When these dirty notes are returned to the Reserve Bank they should be destroyed and new ones issued.

With regard to the £5,000 paid to the institution at Benoni, if the Minister is satisfied that it was innocent I would have no objection to the money being paid. I suppose evidence has been taken on the subject and I hope the Minister will allow members to see it.

The Government has satisfied itself and if the hon. member is not satisfied with it he can propose a motion. It is not customary to place all departmental papers on the Table.

It would be foolish on my part now to move a vote of no confidence. The Minister is relying on his Pact majority. His answer is very unsatisfactory, and I am sure on reflection he will come to the same conclusion. The public will not be satisfied with his reply.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London,” £49,536,

This vote increases every year and this year it is £1,300 more than last. I should like to know whether the income tax payments mentioned in the Vote are on account of the English or the South African tax. The cost of maintenance has increased by £700 over last year, I observe.

Last year there was a good deal of criticism about the office of the High Commissioner in London, especially with reference to the clerks employed there. It appeared that some of the clerks knew less of South Africa than South Africa knew of them. I should like the Minister to tell me whether there has been any change, and if the office has been improved, and whether clerks have been employed who are better acquainted with South Africa and can perform their duties in the interests of our country. Then it seems to me that a good deal of retrenchment could be effected in that office. The amount seems very high and a large number of clerks to be employed. Are there not too many? Perhaps it is possible to retrench, and if so I would ask the Minister to give his attention to it.

Maintenance is necessary not only in connection with the office which is occupied by the High Commissioner and his staff, but the offices occupied by tenants ; in terms of the lease we have to keep the premises in repair. Previously the High Commissioner was exempted from paying income tax, but last year the High Commissioner and his staff fell under the tax. Formerly the income tax was adjusted through an allowance to the staff, but now the Act makes them liable. We also have to pay the income tax of clerks recruited in London.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I wish to reply to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) with reference to the staff in the High Commissioner’s office in London. Certain changes were of course made during the year. A few appointments were made, but the whole question of reorganization is under consideration. The Public Service Commission caused an inspection to be made, and the report is at present under consideration. There are difficulties in connection with reorganization, especially as the scales of salaries and allowances to officials in London have to be brought into conformity with those paid here, in order that it may so become possible to transfer officials to and fro. We are now going into the matter and trying to overcome the difficulties, and soon we hope to bring about re-organization in the direction mentioned by the hon. member. Then it will be possible to retrench on this vote. We are constantly engaged in seeing where we can save in one way or another, but of course we shall have to maintain the necessary staff in London. The Union does a large part of its buying in England, and has to have a staff in connection with that and other matters.

I do not think we can let this opportunity pass without congratulating the Minister and the Government on having succeeded in appointing as High Commissioner in London a man—and we have already had a year in which to see his work— who has represented South Africa in so worthy a manner. I do not know whether what is being done by the High Commissioner is sufficiently valued by us. We have e.g. the transaction of last year in connection with the taking over of the New Cape Central Railway, which was managed in a capable manner, to a large extent due to the High Commissioner. I think we have succeeded in getting a man who does not give to the outside world a onesided point of view, but is making it acquainted with things in South Africa, and with the hearts of its people. Still we are disappointed that there has not been much reduction in the vote. We heard last year that the High Commissioner was going there and would see what retrenchment could be made, but expenditure has increased. As the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) said, our people who insist on retrenchment must also be satisfied, and it seems to me that in some votes there could be a saving. I do not want to go into details but in nearly every item we see an increase instead of a reduction.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the member has said. I think he ought to get young South Africans into the office of the High Commissioner, as far as he can.

If we want to carry out that idea of interchange-ability of staffs, we shall have to incur additional expense. If officers are sent across from here, and are sent from London here, it will be more expensive, but I think the country generally desires a system of that kind. We shall have to see that we always have in the High Commissioner’s office a staff thoroughly acquainted with conditions here.

I would like to ask the Minister what is being done to further the work in connection with the Wembley Exhibition. In conversation, the officials of the exhibition said that much of the good work accomplished there would be lost unless it were followed up, especially in regard to mineral products.

This is also one of the matters, as I indicated to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) this afternoon, which falls under the vote of the Minister of Mines and Industries. If the hon. member will raise it at a later stage, he will probably get the information.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Inland Revenue,” £145,075,

I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance. The officials of the Inland Revenue Department collected revenue for the various provinces last year, amounting, in the case of the Cape, to £1,049,000; Natal, £309,000; Transvaal, £1,768,000; and the Orange Free State. £375,000. This undoubtedly entailed a good deal of trouble and expense to the Inland Revenue Department. I understand that we make no charge for collecting this revenue. It does appear to me that we should make some charge for this service. I see that the percentage of the expense of this collection amounted last year to 1.63 per cent. Why should we not make some charge to the various provinces for the collection of this revenue ? Not only would it be a fair thing to do, but it may keep the provinces in check to some extent.

The hon. member is quite right. The work that we are doing for the provinces in the collection of their revenue does cost a good deal to the Inland Revenue Department. As the hon. member is aware, we reserved the right in the legislation we passed at any time to enforce our rights to ask them to pay for it, but, of course, we are very anxious, in order to save unnecessary expense, that they should utilize the services of our department and the machinery that we have, and it is just possible that, if we asked them to contribute, they might say that they preferred to have their own machinery.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Customs and Excise,” £224,027,

I want to know what the Minister has done about a few points I spoke to him privately about. What is the position about glycerine ? De Beers are protected by a very heavy duty, and they have put up the price very considerably. What I want to impress on my hon. friend is this, that he should give to other manufacturers the same benefits as he has given to De Beers. That is, the tobacco people and wholesale chemists. Why should not they get the benefit of chat, instead of having to go to De Beers to buy pure glycerine from them ? I want to know what he is going to do about this preference to Canada on binder twine. On the strength of what happened, certain firms in the city ordered binder twine from England, and then 5 per cent. duty was put on. This is not quite fair. I think my hon. friend should now put this matter straight, and put the English binder twine on the same footing as the Canadian twine. On page 28 I find Customs Investigation Officers. Are these officers in America?

Yes. In regard to the question of glycerine, it is a matter of some importance whether these privileges should be given to other companies. I have referred it to the board, and I have had the result of their investigations this morning, but I have not had time to consider it. It appears to me that the local prices are very much below the imported prices. They say the price is 5 per cent. below the imported price on glycerine. I am still considering the matter, and the hon. member will have a chance later on of returning to this question. Of course, it will require an alteration in our legislation. The law says that importation shall be free for the explosives industry only. The hon. member may be right in saying that under the other section we may admit it free for other industries. On the binding twine question, I explained on a former, occasion that it was not the result of any intention on the part of the Government that this difficulty arose, and in the Customs Bill that position will be put right. The difficulty has purely arisen owing to the fact that we have not concluded the agreement with Canada. In regard to the investigation officer for which provision is made here, originally we sent across Mr. Moffatt to America. A good deal of work had to be done, and subsequently Mr. Macaulay was sent over. Mr. Moffatt was transferred to England, and at present only Mr. Macaulay is there, and he will shortly be superseded by another officer.

I would like to ask the precise meaning of something appearing on page 27. There are eight collectors specified in respect of one of whom a footnote appears. May I ask what his function is at Lourenco Marques.

He also does work for the Immigration Department and also for the Railway Department, but the principal salary appears on the vote for Customs.

If this official represents so many Union interests under the title of Union agent why could not that title be applied to the official at Angola in place of consul ? It seems a better phrase.

I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of the great delay which is taking place in issuing the monthly customs returns on the trade of the Union. The last one I have received is dated November, 1925, and it is April, 1926, before it is issued. Unless these returns are issued as soon as possible after every month their value is much depreciated. It is a strange thing that the first Commissioner of Customs under the Union (Mr. Mayston) always had these reports issued within a month. Why it is not being done more promptly now it is difficult to understand.

It is quite true, as the hon. member says, that these publications have not appeared for some time, owing to the fact that we had received a complaint that they were only being issued in one language. We are making arrangements to have them translated, and arrangements have been made to publish them monthly in both languages.

I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the item of 80 watchmen, £16,846. The condition of some of these watchmen is deplorable. They work very long hours, and their pay, starting at £120, is a very moderate amount for any man with a wife and children to live decently on. The position of these men is very responsible indeed. It is never good business to underpay men in positions of responsibility. I am not hinting that these men are in any respect dishonest; on the contrary I believe they are exemplary, and it is absolutely wicked to put men on these long hours of duty and to keep them on such low rates of pay. The day they become permanent officials the temporary allowance is deducted. The consequence is that these men are almost always in debt. There are a number of temporary men at the docks and at Simonstown—16 men altogether—and I had the assurance of the Minister that they would receive sympathetic consideration. We know too well what that term usually means. Applications are handed over to heads of departments, who take very good care of themselves. I ask the minister whether he thinks it is fair that a number of men should be kept on for a long time at £10 per month in a responsible position of this nature. The customs is a large revenue carrying department and it would be easy to have evasions of duty if watchmen were not alert. It is up to us to see that they get a fair deal, as the temptations must be great for these men at the docks to “wink the other eye.” It is far more important that men at the bottom of the ladder should receive consideration and be paid a living wage than to men at the top, who can by practising economy escape getting into debt. It is otherwise with those in the lower ranks of service. These watchmen, I am informed, work long hours a day or night, and work 365 days in the year, and this is not conducive to the highest efficiency.

I am very sorry—I shall try to improve. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) raised the point, and I replied to it. The reason why these returns were not published as regularly as formerly is that representations were made to the department that these were published in one language, and we have to comply with the law. Adequate arrangements have been made now to publish them in both languages. With regard to the pay of the watchmen, the hon. member saw me some time ago and handed me a letter from one of the gentlemen who was transferred, hut I understood he did not raise the general question of the adequacy or not of the salary, but the matter of the eight-hour day. I did go into that. I may just say, generally, that here we have one of those cases where men may not be receiving very high salaries, but they are paid in accordance with the nature of the work they are performing; and these watchmen are practically the only officers who were not subjected to the general reduction which took place. There are many officers in the service receiving very much smaller salaries than these watchmen. I do not think there is any substantial ground for the Government raising the scales of pay generally. The hon. member has referred to £10 per month, but that is the commencing salary, and in some cases the salary goes up to £240 per annum, plus allowances.

I am rather surprised at the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) when he says that the head officials are not concerned in the pay these men get. I claim to have a more intimate knowledge of what is going on in Cape Town (Harbour) than the hon. member, and I know of no part of the service anywhere where the head officials are so keenly interested in the men under them as in the Customs Department.

Heads of departments generally.

This is a particular case, and in this case the hon. member is absolutely wrong. I think the Minister knows that, and all previous Ministers know that in every case the heads put forward the case of these men. These men get 6s. 6d. a day, but private firms pay their watchmen 12s. 6d. —these watchmen who watch goods get half the pay private watchmen get who watch buildings and boats. Is it the position that Act 45 of 1925 (the Merchants Shipping Act) is administered by the Commissioner of Customs, and if that is, why is an official like the commissioner, who knows nothing about shipping, in charge of the Act, when there are officials in the employ of the railway service— the shipping master, for example—who have an intimate knowledge of this ? Have any examinations been held, and if so, what is their nature ? I think we are entitled to know whether these examinations are conducted in the same way as those conducted by the Board of Trade, or on different lines. The last item is regarding destitute South African seamen, and I think some explanation is needed on that also. I do not know, except with regard to the strike in Australia, of the repatriation of any destitute South African seamen.

This grant of £180 to the Native Labour Association—the bottom of page 28—incidental expenses, why should that be given ?

This amount is payable to the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association in connection with an official stationed at Ressano Garcia. Natives are entitled to take back a certain quantity of goods without paying customs duty, and an official is stationed there to look cafter that. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), why the Merchant Shipping Act is administered by the Commissioner of Customs, I suppose it is because this House, in passing the law, did not put it on the railway but on the central Government.

The Act does not put it in the hand of the Commissioner of Customs.

The Act did not put it under the railways. If the Railway Department had to be responsible for it, seeing that their accounting and revenue are separate, Parliament would have expressed it differently. The position has always been that the Collector of Customs has been responsible for the administration of the Merchant Shipping Acts. Before we had our own the British Merchant Shipping Act applied here, and the various duties have been performed by the Commissioner of Customs. I am sorry that the hon. member did not raise the matter when the Bill was passed last session. The Act is not in operation yet. We are trying to get officials out. When they come they will remain in the Customs Department. We have not yet got the necessary machinery, and we are trying to get the officials to conduct the necessary examinations. We are in close co-operation with the Railway Department, which we are consulting. Legally, the administration will have to remain under Customs. We need highly trained and competent men to undertake this business.

It is very high.

It is merely an estimate.

I think the Minister is under a misapprehension. I did not say it should necessarily be under the railways. No one can accuse the Commissioner of Customs of knowing anything about that matter. There is an official known as the Shipping Master who knows something about the subject, and who is at the docks. If we are going to administer the Act properly, we must have men who understand it.

We are getting out more than one man.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 13, “Audit,” £71,490, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed :

Progress reported; House to resume in. Committee on 26th April.

I venture to suggest that we adjourn now. This is Friday evening, we have had a hard week, and we have passed thirteen votes and voted £13,000,000. I think we have made good progress.

Let us take the next item.

When this debate was adjourned the other day I was just going to point out that this Bill goes a long way in placing-increasing power in the hands of officials ; in fact, I do not exaggerate when I say, as I said the other day, it is associated with star chamber methods. If there is one thing in this country we suffer from it is that we are already too-much in the hands of officials. It is a general complaint of the number of officials we have in various capacities—inspectors of machinery, white labour, coloured labour, income tax officials and so forth. Well, it cramps things when we have all these inspectors buzzing round and interfering with your business—that is my experience of them. Under the Board of Trade and Industries Act of 1923 they have large powers, which it is proposed now to increase. One would have thought that there was sufficient power under that particular Act; but, apart from the tyranny of this increased inspection and so forth, the board has never considered what this increased power means. What Clause 1 really means is that the Board of Trade may order any business man in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London or Durban to take his books up to Pretoria for examination, not by them alone, but for examination by any person they appoint. He need not even be an official. It may be a rival in the same kind of business. One can only say that this clause has been drafted by those who know nothing at all about business. In a business, books are usually in use daily, and even hourly. Look at the amount of inconvenience this is going to cause. It only shows how little experience the Board of Trade have had in matters of business. Furthermore, there is no seal of secrecy in regard to the examination of the books by a non-official. This is quite a new departure; a monstrous tyranny, to make business men produce their books in this fashion. Then again, under the present Act, any witness can be subpoenaed to come and bring his books: but they are only subject to inspection by the board while he is there. He need not part with them.

What is the value of the inspection if he does not part with the books?

They are his own property. Everybody is not a thief or even a rascal who happens to be in business. Then why should the powers in sub-section (2) be given to the board or any member thereof ? Why should he have that power, and why should he want to come into my place and look all round?

There is no more right to come to the farm.

I quite agree; but, of course, there is the question of the scabby sheep. Of course, I quite agree that when anyone asks for protection, his statements should be examined, and he should be made to prove them, but supposing a man asks no favours, and conducts his business in a proper manner, what right has anyone to come into his place and examine his books? There is no moral right, and there is no reason for it, and that I very strongly object to, and the commercial community generally strongly object to such tyrannical powers as these are, and if anyone came into my place, I should like to order him to clear out in double quick time. In reply to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), who has just interjected, the position I should take up is that he should not come in unless on business. Why should I be compelled to take my books to Pretoria if ordered by the Board of Trade, simply for their examination, or for examination by a person whom they appoint? There is another point in regard to the Board of Trade which, I think, is extremely important. There is no doubt the Board of Trade have very large powers. They can recommend an increase in the customs to the Ministers, who have the power of taxing the people of this country, as we see from the proposals before us at present. We see from the report that applications are received from men in business for increase of protection through the customs. It is a free country, and they can do this ; but these men who ask the Board of Trade to recommend increased duties for their special benefit, which means taxing the people of this country to a certain extent, give all this evidence and make their representations on these points in private. Everybody knows that these recommendations and this evidence, which is biassed in the first place, ought to be very carefully checked. As a matter of fact, the public know nothing of these applications until they are laid on the table of this House. I am not making any implication of corruption, but it leaves a wide door for corruption. I have never heard the slightest mention of that, but hon. members must see it could very easily be brought in under this system. What I suggest is that this evidence and these representations should be heard by the Board of Trade in public. The effect would be that the public themselves would see what is taking place, and other people, whose interests were affected, would also see what is taking place and would very soon come forward with the other side of the story. Three of the Board of Trade members are not business men, and they do not know how to weigh evidence brought before them in support of these things. Hon. members will see that from the report before the House.

Do you suggest that business men are competent to weigh evidence?

Certainly I do—evidence of this kind. I am not a trained lawyer, but I think I would be able to weigh a lot of the evidence which came before me. As head of the Railway Department, I had plenty of evidence before me for reduced rates, and we had to use judgment in regard to it, and my knowledge of business came in useful many times. One gentleman in business in this city, well known to my hon. friend, suggested that a representative ought to represent the public, whenever representations were made which would have the effect of increasing the customs —that they ought to have a man to put the other side of the story. I do not think that is a practical proposition, but by having the meetings in public, the public could make their representations. Let me quote a case which has occurred during the last twelve months. We put a heavy duty—although I protested— on milk-cans last session. I think that, if the farmers and dairymen had seen that that was in—only one firm in South Africa makes them —they would have made some representations. We wanted 70 of these cans the other day, and they could not supply them, and we shall have to import them from Denmark. Naturally, the imported article is rather dearer than the South African. We simply want fair play for the public and those interested, and the only way I can devise is by having a public examination. Put your cards on the table and if anybody has anything to say he can come forward in public and make representation. I have taken advantage of this Bill being before the House to make these representations, because I have thought very strongly about this thing recently.

After reading this Bill carefully, it seems to me that there is really no necessity for it. It seems to me that the powers given in sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of Act No. 28 of 1923 are all that are required, and the only addition in this Bill is that it insists on these documents, books and papers being brought to a specified place, which might, as already pointed out, mean any part of the Union, and that would cause a tremendous dislocation of business if it were carried out to any extent. The arrangement in the Act of 1923 is quite feasible and quite workable, and we do not take any exception to that ; but this is carrying things a great deal further, and it seems to me an absurd extent. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not insist upon the Bill going through. While on this subject, I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the board is not carrying out its proper functions. In the 1923 Act the board has to consider the effect which any action it recommends would have upon the interests of the consumer in the Union. The various reports of the board, however, pay little or no attention to what the effects of its recommendations will be upon the consumer. In the 1924 Act it is laid down that the board shall report as fully as possible on all the aspects of any matter referred to it with special reference to the effect on the consumer, and those engaged in industry. I do not wish to go very fully into the measure, because the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has put the position clearly before the House, but if the board continues in the same direction as it is now proceeding, there will be an outcry throughout the whole country, and it will be almost impossible for men engaged in business or industry to carry on their undertakings, because of the board’s interference with their activities. I hope the Minister will withdraw this Bill, which I do not think is really necessary.

The history of this legislation shows how we are advancing by putting power into the hands of officials. When the board was first constituted in 1923, it is very evident from the wording of the Act that it was established with two main objects—first to enquire into anything like trusts and monopolies in restraint of trade, and second to investigate the question of tariff protection or State assistance of industries. In 1924 the board’s powers were considerably extended, and it had to enquire into fiscal policy, the recasting and revision of the tariff, dumping, commercial legislation, and such other matters as the Minister might refer to it for report. I do not understand why it is necessary to add to the powers the board already enjoy. I have not seen in any of the reports of the board any complaint that it has not been able to obtain reasonable information. The board has power to subpoena anyone as a witness and to order him to bring any book or document for the purpose of its investigation. Now, however, the board may require the owner or managing director of any business undertaking to produce at any place specified for inspection by any member or officer of the board any book, or accounts, relating to such business or undertaking. There are three points which arise. The first is that apparently the board could tell any person to produce his books at any place in the Union, so that if the board were sitting, say, in Pretoria, they could instruct anyone down here to take his books up to Pretoria Secondly, the board can direct the manager or owner of any business to produce the whole of his books in order that the board can make a roving examination. The third point is that any officer or person appointed by the board may take extracts or notes from the books: presumably these notes remain on the files of the board, but persons other than members or officers of the board who may see them are not civil servants, and would not be bound by the secrecy clause. I saw a case reported in the papers the other day, where a person who had been employed in a Government department used the knowledge he thus obtained to enable him to set up in business. A person nominated by the board might say, “I have a lot of information which is very useful, and I am going to set up in business on the strength of the information I have obtained through making enquiries for the board.” Legislation of this kind will be greatly resented by business people, and if we agree to it without further reasons than those vouchsafed to us, we shall be doing a very foolish thing. The Bill will hamper business, make people suspicious, and render it more difficult for the board to function. Unless much stronger reasons are given, we should refuse to pass the Bill.

I would like to add my protest against the passing of the Bill. I cannot help thinking that the Minister, who has only lately returned to his duties, found the Bill on his file, and did not realize its full meaning, otherwise he would have given weightier reasons for its introduction. He seemed to think that it was very much a matter of form. The Minister may say he has complete confidence in the discretion of the gentlemen who form the Board of Trade, but there is nothing to say who will be the members of the board in future. Supposing the present members are everything that could be desired on the score of discretion. The powers provided for in the Bill will also be used by future members of the board. It is unreasonable that the board should be given such wide-reaching powers. The power of entering any business premises might merely be utilized for the purpose of making a fishing enquiry. I would suggest to the Minister that he should allow the Bill to go to a select committee, and evidence should be given before the committee as to the necessity of the Bill.

I am surprised to hear that any properly conducted business or industry should desire to conceal anything from the Board of Trade. The Cost of Living Commission, which was appointed after the great war, found it necessary to return to the House and obtain almost identical powers as are given in this Bill, before the members could properly carry out their investigations. The commission had to secure powers to examine books, records and accounts, in order that it could arrive at a considered opinion whether profiteering was taking place or not.

That was in war time!

The business men of South Africa and other countries continued to profiteer after the war had ceased.

They are not profiteering now.

Hon. members have said that we must take the business man’s word. If I were a member of the Board of Trade and Industries, I am sure I would not do so. I cannot help being suspicious when I find business men in the House standing up and objecting to the Board of Trade being given powers to inspect books and records. An industry in Natal approached the board for some protection from the competition that it was getting from China and Japan and from Madeira. The Board of Trade, quite rightly, is now anxious to know whether the proprietors of this industry are carrying out the conditions on which the board recommended that protection should be given. The board communicated with the manager, and in his reply he states—

My point is that I would like the Board of Trade to get sufficient authority under the Act to ascertain whether the statements set out in this reply are correct or not.

We dont’ object to that at all.

I have read over this amending Bill, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) objected to the board being given power—

To inspect any firm, firms that do not apply for assistance. That is what we object to.

I cannot follow the hon. member’s objections to the Board of Trade being given further powers. In view of the fact that many business men and industries come before the board every year asking for certain protection and certain considerations, surely it is only right that the board should be given every facility to ascertain whether the representations made by those people are in accordance with fact.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Strachan) is evidently not as well informed on this question as he usually is on the questions on which he addresses the House. If he refers to Clause 2 of the Act of 1923 he will find that all the powers so far as securing information and demanding information are concerned are embodied in that Act. Nobody has objected to that. What hon. members object is the extraordinarily wide powers which are given in this amending Bill, and which a large number of members of this House and I think many people in the country do not consider are in in any way necessary for carrying out the very investigations to which the hon. member has referred. The Act of 1923 for which the late Government were responsible makes provision for everything of that character, but this Bill goes a great deal further. It allows the Board of Trade to require any business in this country not alone to produce its books for inspection, but to send them to any portion of the country, no matter how much the business may be hampered and disorganized in consequence. I cannot be accused in this House of being an opponent of the Board of Trade and Industries. In 1911 or 1912 with Mr. Long, who was then a member of the House, I paid a visit to Maritzburg and Durban and a question was raised at one of those meetings in regard to protection, and I remember perfectly well expressing in the strongest manner possible the view that a board of Trade and Industries would be the correct method of finding whether any particular industry deserved protection or not. What was then proposed was not what is sought to be done now. The idea I had was not a bureaucratic star chamber, but a board constituted of scientific and practical men, whose investigations would be held in public. If there was any phase of industry that considered it had a legitimate claim to establish itself as a sound business undertaking, and requested an investigation and that at that investigation everybody should have an opportunity to express their opinion, and when, after that evidence had been taken, the Board of Trade and Industries as a judicial body would sum up all the evidence and write a considered report for the purpose of informing the country the reason which actuated them in thinking that this perhaps would be an industry which would he clubbed out, by that means the public of this country would know whether there was a legitimate probability, and whether the consuming public would be justified, in bearing an extra burden for the purpose of giving an industry a legitimate claim in this country to establish itself. My hon. friend agrees with me. I think the amendment of the Act proposed by the Minister is unnecessary.

What is the matter with the present hoard ?

I am not discussing the present board. I am discussing broad principles, not individuals and personalities. This is a matter of immense importance to this country. I am one of those who believe in protection, but I do not believe in protection run mad. I believe in protecting an industry that can show after careful investigation, that it will be able, eventually, to establish itself and be of benefit to the country, especially where it uses the raw products of the country. If the Minister of Finance were here, I would ask him if it was not necessary for us last year to have brought representations, as farmers, to the Government, when it was proposed that wire netting over and above three feet ought to pay duty of 3 per cent. We practical farmers knew that nine-tenths of the vermin-proof fencing is four, five and six feet in height. You would he putting a very heavy incubus on the farmers of this country. I only mention that to show how necessary it is that investigations of this character should be held in public. I go further, and I say it is not right and not fair to this House that a Minister should propose an extension of the customs tariff or a reduction of the tariff on information which he alone possesses, and which hon. members of this House have not had an opportunity of knowing by its being laid on the table. How is the House to know whether the Minister is justified, on the evidence that has been taken by the Board of Trade, if that information is not in the possession of every member ? I may be told that it would make people take alarm, but nobody knows whether an industry is going to have increased protection until the Minister of Finance delivers his budget speech, and the moment he adumbrates any increased protection it automatically comes into existence even before the Bill becomes law. If there was one thing more than another for which the Board of Trade and Industries was established, it was because there was an idea among a large number of people that there was a possibility of monopolistic interests being established in this country. I am opposed to monopolies of any kind, and I say that is very legitimate work for the board to carry out. But any such investigation is sufficiently provided for by Clause 2 of Act 28 of 1923. To ask, as this Bill does, that these books must be sent to any place these people desire, I maintain is unduly interfering with the liberty of the subject ; it is bureaucracy run mad. There has been a tendency in this country latterly to introduce the bureaucratic principle, which I cannot understand how the representatives of a farming community can tolerate for one instant. By all means give every power and assistance for legitimate investigation. No man has been stronger than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in the old Cape House in fighting monopolies. It was he who introduced a Bill to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly in the butcher trade of this country. I would strengthen the hands of the Board of Trade and Industries to enquire into monopolies, because I am a bit nervous about some of our farming industries, our fruit industry, our dairy industry, and others of that sort, falling into the hands of a monopoly. I think the Minister of Agriculture knows that is the case. Whilst one is justified in taking every legitimate course to deal with questions of that sort, I do say this House is not justified in passing legislation which is going to allow any board that is not responsible to this House to have the unnecessary powers which are provided for in the amendment of the Bill of 1923. I do not think it is necessary. I think if this is brought into operation it may do a grievous injustice to people. Even the Board of Trade and Industries is human, and some people are very often slightly peppery, and the result will be they will get a peremptory order to send all their books to Pretoria, and therefore do their business a very large amount of unnecessary harm. I do hope the common sense of this House will request my hon. friend to proceed no further with this Bill, and to realize that under the Act of 1923 the Board of Trade and Industries have every possible facility for carrying out investigations, and I hope the Prime Minister will inform this House that in future when investigations of the board are being carried out in connection with the necessity, or otherwise, of increasing the protection which is given to an industry, that investigation should be held in public, and the people of this country would have an opportunity of knowing what is taking place. In Canada they also have a Board of Trade and Industries. I think, at the present moment, the members of the board in Canada include as their chairman, one of the late Ministers, I think the Minister of Railways. It includes as one of its representatives the chairman of the Co-operative Farmers’ Grain Growing Organization of Canada, and my hon. friend knows that grain growing in Canada runs into more than one hundred millions of money. Another member is a representative of the United Chambers of Commerce in the Dominion of Canada, and even in Canada a board of that character carries on its investigations in public.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort says that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has not read the Parent Act. I have the Act before me and under its provisions very wide powers are given. This board has to decide not only on protecting industries, but also whether there is sweating in any industry or too large profits are being made in food, etc. The hon. member who has just spoken says that the Board has the necessary powers, but who is the best judge of that? The Government has appointed a Board of Trade and Industries, and no doubt it has reported that in certain eases it cannot get the necessary information.

Nonsense.

The board has reported that there is a flaw in the Act, and that it needs tightening up. Who is the best judge to say what more is required ? Is it the manufacturer, or the Government which carries out the law ? It may seem somewhat drastic to a so-called business man that he has to give certain additional information, but if the South African party Government had been in power the board would have reported to the same effect, and the South African party Government would have tightened up the Act. I think this amended Bill is required. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says they do not object to additional powers being given to persons who apply for protection. It is not a matter for protection only. There are certain alleged industries which make huge profits out of the food of the people and pay low wages. The Board of Trade should have the power to go to these firms, and compel them to disclose information as to the manner in which these businesses are being conducted, and I for one am in favour of this Bill, because under its provisions the interests of the consumers of this country will receive the additional protection they need.

When the Minister introduced this Bill he said the object of the measure was to place the rights of the board beyond all question. Well, he surely could not have read the Bill if he says that is its object. Our party, when they sat on the other side of the House, introduced the two measures which are Being amended, and these two Acts, in my estimation, are sufficiently inquisitorial, but this Bill is beyond all measure inquisitorial. The board have no right of entry under these two Bills. Under this Bill, which the Minister says is only elucidating the other Bills, he is giving them the right of entry, which puts an entirely different aspect on the whole matter. I do not know whether the Minister or any other member of this House—with the exception of the business men in this House—knows the extraordinary number of inspections and returns and things that every business house has to produce for the Government. At the risk of wearying the House, I will give it some idea of the number of inspections and the various officials who have the right of entry into a business to get information from that business. It may be wearying the House, but it is much more wearying to those who have to put up with those inspections. When this Bill was brought forward I asked one of my colleagues if he would give me an idea of what an ordinary business has to worry about as regards inspection, and what we could look forward to when we arrived in the morning and had to get through a day’s work. The first thing, an inspector arrives from the Mines and Industries Department to look at your lifts.

Why object to that?

I do not object to it, but I am giving you an idea of what inspections we have to undergo. Then an inspector comes in from the hon. gentleman’s department—a factory inspector. He comes in in connection with any twopenny-halfpenny workroom you have in the place. Then if you have anything from a tea-kettle onwards, an inspector of boilers has the right of entry to see that the kettle does not boil over. Then a gentleman arrives, I think from the Minister of Labour, to inspect your time registers and wage lists.

Quite right!

I am not saying we object. Then a gentleman arrives from the Treasury to check your share transfers to see that you put your stamps on. Then you have an inspector from the Customs Department to see that you have paid your correct dues, and that your invoices are in order.

Quite right!

I am not complaining, I am just showing the quantity of inspection we get. The next gentleman we receive a visit from is the inspector of weights and measures and scales, and then last year we got another Bill, the Wages Bill, and now we are going to have an inspector to be appointed under that, and we also have investigations under the Wage Board. That is a fairly tall list, but I have hardly started yet with the work of the ordinary business man for the Government. The next thing he has to do is to provide clerks to provide the Census Department with figures regarding all manufacturing statistics. Further, a monthly return has to be put in of all persons who are on productive work, for the Labour Department, I think. There is also a return of boilers and machinery every year. Then he has to keep a schedule of all the juveniles in his employ for the Juvenile Advisory Board. Any change made in a juvenile’s status, in any way, has to be advised to the Juvenile Advisory Board. Then you have a return to the Minister’s Department of statistics of wages paid in certain occupations. Then we have, of course, the returns required under the income tax, and not for ourselves, but for all the various people we pay money to; people we buy produce from ; and all sorts of people we have to put in returns for, so that other people’s returns may be checked. We have to put in a return of all livestock and produce purchased, a return of all mechanical engineering and other apprentices ; then a return of comparative prices, as compared with pre-war prices; then, under the Companies Bill, which has just gone through, we have to put in all kinds of returns and lists of shareholders for the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and others to inspect. What I do suggest is that we are over-ridden with these officials, and now the Minister suggests that we are to have another board, who are to come in on top of all these inspectors to inspect anything else they want to see. The thing is absolutely ridiculous. Cannot the Government appoint one human being who can have one business put under him, and let him inspect that business for everybody ? You have dozens of these people, and you never know when you can get on with your work, because of some inspector coming to report on some little thing or to investigate something. This board, so far as I recollect, was appointed to help industry, but it is doing nothing but hamper it. As regards the Bill itself, who is going to pay the costs of moving all these books ? I think the Minister wants a little imagination. Has he any idea what is meant when you talk about the books of a business? Does he think it is a thing like this (holding up a small book) that you can send by post? Any considerable business would require a railway truck to send its books anywhere. Does the Minister really, honestly propose that wherever you have to send your books, it must be at your own cost ? The thing is palpably absurd. Another point which was mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is, who is going to indemnify you for business losses while you are not in possession of your books? Unfortunately, the Minister has never been in business. That is the trouble in having Ministers who have no technical knowledge of their department. Does he imagine you can carry on business for five minutes without your books? You have practically to close down your business while the thing is going on. I think, after our experience of the last few months I am justified in asking who is going to indemnify you against the indiscretions of the board ? I do not suggest that they would do anything knowingly, but their publications might be of such serious moment that they might do a perfectly innocent business a great deal of harm, and I do not think the Minister has really revolved all these matters, and seen the implications. The previous speaker mentioned the necessity of these inspections, particularly as regards sweated industries. How many more people are we going to appoint to look after sweated industries ? At great expense, we have appointed the Wage Board, which is sitting now, and their principal duty is to investigate these industries. Another set of inspectors are going to be appointed to do this, and now the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) wants us to appoint another lot of people to inspect the same industries. I would certainly give the board the right of entry where protection was asked for, but it should be made clear in the Bill that this is the extent of the powers the board has. It is quite a mistake for hon. members to think that either commerce or industry has anything to hide ; but, because you have nothing to hide, that is no reason why all your private affairs should be published, and that is what the hon. members on the cross-benches do not seem to understand. I do not agree with the suggestion that the Bill should go to a select committee. But, if we give the Minister an opportunity of thinking it over for the week-end, he may recognize that the measure may well drop down to the end of the Order Paper, and be allowed to remain there for the rest of the session.

On the motion of Mr. Rockey, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 26th April.