as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 12th April.

May I ask leave to put the motion in my name before the order of the Day? The reason is that if the Bill is only introduced on Monday next it will mean considerably more delay with reference to the printing of the Bill. If I can introduce it today it can be printed, and be in the hands of hon. members by Thursday. It is a fairly long Bill and will take some time to print.

Leave was granted to the Minister of Mines and Industries to introduce the Precious Stones Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time, second reading 11th April.

I move—

The subject matter of this Bill was referred to a select committee containing representatives of all parties. That committee had the leave of the House to draft the Bill and it was unanimously approved by the select committee. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to go into details now about the object of the Bill. I may, however, say briefly that about 120 years ago there were two kinds of land ownership known in the old Cape Colony, viz., the freehold and loan tenure. By a proclamation of Sir John Cradock on the 6th August, 1813, the farms under loan tenure were altered into perpetual quitrent farms, and there was a provision in that proclamation which has worked inconveniently since that time constantly. It was a provision that in sub-dividing any land which was granted under quitrent, every part of the land and its holder should be severally liable for the full amount of the quitrent in such a way, however, that he could recover their separate shares from the other holders. If, however, there was a sub-division of a quitrent farm, and the people among whom the farm was divided agreed as to the proportion in which the quitrent was to be paid, then it could be registered, but if there was no arrangement, then every owner would be severally liable for the whole amount of the quitrent. I will give the House an example. Ten farmers, e.g., each possessed a tenth portion of a quitrent farm, and in such a case the Government can demand the whole quitrent from any one of the owners, and leave it to him to collect from the others the amounts due by them. This means, that the Government to a certain extent can make tax collectors of owners. In the Free State there was a very simple rule, that if there were various owners of a farm, then each was only responsible for his share in the quitrent in proportion to the area of his portion of the farm. If anyone therefore owned one-tenth of a farm, whether it was a divided or undivided portion, then he was only responsible for one-tenth of the nuitrent. The same practice is followed in the Transvaal, but in the Gape Colony an attempt was made to rectify the matter in another way by an Act of 1856 which provided for an agreement among the owners. Subsequently there was the Act of 1876 which provides that if an owner of a portion wants his co-owners themselves to pay their part of the quitrent, then he must call upon them to appear before the magistrate on a certain day so that the proportions of the quitrent could be settled. That is, however, a certain kind of legal proceeding, because an appeal can be taken to the Supreme Court. A man in my constituency advanced money to the owner of 3/18ths of a farm and because the latter could not pay the bondholder took over the portion. He then, however, found out that the Government claimed that he had to pay the whole quitrent, and that he could collect the other 15/18ths from his co-owners. Unfortunately he cannot get it from them, because the ground is worth little, so that some, I understand, have gone to the diggings in Lichtenburg, and others to South-West Africa. Because he now owns something the Government makes him a collector of taxes. There is another complaint in the Cape Province. If I buy one-tenth of a quitrent farm then the Registrar of Deeds, before passing transfer, can call upon me to pay the quitrent on the whole farm, and if I want transfer I can be compelled to pay all the arrears. The whole intention of the Bill is to apply in the Cape Province, the Free State and the Transvaal rule, to wit, that an owner of a portion of a quitrent farm shall only be liable for quitrent on his portion of the ground. It should not be possible to compel him to pay the quitrent of the whole farm. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the receipt which is demanded on transfer. It is a technical point and has been included on the advice of the revenue officials. Hon. members will see, if they will refer to the blue book, that the whole Bill as it now is before the House was drafted by Mr. A. F. Corbett, the chief clerk in the department of inland revenue. The Minister of Finance is not in his seat at the moment, but I can inform the House that he has given his consent to the amendment. Perhaps it will cause a little delay in collecting the quitrent, but it is not a large amount as the sum is only £173,000 per annum. One of my hon. friends now says here that it can be abolished altogether but that cannot be done. The quitrent of the farms is, in some cases run up, and some people think that in many cases it is too high, but the farms were not originally bought, but bidding took place as to what quitrent should be paid. I know of a case where it was run up to £109. Last year £506 was written off as irrecoverable, £97 by Europeans and £409 due by natives. The amendment cannot make much difference, but it will be a great convenience to owners if they are only responsible for the quitrent on their portions. The select committee examined one of the directors of the Land Bank treasury, a man of great experience in connection with the investment of money in bonds over farms, and he said that the present condition was a great impediment to a man who wanted to invest money, because he knows that when he wants to take over the ground and obtain transfer he will be responsible for the quitrent on the whole farm.

I am glad that the hon. member has introduced the Bill. In my constituency there are farms which have suffered severely in this way year after year. There are farms which were originally from 13,000 to 14,000 morgen in area, and were sub-divided when the families increased, and the parents who originally owned them had died. Now such an individual in some cases has to go 40 miles to the magistrate, and money is scarce with us. The one person who is held liable has to collect all the money, but in some cases it is difficult to get the money in. That was a great grievance, but a still greater one was that quitrent had in some cases to be paid on ground which did not exist. In one case 9,000 morgen disappeared. No one knows where it is. Originally the first owners had much more ground in their name than actually existed. The quitrent has, however, still to be paid. I welcome the Bill.

Two years ago I asked a question of the Minister of Finance and he replied that there were various Acts in relation to quitrent in Griqualand. Inter alia, there is the Act of 1878 and I would like to have the assurance that the improvement which is intended here will be of general application and include ordinances with regard to quitrent passed in Griqualand West before annexation to the Cape. I hope that there will be no objection to that. I would like to see the Bill have that extended operation.

Before you put this I think the Minister of Finance might have given us some information. Mr. Corbett gave evidence before the select committee and said, inter alia, that they did not propose to take any objection to that alteration.

Representations have been made to the department from time to time that this is a hardship, and I promised, if time could be found, to deal with the matter later on. It became urgent and I suggested that they might get a private member to introduce the Bill, and when the first Bill was introduced I pointed out that it would be better that the Bill should be discharged, and the matter referred to a select committee. In accordance with the decision of the House, the select committee was set up, and my department gave evidence there.

How much revenue are you sacrificing?

None. It simply means that we have the right to exact the proportionate amount from each coowner.

What do you do with the possible surplus?

I cannot at this moment reply to the hon. member for Griqualand West (Mr. Gilson) as to what effect it will have on any particular Act in Griqualand.

One point is not quite clear in the speech of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). He said that this year there was a certain large amount of arrears.

Altogether in the Union only £500 has been written off.

Therefore a sum of £500 has been written off. The people could not pay it and the Government wrote it off. What is the position in the Transvaal, however? If a man does not pay his quitrent he gets a letter of demand and he is informed that if he does not pay it, steps will be taken against him, and if he does not pay then, then his farm is sold. Now I wonder what the position in the Cape Province is. Can the people be sent letters of demand here? If a man cannot pay the quitrent on a certain piece of ground, then he surely is not worthy of remaining on the ground.

The last sentence of the clause provides that no allocated quitrent on any portion collected shall be less than 5s. Take a piece of ground on which total quitrent amounts to 10s. and which is divided into, say, six portions.

We shall not collect less than 5s.

And what will you do with the surplus?

That will be part of the profits.

If there is one Bill that I welcome then it is the one moved by the hon. member. I know from experience that there have been grievances for years in connection with this matter, and I hope the House will unanimously agree to remove the difficulties. I think it is a good Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I should just like to know what the object is of (he Words “in respect of which no apportionment of quitrent has been made.” It seems to me a provision which should be deleted, because as the clause now reads the relief is only applicable to ground the quitrent on which has not yet been divided. What then, e.g., is the position of a farm of, say, 2,000 morgen which is divided into two portions, and of which the quitrent has been divided, and of which one-half in turn is sub-divided? The sub-divided portions will then not share in the privileges under the clause.

If we amend legislation we must see that we create as little trouble as possible. As I have already said there have since 1813 been so-called agreements in connection with the apportionment of quitrent, I do not want to set aside all the agreements that have been made. The intention is to assist people who in consequence of the existing law have to pay quitrent for which they are actually not liable. Why should we, when men have agreed to pay the quitrent in certain proportions, set aside the agreements? Suppose that the quitrent on a piece of ground which has been sub-divided is £10. One hundredth part of the ground is possibly worth more than half of the whole farm. If people have agreed to apportion the quitrent in accordance with the value of the ground and not according to the number of morgen why should we upset it?

I move—

I object.

During the last fourteen days I have carefully considered all the very lengthy arguments of the hon. members who object to sub-section (c) of section 3. I have also very carefully considered their attitude towards the Bill, and the probable result of their attitude on the Bill. I have given to their many arguments the weight which they deserve. I must say that I have learnt a great deal—one is never too old to learn— and the conclusion I have come to is that I must accept the deletion of sub-section (c) of this clause. Without any further reflection on the arguments of hon. members, I wish to say that I do value their promises. Hon. members promised that if this sub-section were withdrawn they would no longer oppose the rest of the Bill, and they would even allow it to go through at this sitting. I Hope the hon. member who objected to the former Bill going to the Report stage at once will be more kindly disposed towards this Bill. I have gone carefully through the Bill and I find that if sub-section (c) is deleted it necessitates also the deletion of section 4 and of a portion of section 16. The rest of the Bill can stand. I accept the deletion of sub-section (c) of Clause 3.

I must congratulate the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) on the conclusion he has come to, and I am sure as a result of the reasonable attitude that he now adopts this committee will give him every assistance in getting this Bill through. I am also certain that the promoters of the Bill will do just as well under this Bill without sub-section (c) as they would do with it, because they have got control of the educational facilities, the system of indentures and the general control of the members within their professions. The public are equally protected. They will also be able to distinguish for themselves between the qualified architect and the architect who is not qualified. I think that from every point of view it is very satisfactory, and I wish to congratulate the hon. member. As far as I am concerned, I will do whatever I can to help him to get the Bill through.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member has now decided to meet us, and I hope that when the hon. member again introduces a private Bill he will be more careful, and will accept good advice. I will now support the Bill.

I also wish to express my appreciation of the very sensible attitude adopted by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) in withdrawing sub-section (c) of Clause 3. The hon. member said that he has learnt a lot. I hope he will realize that his education is not yet finished, and that he has a lot more to learn yet. There is only one point I wish to emphasize, and that is that there was a good deal of chaff about back-velders in the course of the last debate, but I think that the House will realize that it has felt something now which I trust it will feel far more in the future, and that is the power of the platteland. I can only say that I feel that the architects have every right to what they now ask for—protected title—and that is what this Bill will now confer. As the evidence established, protected title has been sufficient in other countries, and I think it will be found sufficient in this country. I can assure the hon. member that I will do my best to assist him to get this Bill through in the shortest possible time.

I am glad that the hon. member has given in, and I hope the handling of this Bill will teach him the hard lesson that this House is different to a public platform, and that hon. members cannot be insulted. In consequence of the amendment which has been made, I am now prepared to support the Bill.

I am glad that the hon. member for North-East (Rand) (Dr. H. Reitz) has accepted the amendment. I want to assure him that I have no further quarrel with him and the architects, but I want him once for all to know that we members from the countryside who have raised objections have not only saved the countryside, but that through our aid the townsmen and the town councils have also been saved.

Before the question is put, I think we ought to be told what the effect will be of the withdrawal of sub-section (e). There seems to be so much love-making, shall I call it, this afternoon that one gets suspicious.

It comes down to this, that only the title of architect is protected, that anybody can do the work of an architect as long as he does not call himself an architect or hold himself out as an architect. The hon. member will now be able to do the work of an architect, if he is able to.

I move the deletion of this clause which follows naturally on the deletion of sub-section (c), because it only gives exception to sub-section (c).

I move—

In line 28, to omit “unworthy,”; and in the same line, to omit “or dishonourable”; to insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (1):

(2) Upon the dissolution of the Inaugural Board in terms of Section 20—

1. (a) the Central Council may, subject to the approval of the Minister, amend any regulations made under sub-section (1), make new regulations relating to the matters referred to in that sub-section and amend any new regulations so made in so far as such amendments or new regulations concern the Institute or Provincial Institutes; and
2. (b) the Board may, subject to the approval of the Minister and the Central Council, amend any regulations made under sub-section (1), make new regulations relating to the matters referred to in that sub-section and amend any new regulations so made in so far as such amendments or new regulations concern the Chapter.

and in lines 46 and 53, after “regulations” to insert “and any amendments thereof”.

I move—

The amendment will have this effect, that, instead of the council or the board conducting examinations, they can only be conducted by an authority appointed by the Minister. There are too many examining bodies already, and we want to leave it in the hands of the universities.

I accept the amendment cordially. It is the first one I have been able to accept.

I move—

New paragraph (a) put, as proposed by select committee.

I move—

This is to conform to Section 12, which deals with the architects.

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

May I ask whether any amendment has been moved in Clause 16? Is it possible to go back?

No amendment has been adopted in Clause 16 except the one by the select committee.

If the committee will allow me, I have an amendment to Clause 16 which I omitted to move.

The hon. member can move that at the report stage.

On the preamble,

I take it that the word “practice” in line 24 and in line 34 will have to come out, these other amendments having been accepted.

I submit it is not necessary to amend the preamble. Later on we may hope that in future better arguments may prevail, and the whole of the preamble may be given effect to.

Does the hon. member move an amendment?

No, I drew the hon. member’s attention to it.

I move—

I hope that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will be lenient to this Bill.

I move as an unopposed motion—

It seems rather difficult to put these amendments now. They have not been printed yet.

I move—

I am thankful and glad that after long waiting I have finally got the opportunity of introducing this Bill. The House will remember that a few years ago a Bill on accountants was introduced, but was not passed. On the last occasion the matter was before the House I gave the undertaking that the old Bill would not be re-introduced before amendments had been made in order to render it acceptable. The Bill I am now proposing is quite different to the Bill then introduced. This Bill has been before a select committee who reported in favour of it, and I, therefore, confidently propose it. Hon. members will remember that on a former occasion the Bill provided that only certain specified persons would be permitted to practise as accountants or hold themselves out as such. A ring fence practically was drawn, and in that way the profession of accountancy would in the future practically have been a closed profession. This Bill has, however, nothing to do with that because it draws no ring fence and excludes no person by the provision that only qualified persons can assume the title of chartered accountants. Let me shortly state the position of the accountants profession in the Union. There has been an Act in the Transvaal since 1904, and Natal since 1908, by which certain limitations are laid on the profession that only a certain class of persons who have particular qualifications can hold themselves out as accountants. In the Cape Province and in the Free State, however, any person can commence work as an accountant although he has not the least knowledge of accountancy, and although he has never studied the subject, and call himself by any name he pleases so long as he pays the licence. Hon. members will agree that that is an unsound position. We waited to rectify it in the previous Bill, but there was so much opposition to the Bill that we dropped it. This Bill does not in the least tamper with the position of accountants, and in future the man, whether he has the necessary knowledge or not, will be able to practise as an accountant. In the Bill, however, we want to make provision to protect the qualified man to a certain extent by giving him a recognized title indicating a certain amount of qualification. This Bill makes provision for certain qualified persons adopting the title of chartered accountant. The reason for that is, in the first place, that young South Africans who have served articles for five years and have passed a very difficult examination should have the right of using a title which the unqualified man who has possibly passed Standard VII. and worked three months in a shop may not assume. The intention is to show clearly by the title that the man is qualified and that a person who has not the least knowledge of the subject and has not spent money on his training can not assume the same title. We do not want to take away the right from the unqualified man of practising. He can call himself an accountant, a qualified accountant, a certificated accountant or any name in the world, as long as he does not take the title of a qualified man. In the second place it is a case of protecting South Africans against people from outside. In the Select Committee of 1924, I repeatedly asked the chartered accountants from overseas if they thought the South African examination equal to the examination in England, Ireland or Scotland, and each one replied that our examination was equivalent to the overseas examination. Some of them even said that our examination was superior because a knowledge of South African law was required here which was, of course, not the case with the overseas examination. In South Africa, therefore, our examination is practically superior to the one overseas. We find, however, that the chartered accountants from England, Scotland and Ireland are protected by a patent to use the appellation. The name has in the past indicated a high qualification so that overseas companies carrying on business in South Africa have laid down in their articles of association that the books of their branch offices in South Africa must be audited by chartered accountants. The result is that the South Africans who have the same qualification as the overseas chartered accountants are prevented from auditing the books of overseas companies, because they are excluded by the provision that only chartered accountants can do the work. The man from England, Scotland and Ireland comes here and practises as a chartered accountant, but he is not qualified any better than South Africans. Nevertheless he gets the privilege of the title, and that is why we want to have the appellation of chartered accountants. It is a name known throughout the whole world, and if we do not adopt it we shall not in any case attain our object. In Canada the title has been taken over and we now want to do the same in South Africa. The Bill, therefore, merely says that we shall employ the title of chartered accountant for a qualified man, and that it will be a protection to him. I think everybody will agree with me that it is in the interests of the youth of our country, because quite a number of cases have come to my notice where a man wants to give his son the highest qualification in the accounting profession, but he cannot do so in South Africa. He has to send his son overseas to acquire the title of chartered accountant. The trust deed of the society of accountants lays down that before a person can be a chartered accountant he must have served five years in England, Scotland or Ireland. As a result of the Bill our sons will now be able to serve their articles in their own country and to acquire the title of chartered accountant. They will, therefore, obtain a privilege of which they were hitherto deprived. That would be the same thing as saying that a man cannot take his B.A. and M.A. degree in South Africa but must go to Oxford or Cambridge to do so. We have, however, taken over the degrees because they are recognized titles in the world, and the title of chartered accountant is just as much a recognized title which is known throughout the whole world. If a South African wants to go and practise outside of his own country then he will also be able to hold the title. The intention of the Bill is not to draw a ring fence, and it does not deprive anyone of practising. The chief point in connection with the matter is to have the friendliness and the good favour of societies of chartered accountants in England, Scotland and Ireland, because if they are not well disposed they can make the stipulation that only members of the associations of those three countries shall have the title of chartered accountants. We must be careful how we go to work. Representatives of the societies named have appeared before the Select Committee and after certain amendments were made, they decided to make no further opposition. They are, therefore, not opposing us because they admit that the four societies of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Free State which are mentioned in the Bill have the same grade of qualification as themselves. They admit this frankly and do not wish to make trouble, and they admit our right to adopt the title for our qualified accountants. If they do not do this then they can easily render our whole object futile overseas. The Select Committee could not hear certain opponents of the Bill because they had not followed the parliamentary practice of presenting a petition to the House. They, however, appeared before the 1924 Select Committee and raised their objections, and they have not been heard this year as the result of their own neglect. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has, in the meantime, introduced a Bill into the House with the object of preventing an injustice to certain persons, because they could not be heard. He has introduced a Bill to make provision for them and it is still on the Order Paper, but I may say that the hon. member, after negotiations which have taken place, has decided to withdraw his Bill. He took this decision because he is quite satisfied with the agreement between the four associations and the people that he represents. The difficulty was that certain persons who were not members of the societies state that many of them have the same qualifications as persons who are members of the societies, and that a line is now being drawn and that a member of the society is receiving the title of chartered accountant but they are not. An agreement has, however, been come to and the hon. member for Liesbeek and their representatives were quite satisfied with it. It was agreed in the Select Committee to incorporate a certain provision in the Bill, but under the rules of the House it was ruled out of order, because it was not covered by the preamble of the Bill. It was, therefore, impossible to include it in the Bill. I may say that the promoters of the Bill are quite prepared to include it but it cannot be done. Therefore, a written agreement has been drawn up and handed over to the hon. member for Liesbeek. It is so satisfactory that the hon. member is withdrawing his Bill. This agreement provides for the persons in all four provinces who are to-day not members of the societies. The door is opened for them to come in within the provisions of the Bill and to obtain the title of chartered accountant. The agreement is that any person in the four provinces who has practised at least ten years as a public accountant and who is of good character can apply for admission, and will be admitted. If a person has practised for less than ten years he can also apply for admission, and all that is expected of them is that they shall be a good character and have had sufficient practical knowledge of the work of accountants and auditors. This only includes work which is usually understood in the expression keeping and auditing books.

Is a knowledge of the Insolvency Act required?

The agreement does not contemplate tests for persons in all the difficult branches of the accountants examination. There is also a chance of appeal to a board consisting of three persons, respectively appointed by the Minister of the Interior, the Society of Accountants and the University of Cape Town.

What use is it if the agreement is not contained in the Bill?

That cannot be done, but the societies consist of people of honour whose word ought to be taken. The persons who entered into the agreement are honourable men representing all four of the provinces, and the hon. member for Liesbeek is satisfied. The societies are bodies of persons who are recognized to-day by our courts in important cases to do confidential work, and it will be a sad state of affairs if we are to doubt their word. The greatest obstacle to the Bill has been removed, and I hope hon. members will take up the same standpoint as the hon. member for Liesbeek. This Bill is in the interests of the young men of South Africa, and it is not just to the rising generation, who want to qualify for the profession, to prejudice their future by refusing to pass the Bill. I appeal to hon. members to appreciate that the Bill is in the interests of young South Africans who are spending money and employing themselves to become qualified. Those who oppose the Bill are opposing the interests of South Africa.

I have here a memorandum from the South African Institute of Accountants. It is a fifth society, but, unfortunately, they were unable to appear before the select committee to give evidence, and, therefore, they are excluded from the Bill. They, therefore, ask for consideration. The hon. introducer of the Bill said that an agreement had been concluded with people who have already practised ten years, so that they shall be included. The Institute of Accountants, however, asks that people who have practised seven years should be included, and that the others who have practised less than seven years may pass an examination. They are actually in favour of the Bill, but merely want the alteration in the agreement. The Institute exists in all four provinces, and includes accountants with qualifications which are at least equivalent to those of members of other societies of accountants. Therefore, I wish that we could introduce a few amendments in the committee stage to attain the necessary alteration. I met an accountant who was at one time an accountant overseas for a large insurance company, and this man would be excluded. He also belongs to the Institute of Accountants of South Africa.

I hope and trust hon. members of this House will consider this Bill from a different aspect from what they did previously. It is true this private Bill does not embody democratic ideas of legislation, whereas the Public Bill introduced by myself embodies the principle that all accountants should have an opportunity to qualify. Although it cannot be embodied in this Bill, the promoters have given a written undertaking that they will embrace all accountants who are qualified in the Union. In this way the private Bill will endeavour to give accountants practising outside the societies an opportunity of becoming chartered accountants. Company law has given tremendous powers to accountants and certain companies stipulate they should be chartered accountants. Why should South Africa not give the designation of “chartered” to accountants? We ought always to legislate in a way that gives dignity to professions. I would like to read the agreement which the promoting society has handed to me—any member of the House can have a copy of the same. Hon. members may say it has no value, because it is not embodied in the Bill. I appeal to them to accept it, because it is utterly impossible for the agreement to be embodied in the Bill unless we were to wait for twelve months. The principles embodied in the agreement are signed by the societies, and I am one of those who will honour the signatures of these gentlemen, and I believe it will be just as binding as if it were embodied in the Bill. I am not a legal expert, but in the past you have embodied in Bills legal queries, generally persons in the courts of law were able to interpret them differently to what members of Parliament intended it to do. This agreement I hold is just as binding and honourable, and will be carried out in the spirit as much and more than if it was embodied in the Bill. In my Bill I wanted those who joined to have the designation of chartered accountant if they are approved of by a board which was comprised of three persons—a representative of the Minister of the Interior, a representative of the four societies, a representative of the University of South Africa. They have embodied that in this agreement, and they are willing to accept those accountants with ten years’ continuous service and put them in the same position as their own members. Those with less than ten years’ continuous service must pass a qualifying examination in accountancy. That is quite correct. No person has a right to have a designation if he is unworthy of upholding the dignity of that position. I had to serve seven years in my apprenticeship, and accountants have to serve an apprenticeship, and if an accountant has spent a number of years in practice or in serving an apprenticeship he should have the right to apply to have the designation of chartered accountant. I hope there will not be any debate on this matter. In view of the work we have to do before the end of the session if lengthy debates are held, it means this Bill will not be passed this session. I hope, therefore, hon. members will support this measure, and will not allow this debate to be adjourned. I do not want to take up any further time except to read the agreement—

1. (a) That they are persons of good character.
2. (b) That they are in practice as professional accountants at the date of their application.
3. (c) That they have been in such practice continuously for the ten years immediately preceding their application.
4. (d) That they are persons whose principal business or occupation is the performance of the functions of a professional public accountant who, for the purpose of such business, keeps an office or place of business, and who places his services at the disposal of the community for reward, but not solely at the disposal of any one individual person, firm, corporation, government or public body.

1. (a) A nominee of the council of the University of Cape Town (such nominee not being a member of any of the four societies);
2. (b) a nominee of the promoting societies other than the Cape society:
3. (c) a nominee of the Minister of the Interior,

As one of those who offered strenuous opposition to the Bill which was proposed some time ago and abandoned by its promoters, I wish to say that so far as this Bill and the agreement are concerned it seems to be a very fair compromise. Nobody gets 100 per cent. of what is tried for. Politics is the art of compromise after consideration of all interests involved. Looking at this matter broadly, I say, as a South African, that our people have been put at a disadvantage by being unable to use a designation which is particularly privileged, and has a world-wide use, because again and again a condition has been made which precludes them from being employed for accountancy purposes. If opposition is persisted in and the Bill does not go through, who will be disappointed? Not the chartered accountants from overseas, because we would be preserving to them almost a monopoly, not a legal monopoly, but still practically a monopoly. When it is merely a question of a designation asked for, and a reasonable one, why should we not put accountants on the same plane as those of any other profession? I ask my hon. friends on this side who have been opposing, and opposing with the very best intention in regard to those practising outside the associations, to remember that they believe in “South Africa first,” and to see, therefore, that this designation Bill goes through. It puts a registered chartered accountant of South Africa on an equality with others in regard to his profession. I stand by those who have made their living by practising their profession, and would be very sorry, indeed, to see any of them prevented from making an honest living by legislation such as this, but nothing in the Bill prevents them from acting as they have always acted and, under designations they have used before, whilst every opportunity is offered them to join up in one organization. I believe that, as far as the societies are concerned which have come together very reasonably to have one union, they will interpret their written agreement in the broadest and widest and most liberal way I ask my hon. friends in the interests of South Africans, in the interests of the very men whose welfare they have at heart, to consent to this Bill, and to accept the agreement which members of South African societies of our own people are prepared to adopt. I regret that owing to the way in which this Bill has been drafted and the restrictive preamble, that we cannot have this agreement incorporated in the Bill itself. But it is a gentlemen’s agreement which will be kept, and if it should not be so Parliament will do justice by an amending Act. Under all the circumstances the compromise is a most reasonable one.

I am glad that the introducer of the Bill has fairly clearly explained it, but I am not quite satisfied yet. In one way it would be a great pity if the Bill failed to pass. I should very much like the second reading to be taken, because there are quite a number of good things in the Bill which will result in our sons being protected and enjoying the same status as certain persons in other countries. I want, however, to ask the hon. member if he can assure me that the members of the Institute of Accountants, who in many cases are just as capable, if not more so, and who have done very good work in South Africa, will also be included. If so, I shall not need to oppose the Bill. I feel, however, that as the Bill now stands a ring fence will be drawn to a certain height round a certain section of our people. The members of the Institute of Accountants, who are competent, should also receive the title.

They come under the agreement.

And if that is not carried out?

They are honourable men.

That is my difficulty, but if they can also acquire the title, I shall vote for the second reading. I want to prevent anything being done by which persons having the same capacity as others will not have the same rights as the others. We must not favour any group. I have not seen the whole agreement, but if it is as the hon. member says, then I should not like the Bill to come to grief.

I heartily welcome this Bill, and I am particularly glad to hear from the cross-benches that they have withdrawn their objections to it, because I believe that in the interests of clean business in this country it is very important that we should have here a strong society of chartered accountants. I also think that it is a very suitable profession for young South Africans. It is a fine profession, and our boys are quite as capable as the boys overseas to practise this profession, and to-day young men who have gone through the societies mentioned in this Bill have had the training and have the experience of the men who take similar training overseas. The only difference between the two classes of men is that one man has the designation of—

and the other man has not. That, in the mind of the public, is a very grave handicap. We all know that, particularly overseas, the word “chartered accountant” connote a man who has passed his examination in accountancy and auditing. The word “accountant” does not, to any business house overseas, mean anything really, but the word “chartered accountant” means you can depend on the figures to which he puts his signature. Our men here are just as reliable and just as experienced as any of these men, and yet they are handicapped by the one fact that they are not allowed to use the term “chartered accountant.” The word “chartered accountant” to the general public can be compared to the word “doctor” in connection with a doctor of medicine. We all know that all the men who practise medicine in this country call themselves doctors. I suppose 50 per cent. of them are not doctors at all in the sense that they have not got the degree of doctor of medicine, but if they simply put up on their door-plate—

most people would think they were quacks, and, therefore, perfectly honestly, and I believe rightly, they put on their door-plate “Dr. de Smit” or “Dr. Jones” and so on, and yet, as a matter of fact, they are not doctors of medicine. Yet they are not misleading the public; they are simply telling them that they have the necessary qualifications to practise medicine. As regards this Bill, this is practically what the qualified accountant here wants to do, and that is to have the right to make it quite clear to the public that he is qualified to do all classes of accountancy and auditing work. What is the alternative if this Bill does not go through? There are only two alternatives—either the work will be undertaken by men who are imported from England or Scotland or Canada—wherever they have chartered societies—and these men will get the work and our men will act as clerks to them, or every young South African, who wants to get this designation, will have to go either to England or Scotland, or to Canada, in order to get the right to use this title of chartered accountant. In the first place, that can only be done by a youth who is, fortunately, possessed of means, and the great body of our young fellows will never have the chance of doing that. However clever they may be, however competent, they will always remain in the lower ranks of the profession. I feel that, as South Africans, we should be doing a grave injustice to the coming generation unless we put them on an equal basis with their colleagues from the rest of the dominions. I also think that it would be a very great shame if we drive our young men overseas to get their knowledge. They can get that knowledge in this country, and they should be allowed to do so. There is another danger, and that is they know that our men are equally qualified, and one of these big societies may come to the South African societies and say—

And why should we not have our own society in South Africa? There seems to be no reason against it, and we are not deceiving the public. Their signature at the end of a document will be as valuable as that of a man who is an English, Scotch or Canadian chartered accountant. I do urge that this House should accept this Bill and should see that this wrong is no longer inflicted on our young South Africans, because it is a grave wrong to these young South Africans. If they can go through their training and pass the strenuous examinations and become professional accountants, they should have the full rights that the accountants with a similar training in England, Scotland and Canada have. I urge that the Bill should go through, this session.

I was unable to be in the House when the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) moved the second reading. With the main principle of this Bill, I do not think anyone will disagree. Any South African boy who has passed the examinations should be able to compete with a boy from overseas. But we are going further with this Bill, and conferring the title of chartered accountants on men who have not passed the examination at all. A large number of members of this society were simply taken on in the old days “on the nod.”

They have at least 25 years’ experience.

I have no objection to men of long experience receiving this title. I know a large number of persons who have been practising as accountants and auditors for many years, but they did not happen to join the societies, and I understand they are frozen out of this Bill.

No. Above ten years they come in, and under ten years they have to give satisfactory proof.

That meets my point.

I regret I cannot join in the chorus of general congratulation on the matter. It is more legislation sub conditione. It is legislation passed as the consequence of a letter addressed to Mr. Pearce, which has no legal significance at all in regard to the Bill. There is not such a tremendous hurry about this that these people should not incorporate these provisions in a new Bill. But to ask Parliament to pass a Bill on the score that they are going to do something on the strength of something which does not bind this Parliament, is going very far indeed. This is an agreement made in Cape Town by some representatives that happen to be here on behalf of the societies. What authority have they to do so? Suppose the general meetings repudiate this arrangement. The Bill will be law. It is a letter addressed by the parliamentary agents for the promoters to Mr. C. Pearce, M.L.A., and dated 30th March, only a few days ago.

Cannot you embody the terms of that letter in the Bill? †

That would not be in order, having regard to the preamble. The law is as contained in a Bill passed by Parliament, and not what is contained in private correspondence. It is a most dangerous precedent to which we are asked to agree. The agreement is not known throughout South Africa, as the letter was written only a couple of days ago. One knows there has been an intense antagonism between members of the societies and those who have not been members, and this is an arrangement to admit these people. Recently I had a communication from an accountant in Johannesburg, a member of the corporation of accountants of Glasgow, and the South African Association of Accountants, Limited, and he has been in practice for 18 years, in competition with these people. The letter states that there is not a single gold mining company on the Witwatersrand whose balance sheet is signed by a member of the Transvaal Society of Accountants, the companies employing chartered or incorporated accountants.

That is one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill.

You cannot object to other people competing with you, and then ask Parliament for a monopoly. We are being asked to turn a monopoly in one direction into a monopoly in another direction. What authority had the promoters of the Bill to agree to this new arrangement? What will happen if the councils which promote this Bill are thrown out of office? We want to know that these people are to be protected before the Bill is passed. The agreement in the letter should be incorporated in the present Bill, and if that cannot be done now there is no harm in the Bill standing over. It is treating us like a lot of children to ask us to pass the Bill in its present form. I move, as an amendment—

I second the amendment. We have to do here with quite a new principle. What would hon. members say if the Prime Minister, in reference to his native legislation, gave a letter to the leader of the Opposition containing certain stipulations which are not mentioned in the Bills. The members of the Opposition would be the first to protest. If the promoters of the Bill are prepared to include those persons then they must actually do so. I cannot accept the agreement. It may be a matter of honour, but they are only ordinary human beings, and what will be the position if they die or if to-morrow a meeting of their society took place and the agreement were rejected. There are many competent accountants who have done ten to fifteen years’ good work, and they cannot share in the benefits of the Bill. We have co-operative societies on the countryside and local accountants are employed to do their work, but now we shall have to obtain accountants from Cape Town, which will cost a great deal, because our accountants are excluded. The introducer of the Bill said it had cost a good deal, and that we should be putting the people to further expense. If they want the higher status they must pay for it. One does not value anything which is obtained for nothing.

There is a consensus of opinion that the main principles of this Bill are quite sound. It seeks to obtain protection for South Africans who are highly qualified and who should be placed on the same footing as the members of certain English societies. The opposition has arisen from members of a certain society who at present do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by members of chartered and other societies. Representation has been made to me by members of the society who are opposing the Bill, and who complain of the high-handed action of the Transvaal Society in excluding them. They have made certain grave allegations, and have pressed me to consider the advisability of appointing a commission to inquire into the policy pursued by the Transvaal Society in excluding members of these other societies. It comes down to this, that people who, at present, according to legislation on the statute book, cannot get admitted to certain societies and obtain these rights in the Transvaal and Natal, want Parliament to open the door and allow them to be admitted. I am afraid those members who want to do something for these gentlemen are not furthering their cause by trying to kill this Bill. The members who cannot get in now have everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting this Bill. I do not think the mover and seconder of this amendment are doing these people a good service at all. What will happen if this Bill is killed? Will it improve the position of these people at all in any way? With regard to the agreement, after all we are dealing with honourable men who have given an undertaking that they will take certain steps under which the best of these men can obtain admission, a thing they cannot obtain to-day. Their position will be improved. Assuming the undertaking is not carried out, then a serious position will arise. I should feel justified in enquiring into the rights of these people of the Transvaal if, after an agreement is given, it is not carried out, and certainly Parliament will consider that the Government should take action and deal with the matter by legislation afterwards. I do not think there is any member of the House who wants to open the door to unqualified men, but under the undertaking people really qualified will get into the society and I do not think those who are not qualified have any reason to complain if they are excluded. If this society does not carry out this agreement, then the Government will take action to see that these men are not improperly kept out from admission to the society. I can understand the promoters when they say that the House cannot reasonably expect them to have the agreement incorporated in the Bill, because it will lower the status of the society in the eyes of people overseas. If we give an undertaking now to open the door to people not qualified properly, then the status will be lowered in the eyes of gentlemen holding similar positions overseas. Otherwise, the promoters might have agreed to incorporate the agreement in the Bill. They want to have the right under the powers we give them to admit qualified men who have had experience. I have not investigated the position, but it is common knowledge that there are certain members of this society, who have objected to this Bill, who have been admitted but who have not served the same time and apprenticeship and I think it is only reasonable these societies, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the country, should require a high standard, and should object to having the door opened for the general admission of men who are not properly qualified. This is a reasonable compromise. These people have everything to gain and nothing to lose by the adoption of this compromise. I have sympathy with a large number of those men who say they are unreasonably refused admission by these societies, but I think we shall assist them by adopting this course. We have this undertaking that these societies will see those members who are qualified have a chance of admission, and I think we shall be doing the right thing in agreeing to the compromise, and I hope the House will pass the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart).

I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for the assistance he has given to the Bill, and I may say I agree altogether with his statement that if this agreement is not carried out or any of these societies do things they should not do, the Government will be in a position to deal with the matter. The only points that have been raised against the Bill are by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) who raised the point about the binding force of the agreement. All the members who came down are fully accredited members who were given full power to act by a general meeting of members and we have just received a telegram from the Transvaal Council—

The members who were down here were fully accredited by meeting to take any steps they thought advisable. I hope the hon. member for Hanover Street will withdraw his amendment.

Question put: That the word “now” proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion; and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mr. Alexander, the Rev. Mr. Hattingh, and Messrs Mostert and J. S. F. Pretorius) voted against the question, Mr. Speaker declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander dropped.

In view of the fact that the names of the minority have been recorded I hope there will be no objection to taking the committee stage now, and I move—

I object.

I am glad that the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has proposed his amendment, because already £2,000,000 of public money has been spent and if we continue a few years more then it may reach £10,000,000. The town councils can borrow money just as cheaply as the Government. I notice, e.g., that the Cape Town loan was 3½ times over-subscribed in London and when I remember how extravagant the town council is I am surprised that its credit is still so good. The reason is the large taxable value. I should like to see the town councils themselves borrowing money for house building because then they would not levy such high rates. I am sorry that houses valued at £1,000 can be built, because no man to-day wants another to have a better house than his own. I went to Pinelands the other day and noticed that all the houses had thatched roofs. We in South Africa have stopped using thatch because of the great danger of fires, but now it seems to me that the houses are so well insured that they do not mind whether the houses are burnt or not. There are also many people in the towns who find difficulty in paying their rates. If under the housing scheme houses are to be built such as I have seen along the tramlines it will be a bad thing for South Africa. I have never seen worse houses, but someone made lots of money out of them. The town councils ought to advance their own money because they levy rates on the buildings. It cannot be said that the countryside has nothing to do with the matter because the provincial councils have to guarantee the loans to town councils and, therefore, the general taxpayer in the provinces is the final guarantor. The general taxpayers have, however, no say and when the houses are once built the people are in the hands of the unmerciful municipalities who will skin them. If the municipalities themselves undertake the housing scheme then they will see that the people are treated fairly.

Surely, there is no one in this House who does not cherish the ideal that every mother of a family should have a comfortable home. It is the very foundation of a successful race, and is the one reform that will bring other reforms in its train and practically settle many of the difficulties under which we suffer. The environment of a people determines their future. Unless the State takes up housing in a very large way, no private enterprise will meet requirements. That is shown everywhere. So far as the argument in this House is concerned, it seems to resolve itself into whether responsibility shall rest with the municipalities or include the Government. There is plenty of room for both to develop and to meet the wants of the people. So far as country districts are concerned, a large scheme might be devised and the Government could go in for the settlement of model townships in the vicinity of cities, and beyond the control of municipal authorities. I have had personal experience in regard to municipalities. In the councils we get men representing the landlord class and interested in securing high rentals. If we want to abolish slums we will never do it through municipal councils, because on those bodies we have men who are getting 20 per cent. out of slum property and they are not going to part readily with that profit. Let men who stand on platforms and talk glibly about getting rid of slums go into the municipal councils, and find leading lawyers of the town retained to oppose any practical reform. You are up against vested interests and the thing becomes impossible. But in a public housing scheme slums disappear by competition. Property owners know they have to put their slums in order; they must come down in the rentals to meet the larger and more liberal housing scheme. Every house produced under this proposal is part of the solution of the whole problem. I have no sympathy with the cry that there is a monetary difficulty. Of course, there is always a government monetary difficulty, but a housing scheme that is self-supporting is an asset to the State, and one not merely in pounds, shillings and pence. But also in a much higher sense. It is an asset in the better health conditions of the people, and a preventive of crime and poverty. The housing measure of the Government has worked admirably. So far as I see there has only been one failure in the whole expenditure, and that is at Kimberley, where the municipality has to meet the loss, not the State. That is Kimberley all over. The House will remember that Kimberley, apart from diamonds, has no industry beyond trapping. De Beers Company want no other, and the consequence is a failure in Kimberley. When the company altered the mode of production to the direct treatment system a number of white workers were thrown out of employment. The Kimberley policy is to give a single no return railway ticket to go wherever an out of the work chose—usually the Rand. Johannesburg would have been prepared to spend a large sum on housing, but what was the reply that town received from Government, not this but the previous one. First, they were told that they missed by two days in getting in the application in time to be granted; when that detail was put right later they said—

The position now is that the Government is approaching the £3,000,000 limit, the guillotine is coming down, and we are to have no more money for housing. In this rising young country we cannot have any more spent on housing! The balance available is all ear marked, so that towns which would like to come into the scheme have no opportunity of doing so. No money! The other day we were told of a million and a quarter budget surplus, but instead of using that for the expansion of the country in national housing it is to go to unnecessary reduction of the public debt. That satisfies market operators in our stock. How delighted some hon. members opposite must be that our orthodox Treasurer is going to use every penny he can lay hands on to

Why not?

It is the envy of white people in Johannesburg. Hundreds and thousands would be delighted if they could get accommodation like that for £1 5s. a month.

He is the man who works.

Yes, the dear cheap labourer. We have been asking for consideration for the natives and that they should get more wages. The day that issue was raised here hon. members tried to frighten the farmers and drive a wedge in the Pact. The moment any attempt is made that natives should get enough to pay 30s. or £2 a month for this town accommodation attempts were made to alarm farmer members of Parliament. These are—

I am delighted indeed that the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) has brought a feasible scheme forward, and hope the Government will not simply turn it down on the plea that municipalities are doing the work and the State has no further obligation. I think they should see also what can be done beyond the towns—possibly through the Land Bank, and get full security for building houses on farms. There is no reason why beautiful homes should not be built in the country districts, and farmers be assisted to put up nice little cottages to induce people to keep out of the towns. I cannot see any reasonable objection to such a national scheme, and anybody with vision and confidence in this country would not be frightened to suggest £10,000,000 to start with. The Labour Party believes in this country, in its expansion and in the energy of its youth, if not in its aged; and believes if we give the people a chance they will develop it from inside, and it will cease to be exploited from the outside. That principle has made the success of other countries. New Zealand became wealthy because it was developed from the inside, and the Prime Minister there told me that it started to go ahead from the day they decided to develop from the inside, and look for outside help. So far as this party is concerned, when it comes to practice in regard to practical politics, it will be found “toeing the line.” When it gets to the seats of the mighty, as it must some day, it will show the country how to go ahead with real and not a bastard protectionist system as its driving power. We are tied up with a most conservative party. We try to draw them with us, and our friends opposite endeavour to divide us. When we are charged with dragging them into socialistic troubles I only wish we had more power, authority or influence with the Government than we, as a party, have. We and they will have no reason to regret any step taken in conjunction with us, and if it were put to the people they would back every step taken by the Government in economic legislation since the Pact assumed office. I am sorry that we cannot move a bit faster. Big financial interests are afraid of a happy proletariat, and of this country attracting immigration that will help to make this country great and prosperous. As was voiced in London by a director of companies—

That is still in the back of their heads. We shall obtain it in time, and they cannot prevent the expansion of the country however much they may attempt it. Nothing can hold South Africa back—not even the pessimists among the gentlemen opposite. They are largely responsible for doing what they attribute to others; in their own words, preventing capital coming into the country. I have a greater desire than that. If we bring capital in we must send interest out, and it is infinitely better for our people to create their own capital. Where countries are more prosperous than we are it is because their people are not encouraged to go out and borrow, but to create surplus wealth, and on these lines we shall go forward, however much we may be hampered in our progress by pessimistic criticism.

I do not intend to follow the last speaker over the wide field he traversed, but I would like to put this point to the Minister. Is it the intention of the Government to allow the housing scheme to lapse?

I did not say that. I accepted the amendment.

The amendment is quite silent as to whether we are to advise the Government to go on with the scheme in the sense of extending it, or whether we are to advise the Government simply to carry out the existing scheme to its conclusion. If I have misinterpreted the Minister’s words, and it is the intention of the Government to provide more money for this purpose, I have nothing more to say. It will be a very great misfortune if this scheme is allowed to die after the money to which Government is already committed, comes to an end. It is not merely a question of providing for the hand-to-mouth wants of the various local authorities, but it is a matter of having a definite scheme, of knowing that you have a certain amount to call upon, and then schemes can be embarked upon extending over a considerable period, and the Housing Board can look two or three years ahead. They cannot do that unless the Government provides more money. The Housing Board, in its report for 1926, repeats what it said in 1925, recommending the Government to devote £1,000,000 under the Housing Act, the first instalment of not more than £250,000 to be provided during the current financial year, leaving the balance to be spread over subsequent years. That is a very modest request indeed, and I hope Government is not going to turn it down. This housing question is one of the most urgent problems we have. A commission which sat on the subject in 1920 said that the Union’s requirements in the matter of housing would involve the expenditure of £7,000,000. With the completion of the present schemes, we shall spend £2,750,000. I do not say that any housing scheme will do away with slums, for their existence is not merely a question of houses, but inadequate wages preventing people living, as civilized people should. We can, however, do a very great deal in providing houses to meet the present crying social evils. It is agreed that whatever the cause may be, private enterprise does not supply the kind of house we have in view. I do not put down the scarcity of these houses altogether to the increased wages in the building trade. I saw in a very authoritative article that a New York bricklayer is paid on the average about four times as much as a London bricklayer, and yet the costs of building in these two cities are practically the same.

The rate of wages is different now.

Does a bricklayer receive more than 1s. 9d. an hour in London?

No.

If the illustration is challenged my view is that there are other factors entering into building costs besides wages, and we should not, on that account, decide that we will not proceed further with the scheme, which is meeting a very crying need.