Before proceeding with further business, will you kindly allow me to make a statement on a matter of great importance to the country which I also owe to the House? In H.E. the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament it was announced that during the recess a conference had been held between representatives of the Governments of the Union and India on the position of Indians in the Union, and that a provisional agreement had been reached, which in due course would be laid before Parliament for their information and, if required, for their consideration. Shortly after the conference this agreement was submitted to and formally approved by the Union Government, and at the end of last week official intimation was received by us that it had now also been ratified by the Government of India. It was also agreed between the two Governments that the results of the conference would to-day be officially announced both here and in India in identical terms, and that immediately thereafter a more detailed and mutually approved summary of the conclusions of the conference should be laid upon the Table of this House and of the Legislative Assembly of India I now proceed to read the communique approved by both Governments—

The conference assembled at Cape Town on December 17th, and its session finished on January 11th. There was in these meetings a full and frank exchange of views which has resulted in a truer appreciation of mutual difficulties and a united understanding to co-operation in the solution of a common problem in a spirit of friendliness and goodwill. Both Governments reaffirmed their recognition of the right of South Africa to use all just and legitimate means for the maintenance of western standards of life. The Union Government recognize that Indians domiciled in the Union who are prepared to conform to western standards of life should be enabled to do so. For those Indians in the Union who may desire to avail themselves of it, the Union Government will organize a scheme of assisted emigration to India or other countries where western standards are not required. Union domicile will be lost after three years’ continuous absence from the Union, in agreement with the proposed revision of the law relating to domicile, which will be of general application. Emigrants under the assisted emigration scheme who desire to return to the Union within the three years will only be allowed to do so on refund to the Union Government of the cost of the assistance received by them. The Government of India recognize their obligation to look after such emigrants on their arrival in India. The admission into the Union of the wives and minor children of Indians permanently domiciled in the Union will be regulated by paragraph 3 of resolution 21 of the Imperial Conference of 1918. In the expectation that the difficulties with which the Union has been confronted will be materially lessened by the agreement which has now happily been reached between the two governments, and in order that the agreement may come into operation under the most favourable auspices, and have a fair trial, the Government of the Union of South Africa have decided not to proceed further with the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill. The two Governments have agreed to watch the working of the agreement now reached and to exchange views from time to time as to any changes that experience may suggest. The Government of the Union of South Africa have requested the Government of India to appoint an agent in the Union in order to secure continuous and effective co-operation between the two Governments. In elucidation of this concise statement I may be allowed to make a few observations bearing more especially on the general nature of the agreement.

Is this the agreed statement which has been read so far?

Yes, that is the agreed statement. From the results as embodied in this communique just read, and in the more detailed summary to be laid upon the Table, it must be obvious that the conference fulfilled its difficult and responsible task in strict accordance with the spirit and character which this House and the country have been led to expect as a result of the preliminary negotiations, about which this House was fully informed last year. As hon. members will remember, it was then agreed that the conference to be held would not be such that the people of South Africa could justly look upon it as an interference from outside with domestic affairs, but that, on the contrary, both Governments would loyally co-operate with each other in the solution of the common problem. Throughout the conference there was a remarkable absence of the spirit of bargain. The decisions taken were arrived at solely and whole heartedly with a view to a comprehensive, effective and peaceful settlement. The results achieved cannot therefore be looked upon as reflecting a diplomatic victory in whole or on any particular point for either side, but as the fruit of a common purpose, carried out in the spirit and by means of friendly collaboration. It will also be obvious that the agreement which has been reached is more in the nature of an honourable and friendly understanding than of a rigid and binding treaty. By their decision not to proceed with the particular legislation which was contemplated last year, the Union Government have not in any respect or to any extent surrendered their freedom to deal legislatively with the Indian problem, whenever and in whatever way they may deem necessary and just. Nor, on the other hand, have the Government of India bound themselves, either permanently or for any limited period, to co-operate with us in the practical solution of our problem in the manner agreed upon. The position truly described is rather that both Governments have agreed upon a solution, which to some indeed may not seem ideal, but which is, at least, practicable and peaceful, and which holds out every hope of being effective, and that both have further agreed by means of mutual goodwill and co-operation to give this solution a fair and reasonable trial. The chief and most satisfactory method of dealing with the problem has obviously been found in an improved scheme of assisted emigration to be initiated by the Union Government with increased facilities and inducements and with proper safeguards against possible abuse. The most important feature of this scheme as well as of every other part of the agreement which has been arrived at, is that no stigma of racial inferiority is implied and that in fact such stigma has deliberately been removed where such may have been considered to exist in connection with the old so-called repatriation scheme. While South Africa’s right to use all just and legitimate means for the maintenance of western standards of life remains untouched and absolute and has, in fact, been reaffirmed, Indians who are willing and able to conform to these standards will be enabled to do so. In so far as further restriction of immigration may be expected to result from the agreement, this will take place in strict accordance with the general provision which was formulated by the Imperial Conference in 1918 and is now in operation in connection with other dominions and to which India herself was able to subscribe and in the carrying out of which she has found herself able honourably to assist. Further, if a three years’ continuous absence from the Union would in future legally entail the loss of the right of domicile, it was agreed that such should be the case, not as a result of discrimination against Indians or any other race in particular, but as the result of an amended immigration law which will be of general application. Under these circumstances there seems to be no reason why any section of the community should be otherwise than friendly disposed towards the working of a scheme which, if successful and effective, will go very far to ensure the peace and the happiness of the Indian—community which will remain permanently settled in the Union and to establish lasting friendship and goodwill between the two great nations on either side of the Indian ocean. In conclusion, I owe a tribute to the members of Parliament, to the leaders of public opinion among the Indian as well as European community, and not the least to the press and generally to the people of South Africa for the patriotic way in which they have assisted in the creation of that favourable atmosphere upon which the success of the conference was dependent and which was such a marked feature of its deliberations. Last year I ventured to make an earnest appeal for general self-restraint and co-operation, and the complete and whole-hearted response to that appeal has proved that it was not made in vain. Now that the results of the conference are known, the continuance of any curb on the public expression of views cannot be expected. But in a matter like this where sentiment can so easily be aroused and where any agitation of the public mind, either here or in India, can so easily wreck the best results of the conference, and the vital interests of South Africa, I know that with the fullest confidence we can once more rely on the good sense and the true patriotism, not only of this House, but also of all sections of the press and of the people of this country. On behalf of the Government and the people of South Africa I also desire to express our gratitude to the Government of India and to pay a tribute to the hon. leader and members of their delegation. The invitation from the Government of India, of which we availed ourselves during the recess, to send a representative deputation on a friendly visit to India, was prompted by feelings of genuine friendship, has afforded to the Government and members of Parliament a much valued opportunity of studying at first-hand conditions in India, and has been a potent factor in the creation of that atmosphere to which the success of the conference must be mainly attributed. The hospitality which the members of the deputation received from the Government and the people of India could not be surpassed. At the conference the hon. leader and members of the delegation displayed all that ability, sincerity and keen desire for a real and happy solution which inspired confidence and which belonged to the essence of statesmanship. I feel assured that both this House and the people of South Africa will join in the fervent hope that the reward of their labours will be the inauguration of a new era of peace and friendship in the true interests of both, between our country and the country which they serve. I lay on the Table a summary of the conclusions reached by the round table conference on the Indian question in South Africa.

I do not rise to debate the statement which has just been made, but I should like to ask the Minister a question. I am sure the House would want some opportunity of discussing this most important statement which has been made; but I understood the Minister to say that the agreed statement which he has read to us was only an abbreviated summary.

Very abbreviated.

And a fuller statement will be communicated?

That is laid on the Table.

I would like to hear from the Government whether an opportunity will be given us, after members have read that statement, to discuss the matter. I hope the Prime Minister will give us some light on the matter. I assume that these papers will be printed and circulated.

It has been given to the press.

If I may just say this the résumé of course will be published in the press, so that everyone will have that in hand. As far as discussion is concerned, the additional Estimates will be on very soon, and I think that will be a very opportune opportunity. Well, the additional appropriation.

Oh, no.

I suggest that a special occasion be given us. We can easily agree as to that.

Would it not be an appropriate way for the Opposition to move a special motion, and give notice? I do not see what other opportunity we can give. If a special motion is moved I am quite prepared to give the necessary time. Hon. members can consider it, and perhaps some suggestion can be made which we can consider. Hon. members may take this from me—I would like at any rate to give them a full opportunity of discussing this matter.

I move—

Mr. A. I. E. DE VILLIERS seconded.

No, that is too early, I think. Hon. members will know this is a most important Bill, and fourteen days at least ought to be given for consideration. It has not been gazetted yet as far as I know.

Really, I am surprised at the Minister of Labour giving notice for the second reading of the Bill so soon. He is one of the Natal members and knows that it is impossible for the people of Natal to know all about this proposed legislation, and the Minister should give them more time. Previous Bills have been rushed too quickly through the House. Give us a fortnight anyway.

Bill to be read a second time on 11th March.

I move—

Since the Government’s decision to take an active and effective measure to establish the industry of getting iron and steel by smelting our own ores, there has been a good deal of public and press criticism, some well informed and some not well informed.

We could not get any information.

You have had some information. We are bringing forward the Bill quite confident that when the country has before it some true picture of the position the step which the Government is taking will be cordially endorsed both inside and outside the House.

Question.

Except by the decreasing minority, of which my hon. friend opposite is a striking example, of those who do not believe that it should be one of our national aims to make ourselves as self-dependent as possible in the key commodities of the country. I am afraid I shall have to detain the House at some length in setting before them matters which are well-known to some hon. members, but are not so well-known to the public, and other matters on which there is a lack of public information. The statement that iron and steel are certainly key commodities is one which, I think, needs little authoritative support, but as I know so many of my friends opposite always want some other support than their own observation, it would be useful to read from the Board of Trade Departmental Committee on the iron and steel trades after the war which sat in Great Britain. That committee reported—

Our own observation is quite sufficient to show us how indispensable supplies of iron and steel are to our civilization. In peace if you want to dig a hole you use a steel pick, and when you travel you travel in steel coaches on steel rails, over steel bridges, and in war if you want to put up a fight you shoot steel shells out of steel guns. In other words, one may quite accurately say that the whole material of our civilization has proceeded from the discovery about a century and a half ago of the fact that the heat energy locked up in coal could, by the intervention of suitable machines made of iron, be converted to a thousand uses for man. These two commodities, coal and iron, are the very foundations on which civilized life rests. To deprive any community of them would make life impossible. Secure in the supply of them it depends on a community’s own skill, energy and efforts to what degree it shall prosper. I want to trace our position in regard to coal and steel. With coal, nature has most abundantly endowed us. We have, one might almost say, illimitable resources, and we have developed our coal industry. For industrial purposes we rely entirely on the coal in the country and we have even developed an export trade. As far as supplies of the raw material for producing iron and steel are concerned nature has been hardly less generous. We have immense stores of iron ore, but what is the position? Every bit of iron and steel used in this country has been imported from abroad and is being imported from abroad practically. It means—and I stress this point— that if we are dependent on external supplies in future the conditions of that supply will be determined by the convenience of producers in other countries and not by the interests of this country, and in war we are dependent, when the national safety may make it imperative that we should have supplies, on interrupted communications—

The British navy.

The British navy would be very glad if South Africa was not necessarily a source of added anxiety, and if South Africa was self-supporting. I trace this broad national aspect of the matter as it is due to this no doubt that successive governments have been desirous of this industry developing in this country. This project of being able to supply ourselves with iron and steel has always received the encouragement of successive governments on considerations such as I stress. I am going to ask the House to accompany me in an historical survey of the steps that have been taken in this matter. I will not go as far back as before the Anglo-Boer war, when a concession was granted to a gentleman for the smelting of iron ore under the old Transvaal Government. It was in the then state of our development an impossible project. The project failed and the concession lapsed. Leaving those early days the first real demarche made in this direction was a memorandum by the then Government Mining Engineer (Sir Robert Kotzé) in 1909 on the iron and steel industry, in which he expressed his opinion that it was not unreasonable to suppose that all the necessary raw material existed in this country, and recommended a system of bounties. I suppose the right hon. member opposite, who was closely connected with the matter, will correct me if I am wrong in saying that that suggestion by Sir Robert Kotzé with regard to these possibilities was probably responsible for obtaining the services of Mr. Harboard, who came out and reported on the iron prospects in 1910. His report was adverse to any such enterprise as the smelting of our own ores for the purpose of supplying our own needs. What he based that on, I think, was apparently a misapprehension as to the nature of our ores and also as to the consumption of iron and steel in the country. Ten years later, however, he expressed himself under the altered conditions as having entirely modified his views. Then after that the suggestion, I think by himself, was made that we should not try to smelt our own ore, but turn scrap steel into steel products, and attention was called to the amount of steel scrap which had accumulated and had been placed on the scrap heap. He wanted us to confine ourselves to using up scrap. Two pioneers were in the field, Mr. Eaton was first by a short head, and he set up a certain organization at Dunswart for converting scrap into useful steel products. In 1912 Messrs. Lewis & Marks obtained contracts with the railway administration for the supply of scrap at a flat rate of 20s. a ton, and included in the conditions a condition that after the profits had reached a certain amount they should spend up to a certain figure in experimenting in the production of metallic iron by smelting our own ores. In pursuance of that the Union Iron and Steel Corporation was formed, and works were set up at Pretoria based on scrap, for the conversion of scrap steel in the country into useful steel products. In connection with the condition referred to— I don’t know how far prompted by it—but certain gentlemen in Johannesburg associated with the Chamber of Mines started an industrial company, and, as an offspring, a little company with a small capital set up called the South Africa Blast Furnace Company at Vereeniging for the purpose of experimenting on iron ore. It turned our 700 tons of pig iron. How far the experiments were conclusive I don’t know, but it was perfectly clearly established that pig iron could be turned out of the ore. At the end of 1916 or the beginning of 1917, this idea of deriving our own steel from our own ore, rather damped by Mr. Harboard’s report, was still pretty strong, and Mr. Delfos and other gentlemen in Pretoria conceived the idea of basing the industry on iron ore deposits existing in Pretoria town land, and obtained long term rights, and a company was formed based on our own ore to produce iron and steel. That company was not long in starting, and in June, 1918, before the blast furnace was operating at Vereeniging, they were started, and turned out in all some 5,000 tons of pig iron. Having done this, and having been satisfied by reports by Dr. Wagner, of the Union Geological Department, a valuable officer, whose services we have, I regret to say, recently lost through his accepting a remunerative post outside, having the geological basis of the industry entirely established by these reports, having furthermore the report on the metallurgical side by Dr. Stanley, of the Johannesburg University, and the proof of their own experiments that with their own fluxes and ores and other necessary material they could provide ourselves with iron and steel from our own ores, they took the course of shutting down, realizing that it was idle to spend money on further experiments, and that for the establishment of big steel works large sums of money were required, and that to go forward without that finance was courting failure. At the end of 1919, or the beginning of 1920, the position was that you had three pioneers in the field. I should first mention that at the same time Mr. Eaton, of the Dunswart establishment, conceived the idea of setting up a blast furnace at Newcastle to produce pig iron from iron ore deposits there. Unfortunately, he seems to have ignored the biblical warning about not setting out on the war until he had counted the cost, and it was not until July such a furnace was blown in at Newcastle and pig iron was produced. At the beginning of 1920, therefore, three pioneers were in the field, the Union Steel Corporation with an establishment based purely on the scrap iron of the country, as far as I know possessing no property at all with iron deposits suitable for the basis of a smelting industry, diverting entirely scrap into steel; Mr. Eaton at Newcastle, aiming at producing pig with ambitions not thought out beyond that; and at Pretoria a dismantled blast furnace, the owners having made up their mind from study of the subject that it was idle to go further without the necessary finance, devoting their efforts on finding the necessary finance. I am going to follow that position. A mere industry founded on scrap iron leads nowhere. It is not the foundation of a national industry. Pig iron is a product with a limited market, and its main use in every country is for conversion into steel, the form in which iron is mainly used. Steel works are the basis of all necessary raw material, and that is an object which the previous Government and other governments have had in view, namely, to set them up in this country, and to make ourselves independent. The efforts of the Pretoria venture were laid before me, and, as my hon. friend opposite will confirm, in almost all these negotiations there came a point when the groups with whom they were negotiating agreed to come in if they got a Government guarantee.

Why get a Government guarantee?

They made that stipulation. The biggest bid, which seemed on the point of fruition, was early in 1922, when they came to the late Government and asked them to assist with the guarantee. The Government very rightly—and we did the same—thought they could not pledge the public credit for the benefit of private undertakings. We said we could not do that, but would propose to Parliament that there should be a liberal system of bounty, and the Bounty Act of 1922 had a close association with the Pretoria Company’s efforts to find the finance in connection with their enterprize. That Bounties Act apparently was not sufficient, and they came to the Government again. While the negotiations were proceeding, it was suggested that they should receive a bounty of £125,000 a year instead of being dependent on the conditions of the Act. The Government were unable to accede to the request, and negotiations lingered on till towards the middle of 1923 with the British financial firms and British industrial firms. At that stage the Government of the day, who from the commencement had taken a very keen interest in this project, and had done everything they legitimately could to help these people in establishing this matter, had instructed Mr. Karl Spilhaus, Trade Commissioner on the Continent, to do his best to enlist the interest of the continental industrialists and continental financiers in the matter. About the middle of July, 1923, the then Government communicated to the Pretoria company that through the efforts of Mr. Karl Spilhaus, the Gutehoffnungshütte, one of the great continental iron producers, was willing, in conjunction with certain British and Dutch financial interests, to embark upon this enterprize, if they found upon investigation that it would be a profitable and a sound undertaking. Further negotiations took place and eventuated in this continental concern sending out, under the goodwill and good offices of the then Government, a commission of four experts in their employ to examine not only the property and the proposals of the Pretoria company, but the whole iron and steel industry of this country, and if satisfied they proposed then to undertake the finances and set up these steel works on an adequate scale not only to fill the wants of the country, but on a scale which would ensure cheap production. There was no fee paid. They defrayed all expenses, with the exception of any expenses incurred in this country, which were defrayed by the Pretoria company.

Who are “they”?

The Gutehoffnungshütte and their friends. They came out early in 1924. They spent four months here and then they returned to Europe for the purpose of conducting their analyses of the multitudinous samples they had taken, and after several months they produced a report, an English version of which has been placed on the Table by my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines and Industries. My hon. friend replied to an interjection in regard to the translation under a misapprehension. This report has all been translated into English, except the tabulations.

Why didn’t you have it printed?

If we had had it printed, I can see my hon. friend making the very rafters ring about the extravagance of this Government.

No.

My hon. friend does not really suppose that every member of this House is going to study every line of that report? Neither he nor I would be competent to express a really expert opinion on that report. When one compares it with Mr. Harboard’s and various other reports we have had, that report is incomparably the most exhaustive and the most thorough investigation and survey that has been made of the whole iron and steel position of the Union. It is a monument of industry, and it is a work which affords the greatest encouragement to us here in South Africa.

Why didn’t you let us read it?

It is so easy to say that. Up till 48 hours ago, I was not aware that there was another English version of the report in the country.

Have you read it?

I have read through the typewritten part, but I have not read through all the tabulations. When I found out two days ago that there was another English version of this report, no time was lost in laying that report on the Table. There is no desire on our part to leave members in the dark or hide anything from them.

A welcome change of attitude.

Our attitude has never been otherwise. We have been far more liberal in our information than my hon. friend’s Government ever was. I want to call attention to two or three points in connection with this report. I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that it was a report made on behalf of intending investors, not a report made and paid for by a corporation in whose interests they propose to invest money, which gives it a considerable value. It is a most exhaustive and thorough report, though I do not say for a moment that there are not mistakes in it. The report fully confirms previous expert opinions in the Government’s possession. The projected steel works based on the deposits in Pretoria and district are defined as clearly and soundly based. The report examines the relative advantages of the location of the works at Pretoria or on the coalfields of Natal or the coalfields of the Transvaal, and it easily establishes that for the purposes of the production of iron and steel from our own ores, Pretoria, from its natural position, both in relation to iron and coal, is undoubtedly the most economic place in which to establish those works. I have seen the question raised in the press whether it was cheaper to take the ore to the coal or the coal to the ore. There is a third and very important factor to be taken into consideration, and that is that the situation of the steel works in relation to the facilities for distributing products to the principal markets of the Union. Those are matters susceptible of exact calculation, and upon a careful investigation and exhaustive analysis of the whole position, they come to the conclusion which other people have come to, that undoubtedly Pretoria is the site where steel works can be most economically established.

Why has the private company failed?

They failed to get the necessary finances.

Why did they get it at Newcastle?

They have not been able to establish at Newcastle steel works on the scale on which alone economic steel works can be established.

It’s coming.

I do not think that is a matter on which I would be prepared to take my hon. friend’s judgment as expert judgment. The report very carefully estimates what cash will be required and the cost of production in the various lines in which it is proposed to produce steel. The figures show that the works can be carried on at a very substantial profit in those lines while at the same time supplying the South African consumer all over the hinterland with steel at a very much lower rate than he is paying for it to-day. That is a very important point. According to the figures of that report there will be a total yearly profit on working of £450,000. That is based on the figures taken of prices on the Witwatersrand when the report was made in 1924. There will also be a saving of something like £400,000 to the South African consumers of iron and steel. With regard to the point of competition between the external product and the inland product, it would seem that a line has been drawn from the edge of the berg, from Laingsburg and the Karroo which cuts through the Port Elizabeth and East London line about Queenstown, the Durban line between Colenso and Maritzburg, and the Portuguese and Delagoa Bay line about Kaapmuiden. In other words inside that, where the greatest development of the country is proceeding, is an area in which those works can successfully compete at rates which are much lower than the principal consumers are paying for that commodity to-day. The report concludes by saying that the question whether these works will be a commercial success must be answered in the affirmative.

Why do they want support if that opinion is correct?

I have got that question on my notes here. Has the hon. member who pays such close attention to passing events, not only here but in the rest of the world, ever heard of the military occupation of the Ruhr district? Did he ever hear that the occupation caused immense loss and great dislocation to industrial establishments in that area? The statement is made, and we have every reason to believe it is true, that the firm found themselves towards the end of 1924 obliged to borrow very heavily from America for their own commitments. I do not want hon. members to suppose that the Government look upon this report as verbally inspired and accurate in every particular.

Inspired by Pretoria?

No, not inspired by Pretoria.

You have not taken the trouble to read any other than the Pretoria reports.

Oh yes, I have, excuse me. I have read others.

Why not put them on the Table?

Because some of them have been put in my hands in a confidential manner and we are not in the habit of betraying confidences. We do know the contents of some of these reports and we are satisfied with the reports which our own experts have given us. Our position then was that further efforts were made by this company to try and get finances—some very interesting efforts. Proposals were made, proposals which involved Government guarantees. I think they must have been under the impression that the Minister of Finance was just out of boarding school or something, but the Pretoria Iron Company, who really knew him, could not bring any such absurd proposals before him. Mr. Delfos, who has been indefatigable in his efforts, finding he could not do anything in London, went to Holland to get into touch with the Dutch Government, and early in 1926 cabled out certain tentative proposals to us again involving Government guarantees which we were unable to entertain. Before that the Minister of Mines and Industries, from the time this German report had come into our hands early in 1925, had been taking a very keen interest in the matter, and with that report and the reports of our own advisers and the long drawn out history of the matter before us, certain points seemed to be pretty clear. It is clear that the Union has everything essential to the successful establishment of iron and steel works based upon our own ores, and that we could produce this essential commodity at a cost which would compare favourably with that at which we could import. It is clear too that any such project must be based on the secure and ample supply of the raw materials of iron ore measured not in tens of thousands of tons, but rather in the order of millions and tens of millions of tons, because it is not the least use spending large sums of money in establishing steel works unless you have a secure command of fairly accessible iron ore in quantities which secure supply to your works and expansion of the works for many decades to come.

And markets for your products?

Markets for your products, yes. It was further clear that only from a works projected on such a scale and on carefully thought out plans could the country reap the full benefit not only in getting our own steel in this country, but also in getting it at a cost to the consumer which would immensely stimulate the creation and establishment of other industries in the country which use steel for their raw materials. Further, it is clear that if the establishment of such a works was not going to be postponed into the indefinite future, if we were not going to be content with simply making steel out of scrap or with tentative experiments in making pig iron, that you must have ample capital resources, and the history of the matter showed that it would only be by the Government themselves stepping in and cutting this Gordian knot and providing the security of Government interest and a substantial amount of the financial responsibility.

Isn’t steel being made out of pig-iron in South Africa to-day?

Oh, yes, some steel is made out of pig iron. The hon. member will perfectly understand I do not want to criticize other establishments.

You say steel is only made out of scrap iron.

What I said was you would not get further than making steel out of scrap, or ill-considered schemes, unless the Government came in and took an active and definite part in the providing of sufficient capital to establish a really well thought-out steel works. We decided subject to further investigation that the Government would take such an active part. We first of all thought of importing yet another expert, but it came to our knowledge that the Pretoria company had in 1921 taken very great pains to inquire as to the best expert they could get who would examine their proposition, Mr. Ernest Berry, a man of the very highest attainments and looked upon as a high authority. There comes a time when expert advice piled on expert advice leads to a point where the desire for further expert advice does not indicate prudence but simply a desire to put off and put off an important decision, and we decided, as the Minister of Finance was accompanying the Prime Minister to England, that he should take the Gutehoffnungshütte report with him and submit it to Mr. Berry and get his criticism.

Was that on the trip to Germany?

No, Mr. Berry was in England.

Is that criticism available?

Yes, as soon as it is translated it will be laid on the Table

Is it in German then?

It is rather unfortunate that in these matters, which are really of national interest, that the parochial outlook of the hon. member for the district which happens to be affected should be so very marked, but we must bear with him because we know he has a duty to his constituents. Mr. Berry’s criticism, which will be laid on the Table, entirely endorses the report. The only fault he finds is that it is very conservative. He thoroughly agrees with them except on two technical points. Where, in his opinion, they are over-cautious is in the spending of larger sums in capital expenditure than he thinks would be required. For instance he says with regard to the washing of coal that he thinks it could be used unwashed, but the German engineers did not think it was in accordance with the best practice, and Mr. Berry is inclined to agree with them that that is the safest. It is held that very excellent coking coal can be obtained in quite sufficient quantities for any works. The German investigators agree there is a possibility of that, but they say that the Waschbank coal in Natal would mean a diminution of £50,000 a year in the annual bill. But in the meantime they did not include in their estimates any of that possible saving.

Have any of these gentlemen expressed an opinion as to the State embarking on a socialistic enterprise?

Of course it is very curious, but when I go to a technical expert I do not ask him for his political opinions.

Answer my question.

I cannot remember whether he did or not. That is not a question I put to him. I do not think he expresses any opinion on the subject at all. I am sorry to see hon. members on the other side apparently so opposed to this project of the Government, but the country will agree with us. The Government decided on that that we should carry out the decision which they had formed just before my hon. friend went across the water. I may here parenthetically remark that as so often is the case Opposition members and the press get hopelessly at sea when they allow their imagination to run riot with them. I believe my reason for introducing this Bill is attributed to the fact that it is a tremendous advance in a socialistic, even a Bolshevistic, direction. As a matter of fact, it is my hon. friend’s initiative, and the only reason I am here is that the task devolved upon me of getting the whole matter in order and preparing the Bill. When he came back from India he had his Diamond Bill to carry on, and I offered to carry this through Parliament as I was so thoroughly familiar with the ins and outs of the matter. I must break off here to give very briefly a survey of the distribution of the iron ore resources in the Union. I am quoting here Dr. Wagner. There are four principal divisions. We have magnetic segregations generally in the form of magnetite. There are big deposits in the Northern Transvaal. These deposits are highly charged with titanium, and may be dismissed from our purview for a great many years. You then have sedimentary deposits which occur both in the Pretoria and Karroo series. That of the Pretoria series extends for many miles in the country. The best iron developments are in the townlands of Pretoria and in the neighbourhood of Potchefstroom. According to Dr. Wagner, they extend for hundreds of miles in the country. You have sedimentary deposits in the Karroo—quite good iron ore—but usually too small in tonnage for the establishment of a permanent steel industry. Lastly, you have the hematite type— the Lake Superior type, and the biggest deposits are in Postmasburg and in the Rustenburg districts, about sixty miles away from Brits, where you have large deposits of excellent hematite ore. I have heard in the course of the discussion—

There has been no discussion yet.

Discussion outside, with which some hon. members are not unacquainted as to the matter or the source. It has been remarkable—it is as if this Government had some down on Newcastle or any other place.

Quite right.

We feel confident that in time they will take a wide view of things. We look upon them as little children who should be humoured, and we should be kind to them. Nature has so disposed matters that Pretoria is in the middle of hematite and sedimentary ores—both in sufficient quantities to form the basis of a permanent steel industry. That is the only reason. If you go to the library and read the departmental report of the British Board of Trade you will see how they look upon immense resources of ore as absolutely vital to the British steel industry, and modern practice shows you must have really big resources measured by ten million of tons rather than by tens of thousands. The German report estimates that the ore of suitable kinds of the Pretoria company and the various rights they have is a matter of 155,000,000 tons. We do not propose to appoint any person who has just been inside a blacksmith’s shop once and say: “Organize the iron industry.”

Why do you break with precedent?

Because we believe it is demanded by the interests of South Africa. We propose in this Bill to set up a corporation chartered by this Act, and controlled by the Government as to the majority of the directorate. We do not propose that this corporation shall embark de novo upon a collection of rights over iron-bearing ground. We are arranging that the new corporation shall purchase outright all the rights of the Pretoria company. We have had negotiations with that company, and we have to take over from them the whole of their rights and assets for £200,000. The cash liabilities are not to exceed £95,000. When that corporation is formed there will be able business men on the directorate, and we will get the best man we can get for the money as the managing director. We want a man of experience and thorough technicality. The amount of cash required is £3,162,000, to which must be added £385,000, and £180,000 as the increased cost of certain plant. We have to deduct £97,000 in relation to other charges where conditions have improved, and we have to provide a sum not exceeding £95,000, or altogether £3,895,000, or, say, £4,000,000. We propose to provide this in the following way. We propose to authorize a share capital of £3,500,000, and to provide the initial cash we propose guaranteeing £1,500,000 of debentures at 5½ per cent., and, according to the estimates, we hope that it will provide funds for the first sixteen or seventeen months. Then we propose to raise the next million by the issue of 7½ per cent. preferent shares, either cumulative or participating. There will be 500,000 A shares at £1 each to be subscribed by the Governor-General. These shares will not be able to earn more than 6 per cent., and they will carry voting power exceeding the voting power of the other shares. Our interest is not in making money to help in paying off our debts, but the complete and entire justification of the Government’s action will be to establish a really adequate steel works which will supply the consumer of steel in the secondary industries with steel products which will tend to stimulate the general industrial development of the country. That will carry us on to the end of the third year, when 1,000,000 shares will be offered to the public to provide for the remaining million required. I have adopted that plan after consulting a good many people who were able to give me sound advice. It will be said that it is reversing the usual custom in this country, but people have become accustomed to mining in deep levels where the returns cannot come until a long time hence. We want the public of South Africa to interest themselves in this enterprise, and we want this to be a real national enterprise which we will all support. We defer issuing ordinary shares until the establishment is on the eve of starting actual business. I now turn to the Bill. The first clause sets out the corporation. The Government have the nomination of the chairman, the managing director, and the majority of directors, and the corporation is to manage its own affairs in conjunction with the directors representing ordinary shareholders. The Bill provides for four directors to be elected by the private shareholders. Now, as to the objects of the corporation no doubt the objection will be raised that these objects are so wide that the company would be able to carry on every subsidiary industry in the country. Perfectly true according to the objects, but will a capital of only 3½ millions enable you to do that?

You can always vote more.

With the consent of Parliament. I think this corporation and Government are quite sufficiently keen in their desire to see industries established to use this corporation, and this industry, as a real stimulus to the establishment of other subsidiary industries.

To control the means of production and transportation.

Another silly objection, but we are accustomed to that from the hon. member! The Government particularly wish it to be thoroughly appreciated by all interests outside this country that the main function of the corporation is along the lines—to use the language of the Board of Trade—of producing those products of manufacture which can be used and are essential for subsidiary manufactures There have been proposals to establish the manufacture of galvanized and ungalvanized sheet iron, and it has been suggested that instead of turning out bars and allowing other people to manufacture the sheets the corporation should do it, but these are matters which are capable of being arranged with this corporation as with any other corporation. I suppose, judging from what I have seen from other concerns, that if it were necessary for the corporation to give help and encouragement to other undertakings, they would do so.

The Government.

I am sorry to see such opposition from that side to the very sound and beneficial step the Government is taking. I do not think it necessary to deal at length at this stage with any of these clauses, but there are certain remarks I wish to make. The third clause relates to the control and management of the Corporation by a board of directors. I have adopted a board of nine members. Seven was my first idea, but it was strongly represented to me that by making the number seven that there would be only three representatives of the holders of B shares, and that it would be better to have a board of nine. The matter is just about as broad as it is long, and I will listen to suggestions on the point with a perfectly open mind. I don’t believe in having too big a board of directors. I think seven will probably get through as much work as a board of nine.

You have not yet explained why you wish Government to have control.

I suppose the hon. member in no way connects it with the fact that Government money is embarked in the scheme. There are other good reasons and very good reasons indeed, that in an industry like this, just as in the case of electricity, that you should take it entirely out of the hands of the private entrepreneur. I did not read the item from the Board of Trade report where they say the State should interest itself, and, if necessary, take part of the responsibility. I know the hon. member’s view, but we think South Africa should come first. The chairman and managing director of the corporation will be separate persons. Originally, I had it that the two offices should be combined in one person, but if we can do so, it is better to have as a chairman a first-rate business man and as managing director a first-rate technical man. It would be a little unsound to have a technical man acting as chairman.

Must they be bilingual?

That is the sort of question I should imagine coming from the hon. member.

It is a fair question.

The dividends to the holders of B shares are limited to 12½ per cent. Any profits over this are to be devoted to the cheapening of steel to the producer.

The corporation will never make 12½ per cent.

I know the jeers of these pundits. I remember when the Reserve Bank was established sneers were made as to its stock being worth £120.

Who opposed the Reserve Bank?

As to Clause 14, I daresay that in committee we shall considerably alter that for there is a good deal of contradiction between the basis of supplying cheap steel and the Railway Administration giving a 10 per cent. preference. It is the actual policy of the Railway Administration to-day to give a 10 per cent. preference to goods wholly manufactured in South Africa. The Railway Administration gets its goods into the country duty free, and it would not be governed by the general application of the Dumping Act, and it is only right that the corporation should have this safeguard that it is not to compete with dumped goods, because the railways are a Government institution. As to the regulations, it is said that there is some Machiavellian scheme, because sub-section (e) says that the Governor-General may make regulations regarding the appointment of officers of the corporation and their remuneration and conditions and employment. That, however, is a matter I am prepared to discuss in committee. The corporation will have to make its own terms with its employees as any other business concern would do. As to—

I have a very open mind about that. In the school of thought I particularly represent I do not think the labour movement has very much benefited by cutting out a small island of privileged workers. It is far better to fight our own battles in one lot. I now come to certain criticisms which have been advanced in the press.

I thought you never took any notice of the press!

I take very little notice as far as my conduct is concerned. There are certain influences which are always at work in the press, and they have very admirable ways of using that influence. Sometimes they think that opinion from over the water may be used to influence opinion here, and they will have carefully cabled out and reprint what the “Financial News” says. If it is a matter of really great importance in their opinion, then we have it as we had it last Saturday what the “Financial News” is going to say that day. The criticisms levelled at the Bill always come from the one quarter. We are told that we have no market. The report I have laid on the Table shows that the average importation for thirteen years was 180,000 tons per annum. For the two years which have elapsed the imports have considerably increased. Any ordinary prudent business establishment would do the same. They would make such long contracts as any other business establishment would make. Another cause of complaint is, we are told, that you cannot sell your products. Look at Newcastle they say. It has half its pig-iron left. Certainly Newcastle, with its tiny production, had a big proportion of its product unsold. In establishing a steel works, you have to think out the whole course of events from start to finish, and it is no use producing something for which there is a small market and then looking for your market. We believe that there is sufficient markets to absorb the products a steel industry will produce. I am confident, by taking this step, manufacturers who have to place their orders outside, will feel assured they will have a sufficient supply in the country itself, and so avoid importation. More and more of these goods will be made in the country. My friend over there represents Newcastle. We have been told this measure is crushing private enterprise. On this aspect when Vereeniging was instituted to convert scrap into steel, common sense pointed out that it was not a self-contained steel works from which the country could expect cheap products.

How is it no member of the Cabinet has ever been to Newcastle?

One is not a member of the Cabinet for the purpose of going to places to estimate the ore deposits. We have had officials there to report to us, and I will lay the papers on the Table as soon as they are translated. We are ready to consider any proposal made to the Government on behalf of this corporation for incorporating all those other concerns, but on the condition that they must be on a basis of actual value to the running of steel works on an economic basis. We cannot take their establishments in on the basis of watered or useless capital. The Opposition may criticize and think we ought not to do it, and I expect the welkin will ring against us for what may be considered to be prejudicial to private enterprise. If the efforts of my hon. friend and his colleagues had been successful with regard to the Pretoria concern, and the efforts of Mr. Spilhaus, actuated by them, to enable the Pretoria company to establish its steel works, would there have been any accusation that the Government, in what they did, mitigated against the Vereeniging venture? We believe that a steel works can be established in the country, with benefit to the country, giving stimulus to industrial activity in the country, and that it would not be right for the Government to abstain from taking a commonsense course of intervening, cutting the Gordian knot and saying that this matter is so important the Government can take control of the industry by financing it and controlling the work. Another criticism is that we have not taken the public into our confidence, and that we ought to have had public meetings.

What nonsense!

The allegation is that we have kept the public in the dark.

So you have.

If the hon. member had been in my place—

It would have been in the newspapers.

I must ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to control himself.

The hon. member must not take advantage of our liking for him by constituting himself the chartered libertine of this House.

He only said he would have published it in the newspapers.

I do not know whether to admire most in the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), the inanity of his interruptions or to deprecate the rudeness of his manner.

You must be careful, or you will soon come under the ban of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) of not being able to speak English.

We had to keep the Pretoria company in the dark. Had we made our intentions known far and wide when getting an offer from them the hon. member knows what the result would have been. There would have been some excitement in the shares of that company, and we should probably have had to pay through the nose. We are told that it is a socialistic and communistic experiment. Well, I don’t worry about that. I think the country will say that it is a commonsense project, and it is a wise thing to assist the industries of this country. I have occupied the House at considerable length, and I have tried to give all the information I can, at any rate, as much as I am allowed to give by hon. members opposite who will continue to interrupt. We shall have an opportunity in the Committee stage of elucidating other points which are not clear. I repeat our conviction and confidence that throughout the country, outside the walls of this House, the general verdict of the people will be that, just as the Government has shown courage in their tariff policy, which is already showing signs of fruition, so the Government has shown courage in taking this step to-day, such a step as is calculated to give an impetus to the industry of this country.

The House is indebted to the Minister for the full and clear statement he has made. The matter is one of great difficulty and importance. We are dealing with large sums of money and with an industry which may have far-reaching consequences for the future of the country. However, we have before us in discussing this matter, no information except such as is contained in the speech of the hon. the Minister. As it is clear that the policy of the Government is dictated by the technical report of the Gutehoffnungshütte company, the hon. members on this side are anxious to inform themselves of the contents of that report. We do not want to see the country rushed into vast expenditure without due and proper consideration. We on this side, want to give this matter a fair chance. I have always been an advocate of a big iron and steel industry in this country. I left the negotiations at a certain stage, and it has been advanced since then by this voluminous report. We are anxious to inform ourselves of that report before expressing an opinion, and in view of that it will be only fair and proper, and would facilitate matters, if the debate was adjourned for a week so we can consider these papers which have been laid on the Table. I hope the Minister will lay Mr. Bury’s report on the Table as soon as possible.

You are going to have it to-morrow.

Very well; then we can consider the matter and continue the debate better than we can from a rapid reading of this big report. I hope the Minister will agree to the adjournment of the debate until next Monday.

You move the adjournment?

Yes, I move it.

Col. Sir DAVID HARRIS seconded.

I don’t think I can put it off until next Monday. Say next Thursday.

We cannot read it in the time.

The hon. gentleman has a long acquaintance with this matter. No one has a better acquaintance with the subject, and the position is clear. He will not read through the whole report, he has the conclusions of the export commission which he can read in a short time. I put it down for Thursday.

In referring to the report of the Railway Commission in 1925, when it was referred to a Committee, a request for a copy of the report of the Pretoria iron works was made, and they flatly refuse to give it. If they had given it, we should now have been in possession of the report. It would take an hon. member the best part of a day to read it, therefore it will be impossible in the time to consider it. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the position.

Surely the hon. the Minister will reconsider his decision. He says himself it is a long and interesting report, and he said he had discovered one flaw in it himself. It is possible other people may discover flaws. As this report has not been printed, supposing a dozen members want to read it, it will not be possible for them to do so if you only put it off until Thursday. We have a night sitting to-day and there will also be a night sitting on Wednesday, and I would say to the Minister that there will be really no opportunity to hon. members of even having a chance of a glance through the report and that it will be to his own interests to put off the resumption of the debate.

I would point out to the Minister that not only is the country being sought to be committed to a large expenditure of money, but this proposal involves a grave departure in our economic policy. The Minister says that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) knows the ins and outs of this question. Every member sitting in this House will have to devote the closest study to the intricacies of this policy and the proposal of the Minister. The Minister takes it for granted that the country is standing behind him. What the country wants is information, and every member of this House wants more information before the country embarks on this new departure.

I would suggest that in the Minister’s own interest it would be wise for him to let as many members as possible have an opportunity of looking at this document. I have made myself reasonably acquainted with it, and I must say that the more one reads it the more one sees that there is a strong case for something being done in regard to the establishment of a steel works. I think Thursday would be far too early for the resumption of the debate.

If the hon. member who has just sat down (Col. D. Reitz) will give us an assurance that he will read this report, we might be encouraged to agree with him. Most members have come to-day prepared to discuss this matter this afternoon.

Have you read the report?

I have not read it, but I understand from the Minister that they have laid the report on the Table and they are prepared to lay a synopsis on the Table. I want to appeal to the Minister not to deviate from the course on which he has decided. The whole business of the House is going to be upset simply because on every occasion when there is important business before us the Opposition asks for delay.

I hope the Minister will not listen to his hon. friend who sits behind him (Mr. Munnik). The Minister says that my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) knows a great deal about this matter. I have no doubt that he does. He had the advantage of being in the late Government, and some of us were not even members of the House at that time. I do not think that it is at all unreasonable to ask for an extra day or two before the debate is resumed.

I hope that it will not be regarded as a split in the Pact, but I rise to oppose the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), and to appeal to the Minister to make some concession to the Opposition in connection with this matter, not because I imagine that many of them will study the reports that have been placed on the Table, but because I believe that they are anxious to prepare criticisms of this Bill, and the more hon. members on the Opposition side criticize the Bill, the better pleased I and the supporters of the Government will be.

The charming and gracious way in which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) always puts his points naturally carries great weight, and I can see my hon. friend, having myself spent a very long week-end going through that report, carefully reading it line by line. I rather agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Kentridge), because he knows that hon. members opposite are not going to oppose the Bill, but they are going to try as far as they can to impede the passage of it.

Motion proposed by Gen. Smuts put and agreed to; debate to be resumed on 28th February.

I move—

I do not propose to discuss the financial position at length. In the first place it is not usual to do so on the occasion of introducing the Additional Estimates, and the House will, of course, have an opportunity very soon of discussing the full position when the main estimates are dealt with. I, however, wish to discuss shortly the principal increases on the various votes in regard to which the House is being asked to vote this additional supply. Hon. members will remember that when the estimates were introduced for the current year they provided for an expenditure of £26,952,000. The revenue was estimated to produce £26,814,000, and this left a deficit of £138,000, which I informed the House at the time, it was anticipated, would be met by savings on the votes. According to the Additional Estimates, the House is now asked to vote an additional amount of £820,000, but from that has to be deducted an amount of £400,000 which is not available in terms of the Appropriation Act to meet the additional requirements. If this additional amount of £420,000, which is the net excess after allowing for the savings of £400,000, is added to the original Estimates of Expenditure, the revised expenditure can be put at £27,372,000. The principal votes on which we find that excesses have occurred and in connection with which additional supply is required are the following. In the first place, hon. members will find Senate and House of Assembly. There amounts totalling £6,496 and £22,059 are required as a result of the Act which Parliament passed towards the end of last session providing for increased allowances to members of the Senate and Assembly. The excess is wholly accounted for by the increased expenditure under these heads. Then the next vote is the Prime Minister. There we find a small excess, £756, due to the purchase of a new motor-car, less sundry savings on the vote. Then we come to the most important excess, and that is Vote No. 7, Pensions. There hon. members will see that the House is asked to vote a total amount of £411,000, which is nearly equal to the total excess on the estimates. Of this sum of £411,000, an amount of £366,000 is required in connection with the amount payable under Act 49 of 1926 (one of the pension Acts which was passed towards the end of the session after the estimates had been dealt with by the House as a result of the report of the Select Committee to which this matter was referred). That amount of £366,000 is made up under the various heads of Superannuation, £17,000; Invalid Pensions, £1,000; Annuities (and arrears) in connection with compensation for loss of office, £238,000; and Gratuities, £110,000, making a total of £366,000. Then provision is asked for a further amount of £31,000 in connection with the grant which the Government and the House decided should be payable to ex-service men, that is, oudstryders, old and infirm and indigent ex-service men. Hon. members will remember that we provided under the main estimates for an amount of £30,000 for this service. We had decided, and Parliament approved, the payment of £30 a year to an old or infirm or indigent ex-soldier over the age of 70, or to a widow over the age of 65 years. Well, the £30,000 which we provided was anticipated to be sufficient for the number which we estimated would have to be provided for, that is, 1,000. Unfortunately, during the year, notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury limited the payments only to those cases where the ex-service men had no children to contribute to their support, we found it would be necessary to provide not for 1,000, but for about 3,000. So that during the year, instead of £30,000, we expect we will have to pay out about £61,000, and when the estimates for next year are before the House hon. members will see that we provide for £90,000, that is for 3,000 of these people at £30 per annum each. During the year the Government, on its own responsibility, extended the scheme not only to the ex-soldiers who fought on the side of the republicans, but, generally, to all ex-service men. There was a comparatively small number who fought on the Other side for whom provision had to be made, but we found it was hardly possible to make this discrimination, and the Cabinet decided to make it of general application. But I know that even to-day there is a feeling in the country that we have been too strict in limiting the payments to only those oudstryders who have no children who could contribute something to their support. But the Treasury was compelled to do this unless it was prepared to make provision for a very much larger amount. We considered we should make provision in the meantime, pending the establishment of a general old age pension scheme, only for the most urgent cases, and it is impossible at present, without any legislation, to make provision under this scheme for everybody who would be eligible under a general old age pension scheme. These people we are excluding; it is unfortunate, but they will have to wait until we have a general old age pension scheme, and the most we can do under this scheme is to limit it to those oudstryders who have reached those ages. In regard to the first amount, that is, pensions payable to the republican official; under Act 49 of 1926, let me say I think it will be felt on all sides of the House—and the country felt it—that we were all rather alarmed that the provision Parliament made was going to cost the country so much money, hon. members will remember how this matter was first raised in the House, on a petition by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen). Before that the Government had on several occasions, considered the matter; pressure was being brought to bear on the Government that injustice was being done to these officials, and that they should be placed on the same footing as other officials. I had personally turned down the request several times. Afterwards a petition was introduced, and hon. members will know that I informed the House that it would be difficult at this stage to do justice to everybody who suffered loss or damage during the war, and that it was only in the end that I said I had no objection to the matter going to a Pensions Committee to investigate the whole matter, and that the Government would abide by the result of the report. The report was eventually handed in recommending assistance of various kinds, and ultimately we decided to accept this provision, which required, in the first place, that where the old republican official had received only three-quarter pension, he would receive full pension, and then we extended the period of his service to the Republican Government for about a year and ten months. These were, broadly, the two principles which we adopted. It is regretted that at the time, although I made enquiries, the department was altogether unable to frame an estimate of what this was going to cost. Indeed, that is the position. On all occasions, when a report is handed in by the Pensions Committee towards the end of the session, they make provision for certain pensions, and unless we provide that it stands over for the session for actuarial investigation, this sort of thing is bound to happen. Nobody knew—it is over 20 years since the 1908 Act was passed—nobody knew how many of these people would still turn up to claim the benefits of the Act. The result has been that from time to time the department has furnished me with estimates, and every time they have been exceeded until we have got to an amount of £366,000.

And that is not the end of the story, is it?

I am told this will probably suffice. We have more or less dealt with all the cases. The annual cost to the country, I am informed, is about £15,000. Hon. members will see that a large amount is accounted for by the fact that we have to pay a large amount of arrear pensions, but these have now been settled in a lump sum. There are various other increases under the Pensions Vote, for instance, £10,000 Contributions to Pensions and Provident Funds, Natal Police Fund £3,000; and increased provision of £2,000 is also being made for the artificial limb factory in Johannesburg—metal limbs are being substituted for the wooden ones. This brings the total of this vote up to £411,000. Then we come to Vote No. 8—Provincial Administrations—an extra amount of £48,390 is required. This is mainly due to under-estimates in the subsidies payable to the Transvaal and the Cape Province. The Orange Free State Province shows a saving of £4,000, and Natal £3,493. The Provincial Auditors have given their certificate in terms of the Financial Subsidies Act. The next vote, Miscellaneous Services, is £75,602. It is due, amongst other things, to £25,000 for exchange of remittances; £8,100 for various charges, including the Imperial Conference, the Indian Deputations, £3,000; Delville Wood, £1,200, etc.

Is that in connection with the deputation from India?

In connection with both deputations. This Government had to pay the passages and other incidental expenses of our delegates, although we were the guests of the Indian Government. The important amount of £25,000 is for exchange on remittances. We have to send a large amount to England, and the exchange has to be paid. Provision is to be made in connection with the flour case—£42,462 as payment of compensation for losses sustained by wheat importations, in satisfaction of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of the Millers v. the Minister of Finance. £24,600 is to be paid to the Paarl Roller Flour Mills, £27,500 to D. Mills & Sons, and another sum of £17,750 to John Forrest & Co. In addition to that, there is £32,700 for legal costs, under the Justice vote. Other claims are still under consideration, and there are further claims which will probably come in. We are investigating the claims to see what amounts should be tendered by the Government. I come to Vote 10, High Commissioner in London, £2,000, which is in connection with the purchase of a car and the transfer of certain officials.

The previous High Commissioner did without a motor car.

The hon. member is right, but the Prime Minister and myself, when we were there, saw that, if we wanted our High Commissioner to represent us in the dignified manner we wished, we would have to make provision of this nature. Up to the present he has had to hire a taxi to attend these various functions, and hon. members will realize that that is not altogether satisfactory. Other High Commissioners, who are men of means, use their own cars, but this is not the case with the South African High Commissioner.

Are you providing petrol and other expenses?

We voted an amount for conveyance. Now we have to provide the chauffeur and the necessary petrol. Under Inland Revenue I regret there is an excess amount to be voted which is the result of defalcations in the Revenue Office at Bloemfontein. On Vote No. 14—Justice— there is an amount of £32,700 to which I referred just now. On Vote No. 15—Superior Courts, there is an under-estimate of witnesses’ and juries’ expenses. On coming to Vote No. 16, Magistrates, the amount is £4,785, for increased subsistence and transport charges, which is due to a large number of officials being transferred, and leave gratuities to officials on retirement. Coming to the Defence Vote, £2,250, £2,000 is in connection with the reorganization scheme of the Minister which was debated last session, and in connection with which all payments due could not be made before the close of the financial year. The sum of £250 is that which we will probably expend this year in connection with the Cape Town-Kisumu air flight. At the Imperial Conference we agreed to co-operate with the British Government, and our machines will go as far as Kisumu. The balance is provided for in the Estimates of the next financial year. Coming to the next Vote, Interior, there is an increase of £17,500, £5,000 of which is an under-estimate in connection with the cost of taking the last population census, £12,500 is the account which has just come in to my department in connection with the repatriation of Indians. The department found that a larger number of Indians are taking advantage of the repatriation scheme than when the Estimates were framed, the number being 2,400 against 1,400 last year. Mental hospitals show an increase of £25,000, which is due to the increase of the number of patients and to the vote being too severely reduced when the main estimates were framed. The increase occurs mainly under the headings of supplies, services, food, clothing and equipment. We now come to printing and stationery, which shows a rather alarming increase of £50,400. I hope the Treasury will get the assistance of Parliament to try and reduce this vote. I have appealed to my colleagues to help the Treasury. Hon. members would be surprised to see the bills for the rendering of these services. We must try and reduce these bills— we cannot go on in the way we are now. The various departments have certain pamphlets prepared and immediately a demand is made that they should be printed. The printing department receives these demands from various other departments, and it has to do the work.

The only possible way is for the Treasury to control them.

The Treasury cannot control them, for every department says it is absolutely necessary to print certain documents. If hon. members had their way, this amount would probably be increased by an additional thousand.

You have driven up the cost of printing by the 40 per cent. protection.

No, no. Under the present arrangement the printing is under the Minister of the Interior, but even he is unable to control it, because orders are sent by various departments for work to be done.

Does the vote include all the Government magazines?

Yes, the “Labour Magazine” and the “Agricultural Journal,” etc.

Nobody reads them.

I suggest that hon. members discuss that in Committee when the various Ministers can justify the expenditure. With regard to Vote No. 25, Mines and Industries, an additional £15,000 is needed for the payment of bounties under Act No. 41 of 1922 on iron and steel produced in the Union, and £5,000 for sanitary services at the Lichtenburg and other diamond diggings. A very much larger amount has been spent on these services, but the balance has been met by savings on the vote. As to Vote 26, Union Education, £9,470, the savings on this vote amount to over £11,000, but owing to the operation of column 2 of the Appropriation Act they are not available to meet the excess. Vote No. 27, Child Welfare, £7,500, is always growing; it is a vote we cannot control. Parliament has passed an Act requiring the department to admit certain children to institutions on the order of a magistrate, and grants are payable to these institutions.

A very good investment.

I hope the hon. member is convinced of that, but I sometimes doubt it.

So do I, very much.

£2,500 of this excess is for board allowance for teachers, but a corresponding credit will be received. Vote 28, Agriculture, £2,500; that sum is in connection with the administration expenses of the scheme for granting assistance to tenant farmers. The scheme was administered by the Land Bank, but the Agricultural Department has to pay the Land Bank the cost of administration. There are savings on the vote of £3,050, but this has to be specially voted. For Vote 29, Agricultural Education, the sum of £12.570 is required in connection with the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture. The additional expenditure this year is £5,000, but the vote must be taken for the full amount as the balance cannot be taken to account owing to the operation of column 2 of the Appropriation Act. The additional amount of £15,000 required for Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones, is in connection with increased establishment and staff—

Does it include the salary of the Welfare Officer?

When we debate the revenue estimates hon. members will see that there has been a very big increase in the post office business which has necessitated the employment of extra staff. Vote 32, Public Works, £5,300; of this amount £3,800 represents furniture for the House of Assembly. Under Vote 33, Lands, £6,170, £2,170 represents the maintenance expenses of the National Parks Board, while a grant of £4,000 has been made to the Dutch Reformed Church, O.F.S., for the Goedemoed Labour Colony. The latter is a special grant to enable the church authorities to continue providing for a certain number of indigent families. Under Vote 34, Deeds, £1,000 is needed for additional staff for the administration of the Companies Act. As to Vote 36, Irrigation, £4,230 represents the expenses of the Kalahari expedition, which, although taken under resolution of this House, has been disallowed by the Auditor-General on the grounds that the money was expended outside the Union. For Vote No. 37, Public Service Commission, £2,640 is required for leave and gratuities to former members of commission on their retirement. Then we come to the Loan Estimates. These, I submit, are self-explanatory. The railways absorb the major portion of the amount £1,174,000 and these have already been dealt with by the House on the Railway Estimates. We then get this position. After providing for the saving of £4,000,000, which I have notified, we come to an expenditure of £27,372,000 against an estimated revenue of £27,909,000. I am glad to inform the House that during the year, so far, revenue has kept up very well. We find increases under all heads except income tax. I am sorry to say that shows a slight drop. Under all the other main heads of revenue substantial increases will be found towards the end of the financial year.

Especially customs.

Yes. I don’t propose to go into details, but I expect towards the end of the financial year we shall have, after making provision for additional expenditure, a surplus of £600,000. I have shortly dealt with the principal heads of expenditure for which additional supplies are required, and if hon. members require further details they can more conveniently be debated when we go into committee.

Mr. A. S. NAUDÉ seconded.

I am thankful for the clear and full explanation given to us, but I am sorry that there should be this demand for increased expenditure Expenditure is going steadily up year after year, and this in the hands of the Government which came into office to reduce expenditure. That was the great cry in the election. Now we are expected to vote a further £820,000 besides what we voted last year. I will give you a few figures to show how expenditure has grown. In 1923-’24 the expenditure was £24.026,000; in 1924-’25, £24,527,000; in 1925-’26, £26,264,000, an increase in one year of £1,137,000. The current year, according to this, is given to be £27,372,000, and increase of £1,100,000, and this by a Government that was going to introduce economy into the administration of this country. So far from reducing expenditure, it is, therefore, up by £3,300,000 since they came into office.

So is the revenue.

Then why don’t you reduce taxation. Take the railway and general revenue. The combined expenditure is up by £9,000,000. It is costing them that amount more than when they came into office, and that by a Government that was supposed to come into office to reduce expenditure and introduce economy.

Analyse the figures.

I have analysed the figures. Your department goes up, and the Minister of the Interior does not keep a tight grip of his department, but Ministers go about the country bragging about reduction of taxation. My hon. friend bragged about the reduction of £2,000,000 in taxation, but the figures of the customs don’t show it. You took off the tobacco tax and the patent medicine tax and reduced the postage, but that was the lot. It has increased in other directions to a great extent. Take the taxation figures: 1923-’24 taxation receipts were £16,803,000, i.e., receipts into the treasury solely from taxation from customs and inland revenue, and that does not include the post office. In 1924-’25 the receipts from taxation were £18,365,000.

It does not increase the burden.

That is a million and a half increased taxation in one year. In 1925-’26 it had grown to £19,523,000, and this year the total taxation receipts will be over £20,000,000. The increase in customs alone and inland revenue for the first nine months was £1,350,000 —an increase in three years from a Government which made a big cry that they were going to reduce taxation and introduce economy. I know what my hon. friend will say. He will say that it is owing to better trade and increased goods imported. If the Minister goes into it, he will find that the increase of import duties, which average 3½ to 4 per cent., works out between 2½ and 2¾ millions.

It is because the people coming into the country are consuming more goods.

Where you talk about reducing taxation by £2,000,000, the figures show that there is nothing in it. I would like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture when, the other day, discussing the scheme of assurance for farmers, estimated the income of the farmer at £160 a year, or £13 6s. 8d. per month. To the customs alone they pay £24 in duties per annum out of the £160. It has been found from the statistical department each farmer employs on the average three coloured men, and these pay £4 per annum in taxation through the customs, so that every farm carries a tax of £36 per annum through the customs.

I want to point out that the hon. member cannot discuss policy. The policy was settled last session. He must confine himself to the additional Estimates before the House.

This is a grant asked for by the Minister, and I want to show the country the burdens laid upon the country.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Additional Estimates.

As a point of order, the Minister asks us to vote an extra amount of £800,000. Is it not open to members to point out how lax the Government have been in their duty, and to ask why it is the Minister, with his enormously-increased revenue, finds it necessary to ask for this extra? With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. member cannot in some way bring the Minister to book for having come and asked for this extra expenditure, there would be no possibility of the House pointing out how lax the Government have been.

Hon. members will realize that these are additional Estimates, and the policy with regard to these Estimates was settled last session and cannot be discussed now. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will have full opportunity of dealing exhaustively with the matter when the main Estimates are before the House.

I just want to point out the burdens which the Government lays on the country through this expenditure and, furthermore, there has been no reduction of taxation. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all reduced taxation since the war times. We were paying in 1919 in taxation £14,500,000, while this year we are paying over £20,000,000. I think one has a right to ask where economy comes in in face of this fact. I also want to allude to the growth of pensions. An amount of £411,000 is asked for as additional vote on pensions. The total vote on pensions this year will be £2,700,000. I would like to speak to my hon. friend the Minister about the Act which we passed last session. I take a certain amount of blame for having passed that Act, but, of course, it was hurried through the House, and, furthermore, we had not got the necessary information. I blame my hon. friend and the treasury severely for not having laid before us what that Act was going to cost the country. My hon. friend should have told his officials in the department that he was not going to lay the Bill before the House until he could tell the House what it was going to cost. This additional £366,000 is, to my mind, monstrous. On this subject of pensions some very pertinent remarks are made in his report by the Auditor-General, who is, in my opinion, about the best guardian of public monies that we have in this country. He says—

Hear, hear. We are paying your debts.

What nonsense.

Of course we are.

The Auditor-General mentions another point—

He mentions the case of Mr. V. G. M. Robinson, late chairman, Public Service Commission, who received a pension of £1,200 a year with four years added to his service. That was done just to please the Minister of the Interior; that was the reason why Mr. Robinson was retired. Then there are other members of the Public Service Commission, Mr. A. B. Hofmeyr and Mr. H. C. Fleischer, who were placed on pension, just because they did not happen to suit the Minister of the Interior. There is another case here, Mr. F. C. Lane, late secretary of the Prime Minister, who receives a pension of £415 a year, and has five years added to his service. These officers are placed on pension while other men are brought into the service. The late secretary of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Jacklin, receives a pension of £553 with five years added to his service. He has now gone to serve the League of Nations in Geneva.

He applied to be placed on pension.

You had no need to let him go. I have no doubt you were only too pleased to get rid of him. My hon. friend said he had to provide for the necessitous and needy under the Bill of last year. Let me give a couple of cases which are brought up in this report.

I want to point out that the hon. member is quoting from a report which deals with the period ended March 31st, 1926.

And we are now providing the money to pay those pensions.

Is the money provided for on these Estimates?

Most assuredly.

The hon. member may proceed.

There is the case of Dr. Leyds. Does my hon. friend the Minister say that that was a necessitous case?

I did not say anything about necessity in the case of these people.

The treasury would imply that we are providing for necessitous people.

The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) is under a misapprehension. I dealt with necessitous cases (indigents) in the case of the oudstryders. Here the question of indigency or necessity never came in; it was a case of justice being done to officials, getting pensions based on their salaries.

Dr. Leyds, I see, was granted an arrear pension of £8,941; Mr. C. van Boeschoten, £3,380 15s. 8d.; Mr. C. K. van Trotsenburg, £1,885 9s. 10d. Then we have the Hon. P. G. W. Grobler, £2,292; the Hon. J. C. G. Kemp, £160; Senator Munnik, £986, and the following members of the House of Assembly, Col.-Cdt. Collins, £112; Mr. Nieuwenhuize, £713; and seven other old officials, who each received £1,000 arrears of pension. It would not have taken long to reckon this out. I hope my hon. friend will take a serious note of this. I blame the treasury very much for not having got this information out for him before. It would have been far better to get it out before than for the House to have voted these very large sums.

You voted for it.

We voted for it blindly, unfortunately, but I do blame the treasury for not having got this information for us.

What happened to the application of the hon. member for Standerton?

The total we are paying now in pensions in this country, including railway pensions, it will be interesting to the House to know, is £3,534,000 in this year of our Lord— in this financial year.

It is not quite the same thing.

It is quite clear that a large proportion of European people in this country are living to-day on pension. The question arises how long is this country going to bear the burden. I have not taken into account, I admit, the optimistic speech we have had this afternoon on the subject of iron. Here I have the report of the Government mining engineer on the far East Band, who shows that out of 49 mines there are, with less than five years to live, 19 mines. I contend that the Treasurer-General ought to keep that fact before him, that these things are not going to be everlasting. Here is a warning from Sir Robert Kotzé which shows very clearly that in seven years, at any rate, there will be a reduction in the amount of ore turned out of 23 per cent. That should be a warning to the country that this expenditure cannot go on at the same rate as it is at present.

As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said, we were asked last year to vote the biggest expenditure ever asked for, and, to-day, we are asked to vote an extra £400,000. At the same time the Minister made the interesting and gratifying announcement that he expects to come out with a surplus of £600,000. But the Minister has never had to go through hard times. The warning which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) wished to give, and I wish to give, is this—that, although when money is available, it is reasonable to have expenditure which the country can afford, there is the danger of getting the country into more extravagant habits than they can afford. It is so much easier to increase these votes than to cut them down again in the hard times that always do come. The Minister largely disarms criticism by his candid way and by the full information which he gives, and he has shown that he can make prudent use of some of the money on some of the votes. I have always a certain sympathy with the Minister because, from his attitude to the House, I feel that if left to himself he could do so much better. We know what it means to have labour having a say in the finance of the country. When you get a Minister who would be for economy, and there are other Ministers whose whole history and creed is spend, spend, spend, no matter where the money comes from, one can realize that the Minister is placed in a very difficult position. The records of the House show that this is an attitude which members take up on certain occasions. I would like to quote two of these to show how we come to be asked for these extra amounts. In 1921, showing what happened when the Budget was brought in by Mr. Burton, and just to show how the two wings of the party there pull in opposite directions, and make it more difficult for the Minister to keep his estimates down, Mr. Fichardt moved—

Mr. Sampson, who was acting as leader of the Labour party, moved—

Do you object to that?

It shows a difference of policy. One wing wanted economy, and the other wing wanted to spend money on all sorts of schemes. That wing is entirely irresponsible. They have no backing in the country. Democrats who believe that they get their force and power solely from the votes of the people—which have been withdrawn from them.

Where?

The Minister has been to Durban and speaking nothing but Union politics in connection with the Provincial Council elections, and as a result of these elections, we find but one representative of that party out of 51 members in the Cape Province.

This is all very interesting, but perhaps the hon. member will deal with the Estimates.

I was trying to show how it is we are going to be asked to vote £400,000—that is what I was aiming at.

Rather a roundabout way.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that this combination we have over there is the cause why we are asked for this increased vote. I will quote the Minister of Justice, who is an authority, and who is not in his place at the present time. He is called the “Lion of the North,” but he does not claim that for himself. He is not called that here. He does not wear the lion’s skin here—he is just himself. He says there is one thing that binds them now, and that is fear—fear of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He is prepared to go out of office when the right hon. gentleman goes. It is not the godly fear that leads to repentance, but the ignoble fear of a smaller mind for a master mind. The Minister of Labour has been round telling us, in connection with the finances of the country, of course, that the Pact is leaving perfect contentment throughout the Union of South Africa.

I must ask the hon. member to come to the subject of debate.

The particular vote I would refer to at the present time is No. 21, an increase of £25,000 for the care of the feeble-minded. I would like to test them in this, with regard to the “perfect contentment” in the country. I do see perfect content in the three Labour members sitting on the ministerial benches—I have never seen three more contented persons. Let us go to the other Labour benches—is the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) a contented member? Would one call him a contented member?

I must really ask the hon. member to confine himself to the Estimates.

Coming to the vote, I will not stress again the pensions vote, but I do agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that we should have some guidance from the Minister as leader of the House. He has given his explanation, but the thing should be held back until some guidance is given, and the Minister cannot be absolved from responsibility on that point. On Vote 9, I want to give praise to the Minister for putting it on the revenue vote— the tendency has been to put the loss on loan. It is possible under forestry, and part of the expenditure has been charged up to loan, but the Minister ought to have sufficient backbone to get away from that. If we put it into revenue, and not loan, we would be in a much sounder position.

I think that all members on this side of the House will be glad to hear the speech of the Minister of Finance, particularly with regard to his anxiety concerning the increase in the expenditure, and I think we can assure him that the country shares his anxiety. It is very perturbed at this increase of expenditure. I would give the House some idea of the extra expenditure on these items compared with the expenditure incurred at the time the South African party relinquished control.

That is a neat way of putting it.

I am very glad to hear the Minister laugh because his view is that the more you spend the more you have got.

Don’t be silly.

If you are satisfied to go on with these ideas in your private affairs it is your own concern, but it is quite different when you control the affairs of the country. I will now compare the expenditure on the principal items we are considering today showing what the expenditure was in 1924 and 1927, the increase in the three years and the percentage increase. House of Assembly—1924, £90,540; 1927, £126,339; increase, £35,799; percentage increase, 39.53. Pensions—l924, £1,805,000; 1927, £2,702,000; increase, £897,000; percentage increase, 49.69. Provincial Administration—1924, £4,321,466; 1927, £5,524,079; increase, £1,202,613; percentage, 27.82. Interior—1924, £191,294; 1927, £243,664; increase, £52,370, or 27.37 per cent. Printing and Stationery—1924, £268,450; 1927, £317,868; increase, £49,418, or 18.4 per cent. Lands, Deeds and Surveys—1924, £228,940; 1927, £302,347; increase, £73,407, or 32.06 per cent. Irrigation—1924, £133,744; 1927, £183,353; increase, £49,609, or 37.09 per cent. On these seven items alone there is an increased expenditure in 1927 as compared with 1924 of £2,360,216, or 33.52 per cent. The respective totals are, 1924, £7,039,434 and 1927, £9,399,650. If this Government in three years can increase the expenditure by 33 per cent., if we suffer for another three years from the same thing our expenditure will be approaching £40,000,000 a year, and it is perfectly plain to any man who has any knowledge of the potentialities of this country that we cannot stand this exorbitant expenditure. I think, however, that we shall be safe in 1929, for I think the control of the public finances will then be in other hands. This additional expenditure of 33 per cent. is out of all proportion to the development of the country. Whether you take population, exports, the total business or the industrial expansion, the expenditure is increasing in an enormously larger proportion than the development of the country warrants. In addition to the funds which the Minister of Finance has to provide owing to the extravagance of his colleagues, I suppose because he feels their rapacity has no bounds, he taxes the country to a greater extent than is necessary even for the actual expenditure which is being made. We understood this afternoon that his revenue is very largely in excess of his requirements and the position is this: every penny the Minister is unnecessarily taking out of this country this year is being diverted from the development of the industries of the country. What is more, every shilling the Minister takes out in taxation from the producer—whether he is an agriculturist or is concerned in mining or in any other work which is not protected and where the market is overseas—is a net profit taken out of that man’s pocket. If an agriculturist who ships mealies overseas pays £1 more than is necessary in customs duties on goods that he consumes, he is that amount out of pocket, as his exports do not obtain any higher price in the European market. The agriculturist cannot pass on the extra cost of production, and he has not a wage board to appeal to which will give him £5 a week whether he works or not. These are the men who are suffering by the great extravagance of the Government, and the unnecessary taxation which has been imposed in addition to the taxation necessary to cover the country’s actual expenditure. I have heard it said that the reason the revenue is so much higher than was anticipated is because of the customs revenue received as a result of development. I would suggest that the Minister should look through the customs returns and returns of imports. Unfortunately, owing to the extraordinary delays with any figures emanating from the Government, this House is entirely in the dark as to the importations during the last few months. I think October is the last month we have the figures for. So it is very difficult to criticize the Government because the figures are in the possession of the Government only, and goodness only knows when we shall have them. Under the previous Government we received the figures when they were of value; now they are useful only for filing in public libraries as records of a distant past. Excluding motor cars and allied imports, such as tyres and petrol, there is not any extraordinary increase in the items subject to heavy duties. Therefore, there must have been some very grave mistake in the calculations made by the Minister’s Department when they estimated the likely receipts for the current financial year. Thus the people have to bear a very grave burden by paying what the Minister puts at an additional £600,000. Instead of Ministers going round the country and bragging that they have now two men to a job hitherto performed by one man, it would be very much more satisfactory if they showed that by their economic administration the cost of living was decreasing and real wages were higher. During the last three years the cost of living has practically not gone down at all. For food, fuel, light, rent and sundries, there is a diminution of only 2½ per cent. Or if you take food, fuel, light and rent it only shows a diminution of 1½ per cent. So the condition of the man who has to earn his living, pay his way and bring up a family in the country, is not showing any improvement, and so far as the taxation of last year is concerned, he had to put up an amount of £600,000 more than was necessary to carry on the country even in the extravagant way in which it is now being carried on. There are one or two small points I would like to go into. I notice under Item 22, Printing and Stationery, there is an additional amount to be voted for transport and incidental expenses of £4,000. The Minister did not give any explanation of this amount. The original estimate was £7,000 and they spent £11,000. I quite agree this is a small item, but it is an indication of the attitude of the Government. Here one small item goes up nearly 50 per cent. between the time we passed the last estimates and before we got to the next one. That is the way the whole trend of Government expenditure is moving. There is a feeling in the departments that there is plenty of money, that there is going to be a surplus, and that they need not be afraid of spending. That is the danger of under-estimating revenue. When they realize that it is going up by leaps and bounds they say: “It does not matter, we can always get additional estimates through,” and here are additional estimates to the tune of £800,000. We have been told with regard to the old Republican Officials Act of 1926, it has been suggested, there was an interjection when one of our members was speaking, that we, on this side of the House, had some responsibility for that, that we did not point out to the Government the enormous amount of money they were going to spend. I would like to ask, who is governing the country? Are the gentlemen on the other side not governing the country, or are we to be responsible for them? I agree that when they first came into office legislation drafted by ourselves was taken over and there was not much difficulty, but in the legislation they have initiated themselves there has been an enormous number of improvements made by the criticism from this side of the House. When you have Bills put down which it is thought are going to cost the country £30,000 or £40,000 and which are now found to cost the country £500,000, we on this side who had no data on which to criticize cannot be held responsible. They are bound to come a cropper, and in the case under consideration we were given no indication by the Minister of Finance of the enormous number of men and the large sums of money that were going to be expended under this Act. Therefore I think that the whole responsibility of that Act rests upon the Minister of Finance and the Treasury.

The amount the hon. Minister of Finance is asking for is £820,000, by far and away the largest amount ever asked for by way of additional estimates over the last four or five years. The gross figures last year were £273,000. The year before it was £456,000, and the year before that, 1924-’25, it was £351,000, and before that, practically the last year of the Burton regime, it was only £69,000. The total amount of the additional estimates asked for under these estimates is very nearly the whole total of the additional estimates for the preceding four years. Now the Minister has told us that, although he budgeted for a deficit of £138,000, he is able to allow for these estimates a nett amount of £420,000, and still expects to show a surplus of £600,000. That means his revenue will turn out, if his anticipations are correct, to have been under-estimated to the extent of £1,150,000. The country has been taxed to that extent more than was anticipated 12 months ago. It is too late now to do anything this year, but no doubt the Minister is framing his estimates for the coming year and preparing his budget speech, and if the Minister tells the House on the 21st February that this surplus of revenue will be expected, then when he announces his budget proposals he will be expected to make an announcement in the direction of a drastic reduction of taxes. I want to deal more particularly with the Pensions Vote of £411,000, which has considerably swollen these estimates. The Minister will reply to criticism on this point by saying that these large estimates are to some extent not the result of departmental expenditure increases, but expenditure voted in pursuance of the acts of this House. That is true to some extent. The amount of £366,000, portion of the sum to be voted under pensions, is due to an Act passed by this House on a report of a Select Committee of the House, and the House must take its share of responsibility. I want to examine this evening how far the House is responsible and how far the Treasury may be said to be responsible for that amount.

Business suspended at 5.59 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

When the House adjourned at 6 p.m., I was proceeding to deal with the position created by the Minister’s demand in the Additional Estimates for the sum of £411,000 on Pensions Vote, of which amount, he told us, £366,000 is due to the Republican Officials Bill which we passed last year. In addition to that amount of £366,000, there is an annual increase in our Pensions Vote due to this Act of £15,100. But I am afraid that is not the whole story. I put down a series of questions to the Minister on Friday which he has not yet been able to answer, but I am perfectly certain, and I make this prediction to the Minister, that the whole story has not been told, that the whole of the State’s liability has not yet been ascertained. Actually in cash to date the Minister has paid out £366,000, or stands committed to that payment. But what about the condonation of the break of service of the republican officials, that is to say, republican officials who were in the service of the republics and afterwards entered the service of the Transvaal or the Union Government, and whose break of Service has been condoned? That, surely, must mean an additional burden (which is capable of actuarial calculation) upon our Pensions Fund. I take it that it is not included in this sum of £15,100. I make this prediction, that the House will see, when it comes to reckon up the cost of that little Bill which last year was passed through in ten minutes, that it is not less than £500,000.

Your party agreed with it.

Yes, it is a responsibility of which this House must assume some share, but I want to trace for the benefit of this House and for our own benefit, the history of that little Bill and that little debt which we have incurred of £500,000. It began in an apparently very innocent and harmless motion introduced by the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen). His motion, after asking for condonation of the breach of service where republican servants had been re-employed after the Boer war, asked that a select committee be appointed to enquire into and report upon the following matters—

That is all the mover asked for. He said there might be some cases of these officials who were not employed by the British Government after the war, and they are in bad financial circumstances and should be given a little help. He put his case very reasonably and very moderately. In ending his speech, the hon. member said—

That is all the petition asked for. The hon. member added—

He was right. One of these “poor whites” some months ago received a cheque for £9,000. That same “poor white” has been in receipt of a pension from the Government ever since the time of the Boer war, which I believe has been £700 a year for the last 25 years. He has now received from the State under this Bill an additional sum of £9,000, so that for his services to the Transvaal Republic he has received since the Boer war something like £25,000. I also understand, though I speak subject to correction, that not only will he have this little present of £9,000, but we have increased his pension from £700 to £1,200 a year. Another “poor white” on the Ministerial benches in the person of the Minister of Lands has received something to keep him from starvation in his old age in the shape of a cheque for £2,291 2s. There are verious other “poor whites,” some in this House and some in the countryside, who have received these payments.

You have got a couple of “poor whites” on that side too!

I wish I were one!

Following on the extremely eloquent speech of the hon. member for Pretoria District (South), a speech was made by the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize), who is an ex-republican official himself. He was so satisfied that the intention was only to relieve the necessitous cases, that he said this—

We understood, and he understood, that this particular proposal was only to relieve a few necessitous cases, and would cost this country a comparatively trifling sum, and I suppose the most surprised man in the world was the hon. member for Lydenburg when one day he found a cheque for £750 in his post-box.

He made application and got £730.

That is because of the Act that was passed. The select committee was appointed with this definite understanding and instruction and with this mandate, to investigate the claims of such ex-South African republican and Orange Free State republican officials as did not enter the service of the Union or any of the provinces, and who are in unfavourable financial circumstances. That is what this House understood. That committee reported in favour of awards which, when translated into figures, would probably have landed this country, as events turned out, in an expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. It recommended that the service of the ex-republican officials be extended to May, 1902, in all cases. Once they got this committee appointed, they forgot all about the limitation in regard to necessitous financial circumstances. The second thing they recommended was that the three-quarters pension which had been given to them in 1908 be made up to 100 per cent. It had been fixed at three-quarters because they had not been on the contributory basis. Translated into figures in the two cases I have given, it meant an additional payment of £9,000 in the case of Dr. Leyds, and in the case of Mr. Grobler it meant a cheque for £2,292. My criticism of the Minister of Finance is this, that when the select committee’s report came before him, he, the custodian of finance in this country, the person to whom one should look for the utmost economy in these matters, apparently swallowed that report, or most of it, wholesale. He introduced a Bill to embody the recommendations of the committee in a speech which did not last two minutes, and simply stated baldly that he proposed to do that. It is quite obvious that the Minister made no enquiry into the financial implications of the Bill he introduced. He had only the vaguest idea of the cost to the country, if any. The major responsibility rests with the Minister who presented this Bill and got the Governor-General’s warrant for the expenditure involved. He did that without, so far as we are able to ascertain, any sort of idea of what the cost would be to the country. We, on these benches, were under the impression that it meant a few thousands, and none of us had the slightest desire to do anything that would savour of injustice to these officials, but if we had been told that it meant a cool half million, we should have given a great deal of consideration to it, and we should certainly have said that it should stand over until a full actuarial report was presented. There was not the slightest urgency about it, yet it was put through at the tail end of the session, when the House was jaded, and the whole atmosphere, the whole method of handling it, reflects no credit on the Government that put it through. I admit there is a certain amount of responsibility attaching to all of us, but the Minister and his Government ought not to have embarked upon any Bill involving an indefinite amount of expenditure of this sort. A careful Minister of Finance would have said, “It looks very nice, but until I get an actuarial report showing what it will cost, I will not bring a Bill before the House.” I hope that this unhappy experience, the painful feeling of surprise we have all had, including the Minister, will be a lesson for the future. I now want to deal with pensions as a whole. I notice our expenditure on pensions has now reached the absolutely terrifying total of £2,702,000, When Union was begun some 16 years ago, our total pensions bill was £451,000. To-day it is £2,702,000, and I want to tell members opposite that in that total something less than £1,000,000 is due to pensions in respect of the Great War. And so the greater portion of that expenditure is due to purely civil pensions, and year after year the total swells. There is also £317,000 for printing and stationery—£3,000,000 altogether of what one might call wasted money, for which the taxpayer gets no return. I want to ask where it is going to stop?

What do the pensioners do with the money?

I take it they spend it.

Then how can it be wasted?

In the sense that the State gets no return for it; it is unproductive expenditure. I would call a halt to the process which is going on of unduly and prematurely inflating our pensions bill by the discharge or abolition of office of many of our younger officials. We see the process going on daily of men in the prime of life being discharged on some pretext or other. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has read a list of names which will be found on page 16 of the Auditor-General’s report. Some of these people were actually in receipt of pensions and they were re-employed on the Public Service Commission with the result that their pension lapsed temporarily and the State got value for the money spent. Now Mr. Robinson is drawing £1,200 a year for doing nothing. Mr. Hofmeyr gets £1,123. Take a case like Mr. Lane, secretary to the late Prime Minister. Is anyone going to tell me that anyone so well known and capable as Mr. Lane could not be accommodated in the civil service, and that it was necessary at the age of 43 to retire him?

The old commission could not find a place for him.

All I can say is, if Mr. Lane had been one of the pals he would have been found a job. Mr. Hofmeyr, who is known to members of this House as the former Clerk to the House, was promoted to the Administratorship of South-West Africa. At the end of that time he was not re-appointed. I do not go into the reason of that. Nothing apparently was available for him, and the State pays him, a man in the prime of his life, a pension of £1,472 a year, and so the process goes on. We are getting into the state of affairs that exists in some countries, where half the people are pensioned. It is no use hon. members like the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) saying the money is spent in the country. It is money for which we get no return. But again, the Minister’s Estimates do not tell the full story. He has put down an additional sum on the pensions vote of £411,000, which brings the total for the year to £2,702,000. If that were all, it would be bad enough, but I give two items which seem to show that is not all. When we come to defence, I see an item of £2,000, payment of compensation to members of the Defence Force, upon retirement. So that is another little item. Then when we come to the Public Service Commission vote, I understood the Minister to explain that the item of £2,640 was also by way of payment to these members of the Public Service Commission in lieu of leave when they retired. I say the Government is taking a grave responsibility upon itself when it does not recognize where we are tending in this regard. I do not believe the Minister himself can look with equanimity upon a state of affairs where, in a comparatively poor country, we have to pay £2,750,000, a tenth of the total income, in pensions. That is apart from the formidable list of railway pensions. Some of it is unavoidable no doubt, but surely it should be scrutinized with the utmost care, and yet in one jump we have an additional half million thrown on to that vote because the Minister, or his officials, or both, did not trouble to find out the implications of this innocuous little Act we passed last year. There are one or two other items I want to discuss. There is the High Commissioner’s motor-car. I do not think there is a single member on this side who objects to the High Commissioner in London having a motor-car. But I would have expected the Minister and some of his colleagues at least to have the grace to admit that the ill-founded criticisms which they indulged in, when on this side of the House, on the least item of expenditure we incurred on the High Commissioner, were wrong. Year after year they used to make this vote the signal for a concerted attack upon the Government and its policy. When they appointed their own High Commissioner they signalized the occasion and the importance of his high office by voting him a motor-car. Then I notice an item down on the inland revenue vote, of £1,350, which the Minister tells us has to be paid to cover defalcations made by one of the officials of the department. I do not know whether the Minister has read the Controller-Auditor’s report, but there is a particular paragraph in that report which he will find on page 17. There the Auditor-General draws attention to a most amazing state of affairs—which boils down to this—that if an official of the Union Government of South Africa steals Government money, nevertheless his pension contributions are returned to him without deduction of the stolen money, and three cases are given in that report as illustrating that fact. The law seems to be powerless to make such an official restore these moneys.

And you know who passed that law.

All I can say is that if we passed a law like this it is a rotten law.

It is not the law at all.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House that the amount of this man’s pension contributions which have been set off against his defalcations. The Auditor General’s report states—

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he has taken suitable measures to see that the thief in this case at least has refunded to the State the amount which he confessed having stolen. There is one item I intend raising when we get into committee, and I mention it now so that the Minister knows I intend raising it—on Vote 33—a payment of £2,170 to the trustees of the National Park. Surely that is an amazing item! Last session the House passed the National Park Bill, and set up a board of trustees to look after the park, but did we expect we were going to inflate our estimates by that amount? Surely one would think that the trustees would act gratuitously.

It is the officials.

It is extraordinary.

Quite off the rails again.

The Minister seems to be getting rattled with my criticisms. Where I have gone off the rails by now the Minister will have an opportunity of showing. In any case, I am raising this so that the Minister may tell us what it is. Then there is an increase of £50,000 on the votes, printing and stationery. If there is one item on which the State should look jealously it is the stationery vote. Hon. members must set themselves an example of self denial. I am told that the printing of the Votes and Proceedings for a single day costs £20. The printing bill is enormous, and the Minister should see that it is cut down; and with the help of his colleagues he can do so. A poor State such as this cannot afford this. I hope the Minister, in framing his Estimates for the coming year, will show a reduction on this vote.

After hearing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), one wonders whether this has been put up this afternoon and this evening as an unrehearsed opposition as far as the Loan Vote is concerned. This afternoon we had the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in favour of printing a very voluminous report, and now he immediately turns down this vote and asks the House that they must seriously consider economy—the Printing Vote had been increased seriously and the Government was responsible for this increase. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout tells us that the present Government is responsible for an increase in the pension vote, and he gave the House to understand that these officials and the two poor whites on this side of the House were the principal beneficiaries. The facts are that last year a select committee was appointed on February 23rd on the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) to go into the whole of this question, and I find in looking through this report that there were present at the first meeting Mr. Nieuwenhuize, Mr. Papenfus and Dr. van Broekhuizen. At the next meeting the same three gentlemen were present, which sounds very much like “this side of the House.” The committee reported unanimously, and the report was signed by Dr. van Broekhuizen and Messrs. Nieuwenhuize, Papenfus and Waterston. There was not a word of complaint from either side, and it had the blessing of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who spoke in very much better taste than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Yeoville said—

But I want to read a letter from a higher authority in the House. The letter is dated from Irene [translated]—

It is signed J. C. Smuts, 19th October. [The hon. member was continuing in Afrikaans.]

The hon. member must confine himself to one language, except for quotations.

There is a further letter dated the 2nd November, Irene. After the Select Committee report was sent out, Gen. Smuts himself sent in his application as an old republican official—

—My previous letter to you was written with the intention that it should be sent through to the Minister, and I expect that at my request you will do that. I do not think it advisable to write to him personally. With best wishes.— (signed) J. C. Smuts.

The hon. member must not speak of “Gen. Smuts.”

I was referring to a letter written by Gen. Smuts. I am now referring to the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It is in bad taste for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who now comes and turns round on this Government and says it is responsible for this iniquity, because he finds that these amounts are very large. But that does not take away the obligations placed on this Government, which did not have the opportunity of coming to the House and asking for a rectification of these payments. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) tried to come forward with an amendment, but I have not heard a word said against the amendment. He made it contingent to the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) that the claims of certain members of the posts and telegraphs department and certain members of the Royal Engineers who served during the Anglo-Boer war as post and telegraph officials should be counted as part of their service. That was the spirit in which the matter was accepted by the House. He contented that an injustice was done to the old Republican officials, who had been deprived of their employment. It would be interesting to see the figures paid out in pensions and gratuities to them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has talked about this progressive increase of pensions, but if he will refer to the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1921-’22 he will see that under the South African party Government the war allowances for pensions rose from £27,000 in 1914 to £1,176,000 in 1921-’ 22. Has there been any complaint from this side of the House in regard to these war allowances! or in regard to the people who are responsible for this big jump? Not a word was said from this side of the House, for we took the increases in the right spirit.

You are suffering from loss of memory.

Here is another little item. The Auditor-General in his report for the same year, 1921-’22, shows that in connection with the industrial disturbance on the Rand the Government spent on the Defence Department £138,000 and on the police £98,000. We had no intention of taking up this matter until the hon. members opposite accused this Government of wanton waste. If hon. members opposite want to know who has been responsible for reckless expenditure—

Have you reduced it?

This Government has made provision for every one of these bankrupt pension and superannuation funds which the late Government left bare for this Government to put on a sound footing. The hon. member quoted from the last report of the Auditor-General with regard to three very hard cases. As a legal man he should know that there was not one case in which the Treasury could prosecute. Yet he makes this allegation with regard to the poor widow. He knew very well the legal point involved.

No.

He has had an explanation and if he does not understand the matter now he never will. I think it grossly unfair of hon. members opposite to come forward on this vote with a large programme of thrift and economy and charge this Government with reckless expenditure.

This is indeed a magnificent echo of the election speeches of 1924. It is hard luck that this should be laid at the door of the Government—it is indeed hard luck that speeches made in ignorance come home to roost occasionally. The hon. member opposite was either suffering from a complete lapse of memory, or he was deliberately throwing a smoke screen around the Act passed last session. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said they stood in a white sheet with regard to this Act, and took some of the responsibility. I, however, take no responsibility whatever with regard to this Act in connection with the exorbitant expenditure that has been incurred under it. The full responsibility is with the Treasury.

For the Royal Engineers, too?

When the motion was brought into the House, it dealt with officials who had been in the republican service and who re-entered the Union service, and also with officials who had been in the republican service but did not re-enter the service, but who were in unfavourable financial circumstances.

It is increasing expenditure just the same.

A large number of people who benefited under the Act would not have come in at all if the order of the House had been complied with. I moved an amendment that a number of Royal Engineers who performed postal and telegraphic services should be included, and that their period of war service should be counted as continuous in the same way as the war period of republican officials. What I object to is that when the report was brought back to the House, and the Bill was brought in, the Minister of Finance failed to point out that there had been a complete departure from the motion passed by the House, which was that in the case of republican officials who had not re-entered—

How can you justify a discrimination?

I am not dealing with that point.

Once you decide to do justice, how can you discriminate ?

Did the Minister mention that point? Did he say the House ordered that we should give relief to certain ex-republican officials?

No, but I accepted a portion of the report and rejected a portion.

Did you say that?

Of course I did.

The Minister did not tell us he was bringing forward a Bill to give relief to all officials, whether in unfavourable financial circumstances or not. I would like the hon. member who proposed the motion to tell his constituents, who are poor people, that this Government to whom they are constantly appealing for relief has given a present of £9,000 to Dr. Leyds, in addition to the pension he was previously getting.

Is your sense of justice dependent on its cost?

I am dealing with this point, that when a Bill is brought in purporting to carry out the report of a select committee, but differing materially from the order of the House which set up that select committee, it is the duty of the Government to tell us that they are departing from the order, and are bringing in an entirely different Bill. I don’t mind repeating the words I said on that occasion, if I could remember them, and I stand by every word I said. To give an official like Dr. Leyds, who was admirably provided for by the pension he has drawn for 20 years, an additional £9,000, is an outrage, where we have to deal with financial problems every day. I want hon. members opposite to tell their people that they have given Dr. Leyds a present of £9,000.

Which you supported.

No, I did not support it at all. I was not here when the Bill was brought forward.

Was there a word in the Bill about necessitous cases?

No. The Minister should have told us this Bill was a departure.

Why did you not raise the point?

Because I was not here. I was not here because the Prime Minister told us we could count on the session being over in the third week of May, but after that a mass of controversial Bills brought forward.

I think you took part in the debate on the Bill—you complained that the Bill did not go far enough.

If my memory is at fault, I am perfectly willing to withdraw my statement that I was not here. My complaint was based on the same principle for which I had been contending, not in regard to republican officials who rejoined the service—their wartime period should be included as part of their service. My complaint is in regard to the officials who did not rejoin the service, and according to the order of the House that was to be confined to men in unfavourable financial circumstances. My complaint is that that was departed from without a ward of warning, and that large sums of money were awarded to people who had no claim to it either in equity or justice.

What is the Opposition for?

What is the Government for? It brings in a Bill involving the expenditure of half a million, arid does not say a word to indicate that it was anything beyond a trifling expenditure. If that is the hon. member’s conception of the duties of the Government, I put it to the country. If that is their conception, then it is a bad day for South Africa. It is to dip your hands deep into the till so long as you are in power, and whatever you do, keep it dark from the Opposition.

And what are your responsibilities?

it is your responsibility, not ours. It is the duty of the Government bringing in a Bill for the expenditure of public money to tell the House what that expenditure is for. I have been led into this thing a little further than I intended to go, but I think it is a monstrous thing, at a time when we are trying to control expenditure, that we should see the Pensions Bill going up, not for the purpose of benefiting the old and infirm people who need it and who cannot help themselves, but to benefit people who do not require it. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what his policy is in regard to officials whom the Government has the right, if it chooses, to retire at the age of 55. I am speaking of officers of the Postal and Telegraph Department, who, under the Act, if not retired, have the right to stay on until 60. The Public Service Act provides the Government with the right to retire certain officials at 55, but if this is not exercised they can stay on until 60. After that age they can still be kept on from year to year. I am informed that the Public Services Commission is inquiring into cases of officials as soon as they are over 55, and that inquiry is made every year. A report is called for as to their fitness, and they are treated in the same position as they would be if they were over 60. I certainly understood, when that Act was passed, the principle was that while the Government has the right to retire certain officials at 55, the normal age of retirement should be regarded as 60, unless there were special reasons of inefficiency, in which case the Government would not, in the ordinary course, exercise the right to retire men until aged 60. In the new practice which is being adopted, the man is called under review every year, and apparently the policy is to take every opportunity of getting him out after 55.

Are you referring to the Transvaal and Natal?

Yes.

Lots are being kept on.

And we are altering that policy.

But a lot are being called up for revision.

That is not so.

They are being kept on. You started that policy, but we are keeping them on.

I brought the matter up before the commission, and they say there is a clause under the Act that after a man reaches the age at which the Government can retire him, he can only be kept on on a recommendation from the Public Services Commission; after that there must be a report every year.

We inherited that.

Well, if you inherited it, are you so conservative that you must stick to it?

No, we have put it the other way

We are burdening the Pensions Act unduly by pushing men out at 55 when they are really competent to perform their duty until they are 60.

Yes, if it was true.

We should lay it down that the Government do not retire them until 60 unless for some special cause, unless there is some reason why, in the public interest, they should be retired. The normal age of retirement should be not 55, but 60. I have several other points to raise, but I will keep them until we discuss the general estimates. We are piling up expenditure. This year it is £1,000,000 up from last year, and I suppose it will be the same next year, and the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) reflects the opinion of that side of the House, “We have the revenue, let us spend it; let us eat, drink and be merry. The mines are successful, producing gold, why not spend it?”

What about 1921?

Oh! You are on 1921 now to explain it. I thought you were there to alter it.

I would like to deal with one or two statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. As a member of the select committee appointed to deal with the pensions of officials and ex-republican officials, I am surprised at his attitude. I have always considered the hon. gentleman a fair-minded man and a man who was very loth to descend to mere party political platform kind of vote-catching style. The hon. member has done it to-night, and members on that side of the House are careful, on quoting beneficiaries, to finish with the names of members who belong to this side of the House. Why do it if you are not indulging in a kind of political campaign? Why don’t you tell the public that members on that side of the House have been beneficiaries? This Act was passed by this House as a tardy act of justice. For many years the late Prime Minister, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and many leaders on that side had been promising the country that they would perform this act of justice, but their promises were without performance. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) made two charges against the Government. He said the Minister had departed from the recommendation of the committee.

On a point of order I said: No! from the order of the House when setting up the committee. I said nothing of the sort; I said he departed from the order of the House under which this committee was set up.

[Mr. Deane made an interjection which, owing to noise, was inaudible.]

You go back to Durban!

You get back to Ballarat!

I don’t want to say anything insulting, but the hon. member is not responsible for his actions.

You stick to common sense.

My hon. friend is not a judge of common sense. When the committee was set up the idea was that we should attempt to do justice to men who had not had a square deal owing to the Boer war. Hon. members on the other side know who the members of the committee were and those members have not yet spoken. Every member tried to do what he thought to be his duty and if anyone is to blame it is that committee irrespective of party, because on it there were two members of the South African party, two Nationalists and one member of the Labour party, and we tried to do our best. We went into the question and in taking evidence we found that many ex-republican officials had not returned to the service of the South African Government because they were refused employment. They were unable to get back. If an enemy invaded South Africa to-morrow, and was successful, they would not require South Africans in their service for many years, and that happened in this case. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) must accept some responsibility for it. Their services in the public service were interrupted through no fault of their own and the committee took that into consideration. Clause 8 of the report says—

The Bill does not embody the whole of the recommendations of the committee. I hope hon. members opposite, when they go into the past, will remember some of the pensions paid out by them to people who have been less deserving of pensions than some of the awards which they have attacked here to-day. This was a tardy attempt, after 25 years, to try and do justice to people in this country, and because hon. members found that certain moneys had been paid out to hon. members who happen to be sitting in this House, or other gentlemen with whom they have disagreed in the past, they are trying to make political capital out of it, although they themselves agreed to it last session, and when they were in office had pledged themselves to carry it out. Neither of the two hon. members opposite, who were members of that committee, can stand up in this House and attack the Government for the recommendations which they have adopted.

I rise, not for the purpose of taking part in the general debate, but to support one of the matters referred to in the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I gathered from the interruptions made on the other side that the Minister did not appreciate the point that was raised. It is not a question regarding pre-Union men at all. The pre-Union men in the Transvaal could be retired at 55, and the officer could claim retirement at 55. That question in regard to the law in the Transvaal has been mooted by the post officials from time to time. The question raised by the hon. member for Yeoville has nothing whatever to do with it. It has to do with men who come under the Union Act of 1923. The point is simply that the interpretation which the Government has adopted seems to be quite apart from the intention of the select committee and of Parliament, and, as far as I can see, is not justified by the Public Service Act. The reason why one is raising it at this stage is that under these financial proposals before us, there are certain allowances and grants to these men that, by virtue of their having been retired before 60 under the Act of 1923, come out of revenue instead of out of the various pension funds. I have referred to the pre-Union civil servants. I want to refer for a moment to the Union civil servants who come under the Act of 1923. Undoubtedly, if you look through this Act and look at the financial provisions and the provisions for pensions, you must come to the conclusion that the normal retiring age fixed under the Act of 1923 was 60 and not 55. It is true that under Section 19, on a recommendation of the commission, a man may be required to retire at 55, but everywhere through the Act hon. members will see that the normal retiring age is 60. That appears clear from the fact that under Section 35 of the Act it is provided that if you keep a man over 60, then you can only keep him on from year to year after a proper medical examination. There is no similar provision in the Act for those who are kept on after 55. I think that it was the clear intention of Parliament that when a man reached 55 under the Union Act the Government had to decide whether to retire him or not. If they decided to retire him then he was retired at 55.

That is not disputed.

No, but what is disputed in this, that once the Government has decided not to retire a man at 55, then he automatically goes on to 60 under this Act of 1923. That is the contention, and, I submit, a perfectly sound contention. This is a very serious thing for these men. A number of these men in the general division of the post office are specially concerned. These men feel it very much indeed that, after they have reached 55, and are continued in the service, they have to submit to a medical examination and are appointed for another year. At the end of that year they are appointed for a further year, and so on.

Are they Transvaal and Natal men?

These are men who by virtue of transfers, etc., have come under the Union Act as if they had been recruited under the Union Act. I am not referring to the pre-Union Transvaal and Natal men. This point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has nothing to do with those men. What right has the Minister got if he decides to keep them on at 55 only to keep them on year by year and after medical examination? I have several cases here where men have been treated in this way, and I will supply the names to the Minister. A very serious principle is involved, and it is this—that, whereas you are given power in the Act of 1923 to make these one-year appointments over 60, there is nothing one can find in the Act to make one-year appointments over 55. The Minister cannot keep these men on with an appointment year by year, like a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, when they have reached the age of 55 years.

I am one of the persons who was benefited under the Act passed last year, but, nevertheless, I opposed the Bill in the House, and it is not correct that no one opposed the Bill as stated by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). I was one of the only people in the House who opposed the Bill.

Because it did not go far enough.

If the Minister would refer to Hansard he would see that I opposed the Bill because I was against the principle of shutting out any officials. What I said was that if the Government considered enquiry necessary let there be an enquiry to see what officials were in necessitous circumstances. That was the point I started from. I stated that there were ex-officials who could make a good living and draw good salaries, and that I could not see why they should be given anything more. I opposed the principle and, therefore, I can speak freely. I cannot understand how we could have passed such a Bill in the House. I said the same thing in my constituency. There are people who are favoured under the Act who were not in the war, such as Dr. Leyds, who has been granted more than £8,000. Take again the Minister of Lands. He was one of the persons who were in Europe, I think at Government expense, for three or four years and lived splendidly in Holland. He has been given £2,000. This happened while there are so many people on the countryside who sacrificed everything in those days and to-day these Oudstryders, in their old age, and often in poor circumstances, have every year to approach the House for a little help. We cannot assist them, and yet we pass a Bill—

The hon. member may not criticize the Act. He may criticize the circumstances, but not the Act passed by the House.

I do not want to criticize the Act, but I say that I am sorry that there were no more members at that time to stand by me in opposing the Bill.

Did you vote against it?

I voted for a very small amount to assist poor officials, but yet I say that we ought never to have passed the Bill, and would not have done if there had been a proper enquiry.

What did you do in the committee?

I was not a member of the select committee. There was some talk of my being a member, but I said from the first that I would wreck the thing, and, consequently, I was not put on it by the mover. The Minister asked how it was possible to make a distinction. It was quite easy to do it in the Bill, and the committee that sat could have made a proper enquiry. Is not a difference made with reference to the burghers wounded in the Anglo-Boer war? Where a man was wounded and is only half incapacitated and is able to work he is not assisted. The amount paid in pensions is constantly increasing. Where is it going to end? And what is the commission costing, apart from the pensions, which is still travelling about to-day. That commission is still investigating to-day the old cases of burghers. What does that commission cost the State?

That is not under discussion.

Yet the amount comes under this vote. How long will the commission continue to sit? The work could have been done by a departmental committee, and we calculated that three persons could in nine months have gone through the files and ended the matter. Now the work is costing much money. The Government ought to economize a little in this matter. Almost £3,000,000 for pensions for a country with 1½ million whites is too much.

It is amusing to listen to hon. members. It is so very amusing to notice people commencing to run away from what was done and from the attitude they took up in the past. There you have the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) telling us that he was the person who always opposed the Bill. The hon. member must already have a very bad memory. Very bad. Just as bad as that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). They all run away. They thought they could make very good capital against the Government out of the grant to Dr. Leyds. I noticed this while in England, that they were trying to make capital out of this matter. What I do not like is that we now have to follow a method which is not to our credit in wanting to forget what we did and trying to hide the truth under sand. We heard the hon. member for Yeoville this evening. He not only did not know what was in the Act, but was not even in the House, and was only not here when the Bill was being discussed, but could at once give a reason for not being here. The reason is that I am supposed to have said that Parliament would adjourn in May, and the matter came up in June, and, of course, he was absent. Well this shows that if we want to run away it is quite easy. It also shows, however, how good a thing it is that we do not any longer live in the time of our predecessors when they were so frightened of being caught in their own words that they abolished Hansard. Fortunately, the Act was passed when we had a Hansard. The hon. member for Yeoville was highly indignant at the Minister of Finance actually introducing a Bill in conflict with the instructions to the select committee without mentioning it to the House. This is just as true, according to Hansard at least, as the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville was not here during the debate. I just want to quote him a little of what took place. It will not take long. On the 2nd June the matter came up for discussion, and the Minister of Finance said—

The hon. member for Yeoville was, therefore, here with the report before him. The Minister continued—

Then the hon. member for Yeoville spoke himself on the same day after a short speech by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers). The hon. member for Yeoville commenced—

The hon. member also presented a petition, just as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) wrote letters, to encourage people to go to the Government for pensions.

Do not mislead the House.

Here are the words which were used in the debate—

The Prime Minister knows quite well, if he will allow me, that I explained very carefully to the House that my objection was that we were not told that the provision for ex-republican officials who had not re-entered the service was confined to those who were in difficult financial circumstances.

Is that not quibbling? I must say that I expected more from the hon. member for Yeoville. It is a mere quibble because where was it said that the Bill should only deal with the people who were in distress? The instructions of the House to the Select Committee were to that effect, but the Select Committee made a report and that report did not mention that only people in need were to be assisted.

The Select Committee did not have that power.

Did the hon. member raise the point then as to whether the Committee had power? A report was made where not only needy people were referred to and on that report the findings of the Department of Finance which were introduced were based with certain amendments. The hon. member for Yeoville complains that the Government never said that the Bill contained what the House on a former occasion had decided upon. It was actually said by the Minister of Finance. Let me further quote from the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville—

Those are the people on whose behalf I acted.

Yes, of course. That is what I am saying. Each hon. member was, of course, trying to catch votes and the hon. member for Yeoville had his basket full, just as his leader had a number kept on his string. Now, however, he wants to come and represent that only the section which he mentioned should have been specially provided for. I will read further—

I only read this so that it cannot be said that I have not quoted everything the hon. member said. The hon. member was in the House with the Bill before him. He had not gone away as he said, and what is also clear is that he is wrong when he says that everything was not brought before the House.

It is not wrong.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). He was the strong man and the only one who fought against the Bill. It is general to-day. There is no one who is responsible. The only reason for the agitation is that Dr. Leyds got over £8,000. I think we should wait a little before we run away. Because a man has money is it right that he should not be considered? I leave the matter there. The hon. member for Witwatersberg spoke on the same day and said—

not to not bring in the Bill, but—

This is the man who would not help.

Not the rich man.

Of course that is the morality of the people who are so courageous as to run away. The one has a right, but not the other, who possesses a shilling more. After those two sentences by the hon. member the Minister of Finance asked—

to which the hon. member for Witwatersberg replied—

Then the Minister of Finance said—

to which the hon. member for Witwatersberg replied—

Here an hon. member remarked—

and the hon. member for Witwatersberg replied—

Just listen—

It is not only those who suffered. Of course, the hon. member had then to see to get his kittens about him. I still want to read the last sentence—

The hon. member even wanted to assist the Free State officials.

Why could they not be assisted as well?

What clause did the hon. member for Witwatersberg actually protest against?

I was outside.

I understand now that he was not in the House. No, really the only thing that the hon. member did was that he protested that all the ex-officials did not come under the Bill.

I was only thinking of the poor ex-officials.

No, his heart was generous because there were poor people amongst them. But when he opened his heart he wanted to see everyone benefited, even the Free State officials who did not apply for it. It does not redound to the credit of hon. members after the way in which they acted at that time in putting the Bill through the House to now come and raise objections just because they feel that there was a little feeling on account of Dr. Leyds. Let me say that if Dr. Leyds were not Dr. Leyds we should have heard nothing about the matter.

That is untrue.

Had Dr. Leyds not been Dr. Leyds we should not have heard about the matter. I am not speaking of the hon. member for Yeoville nor of the hon. member for Witwatersberg, but of the shouting which went on outside. It was Dr. Leyds, a Hollander of course, and a Hollander who was faithful to President Kruger and was hated at that time.

Dr. Leyds was already drawing a pension of £700 a year.

Because he had earned it.

He had the right just as much as the hon. member for Standerton had the right to send in a claim. He did so. Why should others not get it if the hon. member for Standerton could get it? No, really if it was not Dr. Leyds we should not have heard a word about it, and I consider it unworthy of us when the House had approved it and adopted a principle in the Act to do justice to ex-officials or to allow their rights to prevail to now come and raise objections. The amount has nothing to do with the case. It is a matter of right or wrong. I say again that I consider it unworthy for people to try and make political capital out of it, and I consider it still more unworthy to try and do so by wishing to blot out the footprints of the past. I must say I do not know that I should have taken part in the debate, but the hon. member for Yeoville brought it on himself by going the length of saying that he was not only absent but that I was the cause of his being away when the Bill was dealt with in the House. I leave it to hon. members as I am prepared to leave it to the public to say whether I or the hon. member for Yeoville is more to blame.

It is evident the members on the other side, particularly on the Ministerial benches, have realized the importance of the attack made on the Government to-day in connection with this matter. We have at last had the Prime Minister put up to present the case for the defendant. In doing so, he made use of several jury points, and a little error of recollection which did not affect the argument. When the Prime Minister made these jury points, it was to the intense laughter and joy of hon. members on the other side. Every member of the House knew that it was not to humour the Prime Minister, but that it was laughter of relief to divert the attention of the House. The Prime Minister used one or two arguments that were not worthy of him. He said the attack of Dr. Leyds was because he was Dr. Leyds. All this discussion of the last hour or two has ended up with the Prime Minister, to divert the attention of the House from the real merit of the attack—

It has no merits.

There is the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) again. I wonder if he has read any of these things. The hon. member must have a memory of the poll in the Provincial Council elections, and will remember he said that the South African party had no merits, to which Labour has given the answer. If I may be pardoned for going on in spite of the interruptions of the hon. member, who cannot get away from the atmosphere of the platform, I might get back to the points of the attack. The Bill came before the House in February, and the point referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) referred to republican officers who had rejoined the service, or who had not rejoined the service but were in necessitous circumstances. The matter went before the select committee, and they had a few witnesses, and I ask what evidence was put before the select committee, or what Treasury officers were called, as to what it would cost the country? I find a list was put in, and a list of the Royal Engineers, and I asked the House what information could be got from this book to indicate the position.

Do you suggest that Treasury officials were not called? Do you suggest there was no evidence from the Treasury? The committee made investigations.

Did the committee get the evidence, or was their evidence inadequate, or had they not the time to get the evidence to give the House the information as to what the thing was going to cost? Nobody is blaming the Treasury officials, but we do say the whole thing was rushed through. When the matter came before the House again it was on the 2nd of June. I would like the House to look through Hansard for the last couple of weeks in May and a week in the beginning of June, and they will find a record of protest after protest made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and other members whose duty it is to see the finances of the Government are in order, and that the business of the House is kept in order. The position was, after the Prime Minister had given the House an assurance that no matter of a contentious nature was to come forward, a whole lot of such contentious matter was brought forward against the repeated protests of hon. members on this side of the House. In connection with this very Bill, hon. members will find on page 359 of Hansard of that year that the Bill was brought up and moved for the first reading by the Minister of Finance, and he moved that the Bill be read a second time the next day. Mr. Jagger protested most strongly, and other members did the same. Mr. Jagger said the thing would take too long to discuss, and said that they had got into the habit of steam-rollering things through the House, that Bills were being forced through. That protest was made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) on this very Bill. When the matter came on before the House on June 22nd, hon. members will find that every stage of this Bill was taken at one sitting on a night when various contentious measures were before the House. I ask whether the protests which were made over and over again by members of this side of the House against the steamrollering of measures through were not amply justified? Here we have a case in point. I ask hon. members, with all the matters of contentious legislation which came on at that period of last session, how many of them were able to study the provisions of this Bill properly. This was one of those very unpleasant measures which are not substantive measures in themselves, but deal with such and such sections of various other Acts. What we complain of is that in the first place the Bill was rushed through at a time of the session when the attention of the House was filled up with all sorts of contentious matters to which we had not time to give proper attention. The second thing is that a Bill of that sort introduced under those circumstances should be accompanied by the most complete and accurate information given by the Minister, so that the House may know what it is doing and what it is voting. I say that if the House had realized that Dr. Leyds or any other person was going to get, in addition to his pension of £700, a grant of £8,900 and a further pension of £500, that Bill would not have had a dog’s chance of going through a further stage that night, and I will go further and say that if the Minister of Finance had himself realized that fact, the Bill would not have had a dog’s chance of being introduced in that form by him. The Minister of Lands is loyally standing by those who are responsible for it, but he has admitted that he was not in the least degree aware that such large sums were going to be due under that Bill.

It was impossible for him to be aware then, or until three months afterwards.

I go still further, and say that if the Minister of Finance was not aware until three months afterwards what the sum was going to be, there was still less excuse for rushing the Bill through the House. The Minister sees now the deadly result of having introduced the Bill under these circumstances and forced it through without discussion. We must all accept some measure of responsibility as members of the House, but I do say that the major portion of the responsibility rests upon the occupants of the Ministerial benches.

I want to plead for a certain section of ex-officials who ought to be assisted under the Act, but have not yet been assisted. I do not so much want to speak about the ex-officials who are still in the service or of the ex-school teachers who were granted by proclamation a sum of £10 or £7 10s., but never got it. I wish principally now to plead for two sections of the population who certainly possess the sympathy of the Minister and of this House, viz., the police and the artillery, and especially those who had a shorter period of service before the war than one year. According to the Act, “official” means someone who was an official of the South African republic up to the 11th of October, 1899, and it embraces every member of the police or State artillery of the old republic who received compensation under the old Republican Act. Unfortunately, there are many persons who were in the artillery and police on the 11th October who had not yet served a year, but this House would certainly have altered the definition “official” in the Bill if it had known that these persons would be excluded.

I think the hon. member is now bringing in people not mentioned in the Act.

Then I just want to ask the Minister to administer the Act very sympathetically in the future. I know of various cases where as the original motion read such ex-officials are actually in necessitous circumstances, and we know that the artillery and police bore the brunt in the war. Then I want to mention something in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who said that they did not wish to make any party capital out of it. I am very glad of that, but I would like to express the wish that the same spirit would be shown outside the House. The hon. leader of the Opposition said in the House in February, 1923, when he was still in power, that those who brought up the 5s. matter at meetings were guilty of political fraud. Fortunately, the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) also disapproved of that point. I hope, however, that hon. members will also be consistent outside the House, and not pass such resolutions as those at the congress of the South African party, where they passed a resolution in favour of the 5s. matter, which will cost the State a further £6,000,000.

Before I deal with this question of the pensions, in regard to which an attack seems to have been launched by the Opposition, I would like to say a few words with regard to the general criticisms levelled by certain hon. members, especially by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who has drawn attention to the growth in expenditure and to evidences of what he calls “extravagance” as would appear from the additional estimates which the House is now being asked to vote. Now I think hon. members will have noticed that the hon. member, when he dealt with this matter, made general statements—he has not tried to analyse the expenditure and the growth of expenditure to which reference was made by him. If he had done that, as he has done on a previous occasion, he would see that the Government has completely justified this growth. There are many items with which we have dealt on former occasions. If we take the percentage growth of expenditure in previous years—attention has again been called to this to-night— we will see, as on the former occasion, that the growth in the percentage was very much greater in previous years under the previous Government than it is under the present Government. In former years, as at present, the country was developing. Every year, when an increase of expenditure had to be voted by Parliament, there was an increase of taxation, and additional burdens had to be laid on the people. But the revenue of the country has kept pace with its expenditure—that is the important point. Expenditure has gone up, but we have not increased the burdens of taxation—we have reduced them. I just wish to make passing reference to it, because hon. members have made reference to it to-night. It is not an increase in taxation, but in the yield of taxation. The country has been expanding without increasing the actual taxation. The yield has increased, and that yield has kept pace with the expenditure, which did not take place under the previous Government. That is the important point. Although the expenditure has grown, we have not asked the House to levy additional taxation, as my predecessors had to do.

What about increased customs?

There has been no increase except in the adjustment of rates when we dealt with preferences; where the rates have been increased, numerous remissions and reductions were also made. I have given the figures from time to time, and those figures have not been challenged.

The taxpayer pays more.

No. The rates have not been increased, but the revenue has increased because there are more importations.

I thought the aim of your increased customs policy was to diminish importations.

Many commodities formerly imported in large quantities are not imported to the same extent today, but the country is spending more on luxury articles which are being imported. When we deal with the main Estimates, I think I shall be able to point out the increased importations of motor-cars, and that is because the country can afford it. When hon. members speak about increased expenditure I do not think it does any good to make these general statements. Will hon. members opposite move reductions in regard to any specific item? We have heard a lot to-night about the increases due to pensions. With the exception of Act 49 of 1926, is a single pension payable to-day not payable under Acts of Parliament passed by previous Governments? Will hon. members opposite indicate to the Government which pensions they desire to be reduced or cancelled? Do they want us to reduce the war pensions? Do they wish us to depart from the contracts with civil servants regarding pensions?

We don’t want you to pile up the pensions.

We don’t wish you to dismiss civil servants who are still capable of doing good work.

It is useless to talk about pensions when hon. members will not bring forward a motion to reduce a particular class of pension.

What about the retirement of the Public Civil Service Commissioners?

They were retired in the public interest because there was a change of Government. They talk about hundreds of thousands increase in the pensions bill and then quote as an instance the retirement of three Public Service Commissioners!

The Public Service Commissioners were dismissed because they did not agree with your colleague over there.

I want to say a few words with reference to the Repubcan Officers Pension Act. The Prime Minister has dealt with it exhaustively and I want to remind hon. members of the history of this matter. Great pressure was being brought to bear on the Government to remedy this injustice, which this class of official (a number in the service and those who had left the service) regarded as an injustice. They came to me and resolutions were passed by various political organisations urging the Government to do justice. I took up the position that when the Act of 1908 was passed, it was passed under responsible government, and the present leader of the Opposition was in the Transvaal Government then and he knew the circumstances and I must assume legislation was passed in an equitable manner and I did not think I was justified in re-opening it. I took that position up when we were being pressed to pass this Act. What happened then? The letters quoted by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) were brought to me by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the man on whom I relied as having settled this matter once and for all, in which they urged I should re-open this question and cause investigations to be made. He admitted justice had not been done to these officials. I could therefore no longer rely on my defence which I had put up formerly that I considered the right hon. member for Standerton had settled the matter, when he was urging me to investigate the matter and appoint a commission. I pointed out that they could bring their petition before Parliament and, if they could convince Parliament, I had no objection to appointing a commission but I said I would not support it and that I would not oppose it. Then a motion was moved in the House by the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and eventually action was taken. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is criticising me when he said (when I eventually introduced the Bill which eventually became an Act) that I departed from the instructions given by the Select Committee to the House I think the Prime Minister is right in characterizing that argument as a mere quibble. I did not think the matter could be dealt with by giving these people a dole. That was not what they came to me for.

That is what they asked for.

That might have been the wording of the request, but we were dealing with a bigger question. We were dealing with pensions and not with doles to people in necessitous circumstances. When the Select Committee was appointed and went into the matter they never thought for a moment that it was possible to settle the matter on the basis of finding out whether this man or that was in poor circumstances and, if so, by giving him something. We had to do right by those people who had served in the Republican Government.

The terms of reference were not to do that.

Why did not the hon. member question that if he thought the terms of reference could not be departed from. I explained the Bill and everybody knew the terms of the Bill which the House was being asked to deal with. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) in his speech dealt comprehensively with the whole matter and he said distinctly—

During the course of the debate the hon. member says clearly that no attempt was made to deal with the matter on the basis of necessitous circumstances. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) raised the question of expense. I frankly admitted this afternoon that I certainly did not know that this Act was going to cost the amount which it is costing, but that has nothing to do with the whole question, because Parliament has never on previous occasions in passing a Pensions Bill had before it what the Bill was going to cost. In the nature of things it would be impossible to be in possession of that information. We did not know the number of people who were still alive and who would be entitled to make application and it was impossible for the department to give an indication as to what it was likely to cost. The members of the committee had the chief Treasury official before them.

And he said not a word about the cost.

Well, of course, he could not; it was impossible. Why did not the hon. member raise that question of expense when the Bill was before the House?

I am prepared to tell you why.

Nobody asked the question of what it was going to cost. If the question had been put to me I would have told the House that I did not know. Have hon. members forgotten what the position of all our pension funds was when this Government took office? Do they remember that there was a time when as a result of legislation brought in by the previous Government, where they did not ask what the cost was going to be, all our pension funds were in a bankrupt condition? I want to give the House a few facts. On the Cape Civil Service Fund there was a deficit—

The previous Government had nothing to do with that.

How did the deficit arise? As a result of increased benefits from time to time given by the House by passing certain legislation. When a fund is instituted an actuarial valuation is made and the basis of contribution is laid down which will ensure the fund being solvent and enable it to meet all the demands made upon it, but Parliament, of course, from time to time, goes out of its way and introduces extra benefits. That fund has a deficit of £2,525,000 necessitating an annual contribution from revenue of £128,000 extended over forty-six years. The Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Division Pension Fund has a deficit of about £500,000. We have to make that solvent. The Natal Police Fund was altogether insolvent, and we have to make contributions from time to time to meet the obligations of that fund. The total deficit of these funds, exclusive of the Railways and Harbours, is over £3,000,000. Then members come and talk of the increased liability to the country because we had hot calculated the exact liability of the Government when this Bill was introduced. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) refuses to accept the figures which the department has furnished in regard to the cost of this Act. I can just tell him that up to the present we have paid £332,000, and I am informed by the officials of the department, who have made as accurate a calculation as they possibly can, that the figure I have given of £366,000 is likely to be the total liability under this Act for this year. My second reply is also correct when I informed the hon. member that the annual liability in future is going to be just over £15,000 per annum, and the reason is that there is no fund; all payments are made from revenue.

Including those servants whose breach has been condoned?

Including all the payments to be made to officials in regard to whom we have accepted liability. I am giving him figures where we are prepared to accept liability. I am not giving him cases where we will probably refuse to accept liability. I have just been urged by one hon. member to include under the benefits several other classes of people. I frankly told the House last year that I was not going further than I am going in this legislation. We had before us the report of the committee, and we accepted it in certain particulars, and we rejected the others.

What estimate did you form of the probable amount?

I formed no estimate. I could not form an estimate. I was not in possession of the facts.

It has cost you £700,000 altogether.

No, it has not cost that. I think hon. members on reflection will agree that they have not been fair in their criticisms in regard to this matter.

Is my figure of half a million for the total bill correct?

I have given you the exact figures.

Yes, but the total amount.

No, I am informed it will not be that. Hon. members have a responsibility to bear. Parliament has never, when it has agreed to give certain pensions on the report of the committee at the end of the session, been in possession of the amount that the liability is going to be to the Government. The only criticism which they can level at this expenditure is that the House was not informed at the time what it was going to cost, and I have pointed out it was impossible to have that information. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised the question of the defalcations, and he alluded to the report by the Auditor-General in regard to the practice, or rather the action, which the Public Service Commission took in three cases. Of course the hon. member will see when he reads the report that we are carrying out the law, the law passed by the it?

Are you going to amend previous Government.

I am not going to amend it, because I know Parliament will not accept it. That law was put into effect after exhaustive enquiry, and as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows, it was thrashed out in the Committee, whether in certain cases these contributions should be restored.

Try Parliament first.

The hon. member tried Parliament, but he could not get it. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has criticized the expenditure in connection with the National Park Board. I am sorry I interrupted him, and said he was off the rails.

What single fact was I wrong in?

I have endeavoured to point out the nature of the criticism of the hon. member in regard to the amount of what the total liability was going to be to the State.

I said half a million.

The hon. member was wrong. It is another case when my hon. friend did not give Parliament the information he should have given. With regard to the maintenance of the National Park Board, this is the Union’s share—we are sharing the liability with the Transvaal—and it has nothing to do with the payment of members or “jobs for pals” which the hon. member seems to suggest.

I took your words down. If there is a mistake, it is your mistake.

I never said it was expenditure on members of the board. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the question of charging to capital expenditure two amounts here, the Lichtenburg magistrate’s office, and the water supply of Groenkloof. The hon. member knows the rule of the Treasury is that, generally, we charge to loan account works of a permanent nature costing more than £1,000, and that is why these amounts are charged to loan instead of to revenue. I think that is a sound line to follow—any expenditure under £1,000 should be charged to revenue. I have now touched on the main points, and if there are any further points hon. members would like to raise and have any information on, that can be done in Committee.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee on 23rd February.