How is it that the general parliamentary refreshment room, £1,000, has been transferred to the debit of the Senate? What has the Senate got to do with it more than the Assembly?

It was done last year by a report of the committees concerned, which was adopted by the House.

It is controlled by the Senate?

Yes, in terms of the report which the House adopted.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 3, “House of Assembly,” £128,100,

I should like to ask the Minister if there is any intention of reducing the pay of members of Parliament.

Withdraw.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister,” £30,837,

I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question on this. Some negotiations were entered into some little time since—and also continued by the Prime Minister when he came back from Europe—with the Portuguese Government with reference to the position in the Mozambique province and Delagoa Bay. Can he tell us how the matter stands, or if the negotiations are going to be resumed?

The position at present is this, that we have every reason to hope that by June the parties will meet in order to consider the negotiations.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister some questions. In the debate on the Part Appropriation the Prime Minister said that it was his intention to submit the resolutions of the Imperial Conference to the vote of this House. He said—

This undertaking was given on the 16th March. We are now in the month of May and we have heard nothing further about this undertaking, and I should like the Prime Minister to inform the House whether he intends to pursue the matter further and give the House an opportunity to discuss these resolutions and the report generally of the Imperial Conference. I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether anything has been done in connection with the appointment of a commission, as resolved by the Imperial Conference, to consider what I might call the anomalies in the working of the empire relations at present. It was resolved at the Imperial Conference that a commission representative of the Imperial Government and the Dominion Governments should be appointed to go into a number of matters with which the Imperial Conference could not deal, and I should like to know whether anything has been done in furtherance of that resolution, or whether nothing has been done yet. Have any appointments been made on behalf of South Africa, or the British Government, or the other dominions, to the personnel of this commission? Then I should like also to ask the Prime Minister whether any reorganization of his own department is intended in pursuance of the changes which have been brought about. I should like to ask him also whether it is intended to carry out the recommendations so far as the position of the Governor-General is concerned. It was resolved that a dominion which wished to confine its Governor-General merely to the representation of the King, should be at liberty to do so, and in that event that the Governor-General should cease to be the channel of communication with the British Government. We have not heard yet whether the Prime Minister intends to exercise that option, and to have our Governor-General confined to his constitutional position under the South Africa Act as the representative of the King. We should like to hear from him what the intention of the Government is; whether they wish to exercise that option or not, and if that option is exercised what machinery is intended to take the place of the present machinery. How is the British Government going to be represented in South Africa? How are we to be represented in London? and how are we going to make our representations to the Imperial Government in the communications that pass between us? Is the Union High Commissioner in London going to be used for the purpose; is his position going to be changed to a diplomatic position, or is it intended to institute some other machinery by which communications between our Government and the Imperial Government can be carried on? If the Governor-General ceases to be the channel then other channels must be instituted, and my question is, will there be a separate organ of the Imperial Government here and shall we have a representative in London, whether the High Commissioner or anybody else? These are questions which arise out of the resolutions which were taken at the Imperial Conference, and on which, I am sure, both the Committee and the country generally would like to have any information which the Prime Minister might be able to give us. Another matter, also on the same subject, arises out of our representation abroad. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, of the Government, to appoint diplomatic representatives to foreign Governments? Has any decision been taken on the matter which can be communicated to us, or has nothing been done and is there nothing to communicate? These are all subjects which arise out of the working of the recent Imperial Conference, and I hope the Prime Minister will be able, where it is in his power, to give us the information asked for.

I want to answer the hon. member’s questions at once. As to his question whether the Government intended appointing representatives to foreign powers, I may say that the Government has no definite intentions up to the present. The Government is actually considering how far it is necessary so to alter the status of trade commissioners as to give them more access to the various Governments than is the case to-day. It is, however, a matter which has still to be dealt with. It is indeed necessary for something to be done, but how it will be done and what form it will take is a matter we are still considering. They will certainly not be ambassadors. I may say in the meantime that the representation will not take the form of an ambassador or an international plenipotentiary of that grade. As for the other question, viz: whether the Government intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Imperial Conference about the status, the position, of the Governor-General, I can tell the House that they have been approved, and will come into operation on the 1st July. Thereafter the Governor-General will therefore exclusively function as the representative of His Majesty, and not of the British Government. How the British Government will be represented here is a question about which we have not yet got sufficient definite information. It is, of course, a question about which the British Government must decide in the first place as to whom they are going to appoint here to act between the Government of Great Britain and that of the Union. This at once leads to the other question of the hon. member for Standerton, viz., whether there is any intention and whether steps have already been taken to reorganize the Prime Minister’s department. I may say that the whole question in view of the change coming into force on the 1st July has been submitted to the Public Service Commission, and they have issued a report and have made the necessary recommendations, both with regard to alterations that will be necessary in the staff of the Governor-General, and also those which will be required in the office of the Prime Minister. I can say this here, and the recommendations practically amount to the same thing that in future the chief object of the Prime Minister’s office will be the Foreign Relations Department. I may also say here that my feeling was and it is one that is shared by the Public Service Commission that a person suitable to be at the head should be a man with legal training, and who would have specially to qualify himself in all matters concerning diplomatic custom and privileges and international law. Therefore in my opinion he should be a person who has had a legal training. With regard to our position in England, the Government intends to give the High Commissioner there the additional diplomatic status of our representative so that he can deal directly with the British Government when necessary. If that were not done another person would be required, and I do not see the necessity for that, and think it would not be desirable to have a second person there for those purposes. Then there is the other question as to how far the necessary steps have been taken to constitute the commission which is referred to in the report of the Imperial Conference, and which is to consider the anomaly existing between England (Great Britain) and the various dominions. Preliminary steps have already been taken to the extent that preliminary views have been collected by the various dominions to be brought forward, and the preliminary facts are also being got together. The commission has not yet been appointed, but steps have already been taken to collect, what I call, preliminary information on all hands, which can be immediately dealt with when the commission is appointed. Nothing further has been done so far but it will not be long before the commission is appointed. With regard to the first question of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) whether I still intend to carry out what I said, viz., to lay a motion before the House approving the resolutions of the Imperial Conference. I may say that I still intend to do so, but I thought that I should not do it until more or less the conclusion of the debate on the Estimates, and I therefore hope to do so about the end of this month, because the House will certainly not get through its work before the second or third week in June. About the end of this month I hope to lay a motion before the House and the House will then at once or within a reasonable time have the opportunity of considering the motion and of finally deciding about it without delay.

I should like to be plain on just one point, and it is this—I do not quite follow the Prime Minister as to the means of communication. He says from the first of July a new system will be instituted, and our communications—

Will come into working.

Yes, and from that day the Governor-General will cease to be the channel of communication; and I am not quite clear what is going to happen. Hitherto the practice, as the committee knows, has been that any communication which we wish to make to the Imperial Government is addressed to the Governor-General here, and he forwards it with his comments, or in any way he likes, to the British Government. On July 1 that will stop. What will happen then with any communications we have to make? Will they be put into the post office and addressed to the High Commissioner, or to the Imperial Government direct? Are we to put all our communications into the post and send them to Downing Street or post them to the High Commissioner, who will make these representations on our behalf to the Imperial Government? I assume we shall be represented on this commission which is to revise a number of matters still outstanding.

Oh, yes.

I assume that the Government will take all the necessary care that we are adequately represented on that commission, for it is one of the greatest importance. That is the real work that is to come. All that the Imperial Conference has done hitherto is to pass a general formula very much in the same terms that have been passed with less formality on previous occasions. The real work remains to be done, and that is the removal of certain matters that have been taken exception to in the various dominions. It will affect us very profoundly what decisions are taken in regard to these matters. We on this side of the House are most anxious that the Government should be as strongly and adequately represented on that commission as possible, for it is a matter of first-rate importance to the other dominions and to us.

I fully agree with the right hon. gentleman that we should be well represented; and when the moment comes for appointing our representative I have no doubt that we shall appoint someone who will be able to take charge of the interests of this country. As to what we are going to do after July 1, I hope that before that time it will have been definitely intimated to us what the course is which the British Government requires us to take. It can be only one of two courses. Either, it seems to me, the Governor-General as High Commissioner will be availed of, and the British Government will ask him as High Commissioner to represent it, or it will appoint a second person who will then act as the agent of the British Government. To my mind the second course would undoubtedly be the better one, but I say this subject to correction. I feel that this is a matter we primarily have to leave to the British Government to say what it is going to do. I have no doubt that before July 1 we shall know definitely what we have to do.

I am sorry to appear to worry the Prime Minister, but this is perhaps the only opportunity one has to express an opinion on this matter, and I should like to record my opinion that it would be a very great mistake from the point of view of South Africa if there is a severance between the position of Governor-General and High Commissioner in South Africa. I foresee very great difficulties—

That was not my point.

But it is germane to the discussion.

Quite.

What is said here is carried beyond these walls. I am very much afraid that if the Governor-General ceases to be High Commissioner and is merely the King’s representative without exercizing also the functions of High Commissioner, that would be contrary to our viewpoint for which we have been standing in South Africa. If the High Commissioner is to be a different person, then I foresee that we may in fact have a development along two lines in South Africa. We would have the Governor-General representing the King in his Union Government, and we would have a second person representing the British Government in relation to the native territories. I think that would not be to the interests of the Union. It is to our interest to have the native territories, if I may say so, as closely linked up as possible with the policy of the Union. It is much easier to carry out that viewpoint if we have the same person to deal with, if the territories are administered by the Governor-General, than it would be if the British Government had another person to be their mouthpiece in regard to the administration of the territories. We had instances in the past where there had been a severance of these posts and where the British Government had been represented by more than one individual. On all these occasions there was a measure of conflict, a measure of conflict with our colonial interests. It is far better to have one Governor-General who is in close touch with our Government as administering the native territories, than to have a second person in that capacity. I hope whatever changes the British Government is going to make in pursuance of the new situation, they are not going to sever the position of High Commissioner from that of Governor-General, but that the same person will continue to fill both posts. From the South African point of view there is no question that that is in our interest.

I would like to ask a question with reference to the appointment of the commission which the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has referred. In Natal the greatest apprehension is being expressed with regard to the question of the retention of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and also with regard to the abrogation of the King’s right of veto. I gather from the Prime Minister’s reply that this commission has been set up in London and is collecting information.

No, it is not.

I understand the commission is in process of formation and that the Government are going to send a representative to that commission. Unfortunately I was unable to follow the Prime Minister in his reply, but I am really concerned about the South African representative to that commission. The representative to the commission will, I suppose, be appointed by the Government and it is a well-known fact, the party led by the right hon. gentleman does not see eye to eye on this important question with members on this side of the House, and I am very much concerned and want to know what machinery will be set up so that the opinions of the people of Natal can be placed before this commission. The Prime Minister may smile, but I urge it in all seriousness. We want to know how this commission is to be set up. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Imperial Conference which indicates exactly how this commission is to be set up. The report is silent as to how the South African representative is to be appointed, and I am anxious to ascertain what opportunity there will be of our having any say in the appointment of the representative, and further will the commission come to South Africa. Presumably there will be more than one commission. Will they come to South Africa to obtain information, or how are we to place our evidence before them. I do not know how far our questions amuse the Prime Minister, but we see nothing amusing in the prospects of what that commission will report. I am serious in this question and I am urged to ask the Prime Minister how this commission is to be appointed and how the South African representative is to be appointed and how some of us who do not agree with the hon. gentleman’s opinions, how are we to make our opinions heard, notably on this question of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and also on the question of the abolition or retention of the King’s veto, and all questions coming from this country.

I am afraid the hon. gentleman has a totally wrong conception of what is going to take place. That commission, and no other commission in the world, is not going back on what has been decided by the Imperial Conference and all the commission is called upon to do, and it is intended it should do, is that it shall meet in order to advise us as to how we shall deal with certain questions which if unconditionally and at once effect is given to the resolution of the Imperial Conference on total equality and freedom, would cause difficulties which none of the dominions nor Great Britain would like to see arise. This commission will meet in order that these anomalies may be removed in such a manner as to cause the least harm to any particular dominion or to all the dominions and Great Britain as a whole. That commission will have no power to go back on anything the Imperial Conference has decided. That commission will meet in London and will have to deal with all judicial questions, legal questions, and those questions do not require more than one commission. It will consist of representatives of our dominions that so wish to be represented and Great Britain will of course be represented there, and those men, coming together like lawyers, with the intention to do the best that can be done for the commonwealth as a whole will consider and make recommendations as to what should happen with regard to this or that or any other question. Let me say for instance the appeal to the Privy Council does not come before the commission at all.

I understood that was one of the things.

Only so far as Ireland is concerned.

Canada also.

As far as Canada is concerned it would only be in so far as to whether constitutionally it could be done, keeping in view the peculiar constitution of Canada, the Federal constitution of Canada with which we have nothing to do. From that point of view there are several difficulties in connection with Canada and Australia which we do not share because of the difference in our constitution, we being a Union. There will be only that one commission which will sit in London and will consider all these questions and its whole object will be nothing but to advise and consider as to how effect can be given to the equality of status between us all in such a way as to do away with the anomalies and yet in such a manner that if the anomalies have to remain they will remain so that we can agree upon them not as anomalies imposed upon us but as being there with our consent. Naturally the commission will require men who are capable and who know the constitutional part of their respective dominions very well. I do not see why the hon. member would like Natal to be specially represented in that commission.

I should like it very much indeed.

I know Natal would like to be represented and that they would like to be represented on ever so many other matters. Unfortunately we cannot deal with the provinces, we have to deal with the Union and although I know Natal is not satisfied with the freedom we have and would like to go back to a Crown colony surely the hon. member does not expect me to send a representative to London to get back a Crown colony.

I would like to say, to ease the mind of my hon. friend behind me, how I understand the position, and the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong. This commission which is going to be set up in pursuance of the resolutions of the Imperial Conference will be of an advisory character only. The Imperial Conference could not consider these intricate and difficult matters of appeal and extra-territoriality and similar difficult questions, and it was resolved that these questions be submitted to a subordinate commission to make recommendations. These will be made in due course and will be nothing more than recommendations and will have to come before us in this Parliament before effect is given to them. Take the question of appeal to the Privy Council. Any change will have to be done by statute of this Parliament. Under the South Africa Act appeals take place from our courts to the Privy Council, and if there is to be any change made, it cannot be made by this commission, but only by this Parliament. This commission can only advise the Dominion Governments. The same also in regard to extra-territoriality. If Parliament is to be given jurisdiction outside the limits of the Union, then it means a change in the South Africa Act, and once more the matter will have to be dealt with by us. The same applies to the question of a general merchant shipping Act, or shipping legislation for the whole of the empire—that is a matter which we, as far as the Union is concerned, will have to deal with in this Parliament.

And defence.

I do not think defence is remitted to this commission. There remains the matter of the veto, which is undoubtedly of very great importance, because it so happens that the King’s veto is part of the machinery of the South Africa Act. There are certain clauses in the South Africa Act which require our legislation to be specially reserved to the King for his assent, and it may be said that legislation is not required in that case, that it simply means an alteration of the Instructions given to the Governor-General. But there, too, I assume that the Prime Minister can give us an assurance that no change will be made before this House has been consulted.

It cannot.

I would further say this to my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson), that I know what is moving him, I know what burden is on his mind—

I think he has been reading the “Mercury.”

—but he may take it that the interests of Natal will be safeguarded, just as the interests of any other province will be, in and through this Parliament, which will take the final decision and give the final sanction in these matters. I believe I am correct in saying that, and the Prime Minister will be able to corroborate what I say, so that people may not think that some revolutionary changes are going to be carried out by a sort of star chamber, which is going to sit in London. It would be a great pity if such an impression were to be formed in this country. No change will or can be made without our consent.

I do hope that every member here bears this well in mind that, no matter how much importance may be attached to your Imperial Conference and anything that your Imperial Conference may do, your Imperial Conference has no other power in the world except merely to advise something which cannot be or should not be of any effect until this House has approved of it. Further, likewise in regard to the commission which your Imperial Conference is going to set up, there again it can do nothing else but merely advise what, in its wisdom, it may think should be adopted by the various dominions and nothing more. The ultimate authority to sanction any of these things will be this House.

I just wish to say that if the Prime Minister is of opinion that Natal wants to go back to Crown colony government, he is entirely mistaken.

I am very glad to hear it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, “Treasury,” £75,573,

On the 2nd instant the Minister of Finance laid on the Table five returns dealing with payments to ex-officials or their widows under Act 49 of 1926. Those payments may be divided into two categories, namely, under annuities and under gratuities. I would like to ask the Minister whether I am correct or not in my analysis of the five returns The total amount of new payments under Act 49 of 1926 is £340,756 3s., of which £105 924 4s. 4d. is represented by gratuities, and £234,831 18s. 8d. by annuities. That Act was passed last year on the motion originally introduced by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and a Select Committee was appointed to consider that motion, together with certain small amendments. I have examined the Select Committee’s report and have gone over the statements made on the second reading and subsequent stages of that Bill, but nowhere can I find that the Minister was asked what the approximate expenditure would be. I admit that, reading the Minister’s statement, he seemed somewhat reluctant even to accept the Select Committee’s report, but, in view of the fact that that report was made, he felt that he had to give effect to it. I do not think for one moment that it was appreciated that the total sum that would be paid out in the form of annuities under that Bill would be no less than £234,831 18s 8d I would like to ask the Minister whether I am right in my analysis of these payments, and, if so, I wish it to be understood that we have saddled this country with no less a sum than I have mentioned just now, which is to be added practically to the pensions of the Union.

No, you are wrong again.

Why do you say “again”? I am sorry to see the bad habit which has overtaken the Minister that some of his friends have set him of utilizing the word “again.” I am generally right. I do not talk unless I know I am right. In so far as I am right or wrong, I am sure the country would be delighted to be enlightened by the Minister as to the exact position.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to this vote. I understand that he has moved the Government account from the commercial banks, the Standard Bank and the National Bank, to the Reserve Bank. I understand further that when it was in the hands of the commercial banks a fairly large balance was kept on which the banks allowed interest at a certain rate. As far as I understand the constitution of the Reserve Bank, they cannot pay interest on the credit balance. I would like to know what arrangements he is going to make in regard to that, because under this system we stand to lose money, perhaps not very much, but there it is.

I want to put two questions to the Minister. In the first place, I want to ask him what is the position in connection with the statement that appeared in the press some six months ago that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a commission to inquire into the establishment of a State bank and State control of credit? I know that possibly such a commission might be a waste of time if the Government has already decided in favour of carrying out the principle of a State bank, or, alternatively, it might be a waste of money if the Government has definitely decided to turn down this question. If the Government has still got an open mind, I would like to know from the Minister whether there was anything in those statements and what has become of this proposed commission? I would remind him that in England Mr. McKenna, who is probably as great an authority as we have in South Africa on the question of banking, has definitely stated—

Order. The hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) cannot now discuss the question as to whether there should be a State bank or not.

No, I am not discussing that, I am not mentioning a word about the desirability of it. I was going to say that Mr. McKenna in England has been very strongly advocating that the time has arrived for the appointment of a commission to enquire into the whole question of banking. That being the case, I would like to know from the Minister, what is the intention of the Government in connection with the matter? The other question is in connection with the investigation that is going on the subject of national insurance. I understand that the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) has been sent oversea as a member of the Old Age Pensions Commission to make investigations into the question of national insurance, and, without in any way desiring to disparage the ability or knowledge of the hon. member on such an intricate question, I would like to know whether the Minister would not consider the advisability of also authorizing the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), who has gone overseas on behalf of the Government in connection with another matter, to join in this investigation, especially as he represents definite views on the matter and has made a very deep study of the question for many years.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he does not think that the dissatisfaction existing to-day in connection with the granting of allowances to oudstryders will disappear if a small committee is appointed to assist every magistrate, and to advise him in connection with the distribution of the money. Much dissatisfaction is caused because certain people have got a grant who are considered not so deserving as others. If two persons who know the district well serve on such a committee it will remove the dissatisfaction.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice a matter with regard to pensions. The amount spent on pensions is always a matter of discussion in this House. When it is discussed you always have the suggestion thrown up that the Pensions Committee is an accessory to the spending of this large sum of money. That, to a certain extent, is true, but I wonder if the House realizes the position the committee is put in with regard to a very large number of pensions. Every petition put in is submitted to the department for report, then it goes to the Treasury and the Treasury makes its recommendations. The committee does not stand or fall by those recommendations. In many cases an adverse recommendation from the Treasury is ignored, and on the other hand, a very favourable recommendation is sometimes turned down. What happens at the last meeting we hold during the session? The Treasury comes along with a list of recommendations involving an amount far larger than all the amounts granted by the committee during the whole of its work. While the last report of the Pensions Committee recommended that 26 petitions be granted the treasury recommendations were more than 90. No opportunity is given to the committee to investigate one single item in that Treasury memorandum.

Why?

Because there is no time. They put it on the Table at the last meeting of the Select Committee on Pensions. I say that is altogether wrong. Either the Minister should relieve us of the responsibility by introducing a Bill to cover the department’s recommendations or he should put such recommendations to us earlier in the session, and let us have an opportunity of investigating each individual case. I hope the Minister will consider that. I do not raise it in a spirit of carping criticism, but it is not fair to a Select Committee of this House to ask them to set the seal of approval on something which they have not considered, and which involves the expenditure of a large sum of money.

I think my hon. friend has raised a very important question there. We appoint this committee to examine on behalf of the House petitions for pensions. I think my hon. friend and the whole of the committee would be fully justified in turning down the whole of the recommendations by the Treasury. Let me say quite deliberately, that I think the Treasury is far too easy-going altogether in allowing the expenditure of money. That is the conclusion I have come to in going through this report of the Auditor-General. If we had not the Auditor-General to point out some of these things we should spend more than we are doing now. The Treasury, in my opinion, in dealing with the expenditure of other departments and its own as well, is altogether too easy-going. I hope the House will take a note of that. Take these estimates. It is supposed that the Treasury sets an example to the other departments in keeping down expenditure, and yet there is an increase in the fixed staff of something like thirteen officials. That is a large increase; it is almost 10 per cent. of the total number of officials in the Treasury department. Yet this is the department which ought to keep a firm hand on expenditure and set an example to the other departments.

I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the Australian maize contract, and whether it would not perhaps be an opportune time, seeing the Minister of Defence is on his way to Australia, to advise or instruct him to come to some arrangement. I think the time has come when we should have some reciprocal arrangement.

I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is quite fair in the statement he has just made. Has he examined the position in regard to the increase in the Treasury staff?

I have the figures before me.

What does it signify?

It signifies that you have an increase.

What conclusion does the hon. member draw from that?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will have another opportunity of speaking.

If the hon. gentleman had asked me for the facts he would not have made the statement he has made. The increase, in the first place, is due to the fact that a number of officials have been transferred from the Custodian of Enemy Property branch. That office has now been closed. Half the staff have been discharged and the others have been transferred to the Treasury staff, and the work will be done there.

The increase is mostly in the pensions office

We have had during the year to deal with an enormous number of cases in connection with the old Republican pensions, and we have now to deal with 3,000 cases of oudstryders. Every case has to be examined on its merits, and an increase in the staff was required to deal with that. The normal Treasury staff has been decreased. For instance, we sent a highly paid official to the High Commissioner’s office in London recently, and his post has not been filled. The increases are due to these two facts, and I do not think the hon. gentleman will be able to raise any objection to that. He has also said that we are far too lenient in regard to spending money. I am very glad to hear that because up to now the Treasury has always been told, especially with regard to pensions, that it has practically refused to approve or recommend deserving cases. In many cases where the committee thought we should soften our hearts, we refused to do so. We have never been accused of generosity in regard to pensions. I can assure the hon. member that all these cases are examined on their merits, and the cases referred to by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) are cases where the Treasury has found we should have to recommend them. Formerly the practice was in regard to certain war pensions that people who did not apply within the period fixed by law had to come individually to Parliament. All these cases as a matter of form were referred to the Treasury. We have since laid down that instead of doing that they can put in applications to the Treasury. The cases are then gone into by the various committees, and then we put them up to this committee for formal approval. It is quite within the right of this committee to refuse them if they want to go into any particular case. If they had not sufficient time the Treasury would not object if they refused to deal with the matter at once.

What cases do the Treasury deal with?

Mainly this class of case. We have cut out the roundabout way of having individual petitions to Parliament. We deal with them as we deal with all similar cases of people who apply in time, but in order to put the matter right in law we submit them formally to the Select Committee on Pensions. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) raised the question on the transfer of our accounts to the Reserve Bank. He pointed out that formerly we invested our balances with commercial banks at short periods and so earned interest, whereas in the case of the Reserve Bank it is precluded by statute from paying interest. That is so, but I can assure the hon. member that on the whole the present arrangement we have made is, I think, in the interests of the Government, because we now have fewer accounts and smaller balances. On the other hand, we have made a very advantageous arrangement with the Reserve Bank in regard to remittances of money in London and the transfer of balances from there, and in that way the existing arrangement is very much to the interest of the Government. On the whole I think we are doing better under the new arrangement. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the question again of the republican pensions. He pointed out what a large amount would have to be paid annually, and I interjected and said the hon. member was wrong, because in the figure mentioned by him is included arrear annuities. The recurring annual payment will be about £15,000. On the estimates this year provision is made for about £10,000. The others are arrear payments, but that will not happen in future. What I want to correct is the impression he desired to leave on the minds of hon. members that the annual payment was going to be over £100,000. That is not so. Then the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to certain statements in the press some time ago that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a commission to go into the question of the establishment of a State Bank. No, the position is that we have no intention of appointing a commission of the nature indicated by the hon. member.

What does the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs say?

He asked a question about the visit of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) to Europe in connection with the investigation of the question of national insurance. I pointed out to the House some weeks ago that if the commission which was appointed thought it was necessary that a further investigation should be made in other countries, and made recommendations accordingly, I would consider the matter. The commission has now put in its first report, and has pointed out the necessity of further investigation into the question of national insurance, and as a result the hon. member for Wonderboom and Mr. Collie of my department (who has been dealing with this matter), have been asked by the Treasury to attend the meeting at Geneva where this whole question will be considered and information from various countries obtained and co-ordinated, and where this will be one of the chief topics to be discussed. I understand that the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has been asked by the Labour department to represent that department. Any further inquiry will be conducted by the hon. member for Wonderboom and Mr. Collie. To the question raised by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) I have already alluded. It is entirely one for the Committee on Pensions. If they do not want to recommend, it is quite open to say that they refuse to deal with these cases.

†*The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.- Col. N. J. Pretorius) raised the question of the granting of allowances to oudstryders, and he mentioned the dissatisfaction existing, and recommended the appointment of committees. Let me tell the hon. member that the dissatisfaction is largely due to the people not being willing to submit to the policy pursued, viz., that grants shall not be made to persons who, e.g., have children to support them. That is where the trouble arises. The position simply is that we have only £90,000 available for the purpose, so that we can assist about 3.000 people. The number is nearly complete, and it will do no good at this stage to appoint committees to see how many of the remaining thousands of persons who have applied for grants can be allowed to receive them. Parliament is unwilling to vote more than £90,000. The hon. member knows that the question of old-age pensions is being inquired into, and that it may be necessary later to deal with it. Then the complaints can also be dealt with. This assistance is merely a provisional scheme to assist old and needy people. The list for which we want to make provision is nearly full, and there is no chance now of appointing committees to inquire about cases of people who do not get the allowance because they have children who can support them.

†The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) raised the question of the duties on maize exported to Australia, which I regret I did not answer. I can inform him that when I was in London I discussed the question with the Prime Minister of Australia, who pointed out that the view taken then by the Government of Australia was that they also have to deal with the question of protecting then own farmers. He told me it was a very burning question in Australia. The two Governments are trying to come to some arrangement with regard to the import duty between the two countries, but up to the present we have not been able to come to an agreement with Australia. The Australian farmer insists on his maize being protected, and not allowing our maize to be sent there with lower duties than he thinks should be paid, with a view to giving him more protection.

I only proposed that there should be a committee, of which the magistrate would be a member, to give advice when applications were made, whether the grant should be given or not, so that it should not occur that persons who did not need it could get a pension, and persons who did need it should be refused.

I agree with the remark of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that there is great dissatisfaction in this connection. Where a magistrate is a Sap., it is alleged that he favours S.A.P. supporters, and where he is a Nationalist that he favours the Nationalists. If there is such a committee consisting of two persons and the magistrate to see that when applications are made the applicant is a person who is really entitled to it, it will give greater satisfaction. I get letters almost every day from people who think that they have been passed over and others favoured, although they themselves are more deserving. If there were two persons to consult with the magistrate, the difficulty would be removed.

I also should like to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that in connection with the grants to oudstryders the modus operandi is not quite so satisfactory as was expected. According to the existing position an application is sent in to the magistrate who sends the application to the department and reports whether he thinks that the applicant should receive a grant or not. But on enquiry I have ascertained that in my district there are many people who have been recommended for grants by the magistrate but have not yet received them because the department had rejected them. I cannot understand how the department can reject an application when the magistrate recommends it, and what the grounds are for it. The magistrate is able to immediately make enquiry and to find out what the position is, and also whether the man can get any support, even when there are children. There are many of the old people who have children already 70, 72 and 78 years of age, and whose children, therefore, are themselves old and have their own families and who themselves find it difficult to provide for their needs.

The hon. member cannot now discuss the policy of the Government.

No, this is a question of administration. The point is how the grants are being made.

Then the hon. member must confine himself to that.

I should like to suggest that when a magistrate is actually convinced that an applicant deserves a grant he should be given it. I am sorry that the grant requires such a large amount, but one thing I cannot understand, viz., that when the £90,000 is exhausted, and the amount has been granted and further oudstryders come along that are needy that they have simply to die in misery. I think we feel that all the people who have rendered service to their Fatherland should not be forgotten by us, and we can hardly set a limit to the grant. I feel, therefore, with regard to them that where it is necessary help should be given, and to set bounds to it will cause great dissatisfaction.

I should also like to know how it is that when a magistrate has recommended an allowance the Department of Finance can turn it down, and for what reason this is done. Naturally complaints have come from various parts about the grant of the allowances, but I want to have that point cleared up. Then there is another point which was laid down last year that only widows of 65 and oudstryders of at least 70 years would be taken into consideration, but should it not be remembered that there are many other oudstryders that are actually dying to-day of misery and hunger, and is nothing to be done for them? We had hope that a Bill on old age pensions—

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I am very sorry, because I wanted to point out to the Minister that there are many old people suffering from want.

It is merely a matter of how much money Parliament is prepared to vote. Hon. members ask how it is that a magistrate recommends an application and the department rejects it. Hon. members will admit that if we merely left it to the magistrates than we should have just as many policies as there are magistrates in the country. Every case must be filled up on a form with full details about necessities, children and income, and it goes to the central body, and there a decision is come to on a policy laid down, and which is more or less always followed without distinction of persons. If we were to leave it to the magistrates then we should have cases where magistrates more or less would always approve of all applications and other cases where the magistrates would recommend very many less applications. The hon. members will see at once that there must be a general rule of action, and we cannot permit a magistrate of a certain district, e.g., approving everything and another not doing so. The whole trouble is that everybody is not being assisted, but nothing else can be done under the existing law. Are hon. members aware that according to the report on old age pensions, which I laid on the Table recently, it is stated that if pensions are given to everybody it will run into possibly £1,500,000 per annum? Then there will be an opportunity of ending the dissatisfaction, but if that is not to be done we can only provide for the most needy cases. If the House is prepared to vote £900,000 instead of £90,000, we shall be able to make arrangements by which the dissatisfaction will be removed. It has been said by some hon. members that some people are now getting an allowance who do not deserve it, and that other deserving cases get none. If hon. members will give particulars to the department of people getting grants who do not deserve them I will have them gone into and cancelled if it is so, and then there will be more openings in the districts of those members for assisting other people. Moreover, hon. members must not forget that the country has not yet decided that general old age pensions are to be paid

I would like to suggest again that it might facilitate or accelerate the arrangement if the Minister of Defence, who will be in Australia soon, will take it up there. It is not only with reference to maize, but other matters as well where they had a sort of reciprocity, and I think it is a fine opportunity for the Minister, now that he is going there.

I am sorry to have to pursue the Minister with the question I have already raised—about the State bank, but I have to do so on account of the Minister’s capacity very often to reply to a question without supplying any information. He has told us that the Government has decided not to appoint a commission, but that means nothing. What I wanted to know, and still want to know, is whether the Government has decided to carry out the pledges which were given by the Prime Minister and members of the Pact sitting on these benches, or whether this decision has been taken on account of the fact that the Government has come to the conclusion that it is not carrying out the pledges which have been given?

The Minister seemed to get a little bit restive under the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) with regard to the lessening of control of expenditure by the Treasury. When the Minister sees the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee for this session, he will find in it constant references to the matter. I will call his attention to one item which is mentioned on page 101 of the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General referred to an honorarium of £300, and remarked—

Over and over again the Treasury after demurring to certain payments agreed to their being made, leaving on my mind as a member of the committee the impression that the control that should be exercised by the Treasury is being dangerously relaxed. I think this is partly due to the fact that there appears to be some confusion as to the functions of the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. The latter is too apt to throw the onus on to the commission, instead of exercising control itself. What the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said is absolutely justified. The Auditor-General in pages 101-2-3-4 gives detailed lists of cases of Treasury exemptions from the observance of the formal tender procedure in Government buying and selling. Some of these exemptions are reasonable, for instance, in the case of a proprietary article, but when we come to arsenate of soda and grain bags being allowed to be purchased outside the tender regulations, the Treasury is not exercizing the control it should.

The Minister has not denied the statement that the amount paid out under the Act passed last session with regard to pensions totalled £340,756, while the increased amount paid in annuities was over £16,000. This shows that the House should be very careful how it passes Bills which result in increased expenditure. I wish to refer to a little item which the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) brought forward. Most of the 96 items in the Treasury report consisted of applications made by people who had not complied with the regulations. Under the War Pensions Act it is distinctly laid down that applications must be made within a certain period; however, at the last sitting of the Select Committee on Pensions a list of recommendations by the Treasury was placed before the committee. If those applications had been turned down, great hardships might have been suffered. The Treasury should give the Committee an opportunity of considering the applications, but as it was, the committee had either to accept or reject them. Parliament passes laws, and it is the duty of the Government to see that they are carried out.

The hon. member (Mr. Nathan) does not like me to say he is wrong again, but I cannot accept the position as stated by him. He says that the Treasury should lay these pension applications before the committee at an earlier date. The Pensions Committee is every year overwhelmed with petitions and last session we had to appoint a special commission to deal with the arrear applications. If the committee would prefer to deal with the Treasury cases first, and put aside all the petitions presented by the hon. member and other hon. gentlemen, of course we could send in our list earlier. The committee sits three days a week going through petitions, and in regard to matters which have been gone into by the Treasury, formal approval is given by the committee towards the latter stages of the session. If the committee does not like to deal with the question in that way, it will be very unfortunate for the poor applicants whose petitions will have to stand over until the next session. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has returned to the question of Treasury control. It is no use making general statements. With regard to exemption from tender board regulations, has the Select Committee on Public Accounts gone into this matter this session?

No.

Quite so. Give the Treasury a chance to justify its actions and we are quite prepared to justify them. It is all very well to say that the Auditor-General holds a certain opinion, but we are quite prepared to justify every case. We don’t just accept the dictum of the Auditor-General. The hon. member mentioned the honorarium paid to the Director of Irrigation. I did not deal with that matter, as I was away, but people cannot complain if the Government take a liberal view that this official performed special services. We lent his services as a friendly act to a neighbouring Government, and it would not have been right to ask him to pay his fee into the Treasury. I don’t think the hon. member should state that as a case showing lack of Treasury control.

I am very sorry that the Minister of Finance is not prepared to promise the appointment of a Commission on State banking, and hope he will reconsider his decision. Most of his colleagues are pledged up to the eyes for a State bank. Knowing he is the mainspring of the Cabinet, we ask him to consider the question in the light of the responsibility of the whole Government for the pledges given. The Reserve Bank is a private shareholders’ bank. Its shareholders put up £1,000,000, and to-day their shares are worth on the market £1,850,000; in other words, if the Government wanted to expropriate, purchase, or even close the bank, it would have to pay a premium of £85 on every £100 worth of shareholders’ capital. The last Government, which passed the Act under which the Reserve Bank was formed, existed under the patronage of big finance, and as soon as the Opposition gets back into power we shall be in the tiger’s teeth again. The Reserve Bank is given unlimited power in the issue of notes. Is it right that we should bear the burden of providing copper, silver and gold coinage, which is expensive to mint and maintain, and hand over our paper currency, which is profitable, to the Reserve Bank? No country would stand that cession of a currency monopoly very long. Yesterday I asked the Minister the total amount of dividends the Reserve Bank had got out of the concession so generously given to them. They have paid out to shareholders no less than £415,000 in dividends. No wonder their shares stand at £185 to the £100. Well, what did the Government get out of it, the State which has surrendered the monopoly of note issue to this private bank? The Union obtained £84,000! I marvel that the hon. Minister, on having these figures before him, can stand up in this House and say he will not permit a commission to inquire into it. It makes one wonder if the dragon of high finance has not already penetrated into the Treasury. It is a matter which unquestionably demands a commission in the interests of taxpayers. I am surprised the hon. Minister has not ratified and endorsed the promises of a State Bank made by his colleagues. This most remunerative note issue is not limited by the Government, but we are told that it is limited automatically, because the Reserve Bank provides 40 per cent. gold rest as insurance, and 60 per cent. of approved commercial paper. The commercial banks were content with 16 per cent. rest of gold against all requirements, and now the Reserve Bank locks up 40 per cent. of gold, the result being that commercial undertakings in the country are crabbed. The note issue is unlimited, and on the 31st March stood at over £8,000,000. This is the lucrative concession which has been tumbled into the laps of lucky shareholders, and if the Minister thinks the public is always going to stand that sort of State finance, he is wrong; and when he feels the weight of its opinion, perhaps he will be converted to the use of the credit of the people for the people, instead of using this to simply build up private reserve banks and similar privileged institutions.

The hon. member seems to be very much annoyed that the late Government had no transactions with him, because he said they had financial transactions with magnates. I understand there was a time when my hon. friend was looked upon as a leading financial magnate in the diamond industry. I think we have heard of Roberts Victor, and I believe my hon. friend was the chairman.

What has that got to do with it?

It has a lot to do with it, because the hon. member said the late Government only carried out transactions with financiers, and at one time we looked upon him as a great financier in the diamond trade. I have risen to press home the point raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski), and to ask the Minister to communicate with the Minister of Defence, who is now in Australia, and ask him to get into touch with the Australian Government with regard to what is practically an embargo on our maize. I am not going into the question of what led up to the difference of opinion which exists between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Union, but I understand that at the present time, owing to the alterations in the previous preference of twopence per hundred pounds, which is no longer accorded to Australian wheat imported into this country, that the Australian Government, under the circumstances, have considerably raised the duty on maize.

That is not so.

The duty at the present moment has gone up from 2s. 6d. and 3s. to 7s. a bag.

The hon. gentleman is wrong in saying they did this because we took off our preference.

Well, there is a friction between the two Governments, and under the circumstances of our being big producers of maize, and owing to the fact that Australia is practically a winter rainfall country, and that they have to import a large quantity of maize, does my hon. friend not think it would be a good thing to discuss whether we could get back to the old position, whereby we gave them a preference on imported wheat and they gave us the same thing on maize? Seven shillings is a serious incubus to put on maize. I discussed it with farmers when I was in Australia, who were anxious in periods of drought to get maize to feed their sheep. These farmers are not in favour of that excessive duty of 7s., and some arrangement might be come to. With your permission, sir, might I raise the question brought forward by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) in connection with the embargo on our fresh fruit entering America? I would like to discuss it in connection with this vote in connection with the trade commissioner in the United States, whose duty it is to look after the interests of exporters in this country.

I will be glad if the hon. member will discuss this question under the vote of the Minister of Mines and Industries. It does not fall under me. This question of the treaty with Australia does not fall under me, either, but under the Department of Mines and Industries, and they should be dealt with under that vote.

I want to raise the question of importation of fruit pulp into the Union. Can I deal with that under your vote?

No. It is the same vote.

All right, only I don’t want to be stymied on this point, and I accept the Chairman’s assurance that I may raise it on the vote of the Minister for Mines and Industries.

Yes, we do not want to get to another vote, and then find we have missed the opportunity of discussing it.

I must also express my disappointment at the Minister not agreeing to some investigation of the medium of exchange. We must remember, as far as South Africa is concerned, that it is a country that needs building up, and if the Minister who is trying with one hand to establish these industries then introduces a system whereby they can get capital, it would help the development of South Africa more rapidly from an industrial point of view. If the Minister will not consider the question of a State bank, I ask him if he is prepared to consider the question of the establishment of an industrial bank on the same lines as the Land Bank in South Africa? These are questions in which no harm can be done by having an inquiry. The manufacturing and industrial community have their activities handicapped by having to deal with private banks. Is he prepared to investigate the question of establishing an industrial bank on the same lines as the Land Bank?

I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on that point. It involves new legislation.

I am not asking for legislation, sir, but an investigation. That is all I am asking the hon. Minister.

It comes to the same thing.

I tell the hon. member at once he knows the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) had a motion before the House last year, and the question was put this session, and I informed the House that the matter was put before the Board of Trade and Industries according to the decision last year, and I have not yet had a report. It is being investigated.

Let us hope they are investigating it. Time is passing, and we find nothing is being done, and that is why we are getting impatient. I would like to ask the Minister a question peculiarly connected with the Witwatersrand, and that is a question regarding legislation in connection with hawkers and pedlars. If the Minister remembers, I approached him early in the session, and asked him if it was his intention to deal with this question. The provincial authorities cannot tackle this matter.

The hon. member is again advocating new legislation.

I don’t advocate anything. I simply ask the Minister if he intends to take any steps. I am asking for information. I would like to ask the Minister if, in connection with representations made to him, they were first made to the Minister of Justice and then to the Minister of the Interior, and then handed over to the Minister of Finance, if it is his intention to deal with this question during the present session?

I want to raise a matter which affects three departments, and it is difficult to know which vote it comes under. It is a question relating to certain men in the financial branch of the defence headquarters who have been taken over on the fixed establishment, and the question raised was that they should have got a higher rate of pay. I addressed the question to the Minister of the Interior, and if he is the proper Minister to deal with it I will defer it until we come to his vote.

I am not dealing with that.

Very well. I will postpone the matter until later.

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) with regard to dealing with the control of trading by hawkers, representations have been made, and I am going into the question, and I will probably include it in the proposed amendments to the Provincial Subsidies Bill, so that these matters are included under the powers of the provincial authorities.

I hope the Minister will perhaps condescend to give an answer to the question that has been put from these benches as to what is the intention of the Government, not on the question of an industrial bank, but on the question of the establishment of a State bank, and control of credit.

The hon. member and other hon. members on the crossbenches have persistently attacked me in regard to this matter. What is the information which the hon. member wants? He knows that I do not agree with them on this question. What is the good of arguing the matter? The hon. member has his views on the subject and I have mine. They have attacked me this afternoon, as they have done on other occasions. I am of opinion that it is not in the interests of this country to have a State bank.

May I say that we have never attacked the Minister in connection with this matter. Sometimes the manner in which he has dealt with us has probably caused some of our remarks to be a little more acrimonious than they would otherwise have been. I am not concerned with what is the opinion of the Minister of Finance. After all, he is only one member of the Government. I want to know whether this answer to-day and the answer on previous occasions represents the decision of the Government on the question.

My reply represents the decision of the Government on this matter as long as I stand here. If it is no longer the decision of the Government, I shall not be here.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt,” £4,668,333.

I see that this year a large sum belonging to our public debt falls due in South Africa, something under £4,000,000 I believe. What is my hon. friend going to do in regard to that? I think it is repayable between 1927 and 1932.

I do not know what loan the hon. member is referring to at the present time. I can only say that up to the present we have always made proper arrangements to discharge our liabilities. We have recently converted the 6 per cent. loan where we had the option of doing so. We have converted it on very advantageous terms to the country. Certain debentures are falling due in London next year, and provision is now being made to redeem them from the surplus of last year, instead of re-borrowing to do so.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Pensions,” £2,319,000,

The question of pensions has come up in the House a few times this year, and I am glad that both sides have felt that the pension list is too high. I think that the time has come to ask the Government if it is not possible to go into the matter and make an alteration. The country cannot be satisfied with the sum of £2,319,000 which we are paying out for pensions this year. When Union came about the pensions amounted to £396,000, and if we look at the increases every year since then we find that they are considerable. The increases were as follows: 1911-’12, £23,000; 1912-’13, £42,000; 1913-’14, a small reduction of £11,000; 1914-’15, an increase of £4,000; 1915-’16, £4,000; 1916-’17, £17,000; 1917-’18, £32,000; 1918-’19, £189,000; 1919-’20, £504,000; 1920-’21, £685,000 (on account of the royal distribution of war pensions by hon. members opposite); 1921-’22, an increase of £2,770; 1922-’23, an increase of £165,000; 1923-’24, £33,000; and 1924-’25, £52,000. When the Nationalist Government came into office, and we know what the position was because our hon. friends opposite had been so royally granting war pensions, the question immediately arose of repairing the injustice towards the burghers who took part in the second war of independence. After that the increase was: 1925-’26, £351,000; 1926-’27, £87,000; and 1927-’28, £28,000. Thus we are paying this year £2,319,000, which represents an average increase over the 18 years of more than £100,000 per annum. We have a white population to-day of 1½ millions, and every man, woman and child has to bear a pension burden of more than £1 per annum. I think, therefore, that the time has come to ask the Government if it is not possible to go into the question. I have spoken about pensions before, and as we on this side of the House feel that hon. members opposite agree with us is it not possible for the Government to go into the matter and to reduce the pension burden by at least 25 per cent.? I do not mean that injustice should be done to the officials.

I want to point out to the hon. member that I cannot permit him to advocate the alteration of legislation.

I ask whether it is not possible for the Government to go into it in order to bring about a change.

The hon. member can criticize the administration of the Government, but he cannot at this stage advocate new legislation.

I feel we are now engaged in seeing whether we can pay in future certain allowances to sickly and old people, but we consider that if the pension list of to-day is looked at, such a thing appears to be impossible, yet we feel that in this case something must be done for the old people who are in want —

The hon. member can criticize the administration as much as he wishes, but he cannot at this stage advocate new legislation.

The view exists generally that the pension committee principally deals with general pensions, but that is not the case. Not 5 per cent. of the cases dealt with concern the general public, but they are merely cases of officials of various kinds.

I am sorry that the hon. member cannot be allowed to discuss the general policy.

Then I just want to come to gratuities to officials. In certain cases officials are entitled to a gratuity after they have retired. I want to point out to the Minister that this is, in my opinion, a wrong principle.

The hon. member is again advocating a change which requires legislation, and he cannot now do so.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations,” £5,481,865,

There is a matter I want to bring up, a matter which I have several times brought up before the House, and that is that we have to pay the whole expense of collecting taxes for the provincial administrations. Last year in the Cape Province there were three taxes, in Natal also three, in the Transvaal also three, and in the Orange Free State no fewer than five. The percentage of the total expense runs up to £314,317, and it does appear to me that for the collection of these small tin-pot taxes there should be some charge. I know my hon. friend will say that they will want to put up new machinery. The taxation must be collected, as it has been, by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, but I do not think it is fair to the Government that we should have to pay all this expense. In 1926 the provinces each put up three taxation ordinances with the exception of the Free State, which put up five. It is only fair that a certain percentage of what is collected should be charged to them.

Of course, we have the right to charge these people, but the present practice is being followed for reasons of economy. They would probably want to set up their own machinery, and we could not prevent their doing so. In certain cases where we require extra assistance they are made to pay the cost of extra clerks, etc. I do not think it is worth while disturbing the present financial arrangement. I do not think the question is of sufficient importance to raise the whole matter with the provinces, and to get them to bear the whole cost of collection. It would be a very difficult matter for the Union Government to prevent them using their own machinery.

On this matter of provincial subsidies I would ask the Minister whether all the provinces are satisfied that their allocation is a perfectly fair one, having reference to their respective educational commitments. The subsidy is based upon attendance of scholars, and is entirely an educational vote. We have had some discussion in the Transvaal in regard to this allocation.

I may remind the hon. gentleman that this involves an alteration in legislation.

The subsidy does not involve legislation.

It is on the basis of legislation. The hon. member may discuss the administration of the Minister, but not ask for new legislation.

I am asking the Minister if he is satisfied that the various provinces have accepted this allocation, and are satisfied with it. Here is provision for it, and now is the time for me to ask the Minister for information. While it is, I admit, based upon an Act passed in this House, yet I am pointing out to him that in regard to the allocation we have still the anomaly—

The hon. member might have pointed that out on the Minister’s vote, or he may do so at the second reading stage.

I take it you rule I am not in order in discussing this provincial administration vote.

The hon. member may discuss the vote, but he cannot advocate legislation.

I will take it in detail, if you wish it. Take the first amount for the Cape of Good Hope.

That amount is voted in terms of the law.

Exactly, and I want to know whether in terms of the law it is a fair allocation, and now is the time surely—

I will not repeat it too often. I have already told the hon. member he cannot advocate legislation. The hon. member may discuss the administration, but he cannot go any further.

I bow to your ruling. I only wanted to clearly understand that you rule I cannot make any comparison in regard to any of the various items on this page under provincial administration. Well, I will sit down, as directed. What is the use of coming here?

Order.

I would like to point out to the Minister that the following resolution was passed by the Cape Provincial Council—

I think that resolution has been duly forwarded by the provincial authorities, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he has taken any cognizance of that resolution, and whether the Government intends to comply with that request to appoint a further commission to deal with this particular matter. I would also like information from the Minister as to how the funds that are raised from native taxation locally are allocated. Last year we found that the Provincial Council of the Cape had borrowed considerable sums of money from the Treasury in order to meet the demands of native education. These amounts had to be paid back in the course of five years, and I think are being paid back now. I understand that the revenue which has accrued from this native fund is considerably more than was originally anticipated, and we in this House have not the means of knowing how these funds are allocated. We understand a native commission sits and deals with these matters to a certain extent, but this House should have some means of ascertaining exactly what happens to this money—how and by whom it is allocated, to which provinces it is allocated, and how it is expended. This is a matter which is stirring the minds of the natives a good deal.

I would ask the hon. member to discuss that matter on the vote for native affairs. He knows that under legislation we passed some time ago, this fund was instituted, and it is under the Native Affairs Department. Under this vote we are paying a certain sum in terms of existing legislation, and the balance is spent in consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. With regard to the resolution of the provincial council quoted by the hon. member, he knows the history of the whole matter, that we debated the Provincial Subsidies Act, and that an arrangement was come to after consultation with the various provincial administrations. I have no intention of reviewing this at this stage.

I move the deletion of the special grant of £75,000 for Natal and £75,000 for the Orange Free State. We understood that a grant of £100,000 to each of these provinces was in recognition of their having lost the seat of Government, and that it would be paid only for ten years. It is manifestly unfair to give these special grants to Natal and the Orange Free State when they really have no further moral right to them. Why should not all provinces now be treated on the same basis? The Minister may recognize obligations to the province to which he belongs, and so do we. These two special grants cannot be defended. Why not say the time has come to rectify this special consideration? The Transvaal provides the greater part of the revenue of the Union, and objects to continuation of special grants to other provinces. I move—

This special grant is not in the discretion of the Minister. It is based upon legislation.

I am really moving the deletion of these two amounts. I am within my rights.

No, the hon. member cannot circumvent the ruling in that way. I have told him he may discuss administration as much as he likes, but what he is doing is asking that legislation should be altered, which is a different matter altogether.

Am I not in order in moving the deletion?

The hon. member is allowed to move the deletion, but he cannot circumvent my ruling.

Do you rule I cannot move the deletion?

I think I have told the hon. member very distinctly he may move it.

Am I not allowed to give my reasons for moving the deletion?

The hon. member cannot circumvent my riding by using all the arguments to which I have objected.

I have no wish whatever to do so. I humbly submit to your ruling, and am only too willing to do so, but I want to know where I am in this House. My experience of Parliament has been five or six years, and in provincial council six years—and I was always under the impression that members are allowed to argue in support of the deletion of items. I have no intention of circumventing the Chair by any manner of means. We have arrived at a point where these special grants should disappear, and I ask the Minister whether he is actuated by motives of generosity to a province to which he belongs.

I must ask the hon. member now to resume his seat.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to say a few words in reply to what the hon. member (Mr. Hay) said before he resumed his seat. This is the second time he has made insinuations this afternoon which are unwarranted. I do not want to enter into that, when he talks of special grants having been made for ten years, and that they should decrease. He is also quite wrong when he says these grants were made as compensation for the loss of the seats of government of the two provinces. It has nothing whatever to do with it. The hon. member is confusing the grants with the two provincial grants, to Pietermaritzburg and Bloemfontein. These have nothing to do with what we have here. It has to do here with the financial relation with the provinces established by this House, and it is not necessary for me to defend that. Does the hon. member know that all the same revenues were not transferred to all the provinces? The Transvaal has certain revenues transferred to it which were not transferred to the other provinces. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has just raised the question that the Cape is clamouring for more grants per pupil for educational purposes. The Transvaal is treated more generously in that way. It could very easily be proved that the Transvaal is probably better off than any of the other provinces. It is not necessary for me to defend these grants until such time as it is proposed to repeal them.

Will the Minister kindly explain why there is a reduction of £24,125 in the instance of the Province of Natal?

Under the Act we engage only to pay a subsidy for children under seven years of age for a certain period, and that period has now elapsed. As a concession to Natal, we undertook to pay this amount until the end of the last financial year.

I am not prepared to follow the Minister in regard to subsidies because they are paid under an Act of Parliament. The 30,000 school minimum is paid to al) provinces at the same rate as that of the Transvaal. If the Minister quotes the South Africa Act, why was there a drop from £100,000 to £75,000?

I never said that.

The whole matter should be gone into from the point of equity.

Order.

If the hon. member wishes to re-open the whole question he should do so by bringing in a Bill. These grants were settled after the most careful investigation by a commission, they were after wards considered by the Government, and legislated upon by the House. I do not think it is quite in order for a member to suggest the deletion of items which are paid under an Act of Parliament which cannot be altered except by an amending Bill. If the hon. member feels very strongly regarding these grants let him bring in a Bill, and then the whole subject will be discussed properly.

With leave of committee, amendments withdrawn.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services,” £175,044,

There is a large increase for exchange on remittances, the amount voted last year being £10,000, while today’s vote is £25,000. What are the commissions on which the Minister proposes to spend £8,000? The amounts spent on commissions during recent years were 1922-’23, £6,000; 1923-’24, £5,000. The present Government came into office during the financial year 1924-’25, when the expenses of commissions were £15,000, and for 1925-’26 they were £13,000. One would have thought that the capacity for commissions is almost exhausted. Judging from some of the answers given this afternoon the Minister of Finance thinks his department is beyond criticism, but I would like to assure him that it is not so at all. For the last two years he has given no opportunity to the House to consider the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and the only opportunity we have to discuss subjects dealt with by that committee is to bring them forward in the House. It is no use the Minister becoming “rusty,” for I intend to bring these matters forward whether he likes it or not.

I have no objection to the hon. member criticizing anything, but he was not entitled to draw the conclusions he did without hearing the other side, as he would hear it in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He is quite entitled to criticize, but he must first find out what the facts are, and not make a general statement and say so many exemptions have been made. Let him criticize any particular point. I was told there was only one firm which could supply arsenate of soda. As to the grain bags, an offer was made by cable, and a reply had to be sent at once. The hon. member has pointed out the amount spent on commissions just prior to the Government taking office, but why did he not mention the figures for previous years, when the late Government spent three and four times as much on commissions as we have done?

Because you would expect the need for commissions would gradually cease.

The need never ceased under the previous Government, which in some years spent £20,000 on commissions. I cannot tell at the moment what commissions will be appointed, but demands are continually being made for commissions. We don’t multiply them unnecessarily, but people insist upon the Government appointing them. I do not know whether the full amount voted will be required, but we anticipate that there will be fewer commissions this year than last. The hon. member has raised the question of exchange on remittances. It is anticipated that the adverse exchange will continue this year.

In connection with Item D, Mailboat Service, Cape Town—Durban, £27,000, I would like to ask the Minister whether the post could not be carried by rail from Cape Town to Durban.

Under this item—

there is an increase of £4,000. The Minister has made a statement to the effect that he is entirely opposed to a State bank, and, as far as the Minister is concerned, apparently, we are left, as the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) says, with the expensive item in connection with the medium of exchange. We leave the profitable items to private enterprise. In connection with these expenses of mint, I wonder if it would be possible to take over the items where profit can be made, and whether it would be possible to take over the expenses of the mint and save the country this £49,500 a year. In addition, if the profitable side of the medium of exchange was in the hands of the State, the country would make a considerable profit in addition to saving this amount of £49,000. The agricultural and industrial communities, as well as the whole population in the country, would find a State bank to be a valuable asset, and for the Minister to stand up and simply state that he is against the State bank is not satisfying to a large proportion of the members of this House or the people of the country. We are entitled to ask, before the Minister makes such a statement, that he should be prepared to have a thorough and far-reaching investigation into the whole matter. I hope the Minister was joking when he made that definite and emphatic statement.

The hon. member cannot discuss a statement under this vote which requires legislation.

I would like to refer again to this item—

Earlier in the debate the Minister pointed out the principal reason why they transferred the account from the Standard Bank and Barclay’s Bank to the Reserve Bank was because of a favourable agreement they made with regard to the exchange of remittances.

I never said so.

I understood the Minister to say that. He said first that they only kept one set of accounts instead of two.

I gave no reason why we transferred the account. I merely said it was an advantageous arrangement.

Then I ask the Minister if he can give the House information regarding the arrangement which they have entered into with the Reserve Bank concerning the exchange of remittances. It seems to me the Government are paying a tremendous lot for exchange if they have got a favourable arrangement with the bank, and I would like some information regarding that arrangement.

Perhaps the most extraordinary account figuring in the estimates annually is the one appearing under the caption “miscellaneous services,” which, if the Minister will not mind me saying so, lends itself to many abuses. He said this matter should be left to the Public Accounts Select Committee, but we only get the report from that select committee towards the end of the session, and it is impossible then to draw attention to the recommendations and remarks made by that body which serves a very useful purpose. Let me take these miscellaneous services which are referred to in the Auditor-General’s report last year, page 122. You find Item R—

and on the following page, Item T—

What item is the hon. member discussing now?

Miscellaneous services, contingencies during the year.

Which contingency?

One of the contingencies which appear in the Auditor-General’s report.

What Auditor-General’s report? What year?

The present one on the Table of the House now. There is so much talking going on I cannot hear.

The hon. member must not discuss that now; it is last year’s.

There is an item under miscellaneous services—

My hon. friend is referring to some certain remissions of grace or favour which he objects to, and I ask, can he not be allowed to refer to it and to ask what they are for?

The hon. member may proceed.

It is a most extraordinary item, and it covers a multitude of sins. If you look through them you see refunds are made of money paid to the Government and debited to miscellaneous expenditure. In this case the interest is paid on moneys which should have been paid to the Government at a certain time. This country borrows money and the taxpayer has to pay the interest on the sums borrowed, and somebody knocks at the door of the Treasury and points out unsuccessful boring and asks for a refund. I submit the Government have no right to make these refunds. Other Governments have sinned, and we have pointed out these things before. Having said this, I hope the Minister will explain why these items have been allowed. I have only taken two to show how “miscellaneous services” covers a multitude of sins.”

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is not able to hand over item B, expenses of mint, to private enterprise. I understand that the Government is handing over the manufacture of paper money to private enterprise, and I want to know if the manufacture of metal tokens cannot also be handed over to private enterprise. In view of the fact that it has been announced this afternoon that a policy with which the whole Labour party totally disagree, namely, that the manufacture of paper money is to be handed over to private enterprise, cannot the manufacture also of metal money be handed over to private enterprise? I would like to ask, under the item G, administration expenses of Rents Acts, why it is that the Minister or somebody has reduced the sittings of the Durban Rent Board from 12 a month to 6 a month. There are, as a matter of fact, more cases coming before the Board to-day than there were six months or a year ago.

I would like to know from the Minister what this item is under D, rebate on port dues, Durban. Is this part of the consideration that we pay for mail steamers going round to Durban? I would suggest to the Minister that this item be transferred to the Natal Provincial Council. It seems to me that it is a matter incurred entirely in connection with Natal, and if they want the mail steamers to go round to Durban, I would suggest that the Provincial Council of Natal should devote some of its funds to that object, and that it should not be a charge on the Union taxpayer.

On item E, expenses of commissions, £8,000, I would like to raise a matter that was brought up by me early in the session in the form of a question. The question related to the payment of special subsistence allowance to members of commissions sitting during sessions of Parliament. When I raised the question before, the Minister refused to give me the information on the ground that the report of the Controller and Auditor-General had been referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and that it would probably be examined and reported on by that select committee. I prefer to bring the matter up here, rather than trust to the report of the select committee, which may probably come in at the tail-end of the session. I would like to refer the Minister to the specific questions which I raised earlier in the session. I wanted to know what justification there was for the payment to members of Parliament of this special allowance in view of the departmental regulation which clearly lays down that no members performing duties on commissions while Parliament is sitting should be entitled to anything additional to their ordinary parliamentary allowance. I put that question to the Minister, and I asked him if he could possibly justify these payments, and I repeat the question now. The Minister knows quite well that the Auditor-General, in reporting on this matter, incorporated in his report the opinion of the law advisers to the effect that the members concerned were not entitled to this special subsistence allowance, in view of the fact that the duties which they were alleged to have performed were performed while the House was in session. The question was then raised by the Auditor-General whether it would be possible to recover these moneys, but because the regulation was a departmental one and not a statutory one, he was told it would be impracticable to recover the amounts in the 1925-1926 accounts. I do not know that that has anything to do with the matter, and in any case the Minister has been asked by me whether he has ever made any attempt to recover this money. The answer was that I would have to wait until the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts was placed on the Table. I ask the Minister again whether any attempt has been made to recover this amount of over £600 which was paid to these members, and which they were clearly not entitled to under the regulations. I have never had a fair answer to this question, although I have raised it on two previous occasions. Who was the officer responsible, and what right had he to pass these accounts for payment with this departmental regulation before him? I would like the Minister to answer that question. My own opinion is that up to the present the Public Accounts Committee have not dealt with this matter at all, and for all I know they are not going to deal with it.

Quite wrong.

I think I am quite right. I think the report of the committee, when it comes forward, will show that I am right. This question may be shirked, and may continue to be shirked, but as often as it is shirked, so often will I bring it up in this House until the matter has been thoroughly ventilated.

The hon. member (Mr. Anderson) has no right to say that I have ever shirked this question. I do not intend doing so. As a matter of fact, I took the proper course under the rules of the House when he raised the question on previous occasions of pointing out to him that the matter was referred to in the report of the Auditor-General, which report was, by order of this House, referred to a select committee of Parliament. What right has the hon. member now to say that I have shirked this question? I have never refused to deal with it in this House, and I will deal with it now. Let me tell him that he need not cast the blame on any particular officer of my department. The payment which was made was made with my authority, not specific authority, but I take full responsibility for the payment, and let me also tell the hon. member that the practice which was adopted in paying this amount is the practice which existed in the Treasury under the previous Government. It has now been altered. We have laid down that in future, in connection with the fee to members of Parliament serving as members of commissions, if the commission sits in Cape Town while Parliament is sitting, no payment is made. Under the previous Government, hon. members in this House now on the Opposition side have drawn fees for commissions sitting in Cape Town while Parliament was sitting.

Who were they?

I am prepared to give the names, but I do not think it is necessary. The whole trouble has arisen, the Auditor-General has pointed out, because, strictly speaking, under the departmental regulations, regulations laid down for the guidance of the department, these payments that were made were not fees, but allowances, whereas in actual practice they were fees. This was done for the reason that there has always been some doubt as to whether a member of Parliament sitting on a commission and drawing more than his actual out-of-pocket expenses would not lose his seat under the South Africa Act. To get round that it used to be called an allowance, whereas, as a matter of fact, it has always been a fee. If it was not a fee, then the question would naturally arise whether such an allowance would be payable in Cape Town during the sitting of Parliament. That is where the trouble has arisen, but in a case where a member of Parliament was appointed to a commission, the Treasury simply regarded him in the same way as he was formerly regarded, that is, that while in Cape Town he was away from home. Subsequently the matter was righted. This practice complained of is exactly the same as the one I inherited when I took office.

Why not table the minutes of the meetings, as you have been asked to do?

I have no recollection that I have ever refused to give any information for which hon. members have asked me. I am quite prepared to do so.

As my colleague the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has indicated, there is a more serious side to this question.

Before the hon. member proceeds, I want him to tell me what commission this is he is discussing. Is it functioning at the present moment? If it is not functioning, of course it is out of order. As the Chair does not know what commission it is, I would like to ask him.

I am not familiar with the work of these commissions. I am only able to speak as to the comments of the Auditor-General.

What is the name of the commission?

I am unable at this moment to say what commission he refers to, because his comments were of a very comprehensive character.

I want to point out that a ruling has already been given by the Chair last year. During the discussion on sub-head E, the Chairman ruled that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was not in order in discussing the appointment of members of a commission which had ceased to function. The Chair is in the position that it does not know whether this commission is functioning or not.

May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in this vote there is an amount of £8,000 for commissions. Is it not within the province of hon. members, before they vote that £8,000, to know that a scandal of the character referred to will not occur again?

If the right hon. member takes that line and refers to the future, the Chair will allow discussion certainly to go on.

I was about to deal with the single point raised by the hon. member for Klip River with regard to certain information which I sought from the Minister some time ago. When the Minister was replying to a question from my colleague with regard to the names of the gentlemen who had received these fees, by way of supplementary question I asked the Minister if he was willing to lay on the Table the minutes of the several commissions referred to, and I specified those commissions. The Minister, with his usual courtesy, said he was quite willing, if I would put the question on the order paper, to give me all the information I desired. I accordingly put the question on the order paper, but when I asked that question the Minister adopted what seemed to me the unfair procedure of referring me to his previous statement that this matter was being investigated by a select committee, and he was not prepared to lay this information on the Table. I reminded him of his promise, and of the fact that it was recorded in Hansard, but the Minister replied that I must be content with his answer. That seemed to me to be withholding information which the House is undoubtedly entitled to.

I am sorry that the hon. member thinks there was any idea of withholding information. I never knew he thought his question was not adequately answered. I gave all the information he desired, but I pointed out that under the rules of the House the matter was being investigated by part of this House. All the information will be available either to the committee or to the House. I understand the minutes have now been asked for by the select committee, and are being made available to the select committee.

My point is they should have been available to this House.

The hon. member, I have no doubt, can get these minutes eventually if he wants them. They can be laid on the Table if hon. members desire. The minutes have been called for by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If they want to make them available to the House, they can do so. I am dealing with the main question, and that is whether the fact that members of Parliament on commissions were paid the ordinary allowances while in Cape Town—

Why should we be beholden to the select committee for these minutes?

I thought I was addressing the House. I will sit down if the hon. member wishes. I take it the charge is that improper payment was made to members of Parliament serving on commissions while they were in Cape Town, and to that I have given a complete reply by pointing out that we merely adopted the practice which was followed in the past. The hon. member may say it is not desirable in future. I have told the House that the Government have considered the matter, and we have altered the procedure.

It is certainly a laudable object which members on the other side have in view, but people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The main objection, as far as I understand it, against members of Parliament drawing fees while Parliament is in session is because those members are not supposed to have any extra expenses; their place of domicile is supposed to be Cape Town. The first objection of this kind was raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who objected to members of Parliament drawing these fees while here in Cape Town, and not having any extra expense. This hon. member, the first time he got an opportunity to go on a commission, did not refuse. He went on straight away; but he did more than that—he sat on a commission last year. Very often that commission sat, not only at his place of residence or where he lives (Johannesburg), but it also sat only in the evening, and he drew the full money for a day while he was sitting only for about an hour in the evening. I have a full statement here from the Treasury, and I find that Mr. Leslie Blackwell drew—

Which commission?

Drew the sum of £44.

Order. The hon. member is not permitted to discuss previous commissions.

Then the whole discussion is out of order.

This has a bearing on the future.

This commission has ceased to function.

I am not discussing the commission as such, but I am drawing an inference from the past as to the future procedure to be followed. I cannot see much difference, I may say, between a commission sitting at an hon. member’s home, and he drawing the fee, and one sitting in Cape Town —in principle there is no difference.

Quite wrong.

If people object to that, they should look at their own actions in the past.

The hon. member’s mind must be very obtuse indeed if he cannot see the difference between a member of Parliament serving on a commission when this commission is serving a useful purpose to the State, and drawing a subsistence allowance, and a member of Parliament attending a commission while Parliament, for which he will be required in Cape Town, is sitting, and his drawing £3 3s. a day. If he cannot see the difference between these two positions, it is an unfortunate thing that he should be sitting as a member of this House. What the Auditor-General calls attention to is the fact that, while Parliament was sitting, and these members were receiving their salaries, they were also drawing a subsistence allowance of £3 3s. a day while sitting as members of a commission.

Did they not draw their parliamentary allowance while Parliament is not sitting?

The hon. member may read page 20 and 21 of the Auditor-General’s report, which states that a sum of £652 9s. 1d was paid, and that the highest paid to a member was £236 5s., and the lowest £40 19s. If the hon. member would devote his attention during the dinner hour to reading the report of the Auditor-General, and the legal opinions of the law officers of the Crown, he would get different opinions from those he has now. This matter received very great attention at the National Convention when deciding the remuneration of members of Parliament. It was then decided that it was a very inadvisable thing to appoint members of Parliament to commissions, and pay them, if you could get outside people. The convention understood that a thing of that sort might be worked in a very irregular manner, and it was decided that members of Parliament should not receive remuneration. A regulation was introduced that a member should receive remuneration for subsistence, as it was thought there might be members who ought to sit on a commission. The thing I want to be certain of is to have an assurance from the treasury that if it is found necessary to appoint members of Parliament to a commission while Parliament is sitting, they shall not by side wind draw £3 3s. a day—which was never intended.

I have already pointed out that that was the sense of the House and of the country, and I have altered the regulation accordingly. But why did not the right hon. gentleman expend this righteous indignation when his Government was in power? I have told him I merely acted here in accordance with the practice I inherited. But he has tried to make out that there is a difference between the case cited by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and the case of a member of Parliament on a commission sitting in Cape Town while Parliament is in session. I pointed out, before I sat down, that formerly, under the previous Government, members of Parliament sitting on commissions were paid.

While Parliament was sitting?

While Parliament was sitting. Shall I give the right hon. member the information? He questioned it, but when I give the names he will admit that the point I am trying to make is a fair one. There is the Miners’ Phthisis Commission appointed by the previous Government, when the commission sat here in Cape Town, during the session, and we paid their ordinary fees. Two respected hon. members were drawing fees, the present hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson).

Why did the Auditor-General not raise it?

Yes, why did he not?

Surely not an hon. member from Natal?

Hon. members opposite have a full right to criticize; but let them not bring it up as if it is a heinous offence of the present Government, when it was a practice of the previous Government, and the present Government has altered it.

The Minister of Finance is quite correct, and I am glad to have the opportunity of making a personal explanation. I was a member of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission which sat in the years 1920-’21, as was the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson). After taking evidence, principally in the Transvaal, the commission, at the instance of the chairman, a distinguished judge, met at Cape Town to frame the report at the beginning of that year’s parliamentary session (1921) to enable the report to be presented with a draft Bill drawn up by the commission to Parliament that session—this was the desire of the Minister who hoped to pass a Bill that year. No evidence was taken at that sitting of the commission. On completion of the report, which occupied some days, the commission dissolved, and in the usual course a warrant was sent to each member for allowances including the days spent in Cape Town in drafting the report. It was paid and accepted without question, and no one ever thought or suggested that any irregularity had been committed. That is the history of the matter referred to by the Minister of Finance so far as I can, on the spur of the moment, remember it. If there is any question that any hon. member wishes to ask in connection with this matter I shall be glad to answer it.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one or two more things in this wonderful list of miscellaneous services. The Auditor-General points out that the expenditure under this heading has greatly increased. He also calls attention on page 125 to the extraordinary case of Mr. J. J. Strauss, and I cannot do better than read from the report. I move a reduction of the vote of £5,000 for contingencies by £1. There should be no such item, as it lends itself to abuses such as are exposed in the Auditor-General’s report. We cannot expect the newspapers to reproduce the whole of that report, as it is a very long one, but items of expenditure have been made which are not justified. If I prove my case I shall show that public funds, which are really money paid by the taxpayers, have been squandered, and, by so doing, we hope to reform the Government.

Do I understand the hon. member is now discussing an item which appeared in the 1925 estimates? These are not now before us.

I would be very pleased to learn from you, sir, as to how I am going to draw the attention of the public to items of expenditure, which, in my humble opinion, should not have been made.

The hon. member had an opportunity of doing that when the debate was in progress on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, or he might have done so on the vote for the Minister’s salary.

I would like to draw attention to the vote of £33,500 for the Cape Town-Durban mail boat service. This seems a terrible waste of money. Under the mail boat agreement of 1912 it was laid down that the ocean mail contractors should receive an annual subsidy of £27,000 to ensure that the mail boats should proceed from Cape Town to Durban, although the mails themselves are sent overland. That contract was terminated in 1922 and was renewed in 1924, and is now terminable by twelve months’ notice. Through failure to give that notice we are once more debited with this payment of £33,500. Is it necessary to contribute this amount for the honour and pleasure of the members for Durban to see the mail boats there?

Is the case of payment of members for sitting on commissions referred to by the Minister of Finance the only one he is able to trace during the fourteen years the late Government was in office? If there are any other cases of a similar nature, I would like to be informed of them, though I do not think the Minister can rightly claim that this one special case has established a custom which justifies the several payments made during the last year or so. If it is the case that it is not possible to differentiate between the one isolated instance which occurred in fourteen years and the numerous cases which have occurred under the present regime, then all those benefited should be requested to refund. Is it right to say because one payment was made under the late regime in 14 years that that is going to excuse those who have been receiving these allowances during the last year or two? I think all these members who have been illegally paid subsistence allowance should be required to make restitution regardless of whether the payments were made by this Government or under the late Government. If they receive money they are not entitled to under the regulations they should be asked to repay it. It is not fair to ask us to be beholden to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for the minutes of meetings called for by the hon. member for Illovo. We have asked the Minister for the minutes, and we hope he will accede to our request and give us an opportunity of perusing them. I do ask the Minister reconsider his attitude in regard to these minutes, and allow us to have access to them long before the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is tabled.

Evidently the hon. members when they speak about this particular question ignore the fact that members on both sides of the House have done the same thing. There is a temptation in questions similar to these where you know you can appeal to the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of the public to make political capital out of it. It is a pity the question was ever raised, because they are accusing members of Parliament generally of being men of no moral character, that they are taking fees to which they are not morally entitled. If commissions are sitting in Cape Town and members of the commission meet while the House is not actually sitting, then they are doing work whilst other members are away enjoying themselves. Select committees sit in the mornings and get no pay, and I know committees where I have sat on Saturdays without pay. In some cases they sit for two or three hours a day, and that constitutes a day’s work; many times they meet for one hour only. On other occasions they meet and have lengthy sittings. I have only sat on one commission myself, and on some days we met in the mornings and afternoons and then sat into the late hours of the night. There is not the slightest doubt members on that side of the House deprecate this discussion to-day, but there is a temptation on the part of some members to do this sort of thing when they think they can get at members on the other side of the House, without reflection on their own side. I hope hon. members will realize when they attack members on this side, they are not merely attacking their opponents, but are doing their utmost to bring Parliament into greater contempt in the country than it is at present.

In connection with this matter I just want to point out to hon. members opposite that they clearly think that only the members of the House who served on commissions that sat in Cape Town had no right to receive the allowances, but the Auditor-General and the legal advisers point out that no member of Parliament who has served on any commission during the past 14 years was entitled to the three guineas a day. Thus not only while Parliament was sitting, but for any meeting of the commission no member of Parliament has the right of drawing three guineas a day. It is stated clearly in the Auditor-General’s report that the members of Parliament serving on commissions had only the right to the payment of their reasonable disbursements and not to the three guineas per day. The report states that it is inconceivable on what ground the payment of three guineas took place, and that it cannot be reconciled with the regulations seeing that these provide that only reasonable disbursements should be repaid. It therefore is not merely a question of service as members of commissions in Cape Town during the parliamentary session. In the past, as the Auditor-General points out, it has always been the custom to pay three guineas a day, and it is a practice which we inherited from the late Government. Then I should like to ask the Minister a question in connection with our mint. How long does the Government intend us to continue paying this amount? The position to-day is that our mint is a branch of the Royal mint in Great Britain. Is it intended that we should continue to be a branch or shall we get our own mint so as no longer to be a branch of an oversea mint?

The argument of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) seems to me particularly ingenious. He suggests we should merely close our eyes to what the Auditor-General says; that it is a most infamous impertinence on our part to repeat what the Auditor-General has said and bring it into relation with the persons concerned. I believe the hon. member himself was one of the members who drew the three guineas allowance. I am not asserting on that ground there was anything infamous or immoral about it, but I associate myself with the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), and I say if the payment has been made and the Auditor-General says it is wrong, that payment should be refunded, I don’t mind who has received it. If members have been paid for their parliamentary time twice, they should refund the payment. We have cases of certain members who have been paid for meetings which, according to the minutes, did not actually take place. Claims have been filed for meetings which were not shown by the minutes of the commission to have taken place, and that seems to be irregular, and the whole thing could be liquidated by the Minister of Finance being guided by the Auditor-General, and calling upon all alike for a refund. In one case, £235 has been received by one member—

The hon. member may state a case, but is not allowed to go into the case deeply.

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

I move—

I hope the House is now in a better mood and that business can be proceeded with. It is very unfortunate that circumstances now are so that three years after our having had this law we have again to introduce an Emergency Loan Bill. As hon. members know, such a Bill can only be introduced in extraordinary circumstances, otherwise abuse might quite possibly take place. In consequence of the drought which has unfortunately prevailed in the country, and which we could do nothing to prevent, the Government has been obliged to introduce another such Bill. Hon. members know how serious the position is, especially in certain parts of the Cape Province where no rain has fallen for nearly two years, and terribly large losses have been suffered, and where, unless the Government had held out a helping hand, misery and starvation would have prevailed. And not only this, but many of the people would then be driven from the farms and the ranks of the poor whites would be swollen. The Government has already done a great deal to alleviate the circumstances by the carriage of stock by railway and which the Department of Agriculture has guaranteed. Subsequently it can be repaid, but the Government must now see that the people are assisted in order to be able to again make a living. I may say that this is not a class of people which always runs to the Government, but a class that has always stood on its own feet and shown a sense of responsibility to provide for their own and their families’ support. The drought of the past two years, however, was too much for them.

Is this not the same Bill as that of 1924?

Yes, mainly, but there are certain exceptions. I will return to them later. They are the result of our experience. In relation to the Act of 1924 our experience is that people have been assisted under it very successfully, and I am glad to be able to tell the House to-day that the damage suffered by the State will be very insignificant, and I feel fully justified to again come to the House and ask for a similar Bill to be passed, and for a vote to be placed at our disposal to enable the people who are now in distress to resume their farming as in the past. As hon. members, however, know, the drought was on a large scale and much money will be necessary to be able to assist all the people to restart farming on the lines they were accustomed to before the drought. It is not possible because it would require millions and we can therefore only assist in the serious cases where the commission recommends it. People will be lent amounts up to £300 but I also intend, after our experiences in 1924, to propose that as soon as a creditor notices that a man has again got back to normal circumstances and has already paid for some of the stock which he got from the Government the creditor shall not be able to go to the Land Bank and settle the balance which the man still has to pay and then to attach his stock and property. In that way we can avoid a man before he has paid off everything being brought into trouble by his creditors. The object of the Government is not to assist the creditors but to help the people on the farms and to keep them there. Therefore it is my intention to add in committee that before a man has fully paid off the stock got from the State it shall remain the property of the Land and Agricultural Bank, and may not be attached by any order of the court or by any creditor. Then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked what new provisions there were in the Bill. May I refer him to Clause 8? It slightly departs from the 1924 Act and lays down that when people in the districts are assisted they must become members of agricultural credit associations. I intend to drop sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 which says that a man must contribute 5 per cent. to the funds of the credit association, because I feel that it would not be fair to ask payment from a man before such a credit association comes into existence, and when such an association is formed it will only be fair that he should pay the £ which he would have to pay under such a loan from the Land Bank. May I just in addition tell hon. members that Clause 8 has been so drawn that when an agricultural credit association is formed persons who receive loans must be members of such credit associations to encourage co-operation, and to teach people to co-operate so that they can help themselves in the future. If the people were already members of similar agricultural credit associations, and bought the stock as such members, it would not be necessary to introduce such an extraordinary measure into the House. I received a deputation and it was objected that the point is so new that they did not have he opportunity of organizing, but when once the people are organized in the future they will be able to help themselves when there are extraordinary droughts or such like. Consequently the Government decided to draft this Bill and to give people who receive loans an opportunity to form a credit association and in that way to advance co-operation in the future. Now it may be said that there may be people who will be afraid of agricultural associations because the people to be assisted are poor, otherwise they could not be assisted. My answer is that it is much safer now for people who have anything to start agricultural credit associations, and to allow people who are now being assisted to join. The reason is that the wealthier members are now guaranteed that the stock and property which is given to people to assist them under the Bill will remain the property of the Land and Agricultural Bank and cannot be attached by creditors. Therefore, it is less dangerous to establish agricultural credit associations, especially because the wealthier persons now have the security which is given to help the poor people Those are more or less the alterations made in the Bill on the 1924 Act. It is not the intention to proclaim districts throughout the whole country. Although the second reading has not yet been passed, I am already receiving letters from various parts of the Union, which state how necessary it is for the Bill to be proclaimed there. In certain parts there has possibly merely been a hailstorm, and they now wish the law to be proclaimed there. If we do so, we shall require millions of pounds sterling, and we know that the House will not be prepared to vote millions. Therefore, the Act will only be proclaimed in parts where it is absolutely necessary, and the people are driven from their farms by emergency, and where the Government can assist to keep the people on their farms. The districts which have particularly suffered are Aberdeen, Beaufort West, Williston, Steytlerville, Jansenville, Prince Albert, Fraserburg, Murraysburg, and parts of Victoria West and Laingsburg. Sutherland, also, and a few other districts have suffered. I am already having a survey made of the losses sustained there, and let me say that the state of affairs in many parts is very serious. It is very serious in the Beaufort West division, and the people are already being given food. The Provincial Administration is dealing with the matter, and a great deal is being subscribed in certain parts of the country. Food and clothing are being sent, and if it were not for the action of the charitable societies and others, then the position to-day would have been much more serious. I have already had a survey made of the position, and it was found that a considerable number of farmers in Beaufort West will have to be assisted. The persons who can again resume their normal farming operations without the assistance of the State are not included, but the survey has shown that 400 farmers in the division of Beaufort West have had losses of about 50 per cent. of their stock. There are 316 farmers in Laingsburg who have suffered losses of small stock of about 30 per cent. The following figures will show how things have gone backward there. The number of small i stock in Laingsburg in 1923 was 198,000; in I 1924, 197,000; in 1925, 155,000; in 1926, 139,000. Since that time the farmers have suffered considerable damage, so that farming in the district is steadily going back, owing to the severe droughts., Tile position is also serious in Sutherland, and in Prince Albert things are very bad. I shall not now detain the House by quoting all the figures which I have at my disposal with reference to the survey made. It is also unnecessary to go into all the clauses of the Bill. Hon. members know the 1924 Act and, with a few exceptions, this Bill is for the most part identical. Although there has now been rain at many places, it will be a good thing if the committees are appointed as quickly as possible; and therefore I shall be glad if the Bill is passed as quickly as possible. I hope now that hon. members will not love the Bill so much as to talk it out, and I hope that they will assist to expedite its passage. The Prime Minister said to day that he hoped the session could be concluded towards the middle of June, and if this Bill is debated very much, it may be put low down on the Order Paper. I therefore appeal to hon. members who approve of and support the Bill to assist in its being put on the statute book as quickly as possible. I do not think that either side of the House will raise any difficulty, because every member knows that if agriculture goes back, then every part of society will suffer.

All sections of the House will welcome the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am extremely glad that the Minister has seen fit to introduce legislation on practically the same basis as that passed under similar circumstances by the previous Administration. During the recess I made special enquiries in regard to the operation of the previous Act. I heard of many people who would absolutely have been ruined had it not been for the grants in stock made to them under the previous Distress Relief Act. I was informed of many cases of deserving people who had been faced with ruin, but who had completely re-established themselves owing to the assistance given them by the Government. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us the amount of money that was advanced by Government and the small amount that has been lost. Owing to Government keeping control of the stock and their progeny the State had perfect security for the moneys it advanced to distressed farmers. I agree entirely with the Minister that if there is any desire on the part of creditors to press their claims unduly it would be advisable to allow a small amount to remain owing to the Land Bank, so that ruthless creditors cannot step in and take everything. We are giving grants only to people who were legitimate farmers. I am extremely glad that the Minister has seen the necessity of re-introducing this legislation. Never has the condition of the country been so deplorable as it has been in many of the drought-stricken areas. If the State does not come to the assistance of these unfortunate people, there are hundreds of them of a most respectable and hard-working class who will become poor whites and will never have an opportunity of rehabilitating themselves. That advance having been practically all repaid I do not think my hon. friend is asking the Land Bank or the Treasury to take unnecessary risks in coming to the assistance of these people, because so far as the State is concerned by rehabilitating these people the credit of the State is going to be increased thereby. I would like to draw attention to the alteration in the last clause of the Act. My hon. friend says that within three months of securing a loan the man who secures the loan must become a member of a credit society.

If one is formed in his district.

Yes. And I understand the Minister has said that he will not press the portion of the clause which makes provision for the man to pay into the society 5 per cent. of the product of any stock he sells. A man with two or three hundred head of sheep and with a wife and children to support, 5 per cent. during the first three or four years is a considerable amount to him indeed. What I am afraid of and my hon. friend is also afraid, I regret to see there has not been that encouragement to form these credit societies which it was thought would improve the position. In many districts of this country people in a better position hesitate to lend their assistance to credit societies and the moment they are asked to join them they say, “Why ask me who have got something to stand joint and several security with people who have practically got nothing?” There is no doubt the great extent of this country is one of the reasons you are not able to establish these credit societies as they do in Europe. In Europe they have been a success in closely populated areas where the amounts the people want are very small indeed and if my hon. friend finds it so very difficult to get people not the man he gives the money to, to join a credit society it is because after the man has got the loan he must join the credit society which consists of not less than seven members and the question is what will the opinion be of those who have formed societies on the question of allowing this man to come into their midst.

They may refuse.

Then the Minister will not press them?

No I cannot.

Then if that is will still advance the money I wish him every them and will still advance the money I wish him every success in this Bill. The House cannot do under existing conditions a better action than to extend credit to a deserving section of the farming population of this country who, owing to the fearful drought, are placed in a position of almost ruination and despair, if the State does not come to their assistance. If rains fall, and they get reasonable assistance, I think my hon. friend’s experience will be that these people will be willing to pay, and the State will not be the losers in this transaction.

I think we all agree with the last speaker, and with the Minister, that there is a general feeling in the country that there is a need for the kind of credit which is proposed in this Bill. This is the third time that a Bill of this sort has come before the House, and, as it has been required three times, it clearly appears that there is a defect in the system of agricultural credit in the country. If we studied the existing system carefully, we should find that there actually were defects. The farmers require two kinds of credit. The first kind is necessary for the purchase of ground, the making of improvements and the acquisition of general plant, such, e.g., as stock. This is called long-term credit. It is a large amount of capital which the farm is not able to pay off quickly. Therefore we make provision for this kind of credit through the Land Bank, so that the farmers can get loans for the purchase of ground, the erection of fences, the building of dipping tanks and of dams. The farmers are enabled to repay the money borrowed according to a sound system of amortization. Another kind of credit required by the farmers is business capital to keep the farming going, and for this kind of credit a long term is not usually necessary, because at the end of every year they have enough income to more or less be able to repay the capital. This credit is, e.g., necessary for the purchase of fertilizer, seed, machinery, labourers’ wages, or marketing of produce. Better provision has to be made for the other kind of long-term loans. An opportunity is given under the existing statues for the farmers to obtain this kind of loan, viz.: for the purchase of stock for which provision is now being made in this Bill. The stock are the equipment for the farm, and long credit is necessary for the purpose. Under the Land Bank law the farmer can purchase ground and fence it, but cannot buy stock, and the defect in our Agricultural Credit Act is that the farmer cannot obtain long-term credit to buy stock, except under the Land Settlement Act, but settlers are only entitled to that.

What about the small co-operative societies?

My point is just that the loans which the farmers can obtain under the Agricultural Credit Act are of no use to them in this respect, because the loans they can obtain there have to be paid off by them within two years, and that is not long enough for the purchase of stock, and they need long-term loans, and so long as that defect is not remedied there will always be Bills before the House to enable farmers to buy stock. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Agriculture will seriously consider enabling the farmers to purchase stock under the ordinary provisions of the Land Bank Act. Now it is usually objected that the farmers can give no security or not sufficient security for stock. What security, it is asked, can the farmers give for stock? But we must bear in mind the lesson of other countries, and in this connection so amend the Land Bank Act as was done in the credit legislation in America. There the farmers can obtain such loans for the purchase of stock, and they give a mortgage on the stock. Let us also introduce the system enabling the Land Bank to make advance if a mortgage on the stock is given. It is not necessary for the Land Bank always to advance money up to the full value of the stock, but it can advance merely up to 60 or 70 per cent. Often the farmers have a few hundred pounds themselves, but not enough to continue their farming with, but if they then get a further £300 or £400, then they have £600 or thereabouts, enough to continue farming. Therefore, I plead for the system that farmers should obtain loans from the Land Bank for the purchase of stock, and that they shall be long-term loans. And if the Land Bank is covered up to 60 or 70 per cent. by a mortgage of the cattle, that is sufficient security. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said, and we all know it, that under the Drought Emergency Loan Act the State constantly gives 100 per cent. credit on the stock, and, as is generally acknowledged, the Government has never really yet had any losses of any importance. The farmers have so far always been able to pay back. What danger does the State run if only 60 to 70 per cent. credit is given on the stock? If the amendment is made in the Land Bank Act it will not constantly be necessary to introduce legislation of this kind. If there is one thing that the farmers must learn, then it is to help themselves, but then there should also be the means of doing so, and until the means are provided he will come to the Government every time in the humiliating position of asking for assistance by means of Emergency Loan Bills, and it will be much better and help more effectively, and because the provision in this Bill with regard to agricultural credit associations does not assist the farmers, I object to Clause 8. It wants indirectly to compel the farmers to become members of agricultural credit associations, but it will not assist them much in their loans to buy stock, because they will not be able for that purpose to get long-term loans, but will have to pay back within two years, though the loans ought to be for five years. This creates an intolerable position. The Government admits, in the first instance, that long-term loans are necessary, but then the farmers are compelled to join societies which can provide short-term credit but not long-time credit. The provision is unsound in compelling the farmers to become members of short credit associations. Let us alter this so that the Land Bank shall be entitled to grant loans in the usual way for the purchase of stock. Then it will no longer be necessary in future to pass this kind of legislation. Moreover, we all know as well that the farmers object to the unlimited liability attached to membership of the agricultural credit associations, and it does not assist things at all to argue that the farmers should develop more social consciousness and should help each other. We shall not get the farmers so far as to accept the principle of unlimited liability.

What about Oudtshoorn

It is not only our experience in South Africa that the principle is unacceptable, but in other countries of the world. In Germany and Holland the system has been adopted, and has moved and developed well; but as soon as the principle was applied to England and America it did not work, because the people were accustomed to limited companies. Therefore the principle of unlimited liability did not develop in America. Before we adopt the principle that the unlimited liability cannot be adopted in South Africa, we shall not make a success of this legislation. I think that we can actually make a success of our Agricultural Credit Act, but then we must make the Bill in such a way that it suits the taste of the farmer, and does not compel them to do a thing which they cannot agree with. The Minister has just asked—

but there is limited liability there in the case of members of the two large co-operative societies with regard to ostrich feathers and tobacco, and the societies would not yet have been so successful to-day if we had compelled the farmers to accept unlimited liability. Only by applying limited liability have these societies progressed so well. Before we enable the farmers to help themselves, our credit legislation will not be a success. I quite agree that it is absolutely unsound to be always passing legislation like this; but I say it is necessary, because there is no system of credit which enables the farmers to help themselves. The defect can easily be remedied, as was done in America, where there was great success; and I see no reason why we cannot do the same here. This, however, does not mean that we must not be thankful to the Minister of Agriculture; but I hope that it will not remain at that. As assistance is here being granted, we must also provide for the future, so that the farmers can help themselves when they are in need, and not have to run to the Government every time for special legislation. It will be much better for us to have a credit system which the farmers could use to help themselves.

It is unfortunate that so soon after the passing of the last Bill of this sort there should be need for another to be passed, but no one who knows the conditions of the country, especially the hinterland of the part whence I come, will question the need for this. The annual report of the Land Bank on the working of the Drought Distress Relief Act of 1924 makes interesting reading. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asked for certain particulars, to which I would like to make reference, but I cannot do it in five minutes, so I am hoping that the Minister will agree to the adjournment of the debate.

On the motion of Sir William Macintosh, debate adjourned: to be resumed tomorrow.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged the Rev. Mr. Mullineux from service on the Select Committee on Public Accounts and appointed Mr. Kentridge in his stead.