announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:—

further announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Allen from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities and had appointed Mr. McMenamin in his stead; and had also discharged Mr. McMenamin from service on the Select Committee on Crown Lands and appointed Mr. Allen in his stead.

I would like the Minister to explain how the allotments are made in the case of these oudstryders and exactly on what principle they are made. I may say I have come across some very hard cases in connection with this matter, and where these old people have come to one and said “Why does so-and-so get this pension and I not,” it has been very difficult to explain. I understand that the Minister has laid down one principle, that where these oudstryders have got children they do not get the pension. I remember one special case where a man is almost starving. He has a son somewhere in the Government service and he does not get this pension. That is evidently the only ground on which the pension is refused to him. This man cannot help it if his son will not support him. It means he has to go to court and he has not a penny to do it with. There are very hard cases in connection with this matter. The Minister made a remark as to how could he distinguish in the case of the old republican officials. It seems to me it would have been much easier to differentiate in their case than in the case of these oudstryders. The Minister will say that if he does not make any differentiation the amount will probably be doubled. I question whether that is a fair proposition. It seems to me that if there is not a distinction in the matter of the old republican officials there certainly should not be any distinction made here. I put it to the Minister whether he will not consider the question of giving every oudstryder the pension, because I assure him they are in great hardship. It seems to me he should perhaps accept another principle and say they should all get it, but the Minister should have the right to refuse in certain circumstances where clearly they did not need this pension. Many men have been assisted, and very greatly assisted.

This is a matter in which many members take an interest and let me at once explain what the position is. As the hon. member will see it is simply a question of money. We commenced by granting a certain scale of assistance in especially hard cases. We started with that idea and during the first half of the financial year we made about £7,000 available. It was never the intention through this temporary measure to arrive at general old age pensions for every one who had taken part in the war. It was clearly said that we were engaged on the necessary enquiry and that we hoped later to lay proposals before Parliament by which everybody at all needy would get a pension, but that pending the enquiry with reference to a general old age pension scheme something should be done in cases of absolute poverty of needy old people. Last year £30,000 was put on the Estimates for this purpose and on these estimates a further sum of £31,000 appears. Hon. members will therefore see that the treasury without the authority of Parliament went so far as to ask the Governor-General to specially authorize it to disburse that special amount. When the main estimates are dealt with this year hon. members will see that we propose going still further and to expend £90,000 for this purpose by which three thousand old people can be assisted. And now the hon. member and the other hon. members want to go still further. Well, we can extend the system if Parliament will vote a further amount. Hon. members will see that the expenditure is constantly going up for the required services and that I have to ask for more money for the current financial year. In the payment of allowances to oudstryders the limitation has been made that when they have children and it can reasonably be expected that these should contribute something for the maintenance of the old people, they shall be excluded. If the House wants to abolish that restriction then it is another matter. That would considerably simplify the work in the matter, but it would already amount to a general old age pension for those people. The method followed is that we have a certain form drafted by the department giving the information required from the applicants. They must state how old they are, what they possess and how many children they have. Then the report of the local magistrate is obtained. Of course there are cases where a magistrate says that a pension should be paid, although the Pension Commission finds that there are children who possess something and are able to do something for the support of those persons. In such cases the application is often refused. If we do not do so we shall have to spend much more money. The hon. member said that I stated that we could make no distinction between needy people and non-needy people in the payment of pensions. Yes, I said that and Parliament resolved to grant pensions to the old republican officials as a right and no distinction was made between needy and non-needy people. Parliament decided to put them in the same position as Union officials and the existing Pension Acts were taken as a basis. The hon. member will see that it is still more difficult to make a distinction between needy and non-needy persons than between people who are entirely without food and needy people. If that distinction were made the dissatisfaction and difficulties would he much greater still than they are to-day, and hon. members have quoted cases of people who have children but who will contribute nothing. I think that the existing Acts contain sufficient provision to compel such a dependant to contribute to the support of a father, grandfather, etc. The law is there and can be applied. There will certainly be cases where people can go to the Pension Commission and where steps can be taken.

Can a father take action against his son?

Why not?

He will not do it.

But then surely the State cannot be held responsible. I know of cases where parents have the right of user over a large farm and where they can send their children away, but the parents come to the Government and say that they are in want and that the children remain on the farm and do not provide for them. But if the parents are not prepared to take the necessary steps to protect their rights how can it be expected that the money of the taxpayers shall be used for payments that are not necessary. I know that everyone in the House sympathises with the old people, therefore the Government felt justified without authority of Parliament to assist in certain cases, but a line must be drawn and many of the people must have a little patience while enquiry is being made into a system of old age pensions.

There are cases reported in the Transvaal Law Reports where children have been compelled to support their parents; but I rise to ask for information with regard to the large sum of £309,000 under the heading (c) and under another head, L. I think the House should be furnished with a list—to be laid on the Table of the House—of the people to whom these payments are made at the sweet will of the Treasury the country should be furnished with a list showing all the details under head (c) and (1). I do not know how it is done—I have never occupied the Treasury benches yet—but it undoubtedly leaves scope to favouring friends. I do not make any charge against this or any other Government, but it is perfectly clear that these are public funds, and the public have a right to know how these moneys are expended.

I do not think the Minister quite understood the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). It does not only concern the general question of payment of pensions to oudstryders, and it is not merely a question of money, but it concerns the system which is being followed, the system by which some people are given pensions and others not. There are cases where old people have sons and where the ground e.g. belongs to the father and where undoubtedly the sons ought to see that their parents suffer no want. There are, however, many cases possibly recommended by a magistrate where the parents have three or four sons who are possibly much poorer than the parents themselves who are refused pensions because they have sons. In the case of many old people the sons are possibly married and are employed as foremen or white labourers and earn a wage so small that it really cannot be expected of them to contribute to their parents’ support. There is e.g. another case where an old father and mother board with a son who earns 6s. 4d. per day. Of that 4d. is deducted for rent and then the parents are told that they have a son who can provide for them. There are many cases where the magistrate recommends the granting of a pension and the head office refuses the application. It is this kind of case we want to bring to the notice of the Minister.

In regard to what the Minister has said I just want to refer to a letter which I received from him in answer to a petition of seventy-one people of Bethal. The Minister in his reply referred to the Act which provides that oudstryders authorized to receive pension must be at least 70 years old or widows at least 65 years. There is a line fixed. It is possibly right but I just want to say a few words about what was previously done in the House and what is now being done here. The 5s. payment did not take place but I can assure the Minister that there is great dissatisfaction on account of payments which are being made to ex-officials under the Act of last year. Unfortunately I cannot say anything against the Act because we all passed it tacitly. I frankly admit this, but we did not understand the effect. If I had known what the effect would be I would never have voted for it. I can, however, assure the House that in Standerton, Bethal, Ermelo, etc., there is great excitement about the payments to the ex-officials. There are many people who sacrificed everything in the war and who are today in difficulties, and they cannot be assisted and they are dissatisfied that the people who were in the offices while they were outside in the field should receive payments. The Act provides that they can only be aided when they are 70 years old and half dead from hunger. I think it is not right. We know that the country cannot stand the great expenditure to all the oudstryders but we must be fair and just and take account of what has been done and what should be done, and as there are these two classes of the population both of whom have suffered we must take care that we do not do justice to one section and injustice to the other. Therefore I say these few words and express the hope that the Minister will consider how the grievance of these people can be removed.

We quite appreciate the difficulties of the Minister in connection with the oudstryders’ pensions but we feel that there has been some arbitrary action in making the provision that one must be 70 years old for qualification for an old age pension, or if he is under 70 that he has to be sickly. Now I want to instance an example of the hardship to which this leads which I have personally investigated in my constituency. There is an oudstryder of 68 years and his wife of 64 They are old and worn out, not sickly but cannot work and cannot get work. That worn out man has four children of whom the oldest is 48 and the youngest 23. All the children are feebleminded and backward. Not one of the children can wash his own face and put even a piece of food into his mouth. They are practically no better than animals in their civilization and entirely feeble-minded. The man applied and he was told that the department regretted that he could not be assisted because he was under 70 years and could not obtain the doctor’s certificate that he was sickly. He and his wife arc worn out people and not able to earn their bread themselves.

How old is the husband?

68 years.

But the age limit is 70 years.

My argument is that it works out so unfairly. In this case the two parents are worn out and they have four afflicted children who cannot even wash their own faces. This is actually a very hard case and I investigated it myself. When I left there I felt ashamed that we as a nation permitted these people to live in that way and that there was no help for them. Therefore I say that I am very sorry that the conditions for obtaining pensions are a little arbitrary and I should like to ask the Minister—seeing that he has already made exceptions—whether in such extraordinarily hard cases something cannot be done.

I think there is an anomaly in the Act as regards the payments to ex-officials. I have two cases I should like to tell the Minister about because I think these two cases of ex-officials of the Transvaal Republic are precisely the same, although under the Act they are treated differently. They are the cases of Mr. one-arm Smit and of Mr. Roos of 42, Market Street, Pretoria. Both received a pension in 1908 and they both capitalised it for the sum of £500, but now payment has been refused to Mr. one-arm Smit, while the other has received £750 and £40 per annum. I regard the two cases as practically identical because the one was in the republican service for 15 years and the other 14 years. Then I should also like to call the Minister’s attention to the position of various Free State ex-officials. The Minister told us last year that the Free State ex-officials were better off under the old Free State law of 1904 than what they would be under last year’s Act, but it now appears that some of them are worse off. There are three cases I can name, viz.: Mr. de Kock (ex-landdrost), Mr. Borman and Mr. Bouman, and there may be other such cases.

I agree that things have occurred which are open to criticism. In the district of Vryburg no less than thirty-four persons applied for oudstryders’ grants and they were only granted to nine. I think that some of the nine were better off than some of the others whose applications had been refused. It is said that old people with children are not assisted. I, however, know of cases where the children are just as needy as the parents themselves and I should like the department to come to a decision according to whether the people are needy or not. It must not be said that a grant is refused when the old people have children. I am not satisfied with the position. There ought to be a committee in every division to go into the cases and to assist the magistrate because I do not want the old people to be left to the mercy of the police and the magistrates. Some of these people live from 100 to 150 miles from the village and it makes a difference if someone lives close by where the magistrate can personally look into circumstances. We must see to it that those who did their best for their country and people are well treated. A child who is able to support his parents will not permit his father or mother to go to the department to ask for grace. It happens, however, in many cases that the children are not able to support their parents and the department should in such cases be prepared to grant help.

The Minister said that there are many cases where magistrates recommend the granting of allowances but that the Pensions Department subsequently refused them That is one of the reasons of my complaint. I have great respect for the Pensions Department for it contains many capable officers, but I think that where a magistrate or senior Government official who personally knows the case makes a recommendation the grant ought to be made. I think it is going too far that officials who do not know the circumstances do not carry out the recommendations.

That is done when it appears from the document sent in what the children possess. It is just to get uniformity that the department does that because one magistrate may have a different view from another.

I think the Minister must provide for a clear statement of the reason for disallowance because I think much injustice is being done. It would be better to adopt another standard. I do not say that that will be satisfactory but it will give more satisfaction and possibly no more will be expended than according to the recommendations of the magistrates. As the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) said, many of the people who apply for grants actually have children but they are usually people who are not able to support their parents. Therefore I think that the condition made is not right. The payment to oudstryders ought to be left to the discretion of the magistrates and I think in the long run that would give more satisfaction.

When one wants to do good it often happens that you get into trouble and that is the case to-day with the Government which intended to do good and is in difficulties. In the payments to the oudstryders unequal treatment took place. There are hard cases where oudstryders who are very needy did not receive the grants although they are in a worse position than those who actually receive them. That is the great cause of dissatisfaction. Now the Government had better stand firm and see how far assistance can be given. Another difficulty is that the information obtained by the magistrates is often not sufficient. If the magistrate is informed that a man, e.g., has two sons earning a certain amount then it should be enquired into whether they are able to provide for more than their own requirements. I think the information should go further to ascertain what the cost of living of the children is because there are cases where they are fathers of large families and cannot assist their parents.

On the Rand there is a very large number of oudstryders and if there ever was a place where there are many difficulties and grievances then it is there, because one has not only oudstryders from the Transvaal and the Rand, but from the whole Union All meet there to look for work and sometimes they find it. As the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has rightly mentioned adequate enquiry is in many cases not made. A policeman, e.g. is sent out to enquire how many children a man has and he returns to the magistrate without any further information and the latter then makes his report to the department in Pretoria. Sometimes even when the magistrate reports favourably the application is refused by the department. I should like to know what further information the department has in Pretoria to reject a recommendation when the local man who has made the enquiry recommends the grant. In Johannesburg and in the large towns there are other channels along which the Minister can make proper investigation to get information about the needs of the people. Now we come to another point and it is said that the children ought to be responsible for the maintenance of their parents. We all admit that this is a very good and sound principle but although the Government says that the principle must be applied it is left to the parents to take steps against their children to compel them to fulfil their duty. This I disapprove of. If the Government finds that children do not fulfil their duty towards their parents the Government should take steps to compel the children to do so. The Government can receive direct what the children can pay and then there will be much less difficulty in applying the law. There are possibly children who merely fail to pay and then the parents get nothing from the Government. Therefore many people suffer great want. I should like the Minister to consider this placing of the onus on the Government to compel the children to contribute their share. There is a case which I specially wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. An old gentleman, a Mr. du Plooy of Krugersdorp, who did his duty in the war is still under 70 years of age but he has had one of his legs amputated high up as a result of sickness caused or rendered worse during the war. His only work is going from house to house repairing chairs. In that way he possibly earns 15s. or £1 a month and that with great difficulty. The Government now refuses to give such a man a grant because the doctors say that he is still well in body although incapacity does not permit him to make a proper livelihood. Such cases which are brought forward ought to be considered. Then I shall be glad if the Government would give more attention to private and confidential information and to recommendations by members of Parliament whatever party they may belong to. When a member of Parliament to-day brings up a case then he sometimes receives a reply from the department that the matter is receiving consideration and subsequently perhaps he is informed that the request cannot possibly be complied with. I should also like to know from the Minister whether it is right that when a person gets a grant it must be exactly £2 10s. per month. Cannot possibly less be given to someone if it appears that he only needs e.g. 30s. a month? In cases where he does not need the full amount he to-day gets nothing. By authorising the payment of less to some people many very hard cases will be met, where a child can only contribute from 20s. to 30s. per month. Where the child to-day is able to do this little bit the parent receives no grant. I think there ought to be a sort of system of making up such a sum received by an old man or woman to £2 10s. per month, and I think that the money for disposal can in this way be distributed more widely among people entitled to support.

I would draw the Minister’s attention to Section C, compensation allowances for loss of office owing to re-organization and retrenchment, £329,000. I would like to know from the Minister whether this amount includes persons who are covered by the resolutions passed last year—ex-burgers of the old republics. The country feels that, wittingly or unwittingly, we have been committed to a very serious obligation. The case was represented to this House as being only a small matter. It was said that the aim was to do justice to a few individuals, and that the amount involved would only be a few thousand pounds at the uttermost.

Who said that?

That is what the House understood.

From whom?

That is what was understood. The mover of the resolution said that it was only a small matter. Now we learn that, instead of being a few thousand pounds only, it has run up to £250,000 and probably £500,000 will be involved in this matter. That is a very different thing from what was represented to us. It was pointed out, and very correctly too, that all parties in the House were responsible, that they all concurred in supporting that measure, but the Minister of Finance who, after all, is the custodian of our Finances and is above all men responsible to the people for the expenditure incurred, should have made it his duty to acquaint himself with the conditions that might arise out of such a resolution. The Minister said—

Proceed further. What did I say further?

I am prepared to read anything that comes further on. What I have quoted at any rate, shows that the Minister was apprehensive of the lengths that this matter might lead to and, being so, I think it was especially his duty to have tried to ascertain the true position of the case. It has been said that everyone in this House concurred. I would like to refer to a warning that I gave during the course of the debate—

That is the warning I sounded at that time. The Minister himself saw the danger, but unfortunately my voice was like that of one crying in the wilderness, and the thing went through.

You were the only one in the House.

I find now, to my surprise, another chorus showered upon the Minister for further expenditure of this kind. I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be gulled into something which the country will resent. I hope he will take a firm stand upon this matter and investigate the case further.

I hope the Minister will make clear the definition of the people who are entitled to receive grants under the category of aged or infirm ex-soldiers or their dependents. Will the Minister tell us whether that definition is laid down in any Act or whether it is purely a departmental definition arrived at for a purpose of deciding this matter. I ask that because it is a very wide definition and it makes these payments possible in the case of a large class of people who may, or may not, be entitled to them. It has prompted people throughout the Union who fought in the previous wars, the Anglo-Boer war for instance, to raise the question as to whether they are entitled to participate in these benefits. I understand that in one day alone upwards of £20,000 was paid away to aged and infirm ex-soldiers or their dependents in Pretoria. If that is so, I should like to know whether these payments were confined to people in the Transvaal or the Free State or whether they are available to people in the other provinces as well, because in our own particular province it is generally supposed that the people who fought in the Anglo-Boer war were well-provided for. The contrary is the case; only a few of the Natal volunteers who fought in that war received any pension at all. Pensions were only granted in the case of persons permanently totally disabled, and in the case of dependents of people who were killed. Outside that very limited number is the large class of people who to-day are aged and infirm ex-soldiers and who receive no relief whatsoever. I want to point out that if these payments are available to such people the Minister will have to provide very much more next year to meet the claims of people throughout the Union claiming to be paid on the ground of being aged or infirm ex-soldiers or the dependents of such ex-soldiers. I hope the Minister will make the position clear, because if it is confined either to the people who fought on one side or to people who live in certain provinces then a very great deal of dissatisfaction will be aroused.

The hon. member has raised the question now as to whether these payments apply only to the ex-soldiers who fought on the Republican side. Hon. members will remember that when we originally decided to ask Parliament to sanction expenditure in connection with this matter it was as the result of the report of the select committee of this House which dealt with the question of what had been known as the five shillings a day which was promised by the Transvaal Government to the burghers. That select committee made two recommendations which the House accepted, and it was then thought that that disposed of the question of the five shillings a day. The one recommendation was that the Government should take into consideration the provision of a House in Pretoria, some sort of central institution where the worst cases among these poor old people could go and be cared for by the State. The other was that these oudstryders in the case of allotment of Government land under Land Settlement schemes should get a certain amount of preference. When the present Government took office we were called upon to implement this undertaking, in connection with the House, given by the previous Government in 1923. We found that this scheme of a central institution was altogether impracticable because the expenditure would have been too great. It would not have cost the State £30 per head per annum but very much more. We thought it would be much better to give a small grant to these people and leave them in their homes instead of collecting them in a central place. So this scheme was substituted; we found that this was a better scheme. The intention was to deal with the ex-burghers who fought on the Republican side, but then, after Parliament had decided to agree to the placing of this amount on the Estimates last year, it was represented to the Government that it was an invidious distinction which Parliament was making; it was inequitable that these benefits should be confined only to those people who fought on the one side, and that we were pressed to make it of general application. Well, we agreed to that. I gave instructions to the department to admit to the benefits of this scheme the people who complied with the same conditions and who fought on the other side. If they were over 70 years of age, old and infirm, they were to be entitled to these benefits. The Government took the responsibility and it is for Parliament to approve of it or not. At present the scheme is that it shall apply to both classes of persons. The hon. member says that this is a rather loose and vague definition. He is quite right. It would have been more satisfactory if we could have introduced an Act of Parliament laying down minutely the classes of people who would benefit, but it is purely a temporary measure to give a certain amount of relief in the meantime pending the establishment of a general old age pension scheme. We got the best information possible, with the aid of magistrates, to find out the class of people to whom the benefits should be given. It is suggested that in order to do away with dissatisfaction here and there I should institute elaborate machinery. I wish to inform hon. members who raise this question that originally I informed the House that Parliament was entitled to avail itself of the machinery of the oudstryders themselves. They have their own organization—the Oudstryders Bond. We soon found that there were so many complaints about the granting of these benefits that we were forced to substitute the magistrates instead of these committees. Now hon. members want me to go back again to a committee of Oudstryders or other people. I do not think it is worth while for the sake of a few cases where there is dissatisfaction. If hon. members will bring to the notice of the department any really hard cases they will go into those cases but, of course, we must be guided by the general rules laid down, and now I am being urged to extend the scheme. Of course that is a matter for Parliament: I have pointed out that we should have to make provision for a much larger amount. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) said this money was being disbursed at the sweet will of the Government. That is not so. In the case of subhead “C” of the vote to which he refers, compensation for loss of office, all that is paid out under Acts of Parliament. The hon. member will see that the biggest portion of that amount had accumulated under the previous Government from time to time. Under the previous Government officials were retrenched and, in terms of the existing legislation, they are entitled to compensation. Of course it is true that under the same practice officials have been retrenched by the present Government. If the hon. member wants further information about who these people are he can get it. The major portion of this amount is in connection with this Act 49 of 1926; only a small portion of that is due to regular retirements effected by the Government during the year. In the ordinary course he will realize that certain officials who, in certain circumstances, have their services dispensed with are entitled to compensation.

Are not any of them under the age fixed by Act of Parliament?

No, these people left the service in 1902, and under the legislation they are entitled to compensation. That is also the reply to the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton). The hon. member has read what he said at the time when the Act was under discussion last year. He is quite right. I remember quite well that his was a voice crying in the wilderness. He is the only member in this House who, as a taxpayer in the Cape Province, did not like the idea of granting compensation to officials in the Transvaal, but no one else supported him. He read my speech, but, of course, that speech was received in a very chilly way; I got no further support. When it went to the select committee the report came out unanimously that this should be done—and more—and when the legislation was introduced the hon. member was the only member who raised his voice. The others attacked me because I had not gone far enough in accepting the resolutions of the select committee

†*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has mentioned two cases where he contends a distinction has been made, viz., those of Messrs. Roos and Smit. In reply I want to say that if a distinction has been made then it could only have occurred because the two cases are not identical. Payments are only made according to law. Perhaps in one case there was a break in service which cannot be calculated for pension purposes and in the other case not. In such event Parliament alone can rectify the matter, if a petition is presented. But let me add this, that payments are made according to the Act, and if an official does an injustice and the department withholds certain rights from an applicant, then he can summon the department and obtain his rights in court. There is no question of the discretion of the Minister. It is not a case of arbitrary distinction, but of carrying out the law. Hon. members are pleading here for persons under 68 years of age, and who have children, who are feebleminded and cannot support them. Do hon. members then wish that the age limit should be altered from 70 years? Where shall we stop then if the line is not drawn? There are individual cases where an exception is made for persons who are entirely unable to provide for their own needs, persons who have bodily incapacity. But the case which the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) mentioned does not come under the exceptions, because the man who is not 70 cannot get a certificate from the doctor that he is bodily infirm.

Don’t you think it is a hard case?

Then we might just as well abolish the age limit. If the request of the hon. member is complied with it means that the limit must be completely abolished. It is not a fact that the department acts arbitrarily. The hon. member will see that this case does not fall under the regulations in force to-day. But if there are hard cases where the department has acted too sharply and where persons ought to come under the regulations the matter will be gone into again if it is brought to the notice of the department, and if the department is convinced that they ought to come under the regulations that will, of course, be done. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) complains that a comparatively small number of persons had received help in his constituency. Let me say at once that we never ask, in dealing with this matter, where any one lives—in what constituency or in what province. When applications come in each is dealt with on its merits, and there was never any question of any apportionment according to provinces, constituencies or districts. The hon. member is not right when he says that all the people with children are excluded. Where there are children who can contribute to the maintenance of their parents the grants are not made. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) asked why recommendations by magistrates were turned down. The hon. member will see that all magistrates, unfortunately, do not follow exactly the same policy, and the department must be there to see that more or less the same policy is followed. If it appears from the information on the forms that the person is excluded by the rules, then no grant is given.

The magistrate may think that the action taken is wrong.

The hon. member will understand that it is impossible to administer the Act without there being people who think that they are being unfairly treated. There will be a difference of opinion. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) said that we ought to consider the possibility of making a smaller grant than £2 10s. per month where such was justified. The hon. member will see that we already have difficulties enough. If a further distinction is to be made, and one person gets £2 10s., while another receives £2 or £1 10s., then there will be still greater dissatisfaction. The man who gets £2 will ask why he does not get more. If the suggestions of the hon. member were carried out, then the administration of the Act would cost very much more.

If the children pay direct to the Government, then that will not be so.

We try to make the administration as simple as possible. Now the hon. member wants us to create a still lower age limit which will necessitate many more officials.

The Government is now refusing grants on account of contributions by children which are not made.

We only say that when it appears that there are children who might reasonably be expected to be able to contribute something, then the Government is not called upon to give aid under this special arrangement.

The Government ought to take over the obligation.

The administration will later become impossible. Hon. members complain that too many Acts are passed, and that there is too much administration, but I think we should know at once that if we can do anything ourselves we should not ask for it.

The parent would not like to take action against children himself.

If we make the department responsible for ascertaining what children do not comply with their obligations, then criminal proceedings will have to be taken. The hon. member knows that that is not possible. I hope hon. members will see that whatever is done there will necessarily be complaints from time to time, because certain persons are not assisted while others are. With the means at our disposal, the department has tried to do justice as far as possible. If Parliament is prepared to vote much more money then more can be done. Now I feel that we should continue in the present way, and must meet all the cases that we can.

I just want to mention another small matter. We hesitate to speak again about the Act passed last year for pensions to ex-republican officials. No one feels disposed to spend more money, but I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice how hard the Act is with regard to a few people, viz., ex-officials of the Orange Free State, who did not return to the service of the Free State after the war, but entered the service of the Transvaal. I think there are only a few cases, I believe only two. They do not come under the Free State Act of 1908, nor do they receive consideration as Transvaal ex-officials, because they were not in the Transvaal service a year before the second war of independence. They are, therefore, entirely excluded, while their colleagues from the Free State and the Transvaal obtain a pension. I hope that the Minister will go into the matter and, as there are only a few cases, he will, perhaps, be able to grant relief for them, so that they also can enjoy the privileges of which they have been deprived through extraordinary circumstances.

Whilst I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us some information, I am afraid by the voluminous language employed by him he has tried to disarm us. I do not think he has given us the exact information in reference to the point which I raised; for instance, if I understood him rightly, he told us that this very large sum of £329,000 was for re-organization and retrenchment. I have recently seen it stated that a good many officials below the age of 60 were still competent, and could, have been employed in the public service, but have been retrenched and pensioned. Whether this fails under this vote I am unable to say.

No, this is only a case where a man is retired before the age of retirement, and has to get compensation.

Those are the cases to which I am referring. It would be very interesting to know how many have been retrenched, who they are, and the circumstances of the case. The Minister will be the first to admit that the public have a right to know, through their representatives, the reasons which prompted the Government to retrench these people and spend money in the form of pensions. I am not blaming the Government, but, in order to have a check, a list of the cases should be laid on the Table of the House. With regard to Item “L” the Minister has given no information whatever. I believe the Minister is virtue personified—at least, that is the general opinion about him—but he may not always be the Minister and, therefore, lists of the recipients should be supplied.

My motion, passed last year, with regard to pensions of ex-republican officials has been so much referred to that I feel I must say a few words. If hon. members refer to the original motion in Hansard they will see that in the first instance mention was only made of ex-republican officials still in the service and it therefore only referred to a small group of ex-republican officials. The hon. member for Aliwal (M. Sephton) only spoke last year on the original motion and did not say a word about the Bill that was subsequently passed. In the original motion the idea was only to do justice to a group of ex-officials, possibly 150. The only idea I had with the original motion was clearly to assist the group of people who presented a petition to this House. The Minister of Finance, however, or the Treasury, cannot pass an Act for certain people only, but must pass a general Act. That is the reason when the Act was passed and the other people were also included and on that Bill not a single member in the House said a word and each one is responsible for it. But let me say that I am not ashamed at all personally. Just let us refer for a moment to the report of the Pensions Committee. What do we find? In 1920-’21 the pensions account was increased by £1,273,000 and in 1922-’23 by £1,038,000, and so it continues, and now we are doing justice (because it is a question of justice) to a group of Transvaal ex-officials; we ought rather to remain quiet about it. They are a group of people who did their duty in the war and we ought not to make such a fuss now that justice is being done to them. The original motion was only intended to make provision for the group of officials, but the Treasury thought it necessary to also include the other people.

The Select Committee did it.

Yes, the Select Committee made a report and the Bill was drafted on it, but I want again to repeat that not one member of the House spoke against the Bill as introduced, not even the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) and I cannot understand how there can be hon. members who want to repudiate their responsibility. What has been done is only right. Pensions have been paid to the people who were engaged under the Milner regime and why then should we make a fuss about the pensions of the ex-officials. I should like hon. members to talk a little about the pensions of £1,200 to Mr. Robinson, £1,130 to Mr. Hofmeyr, and dozens of others. Not a word is said by the Opposition about them?

We are going to talk about it.

I am glad. Who is responsible for it? It is the old S.A.P. Government who has it on its conscience. I am glad therefore that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is going to speak about it. The ex-republican officials of the Transvaal laid the foundations for the official world of the Union and they are only receiving justice. I frankly admit that I did not appreciate when I introduced the motion how the matter would end, but as the pensions have now been paid, pensions to which the people are entitled, we ought not to make so much noise about it. We are all responsible for it and let us therefore let the matter rest and not go and tell the public outside that it is a proof of the extravagant manner in which this Government deals with money. Everybody is responsible, and hon. members, when they speak about it out of Parliament, should be honest and say that they are equally guilty. It is not right for the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) who even seconded the motion himself to now allege that the Government is so extravagant.

I think this matter will cause a great deal of feeling throughout the country as it has done in the House. May I add my request that the Minister will lay upon the Table a specified account of the disbursements under heads “C” and “L.” It may tend to mollify feeling if information is given. I most earnestly ask the Minister to accede to that request.

I am glad to hear that the department will be prepared to reinvestigate special cases where there is dissatisfaction. I can assure the House that dissatisfaction is fairly general. The Oudstryders Bond was the body first used in making enquiries, but it was only the head office of the Bond. My feeling is that the branches of the Bond in the outside districts ought to act jointly with the magistrates. It will cost nothing, but the magistrate can consult that body for information. It is felt to-day that that body is disregarded and that consideration is not given to recommendations of the chairman and secretaries thereof. Even when members of Parliament make recommendations little attention is paid to them. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) mentioned that magistrates had made recommendations which were disregarded by the department. I can confirm that. The rejection was not on account of the fact that new information had been obtained from which it appeared that a grant ought not to be made, but the person who applied merely received a letter that in his case a grant could not be made. When the department refuses a grant I want to enquire if special mention cannot be made—even if it is not in detail—why it is done so that persons can know the actual reason Then use can be made of the letter. Now it is merely said that the person does not come under the provisions of the Act and the magistrate and the person do not then know the reason. If the reason is given, then the people will be able to use it and in this way their case will be met. The granting of the allowances amounts to this, that the old people who formerly received the poor grant from the Provincial Administration would now get it from the Union Government. The only difference is that while the people used to receive 20s. or 30s. they now get £2 10s.

What more did you want?

Undoubtedly a little more—

I should be sorry to think that we should economize at the expense of the old people living in poverty. I am in favour of economy, but I think even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will not raise any objection in this case. I only ask that people in great poverty should receive something. There are hundreds to-day who will die if they are not assisted. It surely was the intention of the House when the amount was voted that people who are in poverty, although they are not exactly dying of misery, should be helped. I want to bring a few cases to the Minister’s notice. There is an old man living at Pietersburg whose young son of 19 or 20 years earns a few shillings a day in the railway service. Because he receives say 4s. per day his father cannot get the grant. Surely the son must also save something. Surely it was not the intention of the House that such cases should be excluded. There is another case where a man has his father and step-mother living in his house. He earns £15 a month as dip inspector, but he has his children to maintain besides the two old people living with him. The latter can do nothing for themselves. It is the unsympathetic treatment which causes dissatisfaction and I am glad that the Minister promised to reconsider special cases. Then I should like the Minister to explain why certain Free State officials do not come under the old republican law. There are cases in Pietersburg of which I know where Free State artillerymen receive nothing. I understood from the Minister last year that provision had already been made for them in the previous Act, but it does not appear as if they knew of it.

With reference to a few remarks made here, I want to say something which in my opinion is no more than fair. As regards my experience of the administration of the Act, I am convinced that there are officials of the department who have shown that they like assisting the public. I do not know if all the officials are like that, but I may mention the name of Mr. Ayres, with whom I constantly came into touch. He administered the Act as sympathetically as possible, and I should not like the House to create an impression which would do an injustice to the good intentions of the officials. Further, I think that the Minister, in addition to all the sympathy he has shown, must go further, not only in the cases which have been mentioned, but also in other existing cases. I should like to have assistance for people who are in needy circumstances and require food, but have not yet reached their seventieth year. The officials ought to be empowered to also assist such persons. I know of a few cases where persons under 70 were assisted because they could prove that they were unable to work. There are, however, cases of people who are, e.g., 68 years old but can practically do nothing but light work bringing in 5s. to 10s. per month. Because, however, they can earn this and can move their hands, the officials have to say that they cannot be assisted. There are also other cases where sympathy ought to be shown. There are some artillerymen and police who fought like lions and only entered the service a few months before the war. Just because they entered the service two or three months too late, they have now to go without a grant. They are people who lost everything in the war, and to-day have no means of existence. There are also cases of teachers—a small group—who were requested by the republican governments to fight, and who were promised that instead of their salary they would receive an allowance of £7 10s. or £10 a month. Of that they, however, got nothing. It is due to them because they were in the field.

You had better put the whole population on pension straight away.

The hon. member is discussing certain persons who are not included in the Bill.

I do not wish to be out of order, but I said it because I thought that it was in the interests of justice. I again wish to appeal for the sympathy of the Minister and of the whole House to see that the poor people who have served their country and people during their whole life are not left in misery.

The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has made another endeavour to saddle the responsibility for this large vote on this side of the House. I say the Government must take full responsibility. We on this side, although I admit we passed the Bill without proper scrutiny, did not ask for guarantees or assurance that it would not exceed a certain sum, and I took the word of the Minister of Finance that it would only apply to a few poor ex-officials.

When did I say that? You have no right to say or imply that I said it.

I understood you to say that it would only apply to a few. Many members on this side would have felt uncomfortable at even criticizing the intention of the Government to aid republican officials in need of it, but there was no one on this side of the House who thought that the generosity of the country would be used to add big incomes to men already in comfortable circumstances. It was the intention that it should be used to help ex-republican officials who were in need of extra financial aid. I don’t want to say anything disagreeable—

It is advisable that you do not go further. You are misrepresenting the position.

The question of this increasing pensions vote is one we shall have to consider. On page 16 of the Auditor-General’s report it states—

In reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (South), who said that we on this side of the House raised no objection to granting pensions to men—

I say that we do object strongly to pensions that have been given to these men. For instance, there is Mr. Robinson, who had four years’ service before him, and I want to know why the country did not retain his services for that period. Then there is Mr. A. B. Hofmeyr, who had two-and-a-half years before him; Mr. H. C. Fleischer, one-and-a-sixth years; Mr. Lane, a robust young man with many years of useful work before him, had five years of equally useful service for the State before him. Mr. Robinson was on the Public Service Commission; Mr. Hofmeyr and Mr. Fleischer were the same. Mr. Lane was secretary to the late Prime Minister. Then there was Mr. Good, with one year; Mr. Jacklin, secretary of the Public Service Commission, with five years; and Mr. C. W. de Villiers, Attorney-General of the Transvaal, had a few years to go. I consider these cases were a waste of public money by retiring men at too early an age, who had many years before them for valuable public service to the country. I ask the Minister for the proportionate amounts out of this £329,000 which are due to reorganization and retrenchment respectively, and I want to know if he can give the House an idea which departments have found it necessary to undertake such reorganization as to account for this heavy additional expenditure? I would suggest the best way to deal with the public service is not to go on increasing its numbers and the pension list, but rather to have a smaller public service—

It would be better for the hon. member—

Oh, am I off the rails? Well, I can say no more on that point now. I repeat it was out of a spirit of generosity and wishing to do the right thing that we passed the Act; and I wish the Minister to understand I don’t want to insinuate that he deliberately misled us, but the impression was that—

I never misled you, deliberately or otherwise.

Well, we took too much for granted, and did not for a moment have reason to think that such use would have been made of the funds we voted as has been done, in giving fat pensions to men not even in this country, not now in the service. I cannot help remembering that, in a previous session, when the question of pensions was mentioned, it was repeatedly suggested from those benches that any Civil Service pensioner who left South Africa or who failed to make his domicile here should forfeit the pension. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) were uncalled for, and have created a state of feeling we did not want to see revived.

Two days ago we had a debate about pensions, and I must say that the “Pensions Vote” is growing tremendously, but the attack on the Minister of Finance for something which the whole House approved of and which he was instructed to carry out is not fair. A section of hon. members wants to throw all the blame on the Minister, but when the matter was under discussion, the Minister specially pointed out that we could not go too far, because it would cost too much money. We all from time to time heard the Minister’s warning, and notwithstanding this, hon. members come here to-day and want to throw the responsibility for something they themselves did on to the Minister. Let me honestly say that the only way to remove all grievances is for this House to authorize the Minister of Finance to expend just as much money as is necessary to pay all people over 70 years a pension, irrespective of the merits of his claim. If that is done, the person of 68 years, however, will come with a grievance. So it will go on. No, the Minister used his discretion, otherwise much more money would have been spent. Then voices would have been heard in the House. I should just like to ask the Minister whether other persons who have already applied but have not yet been assisted will now be assisted out of the amount which we are asked to vote?

The money has already been spent.

What can we then do? I thought that an extra amount had been added. We are now voting three times as much as we have ever voted. Is the House prepared to vote an unlimited sum of money?

I hope the House will not be prepared to vote an unlimited sum to the Treasury to pay out. It appears to me, if I may venture to say so, that the demoralization of this country is going on at such a rate that in a very short time we shall have to pay out pensions to every poor white in the country. It is no credit to South Africa or the people of South Africa that this spirit should exist as it appears to exist, because, after all, most of these cases which have been brought up, as far as I can understand them, are cases of poverty. This is not the proper place to come to with such cases. Let me point out what the Auditor-General said about these matters—

It is largely poor relief you are asking for here—

By law it is the provincial administrations that should be looking after these people. I suppose hon. members think that the Treasurer is very much more soft-hearted than the provincial administrators and provincial councils and so they come to him. The Auditor-General adds—

At page 24 of the report the Auditor-General gives a list, amounting altogether to £568,000. That is the rate we are going at. No wonder the Minister has got to put his foot down. This state of things is not good for the people either. It is demoralizing to the people of this country that they should always come whining at the door of the Treasury asking for relief. As I say, it has come to such a stage that one can very safely foretell that every poor white in the country will be expecting a pension before long.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has made out that this is a question of all the poor whites.

So it is, pretty well. It is coming to that.

I agree that if that is the case it would be domoralizing. When a man, however, has reached the age of 70 years and is in need because he has sacrificed everything for the country and people, then it is another matter. I agree with the hon. member that we must be careful with pensions nor do I wish the Minister to go outside the Act. I, however, go so far as to say that I do not think the intention was for the Act to be administered the way it is being administered to-day. It was rightly mentioned that a man or woman who is already worn out and in needy circumstances will not receive support from a child who is only earning 4s. or 5s. a day. Now I ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) whether he expects a child to contribute to the support of its parents when he earns so little. He will have to answer No, and it is just such cases that we want to bring to the Minister’s notice. I can assure the House that there is much dissatisfaction in my constituency because in many cases justice has not been done, and I agree with hon. members who said so. The best person to judge whether a man or a woman ought to receive the grant is the man on the spot, the magistrate, who knows, the circumstances. It should not be the office in Pretoria which knows nothing about the matter. In many cases the magistrate has made a recommendation but it is rejected and an answer sent that nothing can be done. What is demoralizing is that the parents who are worn out must go on their knees to their children for support when the latter cannot afford it. I know it is the child’s duty, if he is able, but he often is unable to do so. There is possibly a young man who has got possession of ground, but who has bought it on credit.

He can feed his father if he has bought ground on credit.

There are cases where he can hardly pay the interest and he may have a family of six children. Now it is said that he should neglect his wife and children for the sake of his parents. I am glad to say that the South African children appreciate their duty to their parents.

Then there would not be so many complaints.

I am convinced that those who can do so will provide for their parents. I, however, wish in all earnestness to ask if a child who only earns 4s. per day can support his parents. I do not ask the Minister to go out of his way and do what he is unable to do. We ought to be thankful to the Government for the £30,000 for which provision has been made and that it has gone so far as to double the sum, but I think that the reason for dissatisfaction is that there are not sympathetic officials to administer the Act.

They sympathize with the taxpayers.

The magistrate who knows the cases makes the recommendations, but they are often rejected by the department. That is the grievance felt.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) makes a general assertion that the officers of the department are unsympathetic. He says that numbers of applications are rejected after they have been recommended by the magistrate, because the department is unsympathetic. The hon. member, however, ought to give specific cases and then I shall see to it that the reason for rejection is given. The hon. member mentioned the case of a settler who is in debt for his ground and has to support his family. If the parents of such a person are in needy circumstances then even he ought to be able to give his parents something. If the position is as alleged by the hon. member that the South African child feels a duty towards his parents then there ought not to be so many complaints as we get to-day. If they appreciate their duty the complaints would not be so general. The hon. member ought not to make a sweeping assertion about unsympathetic treatment. If he gives specific cases I can try and show from the form which was sent in what reason the department had in refusing the application. Then we shall see whether the House is willing to lower the age limit, and to make provision for people who are landowners who are in debt for the ground. If more money is voted we will see what we can do. The officials carry out the regulations and the blame should not be placed on sympathetic officials in Pretoria. If the House wishes we can find out what it will cost to give everybody a pension. Members of Parliament can also do much to assist the Government in this matter.

I also wish to say a few words about the matter because although the dissatisfaction in my constituency is not so general there are some cases. There is the case of a farmer who owns 200 morgen of ground and has a wife and seven children His mother is living with him. He, however, has a bond of £1,200 on his ground (it is near Leslie) and during the past three years his harvest has failed. Hon. members know how drought has tried those parts. He applied to the Government for an allowance for his mother but it was refused. This is really a hard ease because the man has to support his wife and seven children and his mother as well. The allowance of £2 10s. per month is surely not enough and even when it is given the children have to maintain their parents. Give £2 10s. to an old person and we shall see that he cannot possibly live on it. The child must take him under his roof and do his washing and also give him food because the £2 10s. is not enough. It is easy to say that there are many complaints but I can assure the Minister that the people who have received the grant are satisfied with the assistance given by the Government. There is, however, dissatisfaction where people over the age have children who are not able to contribute any support and applications for the allowances are refused for that reason. It is said that the parents can sue their children but if a civil case is brought before the magistrate then it is easy to see what the result will be where the child is not able to provide for his household. It is not a fact that we are dissatisfied with the grants and that we want them to be increased. The old people are satisfied with £2 10s. Before the money is given the position was very bad. I am glad that the Minister has provided for needy people. In the case I have mentioned the old mother did not get a grant because the policeman went to the farm and found out that the son owned 200 morgen. The constable, however, did not ask how much debt there was on the ground. I will not say that the department was unsympathetic because it was sympathetic towards the old people in my constituency who got grants, but there are many cases which have not been thoroughly investigated. I want the children’s debts to be stated. Persons entitled to the grant ought not to be deprived of it. I do not understand hon. members wanting to give a grant to all poor people because that is impossible. The Minister had £30,000 voted last year and the department spent £60,000. I understand the department will get more this year to assist all the cases. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said that we wanted to give this allowance to all the poor whites but that is not correct. We wish that the persons about whom the House decided last year, oudstryders above 70 and their widows above 65 years, should get the grant. It is not exactly the case that they should be so poor. I can, however, understand that the Minister cannot give the grant to everybody because some of them are rich people. I am not pleading for them but I think that the persons entitled to it, viz., who have attained the age limit and whose children cannot support them ought to receive the grant.

When the Act was passed last year the Government and hon. members did not think it would cost so much, and if I had known that the amount would run into £366,000, I should have thought before I voted for it. Now, however, it has been passed, and there is nothing to be done. There are, however, hon. members opposite who are trying to make political capital out of it, and I cannot understand it. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), e.g., comes and objects to the amounts which have been paid, but in reality he is only thinking of the case of Dr. Leyds. He says further that it has often been said from this side of the House that a pension ought not to be paid when anyone lives in another country. I shall be glad if the hon. member would introduce a motion of that kind.

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject under discussion.

I understand that Mr. Hofmeyer, the late administrator of South-West, gets a pension of £1,475 per annum. Who is responsible for that, and who passed an Act under which a comparatively young man like Mr. Hofmeyer can get so much?

Who retired him?

I ask who is responsible for the Act enabling such a thing to be done. I call it a scandal to have an Act under which a young man can draw such a large pension.

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject under discussion.

Pensions are now under discussion.

I say that it is not an honour to our country that such an Act is on our statute book by which comparatively young men can draw pensions of from £100 to £1,700. We can understand an old and worn-out official who has passed his life in the public service drawing a good pension, but a provision of that nature ought to be taken out of our pension laws. When are we going to cry “halt” in connection with pensions? We see that we have to spend more every year according to the Act in force, and I ask whether it is not time that the House should take the subject of pensions into consideration. I think it is our duty. We must do justice to the oudstryders because we have every sympathy with what they did, but we have not sympathy with people who have wasted their money. If one works and saves while he is young then he need not work when he is old. The question of old age pensions has been mentioned, and I have expressed myself against them I said that needy people should present petitions, but that old age pensions would undermine the thrift of the people. I ask the Opposition to suggest that we should amend the Pension Act because they are responsible for it. We all feel that the way things are being conducted to-day is absolutely impossible.

I think the great mistake in connection with pensions is the fact that hon. members from the countryside make too many promises to their electors. Whatever Government may be in power people are taking note of what is said inside the House and outside. I agree with the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) that an amendment should be made in the present scale of pensions because the burden of pensions is more than the country can bear. I am glad that the Minister in many cases uses his own judgment because things are getting too bad. The hon. member for Albert now wants to put the blame for the pension laws on to the Opposition, but he forgets that the great objection is that young officials under 60 years draw a large pension. The case of Mr. G. R. Hofmeyer has been mentioned, and he is still a young man able to work. Why then was he retired and another put in his place? Further, all the members of the Public Service Commission were retired. Who is responsible for that? It is the Government and because politics have been too much dragged into the matter. As regards the Act of last year, I also wish to assume my responsibility because that is no more than right. We, however, were not responsible for the introduction of it. If we had known that some of the people, who get the pension to-day, would receive it, then I am certain that no one would have voted for the Bill, even a large number of members on the opposite side of the House. The Act was passed as a result of hasty legislation. It was introduced at the end of the session when hon. members were already tired. I do not wish to make the excuse that I was not here, because I was present, but I hope that the Government, and all of us, will learn a lesson that we must not allow legislation to pass so quickly through the House. I have listened, and every hon. member opposite has pleaded so strongly for the old people’s pensions. I admit there are some who need them, but they want to take away all the responsibility from the children. That is a wrong principle, but it is defended here by the leaders of the people, and also at meetings outside. Let us stop making promises at election time that people will get 5s. per day. There is not a country in the world that can afford it. I was asked at my meetings if I would vote for a grant of 5s. per day, but I said, no. It is not fair towards the other provinces. I think that hon. members of the Cape are very patient in permitting all this amount of money to be paid out in the other provinces.

I am very sorry to hear the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) say that the members of the Nationalist party of the Transvaal made certain promises on the countryside and that on that account they are in trouble to-day. I deny most strongly that promises were ever made by members of that party of the kind mentioned by the hon. member. On the other hand promises were actually made by the South African party and they now are again occupied in making promises in the Transvaal and stating that when they come back into power the old burghers would get 5s. per day. Let us be honest and admit that the whole House is responsible for the amount which was voted for the officials. If I had known that the amount would be so large I would not have voted for it, but if ever there was a noble deed done by Government then it was the provision for the needs of poor people. The people have sacrificed everything, and if they are in difficulty to-day it is the duty of the Government to support them. The people can also quite freely come to the Government for support. The magistrate in our district has met the people sympathetically, but there are some needy cases, and I certainly think that the Minister—who is always ready to give assistance in such cases—will also grant the further necessary assistance in such extreme cases.

The sympathy of every right thinking man must go out to the Minister for the attitude he has taken up in this matter, and I would like to add my tribute to those already paid him. I think two of the most abused words in the English language in this House are “sympathetic treatment.” Someone has only to allege a hardship and without any evidence it becomes a hardship in the minds of certain people, and anyone who refuses to agree to that view is stamped at once as being unsympathetic and animated by racial or other discreditable feelings. In that way we are rapidly reaching the state of affairs when Parliament will become nothing but poor law guardians. I venture to support the warning given by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) against the dangerous tendencies which are revealing themselves in this House. Can the Minister give the House any information as to the number of requests granted, the number of applications received, and the number of totally unfounded applications rejected. I want to revert to Item C—compensation allowances for loss of office owing to re-organization and retrenchment, £329,000. I wish to endorse the request made by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that information should be given showing how this amount is arrived at. When you look at the total additional estimates you see that they amount to £747,493, and taking off the savings of £400,000 the total additional estimates are thus £347,000, almost the whole of which is accounted for by the item of £329,000 to which I have referred. In other words, if Item C did not exist, there would be no necessity for additional estimates, except for a vote on the savings. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) made an attack on the principle of re-organization, and on the law which allows it. Perhaps he does not realize that re-organization is necessary in times of financial stress. What we object to, however, is re-organization being made an opportunity for increasing the pensions of retiring officials. We do not object to the power to re-organize, for on occasions it may be vital to the State to have such a power. What we fear is a very serious tendency to effect a mock retrenchment by making use of a section of the law which is intended to lighten the burden on the taxpayers. To what extent has this mock re-organization reduced the net cost to the country of the administration, and what number of officials have been retrenched? Take the illustrations given by the Auditor-General—Messrs. V. G. M. Robinson, A. B. Hofmeyr and H. C. Fleischer, members of the late Public Service Commission. Three other gentlemen have been appointed in their places. Then there are the cases of Mr. G. R. Hofmeyr, late Administrator of South-West Africa, Mr. E. F. C. Lane, Mr. J. Good, Mr. S. Jacklin, Mr. C. W. de Villiers, and Sir R. Blankenberg. With the exception of Mr. de Villiers, late Attorney-General of the Transvaal, in every instance another man had to be put in the place of the man pensioned. Jacob has supplanted Esau, and there is no economy in that. We want to know the principle on which the Government has been going in this matter, for we fear that the economy in the administration has not been so effective as the Minister himself would have liked. If the service is liable to this re-organization and retrenchment not entirely in the public interests, you get a highly disorganized service, and injustice to the men and to the public. A great feeling of uncertainty will be created in the service. Is it a fact that in a large number of the cases mentioned by the Auditor-General of people retired with an added number of years to their service, yet despite the proverbial difficulty of old civil servants obtaining employment half-a-dozen of these men have been snapped up by people who know the value of £ s. d. Well, we have a great loss to the country because these men, with their valuable service, go off into new employment and leave the service of the country in which work they have spent a large number of years in acquiring proficiency. That is not a thing to the credit of the country.

What do you say is the normal age of retirement?

I am taking the men who have been retired with years of service added to them. The age varies. For judges it is one age, for engine-drivers another age is taken. Even 60 is regarded as pretty young in the opinion of members who have got to that age. The Minister of Mines has missed my point. The point is why retired men, when they have to have years of service added in order to retire them and make the country pay for that retirement. All these cases referred to are before the age of retirement, whatever it is, and they only get the added years because they are retired compulsorily, and every one of them are good men. I should like to emphasize this one point. If they are not retired because they are inefficient or because the country has no use for their services, then what are the grounds for retirement? I feel regret that Messrs. Robinson, Hofmeyer and Fleischer were retired in the curcumstances they were retired. I do not want to say vindictively, but judging from the remarks made in this House by Ministers, it would appear the retirement of these three members was entirely based on political grounds.

The hon. members for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider), and for Rondeboseh (Mr. Close) have asked me to give certain particulars in regard to these votes. I have never declined to give the fullest information, and I will see that a tabulated list is given to the hon. members in due course. With regard to the £31,000 payment made to aged and infirm people, hon. members will remember that I told the House there were between 2,000 and 3.000 of these people already on the books. We have no objection to giving the House the lists of these. All the other cases are dealt with by Act of Parliament—with the exception of these payments to the old and infirm people, where we have merely paid the amount I have estimated, and they are being dealt with on general principles on which I have informed the House. The hon. member for Rondebosch has dealt with the question of reorganization and retrenchment before the officials have reached the normal age of retirement. Let me assure hon. members that the Government does not go in for the wholesale reorganization and retrenchment which is imagined. We have instances in the past where the previous Government, for reasons of economy, for instance in the post office, retrenched a number of officials and brought down the salary list. Afterwards the work of the post office expanded, and a lot of people had to be taken on again. I do not consider that is economy. That has taken place in the previous Government, but this Government has not gone in for that policy except for the Defence Department reorganization of last year. Hon. members will remember when the Minister of Defence laid his scheme of reorganization before the House, and, under that scheme a number of officers left the service and compensation had to be given. The hon. member bases his argument on the types of men given in the Auditor-General’s report this afternoon. There are not many other cases where that happened. Take the case of Sir Robert Kotzé. I do not know the circumstances, but in his case he had allready reached the age of retirement, and was going on from year to year. Eventually he left the service. In his case no years were added to his period of service, and he would not get any added compensation. Take other cases. He will find in all these cases we are not dealing with ordinary so-called public servants. The gentlemen happen to have been members of the public service, but at the time they were retrenched they were incumbents of certain offices, and the Government had laid down they should not be members of the public service. It must have been contemplated that when the new Government came into office, for reasons of policy, changes would be made.

That is a bad precedent.

The Act of Parliament contemplates that incumbents of that office would not be members of the public service. The law lays down if they eventually left they would be entitled to the compensation. I do not want to go into the reasons why, on the change of Government, the Government thought it necessary to make alterations. Take Mr. Jacklin. There was no reason why the Government wanted to get rid of his services. The previous Prime Minister had made representations to the League of Nations that they should give South Africans a chance, when there were any vacant offices, of appointment to those offices. When a post in the League of Nations fell vacant, it was offered to Mr. Jacklin. In fact, the Public Service Commission recommended Mr. Jacklin as a capable officer for the post, but Mr. Jacklin thought that the post would only be for a number of years and that in it he had no security of tenure, and that for it he would be giving up his appointment in South Africa. We decided that if he left the South African service, he should get retrenchment terms. There was no ulterior motive there. Take de Villiers’ case. That was the result of an Act passed last year which the hon. member supported. The Minister of Justice had given an undertaking that if any of the Attorney-Generals were affected, they would have the right to retire under the ordinary retrenchment terms. In the remaining case, that of Mr. Lane, the hon. member will appreciate the position. With the change of Government it was considered necessary that the Prime Minister should have an opportunity of having somebody to fill the post of private secretary, a post which required somebody peculiarly fitted for it, a confidential post. He wanted to make a change. The Public Service Commission was asked to find a position for Mr. Lane. It is not always easy to incorporate in the service officers who have held special posts. Unfortunately, it was found impossible to find a post for Mr. Lane, and he was allowed to be retired, again on ordinary retrenchment terms. I am sure the hon. member and the House will see that there has been no wholesale reorganization, as the hon. member seems to suspect. With the exception of the cases mentioned here, and perhaps one or two others which, I am sure, if they are mentioned, we can justify, and give adequate reasons for to the House, there has been no reorganizations, except in regard to the defence force, which was fully debated in the House last year.

Does Mr. Jacklin draw this pension, plus the salary he gets at Geneva?

Mr. Jacklin left the Union service. We allowed him to go and take an appointment outside. His appointment with the Union Government terminated, and he is getting the ordinary pension to which his period of service entitles him, plus the ordinary number of years added to his previous service to which any officer leaving the service under the retrenchment terms is entitled.

Why did you add the years when he left to benefit himself?

The Public Service Commission that deals with these matters considered the whole question on its merits, and felt under the circumstances under which Mr. Jacklin was leaving the service—a certain fixed post for something outside which nobody could tell how long it would last, and probably after a few years’ time a change would be made again—that these terms were fair and reasonable. They made recommendations, and the Government accepted them. That was the old Public Service Commission. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) also asked me how many people had made application under this Act, and how many claims were rejected. I find that there were about 1,400 claims rejected for various reasons. I will mention them to the House. We have really excluded quite large classes of people who thought they were entitled to come in under this Act. The Treasury did not accept all the cases that were recommended by the select committee which sat on this matter. If there are still hard cases, the people concerned will have to take the ordinary course and petition Parliament, and their cases may be heard by select committee. I have no intention of amending the legislation which was passed in order to include classes of people who were excluded under previous legislation. That will be the reply in regard to the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). He has mentioned two cases of officials who, because they were taken over from the service of one province to the service of another, are excluded from the benefiting legislation of both provinces. These cases are unfortunate, and all I can say is that those gentlemen should apply in the ordinary course to the Select Committee on Pensions. I just wish to give some information to the hon. member (Mr. Close) of the classes of persons who applied and whose claims were rejected, persons who fall under the 1,400. There were those people who, although they were officials, did not receive compensation under the principal Act of 1908. That is the reason also for the exclusion, for instance, of the hon. member for Standerton himself (Gen. Smuts), who, technically, although he was really an official and entitled to the benefits, did not for his own reasons make application. There are a few of those cases. They would fall under this category, where, if they like, they can petition Parliament, and the select committee can deal with the cases. Then you get a large class of people who have less than one year’s service. That is the class under which the artillerymen of my hon. friend the member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) fall. Then you get a number of people whose service was not continuous. You also get a class of person, widows, who remarried and were not widows on 30th June, 1926.

How many claims were allowed?

We are dealing with Act 49 of 1926. Then we also gave gratuities to widows of ex-officials not reemployed to the number of 175, and amount £11,730; annuities to ex-officials re-employed, number 155, amount £35,149; annuities to ex-officials not re-employed, number 229, amount £163,254; annuities to ex-officials who have died, payable to their widows, number 74, amount £29,254. making a total of 2,157, and amount £332,230. That is up to January 31st last. The amount actually paid out, the number of claims dealt with, and a certain number we still expect to deal with, will bring up the amount to the estimate that I have already given to hon. members.

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) asked me a question, but he is not, in his place.

I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for his courtesy in giving information so promptly and so fully. The justification that he gave of the reorganization and alterations was one which, I think, will fill this House with a good deal of alarm, and will fill the country with a good deal of alarm when it realizes the import of what the Minister said. When I was cut short in my speech I said that the fear of the country was that a large number of these re-arrangements, reorganizations and retrenchments are due more or less, directly or indirectly, to political considerations.

No.

That is the fear. That is the point I was making when I sat down, that there were a large number of people, in and out of the public service, who considered that a large number of changes, retirements and reorganizations, are based to a very large extent, upon political considerations. That may be right or it may be wrong, but that is the fear.

It is wrong.

I am going on with this. There is rightly or wrongly among members of the public service a very grave apprehension that there is a great deal of smelling-out going on in the public service. Nothing could be more detrimental to the public service than that an idea of that sort should get about. Some hon. member over there called out “wrong.” Could a greater justification be given to that fear than the answer given by the Minister about the alteration made in the Public Service Commission when he said that I must realize that on a change of government the law contemplates a change of personnel in the Public Service Commission? I repudiate that doctrine as strongly as I can. I think a more grave misconception of the functions of the Public Service Commission as contemplated in the Act of Union and in successive public service acts has hardly ever been enunciated by a responsible Minister of the Crown. We regret above all that the Minister of Finance should be the one to be the mouthpiece of the Government in making this statement to the House and to the country. What was the whole object and idea of the Public Service Commission? It was that it should be there as a bulwark between public servants and the Government and politics and political ideas of the day. That was the whole idea. We all knew in coming together at the time of the Act of Union that one of the prime factors in a contented state is a contented public service. That is to my mind the fundamental and the true and real construction and conception of the idea of the Public Service Commission, and I challenge any member who was on that National Convention—the Prime Minister is one —to deny that the idea of the Public Service Commission was exactly as I have stated. But now we have a Minister of the Crown justifying the changes that were made, not on the grounds that these members were inefficient or partisan or in any way incapable, but purely on the ground that with a change of Government there must be a change in the personnel of the commission. That in essence is the doctrine of the spoil system. We have had numerous examples in great countries of the terrible demoralization in the public service and in the country where the spoil system exists. We know certain parts of the world, in great states, where not only the officials of the public service go out, but judges of the court go out; and those who have read books on certain aspects of judicial life in certain of the states of America know how the terrible demoralization and corruption brought about by the fact that a change of government meant a change in the personnel of the judges. Fortunately we have been so far entirely free from that, but when we touch on the service in this way I say we are doing the gravest wrong to the service and to the country when we set up a doctrine that a body that has most to do with the safety and honour of the public servants is a body which should be allowed to be changed at the will of any particular Minister. Does that mean that every candidate for the Public Service Commission has to pass an examination as to whether he is in agreement for instance with the doctrines of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? God forbid! I have always regarded the public service as one of our most treasured possessions. Ours has always had a sound tone and good repute, but if anyone is going to tamper with its integrity, its reputation and its honour, it is to be done by means of the spoil system. I do feel the deepest regret that that doctrine should be enunciated as a justification for these particular three cases. The statement the Minister has made transcends in importance anything that has been said in this House during the session. We are getting to the bedrock of things. If the commission is going to be whipped about at the whim of the government of the day then God help the service and the country.

It is really amusing to have heard the hon. member talking about smelling out and the spoil system and that sort of thing. It is no use making these general statements. Will the hon. member give cases of smelling out?

What I said was that there was a widespread feeling that that was so.

No, I think the hon. member made a definite statement of smelling out in the public service. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) on several occasions has spoken about the dismissal of public servants. Does the hon. member withdraw the smelling out?

I withdraw nothing. What I said was there was a widespread belief and it was a great pity that the Minister should have made a statement which lent colour to it.

If the hon. member does not withdraw, will he give instances of smelling out in the public service?

I will give the Minister some instances. I say that at least 25 sheep inspectors in the Transvaal have been smelt out, and I will give him the names. J.N. Swart is one, P. J. Steyn is another and there are many others.

The Minister of Agriculture has dealt with these allegations on a previous occasion to the discomfiture of the hon. member opposite. We are quite prepared to debate that again if the hon. member wishes, and he will get that opportunity. What is the position with regard to the Public Service Commission? I said they were not public servants in the ordinary sense. Why is their service not continuous? Did not the previous Government pass legislation providing for the vacation of seats of gentlemen occupying these positions?

They made no suggestion of a change upon a change of Government.

I say it was contemplated by Parliament that when incoming governments took office these gentlemen would not be re-appointed. If not, then why was their service not made continuous—will the hon. gentleman tell me? That is all that took place here. They were not re-appointed in the same way that the previous Administrator of the Free State was not re-appointed. Was that a case of smelling out or victimization? No! It has been realized always that there are certain officers in this country where these gentlemen are appointed for a certain period and the Government will have an opportunity of saying whether they should be re-appointed or not. The position of this gentleman is analogous to that of the administrators. Where we, in the case of the Administrator of South-West Africa, did not consider it necessary to re-appoint him, where the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) on a certain occasion did not re-appoint a certain gentleman in the Orange Free State—

That is not a public service appointment.

Is a member of the Public Service Commission a public service appointment?

Why was Gen. Enslin smelt out?

We can debate the case of Gen. Enslin again—we will not shirk it. The hon. member has attacked me because I have stated what the Legislature had contemplated in certain circumstances, and mentioned, for instance, when you have a change of Government you would have a change in the personnel of the Public Service Commission. I also said that my colleague had given the reason the Government had for not re-appointing one of them was, if I remember rightly, on a material question of policy—what would be the qualification for the two official languages in the case of the head of a department, and on that the Government was at complete variance with the gentleman who was administering the department. Here you have a distinct conflict of opinion on a vital point of public policy in this country, where the people who were entrusted with the carrying out of this had different views. The Government said it would be very difficult if the officers who have to be responsible for the carrying out of that policy hold these views—

Did not the Minister of Justice announce a year before that he was going to do it?

I say again hon. members may not agree with us on that, but we are prepared to join issue.

That is not the point.

That is the point. I do not think the hon. member was justified when he was speaking of smelling out and the spoils of office.

The attitude of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) reminds me of a joke which took place before the magistrate of Heidelberg. An agent came and took an exception against a summons and set out the ground. Then the magistrate said—

What the hon. member for Rondebosch has stated here is a pure insinuation and he cannot give a single instance. Before, however, he made the groundless accusation this afternoon he gave an example, on being passed thereto by hon. members opposite, that of Sir Robert Kotzé. I know what a fuss the hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) made about that and I hope the House will believe that I can judge fairly impartially about the case because it took place in my absence. The papers in connection with the matter have already at the request of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) been laid on the Table. The case of Sir Robert Kotzé is simply that he attained the age of 55 years and that twice thereafter he was appointed for a year. The question of the appointment of a chief inspector of machinery was under discussion but before the matter was concluded before the proper body, the Public Service Commission, Sir Robert Kotzé exhibited the questionable taste of writing a letter to the secretary of my department in which he requested the secretary to inform the Minister that if a certain person were appointed he would resign. I say that if an official takes up such an attitude he shows that he is no longer fitted to remain in the service, or he has given complete proof that he is no longer fitted to occupy such a post, and that he has not a proper appreciation of his duty towards his Minister, the Government and the country. When Sir Robert Kotzé made that threat, because it cannot be called otherwise, there was only one way open for any self-respecting Minister and the Government and that was to say to him—

That is the simple explanation of the Kotzé case.

I think that you had better bear in mind that I never mentioned Sir Robert Kotzé.

As regards the Public Service Commission it was the famous commission which exhibited its competency by the statement that the Secretary of the Interior did not require a knowledge of the second language of the country, Afrikaans or Dutch. I think that that is fairly convincing proof of the spirit of the commission and of its suitability to judge about such an important matter as the knowledge of the two State languages, an important point which arises in connection with appointments in the public service. The Public Service Commission had a dispute with the Government about that and the result naturally was what everyone could foresee having in view the importance of the matter. The Government did not act on their advice. The Minister of the Interior, as a matter of fact, before their period of service had expired gave notice that their appointment would not be renewed. That was for several reasons.

It is interesting to hear that the great mistake that the last Public Service Commission made, and what made it clear that they were unfitted to hold their office, was that they recommended the appointment to the secretaryship of the interior of a man who was not qualified in both official languages.

The policy of the Government.

What did they say when they came to the appointment of the chief inspector of machinery? In the face of the protests of the Government Mining Engineer, they recommended a man who was not bilingual. When it comes to the question of appointing someone who for personal or other reasons it is desired to put into a job, then the matter of bilingualism does not come in. Another point I would like to mention. The Minister of Finance is technically perfectly right. The period of office of the Public Service Commissioners expired, and the Government had the right either to retain them or to appoint fresh commissioners. It looked a little suspicious, however, when the Government came into office, for it to be proclaimed by a responsible Minister that they were going to get these commissioners out. A complete change was introduced in regard to the functions of the Public Service Commission. That commission was appointed and its duties are laid down in an Act of Parliament. Those duties include, in the case of new appointments or promotions, the making of a recommendation to the Government by the commission. If the commission is to carry out its functions properly, surely it is its duty to make a recommendation to the Government before the Government has made up its mind whom it is going to appoint. But in the case of the Chief Inspector of Machinery, the Minister wrote to the commission saying “I am going to appoint Mr. Mullins; whom do you recommend?” It is part of the duty of the Public Service Commission to make a recommendation when an official is to be retired on superannuation. We are told that the retirement of Sir Robert Kotzé was because the Government was dissatisfied with a letter which he wrote. The Under Secretary for Mines, writing to the acting secretary of the Public Service Commission, said—

Would an independent Public Service Commission put up with treatment like that?

Hair-splitting—he had been dismissed.

Can the Government dismiss a public servant without the commission’s approval? This is indeed a new doctrine.

I thought that Government had power to do that, and if the Public Service Commission disagreed with the Government it could report the matter to Parliament.

What I complain about is this, that a commission which ought to be independent is told“We have decided to do this, kindly put your approval to it.”

Does not the law contemplate that?

Of course the law contemplated it. The law made special provision that Government could not remove officials except with the permission of the commission. That was a clear indication that the commission was to stand between the Government and the service so that appointments would not be a matter of patronage for individual Ministers, but that questions of appointments and promotions should be dealt with impartially.

You were dealing with a dismissal.

Where are we? We have just been told by the Minister of Mines that this was not a dismissal. If this was a dismissal, then it is a still stronger case, because the Public Service Act lays down carefully the grounds on which a man can be dismissed. The Minister of Mines first says it is a retirement, and then he says it is a dismissal. No dismissal, however, can take place without a full enquiry by the Public Service Commission.

Is that a quibble?

On my part or the Minister’s?

Yours.

Was it a dismissal?

It is an absolute quibble on the part of the hon. member. He put certain questions on the matter, and they were answered. He was told that Sir Robert Kotzé’s appointment had been continued for a year. He could be reappointed only with the authorization of the Minister, and when Sir Robert wrote this unprecedented letter containing a threat, he was informed that at the end of that period he would not be reappointed, and that he could leave in November, because that would give him full pay for six months up to the end of his then current year in lieu of leave. It did not lie within the function or powers of the Public Service Commission to repudiate the decision of the Minister. I hope it is clear now.

I have just explained to the committee that part of the functions of the Public Service Commission is to make recommendations for the retirement of officials on superannuation. If this was no part of the commission’s functions, why do the Government ask for its approval?

Because his appointment could only be continued on the authority of the Minister.

In both these cases the Public Service Commission has been put in a position which was not contemplated when the Act was passed. It has been put in the position of not making recommendations, but of receiving from Government an intimation of what Government wished.

That was the practice I found when I took office.

I would like some instances of that.

The wishes of the departments are generally recognized.

The wishes of the heads of the departments are not necessarily the wishes of the Minister.

Do you think a department would submit a recommendation against the wish of a Minister?

It is quite an ordinary thing for a head of a department to say “I think so-and-so should be appointed; what do you think?” I would like the Minister to produce cases where Ministers of the late Government wrote to the Public Service Commission saying they wanted so-an-so appointed, please do it. With regard to the unprecedented letter from Sir Robert Kotzé, let me say it was an unprecedented position, a position in which the Government was forcing an appointment which he thought would be detrimental to the department, and he wrote—

I want to make clear what I mean. The hon. member was referring to this strange practice about the Public Service Commission being approached in regard to the filling of vacancies or promotions. I said that was the practice which I found to prevail on taking office. The head of the department knows his staff, and if a promotion is to be effected, and somebody to be appointed, he would write to the Public Service Commissioner saying he thought this was the man, Do you approve or not?” That is the practice, but the hon. member thinks it is a wonderful new practice introduced by this Government. It has been quite free to the Public Service Commission, and they do so very often, not to approve of the wishes of the department, and that is nothing out of the common, and it is not an abuse of the functions or duties of the Minister or the department.

A challenge was thrown out by the Minister of Finance to name any case of victimization—

Smelling out.

Yes, smelling out; it is the same thing. The Minister knows in the case of the public service, before a smelling out can take place, a certain procedure must be gone through, and it is more difficult to smell out a member of the public service than a person outside. Where a person has not the barrier of the Public Service Commission behind him, the Government are very quick in their smelling out.

You are shifting your ground now.

I am not. It is easier in the case of a scab inspector or a messenger of the court. I put the case of Mr. Bukes, the messenger of the magistrate’s court at Ventersdorp, and another case at Witbank. In neither case were they members of the public service.

May I ask the Minister whether their cases are included in these items?

No. I made a challenge to the hon. member, but we were dealing with the public service all the afternoon.

You are running away now.

I am not, but it does not fall under this. I regard a scab inspector or a messenger of the court, these not being pensionable offices, as not falling under the commission.

You asked, sir, if it comes under the vote, and I am compelled to say that it does not do so, so I am deprived of an opportunity of replying to a challenge of the Minister.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations”, £48,390, put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services”, £75,602,

I move—

This is to include in this vote the extra amount we had to pay in the flour case which is settled, and another case which has to be included now.

Will the Minister please clear up the matter of the wheat transaction?

The hon. member will remember—it is ancient history—that during the war a certain quantity of wheat and flour was imported. The millers alleged that at that time a guarantee was given by the former Minister of Finance that they would be indemnified against any damage suffered owing to the direct action of the Government. After the importation of the wheat and flour the prices dropped, and the millers suffered damage. An action was instituted against the Government shortly before this Government came into office, and it was decided to defend the case, and the judgment went against the Government on certain parts of the claim. Then the matter was referred to an arbitrator who gave his judgment. It is as a result of that judgment that certain demands of the millers have now to be paid by the Government. So far I think three claims have been met, and certain further claims are still being considered.

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

I should like to ask the Minister if he can tell the House what amount was actually lost in connection with the purchase of wheat by the former Government Is the sum of £42,000 appearing here the exact amount lost?

In connection with this matter, I should like to ask a few questions. The Minister was particularly brief in his statement about the matter. An amount of £42,000 is mentioned in the report of the Auditor-General, but that states further that various negotiations are still pending in connection with the matter. Of course we get some details from the votes on the Estimates. £42,462 is brought up on this vote. To that must be added a sum of £27,500, which the Minister must have spent, in all a sum of £69,962, which has been paid in compensation. According to the Auditor-General, however, there are still various matters in this connection not yet disposed of, and I should like the Minister, in his reply, to tell us how much he thinks will further have to be paid in this connection. We see that already a loss of nearly £658,000 has been suffered. Then there is a further sum of £32,700 under Vote 17—

The hon. member can deal with that under that vote.

We are anxious to know what the whole thing cost the country.

I would like the Minister to explain to the committee as fully as possible this amount of £42,462, payment of compensation for losses sustained by wheat importations in 1920. I would like that particularly to be put before the committee because my recollection is, when I first came into this House, of certain mismanagement in connection with the wheat importations and also some arrangement which had been made with the milling companies at that time. I remember that a committee sat and tried to come to some agreement with regard to the position. I think we ought to know that this tardy justice that is now being done to certain people is the result of either certain mismanagement or something that the House ought to know about, and I think the House ought to know who was responsible for the position, and that we should know exactly what we are doing. We have heard a good deal of comment upon other items which have been brought forward, and a great deal of excitement has been shown by certain members of this House. I do think that on an item such as this the House should be made fully acquainted, not only with the circumstances surrounding this particular loss, but also who were responsible, and why we have been such a long time in making good the wrong that was done by some previous Administration.

I would like to supplement what the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) has said. I think it is desirable that we should know exactly who is responsible for this loss.

The Labour party. The Labour party asked for the importations.

We shall not see big headlines in the newspapers about this matter, because it is a mistake made, not by this Government, but by the last Government. I would like the Minister of Finance to fix definitely the responsibility for this, so that the country may know that the last Government made greater mistakes than this Government has ever done. I would like to know whether the figure given here represents the total loss. I understand it is going to cost a great deal more. We ought, I think, to know what the blunders of the last Government are costing the country.

We feel that we have to do here with money which has been wasted. We have been talking to-day and yesterday about the pensions paid to the ex-officials, but the people got something to which they were entitled in order to live properly, but the money in connection with the flour transaction was thrown away. I am astonished that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has not yet made himself heard on the matter.

I am not responsible for this. I was not in office.

But your Government was responsible. Somebody made the mistake whether it was the hon. member himself or his colleagues. Not a word is said about it, all remain silent as the grave. It is peculiar, especially when hon. members otherwise feel so strongly on the point. Last year the loss according to the Auditor-General had amounted £588,000, and I should like the Minister to reveal the sin register a little, so that the House and the country can see how great the sin was and who the sinners were. Hon. members of the Opposition who live in glass houses should be careful not to throw stones. We have to do here with wasted money and the amount gets bigger and bigger. Then there is a further sum in connection with the Railway Administration about which the Auditor-General says that it still had to be paid. What a position! I should be glad if the Minister will further enlighten us about the matter.

It is interesting to see how the old proverbs retain their value. The position of the supporters of the Government is that of a drowning man catching at a straw. Their Government has wasted so much money that they are thankful of such an opportunity of pointing to extravagance by the old South African party Government. Now one after the other talks about the importation of wheat, and raises as much dust as possible, but it will, anyhow, have no effect in the country. I do not believe that there is one supporter of the Government who will not admit that his Government makes mistakes, and I admit that the South African party Government made a mistake in importing wheat, but it was not done wilfully, nor with the object of giving a job to a pal, but with the best intentions to provide for the shortage that existed. I, however, trust that the present Government will learn one lesson from that mistake, viz., that Government cannot carry on business successfully, and that they will not try to establish a large and costly iron and steel factory.

There is one highly-gratifying thing about this discussion, and that is we have awakened the other side to the question of extravagance. We have spent the last two days in trying to awaken their conscience and, undoubtedly, we have succeeded. This is one of the results of Governments going into business. Let the Government take a lesson from it, or they will make the same blunders as have been made here, and I have no doubt that we shall be regretting in a year or two’s time the loss of some millions of money over this little steel and iron industry. I had nothing to do with this, nor had the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). We were sitting on those benches at the time this transaction went through. I remember at the time that the Government were being pressed to provide food for the people, specially so by the Labour members. The only mistake the Government at that time made was that they bought too much.

They bought in an unbusinesslike way.

What nonsense. My hon. friend knows nothing at all about it.

He is trying to defend you.

I don’t want any defence. I was not a member of the Government and not responsible. There was nothing unbusinesslike about the transaction at all. What was done, and that was more through misunderstanding than anything else, was that too much flour was bought and, of course, the Government had great difficulty in getting rid of it. Had a moderate quantity been bought there would not have been this tremendous loss. I rise particularly to urge home the lesson. I hope the Minister of Finance will take it to heart. Here is a business transaction which the Government of the day went into in perfectly good faith and with good intentions. We thought we were going to be short of flour and we were persuaded, perfectly honestly, to import it ourselves. My hon. friend will learn that Governments always make a mull of things when they go into business, just as you are going to make a mull of the iron and steel industry if you go into that. I hope my hon. friend will take this to heart and see what are the results from Government interference with business.

That is South African party government.

Yes, and you won’t do any better. That is absolutely certain. What experience has my hon. friend had of business? I am sorry to have to admit that we have lost far more than this. If hon. members on the other side will take up the position of financial critics we are only too glad. You have just awakened to it now. There is the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen). Why does he not carry it on? There is plenty of opportunity. When the Minister of Defence gets to work with his iron and steel industry then will be the time for any amount of criticism.

I hope hon. members will not pursue the subject. The facts are well known, and there is no question as to who is to blame. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he reads us a homily about Governments embarking in business. I am inclined to agree with him very largely, but I do not think he is quite right when he puts on a par this unfortunate transaction and our proposed experiment in regard to an iron and steel industry. If this was going to be an industry to be run by the Government, I think I would have strong objections too, but it is going to be a business undertaking. The hon. member need not be afraid. We have similar undertakings functioning very well. We have the Electricity Commission, where the Government took a share in connection with the establishment of that undertaking, and it is going to be one of the best things we have embarked upon. The treasury has had to find about four millions of money for that. The hon. member need not be afraid. This proposed venture is not going to be run by the Government. I want to give the House some information about the points which hon. members have raised. They have asked what the loss so far has been in connection with this transaction. The figures are as quoted by one hon. member from the report of the Auditor-General. About £588,000 has so far been debited to loan account. It has been regarded in the past as war expenditure and it was charged to that. We are now trying to wipe out the rest of the liability in connection with the cases that were instituted by various millers against the Government. Some of these claims have already been settled, and in so far as the liability has been ascertained up to now we are asking Parliament to vote the necessary amounts on our ordinary revenue estimates. Three cases have been settled. One is the Paarl Roller Flour Mills, the second is John Forrest & Company, and the third is Daniel Mills & Sons. The amount we have agreed to pay is what members find on the Estimates. In addition, on the other vote, we find the total amount of costs in all the proceedings, the original court proceedings and then the subsequent protracted arbitration proceedings, amounting to about £32,700. Other cases are being investigated, and the following claims have been so far submitted to the Government: the Natal Mill & Elevator Company, Limited, they originally claimed £20,000; the South African Milling Company, Limited. £288,000; and Messrs. Pyott, Limited, £25,000. But, of course, I do not anticipate that anything like these amounts will be paid to them. We have been able to settle the other cases at a very much smaller amount than was originally estimated in the claims I am unable to provide on the Estimates now for the anticipated further loss, but very likely during the next financial year these claims will come in for settlement, and then I shall have to come later on and ask the House to vote the additional amounts. The total loss in regard to the flour that was purchased has already been debited, and is included in the amount of £588,000. I hope hon. members will not pursue the subject further, but will come to a vote.

I must say I am not quite satisfied. I do feel that hon. members on this side are to be congratulated on the very kindly manner in which the Minister has treated them. They spent the whole day in attacking the Minister for a mistake in which they were equally responsible with him, but now the Minister shows them how to be generous. I do not know whether I am to congratulate the South African party on the fact that the Minister agrees with them, or to commiserate with the Minister on the habit he has of agreeing with the South African party. I do say that the position, as far as the House and this committee are concerned, is very different from the point of view put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The mistake was not that the State entered into that enterprise, but the hopeless inefficiency of those who were responsible, in the first instance, and secondly it was due to the fact that they entered into the undertaking prejudiced against it, and not desiring to make a success of it. We should ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) what about the railways, roads, posts and telegraphs? Would he like the country to go back to the state of affairs when every person had to be responsible for his own sanitation? That is the logical result of what the hon. member has said. And the Minister of Finance is inclined to agree with it, which, I think, is due to the generosity of his heart. Experiments of a similar nature were made in Great Britain during the great war with the utmost possible success. They were successful to such an extent that Mr. Winston Churchill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, detailed the works done by various Government departments which had taken over control where private enterprise had failed. The achievements of these Government enterprises and undertakings were such as to constitute the greatest argument for State socialism that had ever been produced. But the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not like to have Mr. Winston Churchill brought against him.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I carry my mind back to the year when this money was voted to purchase this wheat. The hon. member for Troyeville was a member of this House at the time, and he and his party were most insistent on this—and I do not blame them for it. They were correct at the time. The Minister of Labour was a member of the Cost of Living Commission, which reported on the food supplies of the country, and particularly that there was a deficit with regard to wheat supply. It was shortly after the war, and the prices of all commodities were abnormal. My hon. friends on the cross benches insisted on the Government embarking on the world’s market, and when the money was asked to be voted not a single Nationalist or Labour man objected to it. This wheat was bought in 1919-’20, when every article was at an abnormal price. The Minister at that time might have over-bought, but that was on account of representations made to him about the needs of the country. It is admitted that there was a loss, but who got the benefit of it? The consumers of the country.

What about the farmers?

When this wheat was bought the farmers of Caledon got £5 a bag for their wheat, and many of them felt that prices were abnormal, and that consumers could never pay that price. Did the S.A. party control the prices of the farmers? We recognized one fact, and that was that this country did not produce sufficient wheat for its own consumption, and we had a deficit of 1,000,000 bags. Bona fide, on the reports presented to Parliament, it unanimously authorized the Government to embark upon the purchase of the wheat. There was a loss because a slump came after 1920, and the wheat had to be sacrificed at a lower price. The taxpayers of the country paid for it and the consumers got the benefit. Now hon. members on the cross benches get up and blame the Government of that day for embarking on that purchase!

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the former Government was such a good one. He said it did not wish to control the prices of the farmers, but if the farmers had enough wheat it was not necessary to import flour. We are not quarrelling about the importation of wheat or flour but about the guarantee given to the millers to indemnify them against loss. When the millers had the guarantee in their pockets they imported more flour on their own account and then the prices dropped. The millers then made the best deal that they had ever done. They did not deliver that flour to the Government but their own flour because their profit was certain on the flour for which the Government had given the guarantee. They just kept the flour in their warehouses and delivered that which they had obtained on their own account. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says he was not responsible but he was a supporter of the see-it-through policy of the former Government and the members of that Government were as thick as thieves and the Government could not govern without the consent of the old Unionists. Let them admit it. Does the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) not yet know that we have to pay the world’s price for flour? Now debt upon debt has to be paid but it is no use running away from the responsibility.

I think that this case is a very good warning to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) of the dangers of national interference with distribution, and I think this should be a very severe warning to members on the cross benches. The hon. member for Troyeville seems to have forgotten that at the time this matter occurred the biggest war in history had just finished, and the whole distribution of products was upset right throughout the world. The S.A. party Government of the time were in the predicament that they were warned, more particularly by members of the cross benches, that the food supply of the country was not sufficient for the demand, and that unless the Government would take immediate steps to remedy the matter there would be an enormous increase in the prices of the food supply to the people. At great cost they safeguarded that food supply. The only thing the Government could do was to take their courage in both hands and say that, whatever the cost, the people of the country had to be fed. The Government were out to see that the poorer classes were not exploited. The hon. member for Troyeville referred to the position with regard to various funds in England used for making various purchases. The hon. member could not have read the report of the English Auditor-General. At that time it was not a question of losing money, but a question of getting the goods. At the end of the war there was a report of the English Auditor-General that millions and millions of money had been lost in trading. To take one instance, the English Dye Corporation lost millions, and the judge who issued the order winding up the corporation remarked on the extraordinary way in which Government departments could lose money when they entered upon trade.

The Government never handled it.

We safeguarded the people at a time when the food supply of this country was in very great danger, and whatever members of the cross benches think, the country will be satisfied that the S.A. party did their best under most dangerous circumstances.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has made a number of statements about the losses made by the British Government. I have here a copy of a report issued in 1920 by the British Minister of Munitions showing that by the sale of English wool of the value of £33,000,000 it made a profit of £6,000,000; colonial wool, £133,000.000 worth, net profit £25,000,000; hides and skins £13,000,000 worth, net profit £1,815,000; leather £4,500,000 worth, net profit £503,000: cotton fabrics £1,000,000 worth, net profit £78,000; chemicals £423.000 worth, net profit £24,000. The British Government handled foodstuffs to the value of £221,000,000 and made a net profit of £38,720,000. These figures show that properly administered by an efficient Government nationalization pays every time.

It is rather amusing to hear the fulminations and to witness the unctuous rectitude displayed by the other side, and to compare what hon. members said now with what they said when the matter of the flour purchase was originally before the House. The Minister of Defence is all smiles. When the matter was before Parliament he urged that the Government should import a sufficient supply of flour and make good the loss out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This shows that he expected that there was going to be a loss. In fact, he said that he realized that in order to go to the assistance of the public there was to be a loss, and he was quite reconciled to the fact. Does the Minister deny that he said this?

No, but I was not alluding to this kind of loss.

Every member of the Labour party in the House at that time spoke in favour of the flour subsidy. The Minister of Defence even threatened to adjourn the House if the matter did not go through, and not a single member voted against it. It has been asked who has reaped the benefit of the purchase. The public had the benefit. We were pushed into this matter by the Labour party as it meant cheap food for the people. It is rank ingratitude, therefore, of the Labour party to take up the attitude it is now adopting, seeing that they are the people primarily responsible for forcing the Government into this transaction.

Mismanagement.

There was no mismanagement. The House recognized that there was going to be a loss, and the transaction was entered into in order to provide the people with cheaper food. The benefit of this money went to the people—the poor people of the country, the members of the Labour party are always howling about and pretending to help—we helped them. I think under the circumstances the Labour party should remain quiet about this transaction.

Who pays for the loss?

The country, but the poor man got the benefit. They are the people who are going to pay for the present Government’s socialistic fallals. Very seldom, however, has the ratepayer been called upon to pay in a better cause than he is doing in this particular instance. Cheaper bread has been the slogan of the Labour party—

Not Burton bread.

I can now inform the complete letter writer that he can write his letters on Sunday.

What a flat joke. Is that the best you can do?

It was not intended as a joke. We, on this side of the House, don’t need to go round writing begging letters and blackguarding our friends. The hon. member talks about the ethics of that expenditure. I think I have shown that the Labour party was primarily responsible for this transaction, and that the Nationalists and Labour party voted solidly for it. Not one of them voted against it or uttered a word of warning. The hon. member across the way with a smile like a Cheshire cat said—

well we have done that.

Very interesting indeed! We have had losses, ordinary losses, and we have paid, and we should do the same again under the same circumstances, so that the country could ensure bread being sold to the people at a reasonable rate. But this is a totally different matter. This money has to be paid out because the late Minister of Finance guaranteed, or is alleged to have guaranteed, the millers that they would not suffer loss in importing flour. The late Government did not care a button for the poor man—the first people they thought of were the millers, and we have to pay the guarantee.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has given utterance to the most orthodox socialistic views. He says—

That is exactly what we say. I am sure he did not intend to be so sensible. The hon. member referred to the fact that the Minister of Defence stated definitely that he expected there would be a loss. That is perfectly true, and shows that the Minister of Defence knew the incompetence of the late Government, and therefore he naturally anticipated that there would be a loss. That loss, however, was occasioned by the Government making certain guarantees to the millers, and the people who benefited were not the poor people, but the millers. I feel that certain mistakes have been made which should be rectified. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) gave us an entirely wrong version of the position. I don’t blame him for he was not in the House at the time. He was one of the gentlemen busy making snug. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who has given us some very wrong facts, was probably dozing in the chair at the time, and did not know what was going on. The late Government made a mistake in guaranteeing the millers against loss. The members of the Labour party advised the Government to sell the flour to private individuals, but the Government refused to do so.

I think that after the reasonable appeal of the Minister of Finance the discussion ought to end. It is anyhow only crying over spilt milk. There are members of the Labour party who now want to excuse themselves and therefore I cannot remain quiet. Some of the present members were not then in the House and I have noticed that they have had a good laugh. I can, however, assure them that the Government acted under pressure by the Labour and Nationalist parties because they were already then collaborating. The former Government made a mistake then, and it is useless arguing it away but sight must not be lost of the pressure. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) Dr. van Broekhuizen) enjoys speaking about the matter, but he felt bad to-day about the large sum of money which has been spent and of which he was the cause. He was glad now to have an opportunity to accuse the former Government of wasting money. It always happens that you have a number of birds of prey surrounding the Government and this Government will have the same experience. I more and more come to the conclusion that the principles of the South African party are the right principles. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) has stated that we are the slaves of the Unionists, but at that time in the matter of the wheat transaction we were the slaves of the Labour party. That is the reason why I am so sorry for the Nationalist party because they are the slaves of the Labour party. The Nationalists will yet pay dearly for it. I hope that it will be a lesson to the present Government that the Labour party, who always wishes to poke its nose into the business of private people and wants to take away private property is not a desirable ally. I hope the Nationalist party will see that, and as we made a big mistake they will not make the same mistake again. It will be a good lesson to the Government to keep its hands out of the business of private people. There was a time in this country when everyone felt that there might be a scarcity of bread and the Government at that time acted with the best intentions. Hon. members opposite ought not therefore to abuse the South African Party to-night, especially as they said that they were going to put everything right.

And we are rectifying the mistakes now.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) was a member of the House at that time but if we look up the Votes and Proceedings we shall see that he also voted for it. Hon. members opposite are just as guilty. Since they have come into office they have already made mistakes and they will make more even though the Minister of Finance means very well. Let us rather try to rectify what is wrong and to make an end of the spirit of speculation prevailing in the country.

I understand this additional vote of £2,000 is in respect of the supply of a motor-car to the High Commissioner and payment of the upkeep, including the salary of the chauffeur.

Part of the vote is for that, the other is for other services.

I accept the Minister’s statement. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what was the cost of the car and the upkeep.

The cost of the car was £1,356; £100 for chauffeur, and £84 petrol and oil. The balance is for transferring officials to and from London.

I understand the cost of the car is £1,350. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said our motto was—

The motto of the present Government appears to be—

My mind has been going back to what happened some years ago when the wheat purchase was made. I remember when the Vote of the High Commissioner came on each year, it was made a field day by the Nationalists and Labour, and it was regularly moved to scrap the whole vote on the grounds that the High Commissioner was just an ornament in London, and the expenditure on him was wasted. We are not only asked now to perpetuate the office, but to purchase an expensive motor-car for the High Commissioner and pay for the upkeep. Normally I would not object to that. I think, following up the consistent policy of the South African party, to maintain the dignity of South Africa, it is right that the High Commissioner should be provided with a motor-car at State expense. But this request comes peculiarly from a party which has consistently grudged the existence of the High Commissioner at all. Remembering how the complaints went on, I have looked up the last year of the Smuts Government in office—1923—to see whether any signs of grace were shown by the Nationalists who are now asking for us to join in the provision of the motor-car. Mr. de Waal ( Nationalist) pointed out there were 32 clerical assistants engaged in that office at the cost of £13,000, which he thought excessive. He said—

He was in favour of a trade commissioner, and could see no justification for keeping up the office of High Commissioner—

Mr. Pearce said, although he was opposed to the appointment of Mr. Spilhaus, he agreed he was carrying on his work well, but he thought the best course would be to abolish the office, and that when Parliament was not in session, they should be represented in London by the Cabinet. Dr. Visser was of opinion that the High Commissioner should be abolished, and we ought to have trade commissioners in the capitals of Europe. There seemed to him to be a great deal of snobbery associated with the office. Now we have my hon. friend coming forward asking for the provision of a £1,300 motor-car and the upkeep of the chauffeur. I take it he will wear livery, and that he will have the new flag on his uniform or somewhere on the car bonnet. Yet these Government members used to get up and talk about snobbery. It was a field day for the Nationalists, and I think the Minister himself used to join in that hue and cry. I see he shakes his head. Does he tell me he secretly deplored these annual attacks, and considered they were in bad taste? This request comes strangely indeed from the Nationalist Minister of Finance to keep up the dignity of the office of the High Commissioner in London by voting him a motorcar. Had the position been reversed, and we had been sitting on the Government benches, the House would have been kept for days debating it, and every drop in the backveld would have known all about the matter.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what is the opinion of the Government as regards the abolition of the office of High Commissioner? I believe that the High Commissioner should be abolished for one reason—

The hon. member cannot discuss now whether the High Commissioner should be abolished or not.

I believe the vote is a further vote of £2,000 to the High Commissioner.

For transport only.

No, I made a challenge to the hon. member, but we were dealing with the public service all afternoon.

You are running away now.

I am not, but it does not fall under this. I regard a scab inspector or a messenger of the court, these not being pensionable officers, as not falling under the commission.

The position would be that if you had trade commissioners on the same lines of the trade commissioners in any other country, you would not need more transport, therefore I would like to ask the Minister whether he does not think it would be in the interest of the community for one of the Ministers of the Cabinet to visit England each year and supervize the different trade commissioners in the different countries, instead of having a High Commissioner resident in England?

The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing that on the main estimates.

I would like to ask the Minister, with every sympathy for the green and yellow motor-car, whether he does not consider, instead of spending the money on motor-cars, it would be more consonant with the higher status if the High Commissioner’s office was made a more decent office for South Africa, of which it is the home? Would the money not be better devoted to improving the place—it is a good site—as a show place for South Africa and South African products?

I quite agree that hon. members across the way have undergone a very considerable change at heart since they came into office in regard to the High Commissioner. I have been following the debates that took place when we were in power about the High Commissioner. I find that from 1918 onwards hon. members opposite tried to abolish the office, and they moved to reduce the High Commissioner’s salary. In that year Mr. Fichardt moved in that direction. A certain Mr. de Waal moved to reduce the salary by £1,000—

In 1920 Mr. Fichardt again raised the question. In 1921 Mr. Beyers, who I am afraid is the present Minister of Mines, asked the then Prime Minister what were the qualifications of the then High Commissioner. A strong personal attack was made on the then High Commissioner. Was he appointed as a political favourite? We on this side are not going to ask a similar question of the present Government.

It is not necessary.

We have more self-respect for the dignity of our representative oversea than to ask this question. If we were to probe into this question, I am afraid every South African would hang his head.

Order. The hon. member must keep to the vote. I do not want the committee to go too far away from the vote, but at the same time I do not want to keep the Opposition from criticizing. Hon. members must, as far as possible, keep to the vote, which is for a motor-car and chauffeur.

Would the hon. member just repeat what he said about probing and hanging our heads in shame?

I say we are not going to probe into the personal character and qualifications of the High Commissioner, as was done in 1921.

Because if you did, you say every South African would hang his head in shame. What do you want to insinuate by that?

The Minister knows very well that I am not going to probe into this matter for the simple reason that we have too much respect for the dignity of our country. I am pointing out the difference between our attitude and the attitude of the Nationalists when they were in opposition. On this very vote they made a violent personal attack. The then High Commissioner was attacked on personal grounds, that he was incompetent, that he was a political favourite, and so on. He did this, that and the other. I am not going to follow the Opposition members of that time along that deplorable route.

I am not going to allow this to go on. The hon. member must keep to the vote. It has got nothing whatever to do with the High Commissioner’s personality or whatever was said before.

To carry on the continuity of the way in which the Nationalist party year after year attacked this very vote, I may say that in 1922 Mr. Fichardt, as the spokesman of the then Opposition, stated that the High Commissioner went on gaily spending money as he liked and that a check should be put upon his expenditure. In 1923, the year before the general election, a Mr. de Waal stated that the office should be abolished as too expensive. In the same year you find the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) making the brilliant suggestion that the office should be abolished and that a Cabinet Minister should go there occasionally. Mr. Pretorius saw no use in the office. The cream of the joke was that Mr. Munnik, our hon. friend from Vredefort, objected in 1923 to the High Commissioner calling for tenders for railway materials, as it would give rise to jobbery. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) also objected on the same ground. You see the difference between the attitude in 1923, before the general election, and the present. Then there was nothing right about the High Commissioner’s-office. The expenditure was criticized, the post should be abolished, railway material was not to be tendered for because it would give rise to jobbery. Statements were made by men who are now selling sleepers to the Government direct, and so on.

I do not want to defend the action of hon. members in the past in having made a personal attack on the previous High Commissioner. I do not think that with the business we have to do now, it would serve any good purpose by finding out what this particular hon. member or any other hon. member in the past thought about the extravagance of the High Commissioner’s office, but I think that the hon. member who has just sat down (Col. D. Reitz) ought to withdraw the statement in regard to the present incumbent of the office. The hon. member has made a statement which I say is disgraceful and he had no right to do so. He should either make it good or withdraw it. He had no right to say that if the personal character of Mr. Smit had to be probed, South Africans would hang their heads in shame.

He never said that.

He had no right to make that statement.

I never said so.

Have you not said so? I appeal to hon. members. If the hon. member will not withdraw it I shall leave the matter to the judgment of the House.

Is the Minister not in duty bound to accept the denial of the hon. member? There are, after all, rules of the House. We ask you to see that those rules are carried out.

And rules of decency.

They have no decency.

I quoted what the present Minister of Mines had said in regard to the appointment of the then High Commissioner. He asked whether he was appointed because he was a political favourite. I said I would refrain from pursuing that avenue of enquiry because some of us would hang our heads if we are to probe the appointment as to whether or no he was a political favourite.

No.

I deliberately disclaimed any intention to reflect on the High Commissioner’s character. Did I not say repeatedly that I think too much of the dignity of our representation across the way to go into his private character? I repeated that twice at the least. I do not remember the Minister of Finance getting up to object at the time. At that time the present Minister of Mines and Industries made a personal attack, followed by other members, attacking the then High Commissioner, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to his credit got up and objected to all this and the Minister of Defence got up and objected to this personal abuse being showered on the then High Commissioner. I did not then hear the Minister of Finance take up this high moral tone. I distinctly stated that I was not going to make any personal attack.

Well, I will leave it to the hon. members who heard. I think the hon. member has not made his case much better. He talks about my not having protested against a previous personal attack. No, I do not remember the circumstances, but I would not have objected to the hon. member attacking the High Commissioner if he had justified what he said. I distinctly heard him and I asked him to repeat it. If I am right in what I understood him to say, then I say he should withdraw it.

I have nothing to withdraw.

Well, I will leave it to the members who heard it.

The Minister stated this is also for the payment of certain passages to London. We have seen from the paper that the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) is going to the other side to inquire into the question of industrial insurance. Perhaps my hon. friend will give us some information about that.

I replied fully to the question yesterday. Of course the hon. member knows we have appointed a commission to inquire into the subjects of old age pensions and national insurance. The commission has nearly finished the first part of their investigation and we are expecting their report. In regard to the second part, the hon. member will appreciate that this is a vast subject. I am informed that although the commission has taken voluminous evidence and has tried to obtain all possible information in South Africa, they have not been able to do so.

I regret I must ask the Minister not to discuss this now.

Can the Minister tell us whether a Mr. Smit has been appointed to the High Commissioner’s office and to what particular office he has gone? I believe he was formerly with the Carmelite House printing establishment in Cape Town.

I regret I do not know. If the hon. member will give me further particulars I may be able to trace the appointment.

Perhaps the Minister will give us some details. It seems a very large sum. I understood him to say that it would be used to cover the defalcations of a clerk in the Inland Revenue office. Is the whole of the sum for this and, if so, what steps are being taken against the official concerned?

Perhaps the hon. member will have seen that some months ago one or two officials at Bloemfontein were charged and convicted, and there was another case at Durban. According to law the loss has to be made good to Revenue by a vote from this House. One of the young officials was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and the other one got a suspended sentence. That was at Bloemfontein. Unfortunately, I have not got the details of the Durban case.

I move—

It is leave of costs in connection with the flour question we have already debated.

I should like to know from the Minister who the arbitrator was that sat in the case with the flour manufacturers and what fee he received.

The arbitrator was Mr. Duncan Baxter. I am not certain of the amount, but I think it was two thousand guineas.

I understand this Vote is in connection with the wheat contract. Early in the evening I was mentioning the warning this is to any Government hoping to indulge in national distribution, and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) contradicted me when I said there were huge losses on similar projects in England. If he would refer to the English Accounts and Papers 1922, vol. 11, page 104, he will see a list of losses there. On butter and cheese there was a loss of £1,945,000; dried fruits £716,000: bacons, hams and lards £2,183,000; vegetable supplies £403,000; and on the central livestock fund £1,711,000. In this schedule alone there was a loss of over £8,000,000, so I hope the hon. member for Umbilo will withdraw his suggestion that I was making statements that were not correct.

What has actually happened is this: There were huge profits on all the undertakings, but after 1920 the Government of the day in England suddenly decided rid of all public enterprise in connection with these matters and in spite of the protests that were made, they threw them on the market and left them to be sold at a heavy loss.

I would like to know from the Minister what is due in connection with this air force business. I think certain promises were made by our representatives at the Imperial Conference in connection with the Kisumu flight, for instance.

It is arranged by Britain to send a fleet out there, and we should send a fleet to Kisumu. They would arrive just about the time we have our Grahamstown training camp. This would normally fall within the next financial year, but a certain amount of expenditure has to be incurred, for instance,—

What about the mooring mast?

We will take part in supplying a mooring mast here, the exact situation of which has to be decided by the experts.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the air-planes to be used in this service are 10 years old, and whether they are those presented to us by the British Government after the war. I may be wrong, and new ’planes may have been bought, but if not, would he expect to work such a service with motor-cars if they were 10 years old? I want to put to the Minister of Finance that it seems an extraordinary thing that although we have a pensions vote (No. 7), which contains sub-head C, £411,000, we find another vote for the payment of compensation to members of the Defence Force upon retirement— £2,000, under the vote Defence.

I have not heard from Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, the director of the air force, that he has any doubt whatever that they will be able to accomplish that flight, and neither my hon. friend nor myself are very competent judges in our own capacity whether those ’planes will be able to do that flight to Kisumu or not.

Are they the same old ’planes we got from the British Government?

The same old ’planes they are—we bought no other ’planes. But they are continually being reconditioned. Some have been put into commission comparatively recently. If any hon. member, during the recess, will come to the aircraft workshops where we re-condition the ’planes, it would be of very great interest to him. It is not appreciated how exceedingly well-equipped the workshops are. The hon. member need have no fear whatever that our ’planes accompanying the Royal air force will cut a bad figure. As to the last item, it does not relate to compensation, but to the retrenchment scheme approved by Parliament last year.

Even a layman like myself who is totally ignorant of air-planes knows of the enormous development which has been made. I do not know whether the workshops at Pretoria are capable of constructing the engines. Are we keeping up to date with modern improvements in air-craft so as to fit in with the newest and latest developments?

We had this gift of air-planes, and we are keeping them in as good condition as we can. Of course, we do not make the engines, but we have bought new engines which will give us greater power and speed. Our programme is to defer as long as possible buying new ’planes, but we are using the D.H.9’s we have in stock.

In reply to the latter part of the question put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), the position is that the technical term “compensation,” in regard to the defence and the public service votes, is not analagous at all. In the case of ordinary service votes, it is really leave gratuities due to the officers, and this is always borne on the departmental vote. In defence, it is for loss of office, and it is debited to defence. We are following the same procedure as was adopted some time ago.

How can you keep up to date in these matters if statistics are not got out within a month of the date? Take customs. This report for November was just laid on the Table this morning.

It is not the interior.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance will take cognizance of this—it may come within his department. My hon. friend ought certainly to put a bomb-shell under the customs. They are always behind the times. We have here the figures of November—three months behind. I doubt whether we shall have the figures for the whole of the year by the time the Minister delivers his Budget speech.

Previously these returns were published earlier, but only in one language. Objections were received, and from the press of the hon. members opposite, that we must follow the Act of Union, which requires that Government publications shall be issued in both languages. The commissioner tells me that the figures are got out as soon as is humanly possible, but I will go into the matter again. It takes some time to prepare these elaborate statistics. I would like a lead in this matter from the business men as to whether it is necessary to give all this statistical information. Hon. members have been complaining of the amount of the printing vote, but do they realize that the printing of the annual report of the Customs Department costs £4,500 a year? It is only by deciding that some of these publications are unnecessary that we can hope to reduce the printing vote.

Why do you include in the report the returns for Northern Rhodesia?

We are bound to do that by the Customs Convention.

I hope the Minister will not think it advisable to curtail the amount of information contained in the monthly customs returns, for it is of importance not only to those in the Union, but to the public overseas. It seems a pity that money should be spent on a publication which will be very little used, as I understand is the case with these returns when printed in Afrikaans.

I am afraid the fact that an equal number of copies of the Afrikaans version is not being used will not enable us to act on the hon. member’s suggestion. The dual language may be inconvenient and expensive, but it is one of the things we have accepted. There are many Dutch people who use the publication, and they insist on having it in Afrikaans. It is a question of principle, and we cannot agree to its being published in one language only

You published it in English only for thirteen years.

Serious objection was taken to that. I move—

I understand the Minister’s difficulty in regard to issuing the report in both languages, but I cannot see that the necessity for doing that will make the difference of more than a week in the issue of the statistics. It is only a question of setting up the figures in both instances. Previously this volume was read consistently by the commercial community because it was a guide as to the quantity of goods imported, but now, owing to the fact that the returns are three months behind—on one occasion they were five months late—they are useless as a guide to the course of trade. You don’t want to know what people were importing last October, but last month. Now, as regards the question of detail, I rather agree with the Minister. I have always been under the impression that all this extra mass of detail was put in by the customs people and the Board of Trade to get data for their tariff figures, and if the Minister enquires into it, I don’t think he will find the great mass of detail now appearing there comes by a demand from the commercial community. I think it rather comes from its own department, who want the figures for certain tariff suggestions of their’s. I agree with the Minister, if you could guarantee the early issue of the statistics with a decrease in the details, it will be more valuable to the country than sticking to the details we have to-day, and issuing the publication so very long after the imports have appeared. I suggest to the Minister it does not mean a difference of a month in the publication of that journal simply because the same set of figures has to be put into the Dutch form.

I will enquire into it.

In connection with the amendment of the Minister to increase the amount for the repatriation of Asiatics by £12,500, from £30,000 to £42,500, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to give a little more information in connection with this vote. We should like to know whether the voluntary repatriation of Indians has increased, or whether the increase is due to the raising of the repatriation bonus. In connection with what the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson ) has said, it seems to me that hon. members from Natal are still under the impression that the publications are only read in Natal, and that the Afrikaans-speaking people attach no importance to them. I can assure the hon. member that there are Afrikaans-speaking people who attach just as much importance to the publications as English-speaking people, and our taxpayers pay just as much for them as the people in Natal. Such a proposal ought not again to be made in the House.

I make the suggestion to the Minister of Finance with regard to the publication of these statistical returns that the delay is due to the necessity of keeping one form back until it is translated into the other language. Time might be saved if the copy were issued in whichever language is ready first, and then the translation could be made into the other. You are thus preserving the equality of the dual languages.

Would the English people be satisfied if the Dutch copy was ready first?

I think so, if it was a case of getting the facts sooner. With regard to the dost of printing, we recognize the absolute right of equality of the two languages. I put to my Afrikander friends that there must be some way of keeping their rights and, at the same time, saving a good deal of expenditure on printing not required by anybody. Whether it is going to be done by members putting in their request for the number of Dutch copies they require, I do not know. But the Minister has given illuminating figures with regard to the various forms which must have terminated in expense. If members put in their order for the form they want, then with the goodwill of the House and without treading on the sentiments of anybody a good deal of money can be saved for the country.

I cannot associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Berea. I thought this question of bilingualism was settled, and I deprecate the publication in one language only, even if there is delay. There has been a lot of delay in getting out the returns, but for goodness sake don’t let us bring this question of bilingualism up again. As a country member, I say the country people take a keen interest in the returns of customs and other matters, and particularly look forward to the Afrikaans version as well as the English version.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) has said that the Dutch-speaking population look forward keenly to this publication. Would it surprise him to learn that this publication, which, according to the Minister, costs over £4,000, has not called forth one single buyer of the Afrikaans version. Not a single copy has been sold. We have similar testimony from the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). He tells us it is unreasonable to say that it should be a publication in one language. It has, for the last fifteen years, I understand, been customary to publish it in one language only—English—and there has been no great feeling of dissatisfaction, or else we should have found people who were dissatisfied coming forward in hundreds to buy this publication in Afrikaans. The number of English copies sold, and this return is up to date— 18th February—shows that 913 copies were sold in English and not a single copy was sold in Afrikaans, and that was for the publication of the 1925 annual report.

I want to ask the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) what that has to do with the question? This is a question of principle, whether the publication is bought by the public or not, and we stand for it on a question of principle. Therefore, I would ask the Opposition members, who are so strong against bilingualism, not to speak in that sense, because it is something that we should deprecate. We should encourage the Dutch population to buy that publication. I hope the day will come when questions of this kind will not me raised in Parliament again. If the Dutch-speaking population do not buy this publication then it is to their own detriment.

I very much doubt whether this discussion is really in order on this particular vote, but as the Minister has raised this point, may I put this very shortly to him that at least one-third of this volume is taken up with the figures of Southern and Northern Rhodesia, Would the Minister tell me whether that is done by an arrangement, with them? What I want to know is this: Do these Governments pay their share towards the cost of this publication? If not, why should we pay the whole? I have looked through the publication. It extends over some sixty odd pages and at least one-third is taken up with the figures of importations into Southern and Northern Rhodesia, and actually some three or four pages are devoted to the trade between Southern and Northern Rhodesia. That may be very interesting, but why should the Union Government have to pay for it?

I have not got the terms of the actual convention here, but it was part of our bargain that we should collect their customs duties, and that we should keep the statistics for them. I am not sure, at the moment, whether they pay their share of the actual cost of this volume.

The point I was leading up to was this, that while I am in entire agreement with the last speaker that in this country so long as Article 137 stands it is our duty to issue official publications in both langauges, this publication consists to the extent of one-third of the figures of Southern and Northern Rhodesia, where Dutch is not an official language. Surely some arrangement could be made whereby those figures could be kept out of the Dutch copy. I am all with the Minister in trying to cut down our printing bill. I hope he will look into this question and see whether it is necessary to publish these figures for Southern and Northern Rhodesia at all and, if it is, whether they should not be left out of the Dutch copy, because they do not concern this country at all.

I have again to differ from my hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell).

You are more Catholic than the Pope.

I think those figures relative to Southern and Northern Rhodesia are essential, in respect of those returns, and now to suggest that two-thirds of that report should be printed in Dutch and English and one-third only in English is a great mistake. It is going to open up no end of discussion on a question which I thought was settled.

In connection with the expenditure for the repatriation of Asiatics I should like the Minister to say whether the Asiatics who have gone away went from the Transvaal or Natal or from another province. I should also like to know if they were not possibly Arabs whom we regard here as Asiatics, because I understand that many of those we regard as Asiatics are not really such, but come from other countries. Must we pay a bonus to them as well? Then I also want to know whether the Asiatics who leave Durban do not come in again at Delagoa Bay because it seems to me that their numbers are increasing instead of diminishing.

I think I will at once answer the two hon. members who spoke about the repatriation of Asiatics. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked for the figures which would show the increase in connection with the amount voted for repatriation. The figures are that last year there were about 14,000 Asiatics who left under the repatriation scheme, and this year about 2,200. The increase in the Vote is not the cause of the doubling of the bonus because that occurred even in 1924. The increase must be attributed to the additional number of Asiatics who have availed themselves of the repatriation scheme. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) asked from which provinces the Asiatics went. Most of them were from Natal, but I think some also came from the Transvaal. As the hon. member knows, the Asiatics in the Transvaal mostly belong to the trading class. Some are indeed called Arabs, but not because they belong to a different race than the Asiatic or Indian. It is only because they have a different religion and are Mohammedan. They come from Bombay and the others who are Hindoes and belong to the working classes come from Madras. They are all Indians.

I would like to ask the Minister if he could not expedite the publication of the South African Year Book a little. It is one of the most interesting publications we have. To-day the latest copy is 1924, dealing with 1923 figures. The Minister will realize that is absolutely out of date, and it would be of tremendous assistance if we could get it a little more up to date.

I want to support that very much indeed.

I think with regard to that the hon. gentleman should have a little patience, and the reason for that patience is quite evident. The last census was taken last May, and the census figures are not audited yet. It is no use publishing a year book now in which these latest figures cannot be included because they are not yet available. According to the latest information I have, the audit of the last census figures will be completed by May next.

If these census figures were taken in May last, surely we could have had a year book for 1924-’25 out before then.

May I ask the Minister whether this £5,000 includes any expenditure on the year book?

No, not at all. The £5,000 is in connection with the census taken last year.

Then I am sorry to say that there can be no discussion on the yearbook.

I would like to refer to the amendment to the Estimates as regards the repatriation of Asiatics, and to call the Minister’s attention to the fact, which I have been told on good authority, that there are not sufficient steamers supplied by the Government to take these Indians back to India. A great many want to go back, but they cannot get accommodation, and they are kept hanging about Durban often for weeks and weeks. If the Minister wants to make his repatriation scheme a success, he should provide steamers to take them away quickly.

I will just explain again in English what I said in reply to the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), that this increase is accounted for by the fact that a good many more Asiatics have availed themselves of our repatriation scheme. Last year it was 1,400, and this year it is 2,200. In connection with the point raised by the hon. gentleman, I can say that we have had great difficulties in the past to make suitable arrangements for transporting the Indians to India. We did the best under the circumstances, but owing to there not being proper arrangements with regard to the shipping, a large number of Indians did not avail themselves of repatriation who would otherwise have done so. They came to Durban and had to wait a long time, and before shipping facilities could again be provided they changed their minds. Under the agreement which has been entered into now between the Union Government and the Government of India, all that we hope will be improved in future, and in that, too, we are securing the co-operation of the Government of India. In future we will try to avail ourselves of the opportunity of sending a batch of repatriates to Bombay every fortnight.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he could tell the House whether any landowners or storekeepers of the Indian class are allowing themselves to be repatriated, or is it the ordinary coolie employed on the sugar and wattle estates?

Well. I have not the figures at my disposal, but I can only say generally that those who avail themselves of the repatriation scheme are mostly of the labouring class; but there are others too.

When I brought up the question of the Year Book, the Minister said that it was due to the figures not being audited. Well, if the reason for the delay in issuing the Year Book is due to the wait for the census figures, I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, whether I am out of order or not in discussing this point.

The hon. member may ask the question, but he cannot discuss it. I can go only on what the Minister declares. The hon. member may discuss the census figures.

May I continue the discussion on the delay in the issue of the Year Book?

The hon. member may continue discussing the census figures.

Cannot the Minister give us the assurance that we shall get the new Year Book earlier than we do get it? In 1927 we get the book that is due in 1924, and it seems to me hardly necessary to take three years to get that out.

I have in my possession Year Books of Australia of a later date. The Minister should get them out as soon as he can, and if there is anything wrong in the figures he can correct them as soon as possible afterwards.

These reports are published in other countries with much more promptitude than they are here. When I was in Australia I was struck by the admirable manner and the prompitude with which Government returns were issued. If the Minister of Finance wants to save money on printing it would be better to cease the publication of reports which are eighteen months or two years old, as there are very few members of Parliament or the public who take any interest in reading such belated information. It is really a waste of public money to publish reports which are out-of-date. What the public would prefer are shorter reports and to have figures as quickly as possible, even although they may not be audited figures. Owing to the delay in the issue of so many departmental reports many members do not think it worth while reading them.

Will it be possible to classify the Asiatics who are being repatriated to India, so as to show how many storekeepers and landowners are leaving South Africa? In my opinion not a single landowner or storekeeper will leave, but only the labouring classes. The very class we want to get rid of will not leave.

If the hon. member will bring the matter up on the main estimates I may be able to give him the information. We shall always have that information, because it is part of the agreement with the Government of India that we shall supply it with information as to where the repatriates come from, what money they have, what their profession is and so forth.

This is an enormous increase, and I think we should have some information. Under the late Government there were officials appointed who had the power of rejecting printing sent in by any department that was thought to be useless. It had to be subject to the control, I think, of the Secretary of the Interior. Why cannot the same thing be done now? There should be some official who could say whether the printing was worth doing. Then another point. The duties on these things are very high. Has that not had some effect in sending this up?

I think we all agree with the hon. member that this vote is very high. £50,000 on the additional estimates is really very high, and I think this House and the Government generally should take steps to reduce the printing vote, but to appoint, in connection with this sub-department, an official who has got the veto with regard to printing sent in by different departments, is going too far. That will introduce the laying down of the policy in important matters to a subordinate official. I think that is a wrong policy. I give the hon. gentleman the assurance that the Cabinet is dealing with the whole matter of the printing vote, and during the first few months or so we are going into this matter to see if anything can be done to keep a check on the increase.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that if the Cabinet are going into this matter, is it not possible to see that these returns are cut down considerably in length? All we want is tabulated facts. Members and the public have not the time to read long documents, which are more like reading a book than an official document. If they cut them down in size, and expedite their issue, more attention will be paid to them. How much of the extra vote is due to the policy the Government adopted last session?

The session before.

I believe the session before the import duty was raised from 25 per cent, to 40 per cent. I was informed by somebody who knew something about the subject that the printing houses were doing quite well with the 25 per cent. duty. Speaking as a farmer, farmers who desire to put their products on the market with printed labels of more than one colour, the cost in a case of 120 boxes comes to more than 1s. a box. It is all very well for the hon. member, I do not see him here, he is the head of the Typographical Society—

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson).

It is all very well for the hon. members to come together and say to the printers. “We will raise your wages,” and the public in the farming population are the ones to suffer. It is the view of a large number of fruit farmers in the country that the increased cost of the labels we have to put on our boxes and the individual wrappers on our fruit, to put them in a proper saleable manner on the London market, is of an extreme character indeed, and since the policy of the Government two years ago in raising the rates from 25 per cent to 40 per cent., the cost has been materially increased. I do not think anybody was more surprised than the printing establishments of this country when they found that the rate of 25 per cent., which was paying them very well, had been raised to 40 per cent.

I think it is very difficult to make an estimate as to how far the increase that is reflected in the estimates is due to the course which the hon. gentleman ( Sir Thomas Smartt) mentions. He can analyze the figures on the estimates as they stand here, and he will see that quite a number of those items have nothing to do with that particular source which he mentions. Let me say in general that the increase here on the estimates is mainly due to the increase in the volume of work done by the Government printing works. Take, for instance, A, Salaries, wages and allowances, £12,000. That is due to the employment of additional men and payment of overtime to meet the demands of departments. Overtime between April 1st, 1926, and January 31st last, alone, was £3,690.

Some of your printing is done by contract.

The figure I have given shows that very largely the increase is due to an increased volume of work. Let me add that one of the chief sinners in connection with this is Parliament. The expenditure in connection with the printing of Parliament is included here, and the printing of last year compared with that of the previous year shows a very big increase. We, of course, as a Government, cannot control that, because the printing of Parliament is under the direct control of Parliament.

My hon. friend will see an item D, contract printing and binding, which has gone up from £46,000, the original estimate, to £58,000, and human nature being what it is, if you increase the import duty from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., naturally the price you have got to pay for your contract work goes up proportionately.

If you bring down the duty, they say it cannot be passed on.

My hon. friend will know that when this was passed two years ago, it was stated in this House that people engaged in the printing trade realized that there was no necessity to increase the duty.

That is not so. My hon. friend knows the investigation that was conducted.

I have not got the same faith in some of the investigations conducted as my hon. friend has, and I think he is beginning to realize from experience that in placing his faith in some of these investigations, he is leaning occasionally on a reed that is broken by the wind.

I would like to tell the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that, if he is an expert on farming, he is not an expert on printing. Does he think he can get delivered from England two-colour printing for £2 10s. per 1,000, which is our pay in this country? He cannot do it. He can get it cheaper in South Africa than he could import from England. I cordially agree with him that Government printing is far too high, but the Government have appointed a man now, a young South African, to bring down the cost of printing a great deal.

The hon. member has become a little ruffled since his visit to Durban. If we had to pay £2 10s. a 1,000 for the wrappers, no one could wrap any fruit at all, because it would not be a commercial proposition. The wrappers I am speaking of cost about 5s. 6d. a 1,000.

On a point of explanation, he made a statement of 1s. 2d. a box. That is £2 10s. a 1,000.

I wish to point out to the Committee that they are now discussing a matter of policy as to whether certain duties are good or bad, and I do not think I ought to allow discussion on it.

I merely wish to say that the price has gone up to 58s. and the Minister should be able to tell us what the reasons are it has gone up to that extent. My idea of the reason was that it was owing to the extremely heavy import duty that we were paying this extra £12,000. I do not want to see printing coming in from overseas; I want to see it done here.

Do I understand that the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is advocating the importation of printing produced under cheaper conditions in England? We want to encourage South Africa industry in accordance with the declared policy of the Government.

I have just asked the Committee not to pursue the point now as to the original policy of the Government.

Probably the best way might be to abolish private printing and see that all the printing is done at the Government printing works.

What I want to ask is this. There has recently been a change in the management of the Government Printing Works in Pretoria. Mr. Knightly, the Government printer, has left and gone to Kenya I understand. What are the circumstances?

Yes, he reached the age limit and had to retire, and the Government assisted Mr. Knightly to get the position in Kenya. The position as his successor was advertised and we took the best man we could get.

May I ask what the age limit was?

Sixty.

I am sorry the Minister of Mines and Industries is not here, and I think the vote should stand over until he is here. I would like to know what is this £15,000—payment of bounties on iron and steel products in the Union—-for; who received it?

Nobody has received it yet. It is put down in these estimates because under the conditions under which the Newcastle Works satisfy the Minister of Mines and Industries that they comply rigidly with the provisions of the Act, that payment would become due; but the question is still, so to speak, subjudice—under consideration—whether the production actually comes under the provisions of the Act.

Might I ask the Minister what he means by “rigidly.”

It is a question of law. There is a question whether the capacity of the works comes within the limit laid down by the Act.

What is the capacity?

Capable of producing 50,000 tons. It is a subject of correspondence between the department and the persons in question.

Are they bound to be paid by producing less than 50,000 tons a year?

It is a question what the real capacity of the works is.

I should like to express my thanks to the Government for acknowledging the need of better sanitary services on the diamond fields by providing better facilities. The bad sanitary condition was one of the great complaints in the past and one of the chief causes why there was such a talk in the country. In connection with this I want to ask a few questions. I should like to know what the services consisted of, whether it was the appointment of sanitary inspectors and whether better work is being done there in regulating living and housing conditions. The position is particularly unsatisfactory on the new fields and I want to know what the services consisted of, whether the amounts are intended only for new diggings or for them all.

This sum is due to the necessity of spending a great deal more than we had anticipated in connection with the new diggings near Lichtenburg, which are an unexpected development. I visited the diggings mentioned by the hon. member last November; there is a great improvement. With big diamond diggings like that justifiable complaints were made as to the sanitary conditions. I visited them in November and on my return we sent from Pretoria an officer from the department and, taking advantage of my dual capacity, I also sent a most able sanitary officer from the Defence Department. He made a report and immediately steps were taken to ensure better sanitary accommodation. I think we owe to those steps the immunity we have had from an epidemic. The money has certainly being well spent.

I don’t want to cavil, but will the Minister assure us that for this amount of money proper sanitary arrangements can be carried out. If the reports in the press are correct thousands of people are going to the diamond diggings, and if proper sanitary arrangements are not made I can foresee an appalling state of affairs in the event of an epidemic breaking out. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what proposals are likely to be made in connection with these diamond diggings which are springing up all over the country.

The matter is included in my Bill which is down for second reading to-morrow.

There were certain diamond magnates recently in this country, and there has been a good deal of discussion as to the effect of the output from the Western Transvaal diggings on the price of diamonds. We know that pressure is being brought to bear on the Government to restrict the proclamation of new fields. Has the Government made up its mind on this extremely important matter?

That is a question quite outside the vote. I am afraid I cannot allow any discussion at all on it.

I would like to give the information, but I don’t want to transgress the Chairman’s ruling. The Minister of Mines is busily engaged on the Consolidated Precious Stones Bill, which he hopes to introduce at an early date, and all these matters can be taken into consideration then. We believe that the steps taken regarding the sanitary arrangements on the diamond diggings are the best we can do for the money on the vote. But when he speaks of sanitation and the most thoroughly scientific kind of methods, he knows the conditions of the diggings, and that it must be within limitations. I went there and in a case of sudden growth of this kind it is very difficult to get things properly organized. There were a number of sanitary inspectors, and the main job to be achieved was as the killing of flies and the effective spraying of decaying matter with arsenic spray.

There has been a good deal of sickness I understand.

I don’t think there has been very much, but I sent officers down because I thought that the whole thing was being done in a prefunctory and unsatisfactory way. We took steps to supply them with extra appliances so that the spraying could be effectively done, and it has been effectively done. It was a matter of considerable anxiety for me whilst I was acting for my colleague. We think the money to be devoted in the main Estimates will be sufficient to meet the position as far as possible.

We cannot hear a word of what the Minister is saying. We feel keenly on this question and are anxious to hear what the Minister said about it.

repeated the explanation in a louder voice.