I move—

This Bill is intended to give effect to the budget proposals in regard to income tax and also the proposals passed yesterday in Committee of Ways and Means. Hon. members will see on referring to the Bill that in Clause 1 we fix the rates and provide for the proposed 20 per cent. rebate. In Clause 2, we make provision for the proposed obsolescent allowance in regard to industrial machinery. Clauses 3 and 5 extend the existing abatements first in regard to children to £75 and also in regard to widows and widowers to be treated for income tax purposes as married persons. In Clause 4, provision is made for the exemption for income tax purposes of farmers’ permanent improvements. Here we also give effect to the proposal adumbrated in the budget. The rates both in regard to normal and super-tax will remain in the same as in the previous year subject to the rebate of 20 per cent.

I would like the Minister to give us an explanation in connection with Clause 4. If my memory serves me right, he told us that he will be surrendering £80,000 by this allowance to farmers for improvements. It seems to me the Minister visualizes improvements to the value of £1,500,000 or so. I do not know whether I am correct, but I think the Minister is very optimistic if he thinks farmers are going to make improvements to an extent which will mean £80,000 being surrendered by the Treasury. If the Minister is right he might just as well surrender the lot.

In connection with the rebate which is being given I want to ask the Minister if he cannot make a further concession to persons who are providing for dependents. The rebate for each child is now increased, but when a person is looking after a dependent he may not get more than £30 rebate. I think that as in the case of a child, £75 may be deducted, that amount should also be larger in the case of dependents. It applies especially in the case of ladies who have dependents they must support, even if they are not children. They are already in the position of earning less than men, but yet they do not get the rebate which the head of a household gets. Then in connection with the rebate for farming improvements I want to ask the Minister to provide for the fruit and wine farmers. As a rebate is being given for dams, boreholes, fencing, etc., we feel that no rebate is being given for growers of fruit or wine. I shall therefore move in the committee stage that a rebate be allowed for the making of orchards and vineyards and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. Then I only want to add that I am very sorry that the Minister has not made the 20 per cent. rebate permanent. I think that is an error of judgment. The Minister should have deducted the rebate better every year then he would, if it were necessary in bad times, be able to reduce the rebate instead of imposing fresh taxation.

The majority of us do not see why the farmer should be allowed to deduct charges from his income any more than the ordinary income tax payer. I think we all recognize that the Minister has taken the least objectionable method of dealing with the matter. He has been pressed to the extreme limit to grant exemption of farmers with regard to income tax, and as a compromise he has allowed capital charges to be deducted. We recognize that we will have to succumb. I do suggest that at any rate the income tax people should treat other income tax payers generously in regard to depreciation. The rest of the taxpayers cannot expect the very generous treatment the Minister is meting out to the farmers, but I think that the income tax authorities can treat the rest of the income tax payers generously with regard to depreciation.

What class of income tax payer?

All of them. The income tax department in the last two years has been treating the question of depreciation much more reasonably, and I hope that spirit of reasonableness will be extended. There is one thing the Minister might consider with regard to other income tax payers. Under the Act of 1919 and prior Acts, donations to public institutions, ecclesiastical, educational and charitable bodies were allowed to be treated as a trade expense, and deducted from income, and I think it would be a graceful action on the part of the Minister, considering that he is in such a generous mood with the farmers, to consider putting in this Act the provision of the 1919 Act. I think that all charitable and educational institutions would benefit by such a provision. At the present time any commercial man making a donation to any public institution like that is not allowed to charge that to his profit and loss account. It is written back by the income tax people; the assessor has to do so under the Act of 1925. I acquiesce with regret that farmers should not be treated as other members of the community, but I recognize that the Minister is not a Mussolini, and he has behind him strong legions who are in favour of these deductions being made by farmers. If a farmer earns a very poor income, he pays very little income tax.

Would the Minister not see his way clear to grant exemption for capital charges on water furrows? I refer particularly to water furrows for irrigation purposes. Exemption is granted for dams and pumping plants and water furrows are certainly necessary for the latter.

I would like to ask the Minister whether under section (2) motor vehicles would be included which are used solely for the purposes of that particular business, like delivery vans. Would the allowance here cover vans used for trade or business purposes?

With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) I may say that the amount of £80,000 which we expect to sacrifice in income tax is not only made up of the exemption for farming purposes but the total figure is in respect of the three heads: farming, increased compensation for children, and in connection with machinery for factories. The figure in connection with the reduction for farming purposes is estimated at about £50,000. As the hon. member knows the taxable income of the farmers has considerably risen during recent years and the figure the hon. member is thinking of must apply to some years ago. As for the point raised by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) I am prepared to accept the amendment which will also include the cost of planting fruit trees in connection with these farming improvements. I said at the time that this principle now being adopted could not be scientifically defended, and I realized that hon. members would come and ask that other things should also be added to the list. I fear that I cannot hold out the hope of granting an increased exemption in connection with dependents. It is of course a financial matter but I do not think it is necessary to say more about it. The same applies to the request of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) regarding charitable donations. As he rightly said the principle was included in the Act some years ago, but there were very good reasons of abandoning it and we cannot revert to it. In connection with depreciation the hon. member admits that my department takes up a quite reasonable attitude. It is a question of tax and it is for the taxpayer to prove in each separate ease what the depreciation is. Our department is now treating every case on its merits and very fairly. As for machinery the hon. member will notice that provision is not only made for depreciation, but also for the total writing-off, if the machinery becomes useless. As for the question by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) I understand that the provision is quite broad enough for the writing-off of motor lorries for business purposes when they become useless.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House In Committee:

On Clause 3,

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to what seems to me to be an injustice under this section, having regard to the principle underlying the clause. Many of us have sons and daughters who have to be educated beyond the age of 21. This is a great expense to the taxpayer, and the children become of greater service to the country by being so educated. Cannot this be taken into account?

No. It took a good deal of argument and persuasion to get the age raised. I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member to go beyond 21 years.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In my reply before the second reading I forgot to reply to the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller). He asked that capital expenditure on water furrows should also be allowed to be deducted for income tax purposes, and I am prepared to agree to it as it is a sub-division of Irrigation. The hon. member may move the amendment.

I move—

I move—

I want to thank the Minister heartily for the concession and I am certain that the farmers will also be very thankful to him for it.

As the Minister has so kindly granted the request with regard to fruit trees, I hope he will accept a further amendment to include plantations.

No, there is no hope of that.

I would like to point out with regard to fencing material, particularly with regard to wine farmers, much fencing material is used for trellises for vines and it is impossible to keep that material separate from similar material for fences.

It is a part of the establishment of orchards and vineyards.

I understand that the Minister is accepting an amendment to allow capital expenditure on fruit trees and vineyards to be deducted for income tax purposes.

Yes.

Now I want to know whether expenditure for export purposes such e.g. as the trellising of grape vines is also included.

Yes, it is included.

I think the Minister is optimistic if he thinks the amount sacrificed in farmers’ income tax will be £50,000. It means that the taxpayers will spend £1,000,000 or £800,000 in capital expenditure for farming purposes.

I cannot say that it will be less.

I think the Minister can sacrifice the whole amount. With regard to the objection of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) I want to mention another side of the matter. I am certain the Minister will agree that the Treasury loses thousands of pounds inasmuch as business men e.g. are permitted to deduct their losses on farming from their income from other sources. I do not for a moment wish to state that influences the hon. member for Newlands, but he will possibly benefit by it, and so also may the Minister of Finance. I have myself on several occasions benefited by it as I am able to write off my losses in my farming against my income from other sources. If the Minister does not meet me then I will raise the matter again next session. I suggest that the Minister should do what I ask and sacrifice the whole amount of farmers’ income tax. My hon. friend here (Mr. Stuttaford) must not forget that the Department of Finance loses thousands of pounds annually because various people deduct their losses on farming from their other income. I asked the Minister to enquire into the question of the losses of the Treasury in this respect,

It is not a question of finance.

If it is not a question of finance why must the burden be put on the farmers? If the Minister gets nothing from the farmer why then must they be compelled to fill in the forms? He will himself admit that it is an annoyance and a bother to them.

I would like the Minister to accept an amendment. Throughout the whole of the wattle and sugar industries there has been an expenditure on the construction of tram lines which is a very necessary part of agriculture. I move—

I cannot accept this now. It will need much further consideration before I can grant that request. The hon. member might discuss the matter with my department later on.

*With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), I think he should be satisfied with the arrangement. There are persons who urge the total abolition of income tax in the case of farmers, but there are many other farmers who do not agree with that.

Who are they?

There are farmers who passed a resolution at meetings that the total exemption would be a definite insult to them. We must assume that this Bill is a very fair compromise and a way out of the difficulty. The total exemption is not a matter we can discuss now. As for the future I hope that the farmers will appreciate that we have gone very far to meet them, and that they must not raise the point that they ought to be completely exempted.

I am glad that this has been done. The farmer often has a very hard time, and I would like to induce people to go on the land. I want to know if the Minister has taken steps to safeguard the public purse from abuse of this abatement on the part of the farmer and make it possible in every way for those already on the land to remain there. As a farmer I do not want to be misjudged. In the sub-section (e) abatement is allowed for money spent on the prevention of soil erosion? Are these works to be approved of by competent officers of the Government or of divisional councils before such abatement is allowed?

Surely the hon. member does not want us to put up machinery to see if the farmer’s expenditure has been judicious in all cases. In many cases he might incur injudicious expenditure but the hon. member does not expect us to create machinery to supervise this. We might have to expend a large sum.

Soil erosion affects the whole country.

The expenditure is a question of fact. He is not going to throw away his money—whether he has had value for it was his own affair.

I should like to ask the Minister whether or not soil erosion applies to work done on the river bank for the protection of the riparian farms.

Yes, it could. The department will give the widest investigation to the words “soil erosion.”

In regard to my amendment I would point out that 85 per cent. of the small sugar farmers have tramlines on their farms which are necessary for the conveyance of their produce. I move an amendment for purpose of record in order that the Minister should know what is intended.

I should like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to exempt from taxation, the money paid in reduction of mortgages. We know that most of the farmers have bonds over their land and they do not have a surplus every year, but if they are possibly fortunate in one year they sell some of their sheep to reduce the bond a little, and on that amount they have to pay income tax. I should be glad if the Minister could make an exception in that case.

The hon. member must understand that we have here to do with revenue, and if a man has a revenue from the sale of sheep he must of course pay income tax on it. My hon. friend is now practically suggesting that the farmers ought not to pay on their income at all. That of course we cannot permit.

I want to move—

For this amendment I think one can make a fair case. In clause 4 you will find that for the first time, as far as I know, the Minister proposes to break down the principle which runs through our income tax laws ever since we have had them. He proposes to allow farmers to charge capital expenditure against income. I understand the reason for this departure is that the farmers of South Africa have been undergoing hard times as has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben). It may be the hon. Minister introduced this because he knew of particular cases of hardship, but it is perfectly clear that it is a startling innovation. The Minister must have had some special information put before him. This remission of taxation to the farmers really destroys the whole principle of the income tax, and it seems to create a distinction based on class or occupation. The progressive farmer who wishes to extend his operations will, under this proposal, be able to devote the whole of his income to developments and thus make no or very little contribution in the shape of income tax to the national exchequer. In fact, the proposal is a premium paid to the progressive farmer for improving his property by constructing dipping tanks, erecting fences, preventing soil erosion and so on. Exactly the same principle can, however, be applied to those engaged in any kind of industry. I do not put it on the ground of hardship, but the Minister by adopting my suggestion would encourage the progressive and enterprising industrialist to extend his factory and therefore provide more employment. This premium should be extended, otherwise we have the result that the farmer alone will receive a remission of taxation because of efforts to develop his own industry. I am not quarrelling with the proposed remission, but what is the difference between a progressive farmer and a progressive industrialist? I can see no distinction in principle. We on this side of the House have always assisted in the extension of industries and the increasing of employment. The only argument against my suggestion is that it might involve a remission of revenue, but that objection has not been urged against the remission of taxation to farmers. Our finances are in a healthy state; why not apply some of our fortuitous wealth from diamonds to the encouragement of industry? A good case can be made for the extension of this premium on progressiveness.

I do not wish to object to the hon. member’s point, but desire to point out that farmers in other parts of the world are treated differently, so far as income tax is concerned, from the ordinary taxpayer. I think the Minister is following a very wise course in adopting that system. I wish, however, to raise the point of order whether it is competent for the hon. member to move his amendment to a clause which deals only with farmers.

When I listened to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) it seemed to me that whilst he was pleading on behalf of the manufacturers, he was really endeavouring to induce the House to delete the clause. We have been listening in this House to speeches about the woes of the poor farmer who, we are told by the Opposition, is being prejudiced as a result of protection.

As section 15 of the principal Act deals exclusively with taxation of income derived from farming this amendment is not relevant to the clause under consideration. In terms of the “amendment of the law” resolution agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means, it can, however, be moved in the form of a new clause.

I am speaking as one who believes in the general policy of protection. In some respects the farmer is perhaps prejudiced by the ordinary policy of protection, but indirectly he benefits by the fact that under protection his home market is extended. Whilst we cannot assist the farmer by giving him protection on the ordinary food of the people to the full extent he desires, we can help him by income tax remissions. If the Government’s proposal, which I support, is a premium on progressiveness, then it is an excellent policy to follow. The position of the farmer is quite different from that of the manufacturer, with whom I have every sympathy, but the manufacturer receives his help through the tariff.

This is not the first time the question has been raised in this House, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) knows that on several occasions I have told the House that the exception made in the case of the farmer cannot be justified on its merits. I am making a serious breach in our income tax policy. I do not think the hon. member was quite serious when he adduced the arguments he did. If he is serious, then this is a thinly disguised fact on the whole principle. The hon. member is one of the few members who do not agree with the proposal. Because he does not agree, he now wants to introduce this amendment about the industrialists. Of course, I cannot accept that principle. We are making this breach in our income tax legislation because there are exceptional reasons in the case of the farmer which do not apply in the case of the industrialists. Parliament and the country is prepared to accept this departure, but I do not think Parliament and the country would be prepared to apply it to the case of the industrialists, because the same reasons do not apply. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I am not prepared, and I think the majority of members on both sides would not be prepared, to agree with the hon. member to apply the same principle to industrialists, and certainly I will contest the amendment.

That point cannot be further discussed under this clause.

Amendments proposed by Mr. van Coller and Mr. le Roux put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 4,

I move—

I should like to hear from the Minister what reasons there are for not allowing this as an ordinary expense, to be charged against income. I agree it could be liable to abuse, but I think regulations might be drafted which would prevent that. When this provision was contained in the income tax legislation, it was a help to charitable institutions. Take the case of our housing troubles in Cape Town. If a company or private firm is prepared to give a donation to assist in that problem, they should not be charged income tax on the amount given in that way. It would be a very valuable provision in the income tax law, and I do want the Minister to sympathetically consider this amendment.

I am sorry to say that when I brought the matter to the notice of the Minister the other day he did not quite want to go into it. I notice that he is now looking angrily at me. I believe he is still opposed to it but I think that if there is one thing we ought to encourage, it is charity. I need not mention the name but there is a farmer in my constituency who has already given away about £15,000 out of his income in farming, for church purposes, mission work, etc. Only last year he gave at least £600 worth of wheat for good purposes. When he, however, makes up his income tax returns he has to pay on that amount. I think if the Minister wants to do a good thing he can do no better than to exempt from the tax donations for charitable purposes. The Minister will possibly have to carefully define gifts for charitable purposes, but the principle must be accepted because it will encourage charity. Take for instance the hospitals in South Africa which to say the least are in a parlous state. Much more would be given to our hospitals if those amounts were not subject to taxation. I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) with the utmost pleasure.

I am sorry that I cannot comply with the request. My hon. friends will see that if I conceded everything they asked for it would influence the whole budget, and on principle it is not possible for the Minister of Finance to accept a motion when the Income Tax Bill is before the House. We need not go into the merits of the question because charity is a matter for the public. It is a very good thing for a man to be charitable but let him practise charity at his own expense and not at that of the State because that is what would happen if the proposal were accepted. I am sorry but I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Proposed clause put and negatived.

I move—

I must object to the attempt made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) followed by the Minister of Finance to distort my intentions into an advocacy of the principle of free trade. It was made abundantly clear that I have raised no objection whatever to this premium on progressiveness, as I call it. The Minister has said it is the policy of Parliament and of this country to allow this particular concession on the incomes of those engaged in farming, and put no other ground to the committee. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) did give a reason, and that was to compensate the primary producer for the effects of the protective tariff. But farmers are not the only primary producers in South Africa, and the hon. member’s reason cannot therefore be a valid one. As far as the gold mines are concerned—and they are primary producers—we actually, in this Act, fail to give them the relief of the 20 per cent. rebate. Consequently there is one discrepancy in the argument of my hon. friend, which he has not explained. The Minister thinks I was not very serious; on the contrary, I am very serious and I am putting the matter seriously. It is on the ground of the development of industry in the Union, and that has not been dealt with by the Minister in his reply. We, on this side—I personally have always done so—support the principle of giving reasonable support to our own industries. Probably the Minister has, in his mind, the loss of revenue involved. If it is the policy of this Parliament to encourage manufacturing industries in our own country, there is no reason why this amendment should not be adopted.

As the proposed new clause is not relevant to section 15 of the principal Act I regret I am unable to put it in the form in which it has been moved.

I move—

It is not a new idea; I have raised the point previously. I believe the late member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) also raised the point with the income tax collector who said it was not admissible as a deduction. There is one of the sections of the Act of Union which calls it an allowance and not a salary—subsequently altered by legislation. The expenditure is incurred legitimately insofar as it is disclosed in the returns.

That is a very suspicious reservation.

An unsuccessful candidate is even more unfortunate, because we know of cases recently where even the £50 deposit has been forfeited. The money has to be expended, and it is something you have to show in your return; if you fail to do so certain penalties follow.

Proposed clause put and negatived.

Clause 7 and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move—

Hon. members will see that we have made provision in the schedule for the reduction of customs duties as a result of our decision to remit a certain amount of customs revenue. In addition to those reductions we propose to allow a rebate of the whole or any part of the duty otherwise payable on steam wagons, motor trucks and trailers, imported for use by any local authority in road construction or maintenance. That is under clause 1 and under the same clause provision is made for a rebate on articles intended solely for use in the packing and conveyance of paraffin, which is an extension of the privilege given to petrol companies. There is a clause with regard to motor bodies. During last year the department had some difficulty as to the literal construction of the tariff item respecting chassis, and we are now putting the matter right in accordance with the original intention of the board of trade and industries. In Clause 4 we provide for a rebate or a refund of the whole or any part of the excise duty otherwise payable on sugar manufactured or refined in the Union when used for certain manufacturing purposes, and also for a rebate of excise duty on potable spirits used in government or public hospitals. Provision is made in Clause 6 for a remission of duty on spirits exported as medicinal preparations for consumption outside the Union.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House In Committee:

On Clause 2,

I want to ask the Minister what is meant by the words: “A rebate of the whole or any part of the duty.” It is a common expression in such a measure as this, but I want to know whether the effect of that is that it is left to the Commissioner of Customs to allow the whole of the duty or any part of the duty. It seems to be undesirable that there should be any uncertainty as to how much of the duty is to be remitted.

I understand from the department that this phrase has appeared in our customs Acts for a very long time, but the practice is to allow the whole of the duty. I am not aware of any reason why this phraseology is used. I will consider it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to know what the object is of deeming the amendments to have been in operation as from the 1st day of June, 1926, and the 8th day of June, 1928. Perhaps the Minister will explain?

A difficulty arose with regard to interpretation, and we did not want the industry to be shut down while the matter was being enquired into.

Why should it date back to 1926? The Customs Act has been amended since then.

The department has found that according to the specification of the item as it stood there was some doubt as to whether the law was being carried out.

What amount is involved? There is an unusual tenderness with regard to a particular class of importer. The ordinary importer is told, when he evades the Act, that he has got to pay. In the meantime the ordinary importer does not get a refund, and this very sympathetic feeling shown here.

The amount involved is considerable, but it is not a question of an extra amount of sympathy. We have had to deal with a very important industry employing nearly 1,000 people, and if we had stuck to the literal interpretation, it would have meant practically the closing down of the industry.

I doubt it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the schedule,

Are you taking the schedule as a whole?

Yes, as a whole.

Item 342 (b). It will be seen that the duty is being raised on refined vegetable fats. The usual method in dealing with these items is that the board generally consults the users of these commodities to learn the effects of any revision of duties. I do not think this has been done.

They are coming in free; they are not made here.

They are coming in free, but it is only to manufacture. This new rate affects sweet and pastry manufacturers and bakers, and it means that they will have to pay thousands more than they have now to pay, and it will only, presumably, help one or two manufacturers of these commodities. I understand that some of these vegetable fats are not made in this country at all, and I suggest that the Minister should refer this item back.

We are merely withdrawing the rebate.

It will effect an increase in the cost of production. These manufacturers do not see why their cost of production should be increased to the advantage of a couple of companies. They maintain, first of all, that the South African fat is not only higher in price, but inferior in quality, and they would be perfectly willing to buy South African produce if it were possible to use it in the production of the articles they make. They also take up the position that all their orders for Christmas goods have gone overseas, and now they are to be mulcted in an increased duty, and not have a rebate on this item. They also ask why we should have such a kindly feeling towards the biscuit manufacturers, while we have not extended the same feeling to the cake or sweet manufacturer. There is a difficulty of administration in this matter for the biscuit manufacturer also makes cakes and pastry. How is the department going to check that none of these fats are to be used to make pastry? It seems to me that the Board of Trade has not thoroughly examined this question. It would be only fair to allow the matter to stand over and to allow the manufacturers, the bakers and sweet manufacturers, pastry and cake makers, to put their case in front of the board.

The board have examined the whole matter. We find that these fats are being turned out locally. Lever Brothers, Durban, have turned out a good fat which is being used for biscuit-making purposes.

Five manufacturers have made representations to me this morning on this very point. They are seriously disturbed as to the effect this will have on their business. No opportunity has been given to them from the trade point of view to state their case, but I suggest to the Minister that he allow this question to stand over for a short time, possibly until later on in the day, so that the board could get into touch with the industrialists concerned. The Minister said there are fats available in South Africa, suitable for the purpose of these manufacturers, but I am not in a position to say whether this is so or not.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I have made inquiries into the point raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and I am quite prepared to meet it. However, if the proposal is accepted, it will mean printing which might hold up the Bill and the House, but there is a way out of the difficulty by allowing the item to go through, as printed, and I will undertake to meet the position in Cape Towb under the general powers of the Act, which allow me to give a rebate. The Board of Trade will alter its recommendations.

I do not wish to hold up the business of the House if the matter can be met in the way suggested by the Minister. I take it that he has had legal advice, and he is able to suspend the duty on all three items—cakes, pastry and confectionery.

We make these rebates every day.

The matter is very important, especially in regard to confectionery, because the local fats have a lower melting point, and the result is that our locally made sweets will not be able to be sent up-country if local fats are used in their manufacture. Thus the makers may be unfairly penalized in that regard as compared with imported sweets. However, with the assurance given by the Minister, the manufacturers should be satisfied that they will not be penalized by the clause if it is passed as printed.

The Minister said he would make arrangements to meet the local manufacturers, but what about the up-country manufacturers?

I have had a letter from a large firm of manufacturers stating that their business will be seriously jeopardized if the alteration is made, and I want to be assured that if this schedule is passed as it stands, that the Minister will take administrative action to preserve the status quo as regards the importation of these essential fats.

I should like to point out to the Minister that cake and pastry manufacturers are heavily penalized under Clause 4. All the other manufacturers get a rebate of 3s. per 100 lbs. on sugar, but the cake and pastry manufacturers do not get that advantage.

It is for export purposes.

But, for instance, the man who makes biscuits will get this advantage of 3s. per 100 lbs. when he makes cakes and pastry.

The principal reason for this concession is for the benefit of our people who have to export their products overseas, where those products have to compete with similar products made with cheap sugar. It would not apply to bakers of pastries who sell locally.

I see the Minister has discretionary power under Clause 4, and I hope when the Bill becomes law he will consider the representations from these other manufacturers.

Schedule put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I very much regret that I have to ask the committee to refer this case back to the Select Committee on Pensions. I am afraid if this recommendation is agreed to, we will be creating a very dangerous precedent. In this case the petitioner, who did war service, made application for a pension to the department concerned. He was formerly in receipt of a temporary pension. Afterwards he appealed against the decision of the Military Pensions Board in regard to the award that was made to him. Then he appealed to the Military Pensions Appeal Board, and the decision was that the disability in respect of which the pension was claimed was not due to military service, but was something which arose later on. It is really a medical case. The petitioner was subjected to a very exhaustive medical examination by medical experts who were specially asked to consider the case, and it was finally disposed of in terms of the existing legislation by the Military Pensions Appeal Board. Then he approaches Parliament by way of petition, and as the result of his appeal to Parliament, we now have this recommendation before us. I do not want to question or interfere with any recommendation of the committee, awarding a pension to anybody if it is based on compassionate grounds, but I do not think this recommendation is based on compassionate grounds. In effect, it is really a revision of the finding of the statutory body, that is the Military Pensions Appeal Board, which was created by Parliament to deal with these cases. If Parliament is now prepared practically to go behind the finding of this statutory board, I fear we shall have numbers of cases where people have not succeeded in establishing their claims before this tribunal, and where they approach Parliament and ask Parliament to revise the decision of the board. I do not think that is a position we can contemplate. Accordingly I move that the recommendation be referred back to the committee, who would reconsider the whole matter, because I think I am right in stating this is not an award made on compassionate grounds. I think the treasury will be able to produce evidence as far as that is concerned that this is not a case which would fall within that category. There was a case, I believe that of Mason, who got an award from the select committee in similar circumstances, but I understand that was made directly on compassionate grounds.

A blind man.

His case has been disposed of by the tribunal, and the select committee subsequently saw fit to award him a pension, but I submit that those facts are not applicable in this case. I move—

I do think this House ought to be very chary in rejecting the pension that has been awarded or rather recommended by this committee, bearing in mind that the matter has been referred to it specially by this House, it is the committee and the committee only who have had an opportunity of hearing the evidence and have arrived at their decision on that evidence. I oppose this being referred back, because it means the withdrawal of the pension to this man.

The Minister said during the debate on the Bill which is assisting farmers in connection with income tax that the proposals could actually not be justified, and in regard to the work of the Select Committee on Pensions I may say that practically none of the grants can be justified on legal grounds. The select committee investigates everything very closely and in this instance it will be useful to read the treasury report on the case of Mr. W. T. Green and then to give an explanation why the select committee made the recommendation. The report reads—

We therefore see he was boarded and that the board granted him a pension. The report proceeds—

The position therefore is that the case was investigated by a board and that the man received a pension from 1925 to 1927. In 1927 his position got worse so that he was sent back to hospital. Then a second board was appointed to examine him. After the second examination his pension was cancelled because the disease then got a different name, and his case was no longer what it was on the first examination. I must say that we members of the select committee are not medical experts, but during the time I have been a member of the Select Committee on Pensions we have had hundreds of cases where the two boards contradicted each other, and inasmuch that there is proof that the man’s position was bad and had become worse we thought the pension should be granted. It is now for the House to decide.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has just said. I can remember this case, and if any case has had the earnest consideration of the committee it is this one. I would think that the committee should have at least some lattitude; in some cases we have had to consider the matter on compassionate grounds. In this case there was some conflict of evidence as to the disability of this person. I submit that this House should unequivocally approve of the report of the committee. Hon. members are so careful in their decisions in regard to matters of this sort that when they come with practically a unanimous recommendation, I hope this House will accept it.

I hoped that this committee would have been able to be told that they awarded this pension on compassionate grounds, but apparently, as far as we can see, the only recommendation is because the previous board had said this man was entitled to a pension. But the board of specialists came to a different conclusion. I will just read to the committee the facts which are in our possession, and the report of the chief medical officer attached to the department, where he points out that this board of specialists had refused to concur in the finding of the previous board. He says—

A letter has been received from Green’s wife stating that her husband has threatened to leave her stranded, and that he has three times threatened her life. It appears that on compassionate grounds this is not a case like Mason’s, where the man could not do any work. Here we have a board which decides that this man’s disability is not due to military service, and thereafter a board of specialists come forward with a different finding. If the select committee had said, let us have another board and submit the matter again to further medical examination, I could have understood their finding, but merely to say, give the man consideration, whether he has made out his case or not, would, I think, be a very dangerous precedent because the disability is found not to be due to war service.

I feel that there is a good deal in what has been said by the Minister, arising largely out of the wording of the committee’s recommendation. The committee recommend a pension as though the disability were attributable to military service. The committee seems to have constituted itself a court of appeal from the board which said that the disability is not attributable to military service. I would be prepared to support the recommendation if it came forward on compassionate grounds, but to pass it as it stands would leave us open to the danger of the Pensions Committee becoming a court of appeal from the medical appeal board.

Have they not a right to do that?

No. This select committee does not sit as an appeal court from the medical appeal board laid down by law. It sits to recommend to this House what pensions should be awarded on compassionate grounds. This committee cannot be a board of appeal where there is already an appeal decided by law. What they have to decide is whether a man having a case decided against him should be granted a pension on compassionate grounds.

I agree with what the last speaker has said, and I am certain it was the intention of the whole of the committee. Of course we did not examine the wording used by the clerk in minuting the committees finding, but the intention was that the man got the money when he was examined the first time and that the further recommendation had to be attributed to the same cause. I think that it will be best for the House to refer the matter back to the committee to alter the wording if the present wording is objected to.

I sat for five years on the Pensions Committee, and I want to correct the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The wording of the committee’s report is in accordance with practice when the committee wish to award a pension, because the treasury always said, when I was a member of the committee, that if we would word it as though the disability were attributable to military service that would be the easiest way indicating the amount of pension we wished to award, and the words put in were never intended to be interpreted as the member for Yeoville has interpreted them. I do not enter into the merits of the case, but the House must not be swayed by the hon. member for Yeoville’s interpretation with regard to the actual wording of the report.

One matter should be cleared up during this discussion. It has been stated by the Minister of Finance and by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) or, at all events it has been implied, that the Select Committee on Pensions is only entitled to make recommendations on compassionate grounds. If that is the case it is news to me. I think the matter should be cleared up, because otherwise select committees on pensions in future may feel themselves tied in making representations except definitely on compassionate grounds. It would be a pity to let that point go unnoticed in connection with this particular case. This seems to me evidently a case of reviving the old saying “who shall decide when doctors disagree”? The answer is a select committee appointed by Parliament. The hon. member for Yeoville does not agree, but I think that is the case. This is a case where there was a conflict of professional opinion, and the select committee duly weighed the evidence and the circumstances, and the opinions given by the respective medical boards, and they came to a certain decision. I think it is asking a great deal of this committee to request them to reverse the decision that the Select Committee on Pensions has come to. This seems to me on the facts to be a case in which the petitioner should get the benefit of any doubt that might exist. He attributes his disability to war service, and in this he is supported by some of the doctors, a board of doctors. When the State required them he gave his services, and if there is a reasonable doubt it should be applied in his case. Now again we may as well remind ourselves that a select committee on pensions does not deal with legal cases. If a man has a legal claim he usually pursues it in a legal fashion, and he does not trouble to appeal to Parliament. As it is impossible to frame laws to meet every case, he has a right to appeal to Parliament.

I do not think this House would be prepared to accept any recommendation. If we accepted this recommendation it would be impossible. Of course if they think that Parliament will be prepared to sit as a revising body, they will naturally come along, every one of them. I said, if a select committee made this reward on compassionate grounds, I would not object, but what happened here was that the case was retried. I submit that the safest course is to refer the case back to the committee, and if they think another board should be convened, let them do so. We have to scrutinize the case very carefully and come to a decision. Elaborate machinery exists for dealing with these cases.

I know nothing about the merits of this case, but it seems to me that the committee, or draughtsmen responsible for the wording of this recommendation, wanted to make it clear that they were not acting as a court of appeal. What they decided was that they would make a recommendation that the pension should be granted and for the purpose of assessing the amount it should be on the basis as though the disability was attributable to military service. That means not that the disability was attributable to military service, but that the pension should be granted as though for a disability attributable to military service. That seems to me to be entirely consistent with their having made the recommendation on compassionate grounds, and they could not have chosen more appropriate language.

With the object of obtaining a pension for the man it is evident that this is the sort of language that is usually used, but there is something much deeper involved in this case. A very great principle is at stake indeed. The Minister has attacked one of the most vaunted privileges of every citizen of the country, a right to appeal to Parliament when he thinks he gets no legal redress. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that because there happen to be statutory courts of appeal open to individuals, you must not have the right to come to Parliament. That is the effect of the hon. gentleman’s argument anyhow. As a matter of fact, you can apply that to any and every citizen, for every citizen has the right to appeal to the legal court of the land. The members of the committee would not have permitted a petition to go to the committee in relation to the petitioner, if he had not exhausted all his legal means of redress. This committee, because of the board of appeal has rejected the original board’s finding, and must not report to the House in favour of a reversal of the board’s decision. The Minister says he will create a dangerous precedent. These little pensions of £5 or so will always create a dangerous precedent, and every case is establishing a precedent, for each case must be taken on its merits. As to the merits of this case, the Minister of Finance said there was evidence in the department that this is not a deserving case. The evidence was the letter which he read about his wife, complaining that she was in danger unless she and her husband were separated. Is that a reason to be put up by a responsible member of this House? Is that a decent argument? I must join issue with the hon. the Minister on that account. He might have spared that individual the reading of that letter. It would appear from the use of the two words “hysterical monoplegia” that the man has got into such a state that it is impossible for him to live with his wife, and if that is so it is an additional reason for the House adopting the recommendation of the committee. Another reason is the chairman of the Pensions Committee, for a more conservative and miserly holder of the public purse strings I have never met in the whole of my political life, so that if he can find it in his heart definitely to associate himself with a recommendation such as this, no more argument is required.

The man has a perfect right to come to Parliament, and the committee has a perfect right to recommend him as a case for consideration by the House, but my point is that if the select committee recommend him for a pension without coming to the conclusion that the board was wrong, then the recommendation should not be adopted. I can only come to the conclusion that this disability is not connected with military service, and that is the opinion of the Medical Board. However, if the select committee makes the recommendation on compassionate grounds, there will be no objection to agreeing to it.

You are, in effect, limiting the powers of the select committee and the House.

The House can do what it likes, but how can we appeal on a medical question from the decision of a medical board of appeal? We can only deal with cases rejected by the Medical Board on compassionate grounds. My only objection is that the select committee’s report constitutes this House a board of appeal.

The House has constituted a board of appeal by the very establishment of a Select Committee on Pensions, which enquires into all cases submitted to it after the petitioners have come to the end of their legal tether. The committee can decide on compassionate, legal or any other grounds. The principle has always existed that every citizen has a right to come to this select committee, which makes its recommendations to the final deciding body which is this Parliament itself. The select committee has had all the evidence. The only new matter which the Minister introduced was the letter.

It is according to the law.

If the law is coming along with a thing like that it is time that Parliament intervened, and it shows how necessary it is for us to reject the motion of the Minister of Finance.

It strikes me, as a layman, that the whole case rests on the two words, “hysterical monoplegia.” I gather the doctors were not agreed as to the form of the disease. The case is obviously one for the select committee to deal with.

I have stated that if I knew that the Select Committee had recommended this grant on compassionate ground I would not query it, but I do not think the select committee did that.

How do you know?

I deduce that from the statements of two members of the select committee.

The case has never been argued on its merits.

The Pensions Act deliberately casts a duty on the Minister in cases of misconduct. If it is true what the woman writes about her husband I do not think the committee would say that this was a deserving case. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the select committee can recommend anything it likes, but I do not think the House ultimately will accept it. Although every subject has the right ultimately to petition Parliament I do not think the House will be prepared to lay down a rule for instance that when a specially constituted court of law has finally disposed of a case Parliament will again consider that case. I can only express the hope that Parliament will not do so. Of course Parliament can do as it likes.

When the Minister tells us that the letter he has read to us is regarded by the department as evidence of misconduct it shows the necessity for the House to enquire more closely than it does into a great many of these cases. It is pretty evident to me, as. it must be to all decent-minded people, that the misconduct the Minister refers to is the direct outcome of the disability. If that is to be regarded as misconduct then no applicant for a pension is safe with the department. I think the House had better give it its most serious consideration. Now we understand why it is that in so many cases men feel aggrieved when they are refused. We have to realize that his disability is probably the cause of this man’s acting like that towards his wife. It is not necessarily inherent in the man. The House must set its face against that being regarded as misconduct and on that ground alone we ought to reject any motion for sending the recommendation back.

I want to know whether the Minister is prepared to accept this recommendation if the committee placed it on compassionate grounds, or are we to have other matters brought?

Motion put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—55.

Alberts, S. F.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

De Jager, H. J. C.

De Souza, E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. D.

Du Toit, M. S. W.

Du Toit, P. P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jansen, E. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Potgieter, C. S. H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I.V. W.

Roberts, F. J.

Robertson, G. T.

Rood, K.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sauer, P. O.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, A. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vorster, W. H.

Wentzel, L. M.

Tellers: Naudé, J. F. T.; Vermooten, O. S.

NOES—50.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Baines, A. C. V.

Blackwell, L.

Borlase, H. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chiappini, A. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Faure, P. A. B.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Kayser, C. F.

Kentridge, M.

Kotze, R. N.

Krige, C. J.

Lawrence, H. G.

MacCallum, A. J.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Roper, E. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Shaw, F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williamson, J.

Tellers: O’Brien, W. J.; Struben, R. H.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Remaining recommendations put and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN read the report on pages 99-104 of the Votes, as follows—

Report (current session)—

Your Committee, having considered the various petitions and the memorandum referred to it, begs to report:

1. I. That it recommends:
   1. (1) The award to Frances Zahn, widow of J. F. Zahn, formerly Assistant Librarian, Houses of Parliament, of a pension of £180 per annum, payable during widowhood, and £24 per annum in respect of each of her two minor daughters until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 11th May, 1929.
   2. (2) The award to Hope W. Forbes, widow of W. Forbes, formerly a system manager, South African Railways, of a pension of £120 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1929, payable during widowhood.
   3. (3) The award to D. McGuire, formerly a clerk, Department of Agriculture, of a pension of £84 per annum, with effect from 1st August, 1929.
   4. (4) The award to Magdelena J. Pieters, widow of the late No. 1046 Corporal M. G. Pieters, South African Medical Corps, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   5. (5) The award to Susan J. Victor, widow of the late No. 10343 Private D. W. Victor, 1st South African Infantry, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   6. (6) The award to Muriel I. Russell, widow of the late No. 444 Staff Sergeant J. C. Russell, South African Pay Corps, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   7. (7) The award to Ellen M. Nicholas, widow of the late No. 2861 Gunner A. R. Nicholas, South African Heavy Artillery, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   8. (8) The award to Evelyn Martin, widow of the late No. M/68 Gunner H. J. Martin, Stokes Mortar Battery, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   9. (9) The award to Mary Foley, widow of the late No. 166 able seaman R. J. Foley, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (South African) of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   10. (10) The award to Annie Canarick, widow of the late No. 11306 Private J. Canarick, 2nd South African Infantry, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of section 16 of Act No. 42 of 1919.
   11. (11) The award to Gertrude J. van Zyl, widow of the late No. 1809 Trooper J. C. van Zyl, 3rd South African Horse, of such compensation as would have been payable had the requirements of section Í6 of Act No. 42 of 1919, as amended by Act No. 41 of 1920, been met in her case, subject to the case conforming in all other respects to the provisions of the Act.
   12. (12) The award to Elizabeth Cooke, widow of the late Private A. Cooke, Provisional Mounted Police, of the pension to which she would have been entitled had the circumstances of her case conformed to the requirements of Chapter VI of Act No. 42 of 1919, as amended by Act No. 41 of 1920.
   13. (13) The award to A. Burns, formerly a clerk, Department of Finance, of a pension of £90 per annum, with effect from 15th April, 1929.
   14. (14) Subject to the repayment of the sum of £54 16s. 2d. paid to J. H. van Zyl, formerly a gunner, South African Permanent Garrison Artillery, he be awarded the pension to which he would have been entitled has his case conformed to the requirements of section 54 of Act No. 27 of 1923, with effect from date of discharge.
   15. (15) Subject to the repayment of the sum of £114 16s. 5d. paid to P. J. Naude, formerly a constable, South African Police, he be awarded such pension as could have been paid to him had retirement been effected under the provisions of section 54 of Act No. 27 of 1923, with effect from date of discharge.
   16. (16) Subject to the repayment of the gratuity of £76 2s. paid to J. Makwe, formerly a native sergeant, South African Police, he be awarded a pension on the basis of section 67 of Act No. 27 of 1923, with effect from date of retirement.
   17. (17) Subject to the repayment of the sum of £46 11s. paid to M. Nkanyani, formerly a native sergeant, South African Police, he be awarded a pension on the basis of section 67 of Act No. 27 of 1923, with effect from date of retirement.
   18. (18) M. Dhladhla, a native sergeant, South African Police, to be regarded as having made an election in terms of section 67 (5) of Act No. 27 of 1923 within the prescribed period.
   19. (19) F. J. Venter and Hester M. Venter, of Hartebeestfontein, district Pietersburg, to be regarded as having met the domiciliary requirements of the Old Age Pensions Act, No. 22 of 1928.
   20. (20) The award to Mary E. Allen, widow of W. Allen, formerly a sergeant, South African Police, for and on behalf of her minor child, of £24 per annum until she attains the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1929.
   21. (21) The award to Maria J. Griffiths, widow of H. C. Griffiths, formerly a constable, South African Police, for and on behalf of her three minor children, of £18 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1929.
   22. (22) The award to Susanna J. E. Bekker, widow of J. F. Bekker, formerly a detective constable, South African Police, for and on behalf of her two minor children, of £18 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1929-
   23. (23) The award to Alice E. Hudson, widow of W. N. Hudson, formerly a sergeant, South African Police, for and on behalf of her two minor children, of £18 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1929.
   24. (24) The award to Beatrice E. Watts, widow of A. Watts, formerly in the service of the South African Railways, of a gratuity of £770 18s. 8d.
   25. (25) The award to Ethel M. Fuller, widow of Dr. C. Fuller, formerly Chief Entomologist, Department of Agriculture, of a gratuity of £384 14s.
   26. (26) The award to Sarah A. Acutt, widow of W. H. Acutt, formerly Registrar, Native High Court, Natal, of a gratuity of £360.
   27. (27) The award to Catherine J. Hattrill, widow of G. Hattrill, formerly a head constable, South African Police, of a gratuity of £300.
   28. (28) The award to Ida H. Elgie, widow of R. H. Elgie, formerly a head warder, Department of Prisons, of a gratuity of £220 16s.
   29. (29) The award to Ethel M. Goldrick, for merly an assistant, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by her to the pension fund, payable in monthly instalments of £6, with effect from 1st July, 1929.
   30. (30) The award to Hendrina J. Grant, widow of W. S. M. Grant, formerly a constable, South African Police, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed to the pension fund by her late husband.
   31. (31) The award to H. J. Botha, formerly a warder, Department of Prisons, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Union Services Pension Fund.
   32. (32) The award to R. P. Gribb, formerly a constable, South African Police, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Union Services Pension Fund.
   33. (33) The award to S. Narraway, formerly a constable, South African Police, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Union Services Pension Fund.
   34. (34) The award to N. A. Ogilvie, a clerk, Department of Native Affairs, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Service Pension Fund.
   35. (35) The award to Annie Roe, formerly a nurse at the mental hospital, Grahams-town, of a gratuity of £50.
   36. (36) The award to W. Solilo, formerly a messenger, Government Printing and Stationery Office, Cape Town, of a gratuity of £70 10s.
   37. (37) The service of M. Ndhlovu, a native messenger, Provincial Administration, Natal, whilst employed in the Natal University College from 1st November. 1911, to 31st March, 1919, to be regarded as pensionable service, continuous with previous service for pension purposes under section 67 of Act No. 27 of 1923, the expenditure involved to form a charge against the revenues of the Natal Provincial Administration.
   38. (38) C. G. Trenam, storekeeper, Irrigation Department, to be permitted to contribute to the Union Pension Fund in respect of his continuous service terminating on the 18th August, 1921, and that such service be regarded for pension purposes as continuous with his service from 6th July, 1925.
   39. (39) The break in the service of J. J. C. Doran, a head constable, South African Police, from 14th September, 1907, to 16th August, 1908, to be condoned, being regarded as special leave of absence without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his service in the South African Constabulary for pension purposes.
   40. (40) The break in the service of D. J. Dereksen, a constable, South African Police, from 1st April, 1927, to 14th June, 1928, to be condoned, being regarded as special leave of absence without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes.
   41. (41) Subject to the repayment of the gratuity of £132 4s. 2d. paid to C. W. Tennant, a clerk, Department of Lands, on his retirement from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in 1908, the break in his service from 28th October, 1908, to 5th May, 1910, to be condoned, being regarded as special leave of absence without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes.
   42. (42) Subject to all necessary adjustments in contributions and interest being made by J. G. Heyns, a clerk, South African Railways, he be permitted to transfer his contributions from the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund, with effect from the date of his seventeenth birthday.
   43. (43) Subject to S. P. de Peer, formerly a conductor, South African Railways, paying the necessary contributions with interest, he be awarded an ill-health pension from the New Superannuation Fund based upon his service from 14th September, 1909, to 31st January, 1927, with effect from date of retirement.
   44. (44) That the petitions of R. C. Taylor and A. J. Greyling be referred to the Government for consideration.
2. II. That it concurs in the proposal contained in the memorandum dealing with the case of Florence Burgers, viz.: The pension of £120 previously paid to the widow of the late President T. F. Burgers to be continued to her daughter Florence.
3. III. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitioners be entertained:
   1. (1) Adams, J. W.; (2) Addy, Caroline E.; (3) Baiocchi, Isabella; (4) Bosman, J. N.; (5) Burton, F. A.; (6) Carbarns, Mrs. N.; (7) de Bruyn, L. J.; (8) de Bruyn, W. J.; (9) Dodds, A.; (10) du Toit, Johanna B.; (11) Etsebeth, J. P.; (12) Fellows, Sarah A.; (13) Hutchins, Hester H.; (14) Huxham, Maria M.; (15) Irvine, H. A. S.; (16) Jacobs, Elsie S.; (17) Jonker, Hester M.; (18) Keith, W. S.; (19) Kenny, Ellen; (20) Kenny, Rebecca A. ; (21) Lock-wood, G. D.; (22) Marcus, H. C.; (23) Maree, J. L. B.; (24) Martin, H. W.; (25) McMenamin, J. J.; (26) Momberg, H. L.; (27) O’Malley, M.; (28) Pretorius, P. F.; (29) Reid, W. J.; (30) Ryan, M.; (31) Sibiya, B.; (32) Smith, Christmas A.; (33) Stapelberg, F. P.; (34) Steyn, Cornelia J.; (35) Swan, Marion S.; (36) Van Huyssteen, J. R. M.; (37) Van Rooyen, G. J.; (38) Viljoen, Mrs. G. S.; (39) Visscher, Anna S. S.; (40) Visser, F. J.; and (41) Wilson, Nellie M.
4. IV. With reference to the 469 petitions set forth hereunder, your committee regrets that owing to the very limited time at its disposal it has been unable to complete its investigations into these cases, and is, therefore, unable to report thereon. The reasons for this large number are, firstly, the brevity of the session, and, secondly, that in addition to the 144 petitions presented this session and referred to your committee, no fewer than 410 petitions which the Pensions Committee of last session was unable to deal with owing to the shortness of that session, were referred to it. The number of petitions standing over having accumulated to such an extent the committee will find itself handicapped next session in dealing with new petitions referred to it during that session, and, in order to enable arrears to be worked off, your committee recommends that the same course be adopted as was followed in 1926 when the committee of that year had to report arrear petitions to the number of 359, namely, that the petitions now standing over be referred to the Government for consideration and report.
5. E. W. Aitchison, H. A. Allen, A. J. Anderson, Dorothy L. Andrews, J. H. Armstrong, J. R. Bain, G. Bagley, L. J. Baker, W. E. Baker, H. J. Barker, S. R. Barter, W. E. Barton, R. Batty, H. Baylis, P. Beard, E. Beck, J. Bennett, Sarah Bergh, Nellie Bertram, M. J. Besselaar (with supporting petition of J. C. Truter and 3 others), C. J. Bester, J. A. A. Blatt, A. H. Bleksley, E. H. Botha, M. C. Botha, Mrs. B. Botha, H. S. J. Bouwer. T. C. Bowen, T. G. Boyce, W. J. Boyd, A. O. E. Bradshaw, C. E. Bradshaw, W. J. Breytenbach, P. I. C. Brink, P. J. Broodryk, R. J. Bulmer, B. J. Burke, J. M. Buys, P. J. Byrne, J. Byrns, Mrs. J. M. Camm, F. Campbell, J. J. Carelse, J. W. Carruthers, G. A. Carter, J. T. Carter, Lily M. Case, C. L. Chapman, P. H. Cheeseman, H. M. Church, V. Clapham, G. H. J. Clarence, Margaret M. Clark, P. E. Clay, F. H. L. Clemens, T. R, Clench, D. C. Coetzee, F. P. Coetzee, I. J. Coetzee, F. B. Collett, C. Collins, C. B. Collocott, Mrs. B. Conlin, J. R. Cooper, H. C. Cowles, G. J. Cracknell, J. H. Cronje, W. N. Cumming, W. N. Curnick, J. Currin, P. A. Dames and 7 others, R. G. Dawson, D. P. Dean, Irene S. Dear, J. M. de Beer, Annie de Kock, H. W. de Lange, M. P. de la Rey, C. G. Dennison, A. de Ridder, J. de Veer, D. J. R. de Villiers, J. N. B. de Villiers, Magrietta D. de Villiers, J. A. de Wet, G. G. Dhladhla, Constance J. Dickinson, J. A. van S. D’Oliveira, A. L. Dolphin, R. C. Doubell, Dorothea Dowling, B. Drust, J. W. Duminy, F. M. Dumont, Alice E. Dunning, G. T. du Plessis, J. F. du Plooy, H. C. de Preez, P. D. du Preez, C. F. J. du Toit, D. J. du Toit, G. P. du Toit Helena M. C. du Toit, P. D. du Toit, Lizzie Dymott, C. O. Eaton, Sarah S. Eccles, Nellie Edwards, R. A. Elliot, J. Enraght-Moony, W. Erskine, D. R. Esterhuizen, W. J. Ewart, Grace Ewbank, G. von W. Eybers, C. S. Fall, Catharine Faure, F. W. Felton, J. Ferguson, W. Field, Emily M. Finn, F. C. Fletcher, D. S. Fouché, J. J. Fourie, R. A. Fourie, C. R. Frowein, W. J. Fryer, J. Fulton, J. J. Furlong, Maria E. Furstenburg, F. W. Ganswyk, E. R. Garthorne, R. H. Gash, G. Geertsema, E. J. Geldenhuys, Christina M. Gelderman, G. Gilchrist, G. R. B. Giles, G. W. Girling, C. J. Golder, J. W. Golding, A. Goodall, V. E. Goodman, Marion Goodwill, Helen Gorbutt, I. S. Gous, C. P. J. Gouws, S. F. Gouws, Mary B. Graham, A. F. Grant, W. V. Grant, W. R. Gray, J. P. Greenan, G. H. Greybe, F. T. R. Griesbach, Helena L. Griessel, Eulilia Groenewald, H. P. C. Grove, T. A. Gumley, H. Gutsche, J. Gwynn, F. E. Hairbottle, E. A. Hamblin, R. N. Hammond, C. W. Hannah, Florence Hanstein, René Harris, W. H. Harrison, P. J. N. Hartman, J. Harty, T. J. Hatting, C. J. Hattingh, H. P. Hattingh, Gladys M. Hawkins, J. J. Hayes, A. M. Hayward, N. Heathcote, G. H. Hedges, Susan J. M. Heinze, Johanna M. M. Hendrickze, F. F. Henshall, J. A. F. Herbst, W. Hesketh, A. W. Heyneke, J. L. Hill, Rachel Hill, J. J. Hoey, Daisy A. Holmes, D. D. Howard, E. W. Hudson, Elizabeth Hughes, J, P. Human, J. S. Jacobs, Augusta A. James, J. H. Janssen, L. S. Jeffery, Mary J. Jefferys, C. G. C. Jensen, Anna J. P. Johnson, G. H. Jooste, C. J. Jordaan, L. H. Jordaan, J. Katts, N. P. Kay, P. C. Kemp, T. J. C. Keyser, R. B. Kiïkelly, C. A. J. Knight, Murielle Knight, A. Knox, C. D. E. Kobus, T. J. Krause, J. L. Kriel, A. Kruger, C. J. Kruger, J. H. Labuschagne, J. J. Labuschagne, L. G. Language, Mary C. Large and Jessie R. Innes, G. Larke, R. J. Latham, W. Lathem, W. R. Laubscher, A. Lees, H. C. Lee, J. H. Lehmkuhl, R. de V. Leibbrandt, J. S. F. Lemmer, Mrs. A. S. le Roux, Julia M. Leslie, M. P. Lindeque, A. T. Long, A. W. J. S. Loots, M. Louw, P. J. Louw, A. J. Lubbe, V. Luckhoff, C. E, Lugg, H. C. Luitingh, T. J. Lureman, Jane A. R. Maclean, J. H. Major, S. Makhatkolele, E. A. Mallandain, Gertruida A. Marais, Johanna H. S. Marais C. F. Maritz, A, J. Marlow, H. W. Marnitz and H. B. Ferreira, C. C. Marran, H. J. A. Matthee, R. A. J. Matthews, Kate M. McCabe, Mrs. E. A. C. McCormick, W. O, McIntosh, D. E. McNab, W. T. McTaggart, Mrs. E. T. Mehliss, Elizabeth Mellor, J. Meyer, L. Meyer, T. C. G. Meyer, F. Midgley, L. C. Milkins, J. H. Miller, N. Mills, J. A. Mitchell, I. J. Mommsen, J. A. Monahan, Janna C. Monje, E. F. W. Moon, Eva H. Moor, R. Moore, P. M. Morren, H. G. Morris, W. Morris, Johanna K. Morrison, Eveline F. Moss, Mrs. A. Muller, Cornelia G. Muller, J. N. Muller, Ethel M. Musto, W. J. Naudé, A. Ndurala, T. W. Neath, V. J. Needham, J. H. Nel, A. S. Nelson, Mrs. M. A. Nicholls, H. A. G. Nicoll, L. P. Nielsen, J. Nienhuis, Mrs. T. R. Nolan, S. M. Nongogo, J. Noothout, J. J. Nortje, H. S. Norton, Ethel D. Nourse, W. J. Nussey, B. A. Oliphant, G. D. Olivari, E. W. Oliver, P. Oliver, N. J. S. Oosthuizen, Margareta H. Oosthuizen, A. G. F. Osner, H. G. Paige, H. F. D. Papenfus, Rose E. Parkes, G. H. Patching, S. L. Patterson, F. H. Pell, H. J. Penny, J. A. Penton, H. F. Pentz, T. J. M. Perkins, Anna R. Peschel, N. C. Peters, S. L. Peverelli, B. Pienaar, Jessie J. Pienaar, Mona Pienaar, Margaret Pietersen, W. C. Platts, C. D. Pote, E. F. Potgieter, Cornelia M. Pretorius, G. J. Pretorius, Anna B. Pruis, H. A. and J. Range, C. D. J. Rauch, P. M. S. Ras, Isabella M. Rasmussen, J. D. Raubenheimer, Winifred M. Reed, Cecelia M. Reid, W. J. Renecle, A. J. Robberts, G. A. Ronald, G. A. Rooke, Rachel E. Roos, G. Round, Elizabeth M. Rousseau, J. A. G. Rousseau, A. P. Roux, P. J. Roux, A. E. Rowland, T. Sampson, E. C. Sargent, G. J. Sauermann, A. F. J. Scheepers, W. A. Schoonbee, P. J. W. Schutte and 18 others, J. J. Schuyt, F. C. E. Schwerin, T. E. Serfontein, F. G. Sheehan, C. W. W. Sheppard, G. M. Sheridan, Sylvia R. Sheringham, J. Sikwebu, Laura Silcock, F. R. Simpson, J. D. Simpson, J. P. Smith, S. R. J. Smith, W. F. Smith, J. J. Snyman, R. D. Sparks, T. A. Speers, H. W. T. Steensma, P. J. J. Stephan, W. Stevenson, J. R. Stewart, Anna M. Steyn, J. D. de B. Steyn, G. Stofile, E. E. Strangman, A. Street, T. A. D. Strickland, J. F. Strydom, P. A. Stuart, J. N. Susan, R. D. Sutherland, W. Swanepoel, Catharina F. Swart, G. J. Swart, E. W. Swatridge, J. L. Taljaard, W. F. Taplin, A. J. Tapper, P. H. Tarr, Emily C. Taylor, W. B. Taylor, A. C. Teessen, H. C. Temple, T. Thacker, M. W. Theunissen, D. H. Thomas, L. Thomas, S. Thomas, Alexandra F. Thomson, H. M. Thomson, H. C. Tidbury, C. T. C. Timms, J. N. Townsend, J. F. Tranter, L. Trenor, P. J. B. Trichardt, F. Trilling, W. E. Turner, W. J. Tyrer, G. Unwin, C. A. van Aswegen, H. G. van Aswegen, S. A. van Coller, I. S. van der Colff, P. B. van der Lith, J. H. van der Vyver, B. R. van der Walt, H. S. van der Walt, J. P. van der Walt, J. F. van Deventer, L. A. van Dyk, C. J. van Grenen, W. J. van Heerden, G. L. van Niekerk, R. S. van Niekerk, H. van Schade, J. A. van Schalkwyk, J. H. van Tonder, D. P. van Wyk, J. F. van Zyl, P. W. D. van Zyl, Helena S. Vatble, F. N. Vermaak, P. L. Vermaas, M. J. Vermooten, G. J. Verster, D. J. Viljoen, Maria E. Visser, Edith A. von Brandis, J. W. Wagenaar, S. Walkenhorst, W. H. Walters, Florence M. Wardle, Madeline L. Warner, A. D. Wassenaar, J. Watson, J. L. Webb, S. F. Weller, M. A. Wepener, A. J. Westley, E. J. West-more, B. White, Deborah S. Wicht, Edith G. Williams, R. K. S. Willis, Gladys W. Willmore, A. M. Wilson, D. Wilson, J. E. Windell, D. A. de V. Wolhuter, H. R. Wood, H. R. D. Wreford, Helena E. Yonge, R. P. Young and H. Zylstra.

On recommendation (3),

This is another case I have to ask the committee to refer back to the select committee. The petitioner was formerly employed in Government service, and after ten years’ service, left, and received a refund of pension contributions. He was re-employed in a temporary capacity, and when he retired he was paid a gratuity payable in terms of our regulations. As hon. members know, there are hundreds of public servants who are employed from time to time in different capacities, and on retirement, are paid a gratuity; and if we are now starting granting further pensions by Parliament, we shall have all these people back on us for similar pension grants. Here again, I have no information that this pension was awarded on compassionate grounds. I do not think any evidence was adduced in the committee that that was so.

Yes; 31 years’ service.

Does that entitle the committee to recommend a pension? I leave it to this committee whether it is prepared to lay down that principle. If so, let the House be prepared to pass the necessary legislation to award pensions in such cases. I think it would be unsatisfactory if we should deal with these cases when pensions are not payable, and there are regulations what the gratuity would be. It would be a very dangerous practice to lay down that after a servant had received a gratuity, awarded according to the regulations, he should be recommended a pension. I move—

If it is to be the new order of things that the Pensions Committee has to come here and defend every case recommended to Parliament, it will very much increase their work. I understand that, after a decision was come to in this particular case, that the information was conveyed to the select committee what the Minister has told this committee, that he intended to move its rejection. If the select committee has to understand that after coming to a decision, that that decision is not to be final, and the matter has to be debated again in this House, and settled on a purely party vote, I do not think that any self-respecting hon. member is going to serve on that committee. I have never heard an argument so fallacious and so utterly without foundation as that of the Minister. These petitioners come to this House because the law is not in their favour, and because they have no legal right. They come with a petition which the House, finding it in order, accepts and refers to the select committee to report on the merits. A good many of these decisions are arrived at on a more or less party vote of the committee, but so far as members of the committee go and my previous experience goes, the decision of the committee is loyally abided in by all its members. Never on any occasion has this side of the House queried a finding, although they may have opposed it in committee, after it has been passed for adoption; and the decision has been accepted loyally. But here is an instance where one side of the committee, which being out-voted in committee, is utilizing the power it possesses, through the Minister of Finance, to upset the finding of the committee.

That is not true.

The Minister knows perfectly well that he has a majority in his party to throw out this pension, and has threatened to do it. That information was conveyed to us beforehand, and we knew that this recommendation was to be thrown out. I ask the Minister to pause, and not to introduce an atmosphere into the work of this committee which has never existed before. Is all there is against this man’s claim conveyed in what the Minister has said? A man of 31 years of public service, and retired on account of old age, a reason of itself debarring him from earning a living elsewhere. Macquire never got beyond the status of a temporary employee, and he has always been a miserably paid man. The highest salary he ever received is from two or three hundred a year, certainly not enough for him to make adequate provision for his family, quite apart from making provision for old age. Now all that stands between him and starvation is an old age pension of £2 10s. a month. The Minister is introducing a new method into the work of this House by the attitude he is taking up. The work of this committee is arduous, and it is one of the most undesirable and thankless tasks any member can have allotted to him. There is nothing to be got out of it, no kudos, but long hours and three days a week sittings, and all to do the best we can in coming to decision upon the petitions of the helpless. In this case we have a man who has served the country for most of his life, and it is unthinkable that he should spend the rest of his days in the gutter of poverty.

It is a very unpleasant duty I have to perform, but, nevertheless, it is a duty. In justice to every member of this select committee, I want to say that they have not spoken a word to me about this case, and I think the hon. member owes an apology to his colleagues. Will he accept my statement that not a single member of this select committee has mentioned this case to me? If he does accept it, he owes an apology to the members of that committee. The action I have taken is on representations made to me by the department, and I must leave the matter to the House.

Of course, I do accept the words of the Minister, but I must say that the information was conveyed to me immediately after the meeting, that the Minister intended to move afterwards in this House the rejection of this pension, and this the Minister has done, but I do accept the Minister’s assurance of course.

I feel that it is my duty in this case to support the Minister and to give the House the necessary information. It is one of those cases which are never recommended by the Select Committee on Pensions, and, since I have been a member of the committee, we have never yet passed a single petition of this kind. The applicant, in this instance, is a man who was only temporarily employed, and who received everything he was entitled to. He got a gratuity of £100 when he left, and drew other monies, and if we are to give him £7 a month, where do other permanent officials come in, who only receive £3 a month? It would be unfair to them. In the select committee I opposed the recommendation to the utmost, because, if we give a man like this a pension, then we shall have to do it in numbers of other cases, and it will cost the country hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. I want to add that the Minister has not, in a single case, tried to influence me or any other member. I think myself that we should not approve of this recommendation, and I am, therefore, glad the Minister has introduced this motion.

I am sorry that the Minister has taken up such an attitude with regard to this case. If ever there was a case which should have been treated on compassionate grounds, I think it is this one. More than 49 years ago this man entered the service of the country for the first time, and he has been more or less in the service of the Government ever since. He was finally retired in 1928, from the Agricultural Department, I think, because he was then too old for further service. During most of those years he was employed in a temporary capacity, practically from 1880 onwards. This is a case for compassionate treatment, irrespective altogether of treasury regulations. It is all very well to talk of a precedent, but it is not too much to give a man £7 a month in his old age who has served the country well. I put it to the Minister that having made the statement he has made to the House, he should take this matter into consideration on its merits, and withdraw his opposition.

What is to become of all the other similar cases? It is one of a class.

It may be one of a class, but it is a concrete case. I ask the Minister to consider it on its merits. I know the man, and I know the case, and I hope the Minister will withdraw his opposition.

I do not know the man, and I do not even know his name, because I do not know where we are at the moment, but I am certain that the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) has not the least right to talk in the way he did. In the first place, he comes here and practically threatens the House that if his proposal is not accepted, we will have no select committee on pensions in future. That may be so, but then Parliament will have a chance of finding the remedy. What I, however, want to point out is that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) has made an appeal to the Minister of Finance in such a way as if he attributed it to the arbitrariness of the Minister of Finance that this petition was being objected to. If we grant it, what will be the effect in the case of other instances of the same kind? We are not concerned here with a peculiar case which stands by itself and on its own merits. We are concerned here, and this was the view of the Minister, with one of a class of cases, and, as the Minister has shown, if we concede this case, there is no reason why we should not grant pensions in other cases of that class. I want to ask hon. members where that will lead us to. Are we going to grant pensions through the select committee where this House has decided that in the case of a certain class of persons, they shall not be given? The hon. member now says that there is a difference between this case and similar cases, but the only distinction is that in the one case a man has done temporary service for the state for ten years, and in the other for thirty years. But then we must assume that the other persons also were entitled to pensions in proportion to their time of service. The pension will possibly be smaller, or, if they have served longer, it will be larger, but that does not detract from the fact that we are going to pension a class of persons to whom we, as legislative authority, have refused to grant pensions. I want to ask what right the hon. member for Greyville and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg have to find fault with the Minister of Finance, who is doing nothing but his duty.

We are not finding fault with the Minister.

Well, I am glad to hear that from the hon. member, but the hon. member for Greyville said that the refusal was due to a bad mood.

He withdrew it.

Well then, to the parsimony of the Minister in protesting against the petition. I say that when Parliament has refused in legislation to grant pensions to certain persons, or to assist them, we should not go and give them to those people in a roundabout way, what we will not give them by an Act. If we find that those persons must be assisted, then we can lay it down by legislation in the future. Petitions of this kind have been refused in various instances by the select committee in the past, and are we now going to grant this one? The hon. member for Greyville threatened that if we did not grant it the committee would in future feel bound to deal with petitions in a party spirit. Where then will we land? We shall get innumerable applications from persons who for one reason or another could get no pension in the past. We cannot do it owing to the reasons the Minister of Finance has mentioned. If he was right, it was his duty to draw the House’s attention to it, and let me say that it is my personal opinion that in a case like this we ought not to grant the pension.

I must say that I cannot agree with the argument of the hon. the Prime Minister. He says the law makes no provision for a man in this position to get a pension.

Not upon the grounds of his earning a salary.

The law makes no provision for a pension for widows of civil servants, and yet they come to Parliament.

Under special circumstances.

The committee exists to recommend special cases, which is making fish of one and flesh of the other, so that something over and above the law can be done. I see no reason why the committee should not adopt the recommendation of the select committee. I know that the Minister of Finance has to see that his purse-strings are kept tight, but why should a man, because he is a temporary servant of the state, be debarred from coming forward. If they had said that this man should be awarded a pension merely because he is a temporary servant, I would agree with the Minister. He comes to us because he is old, because he is in need and cannot work, and he says to us: “I have been a servant of the state for 49 years.” I think a man who has been a servant of the state, as this man, is entitled to come. You now say that because a man has been a servant of the state and retired because of old age, he is not entitled to any pension. I think this is a dangerous doctrine.

I can assure the hon. member I have taken the action I have because of the principle which is involved, and if this principle is accepted, Parliament must know that it will be establishing the dangerous precedent that every man, if he is 60 years of age, is entitled to come to Parliament for a pension if it is on the ground that he is employed by the state. We have an old age pension scheme, and the man will have to be satisfied with his old age pension. It is not the case that everybody who cannot live on the old age pension is entitled to come to Parliament for a pension, although a Pension Act has been passed by Parliament. I do not know a single fact beyond the fact that the man has served the country. I do not know of a single ground on which the award can be defended, except that the man served the country for 31 years in a temporary capacity; the only other ground is that he is over 60 years of age, and has no other means. But there are thousands of other people in that position, and they have to be satisfied with the old age pension. The Pension Act lays it down that, unless an individual has been on the permanent staff, he does not receive a pension, but a gratuity.

I admire the Minister’s stand on the point of economy, but when he argues the matter on a point of principle, he is out of order, for every person has the right to petition Parliament. The facts have been considered by the committee, and on the strength of those facts the committee has made its recommendation.

I find it rather difficult to follow the Minister. In a previous case he contended that if the committee had decided to award a pension on compassionate grounds, he would not have opposed it, even though it was wrong as a matter of principle. In this case, however, the committee decided solely on compassionate grounds to award a pension, and now the Minister objects on the ground that by so doing a new principle is being laid down. The Prime Minister has remarked that certain members on this side are finding fault, but it seems to me that it is the Minister who is finding fault with the select committee. The work of any select committee will be rendered very difficult if it feels that the whole of its work is to he revised by the House. In that case it would simplify matters if all the petitions were referred to the Government for it to make its own recommendations to the House.

I was, unfortunately, not here when the matter came up, but I want to remove a misunderstanding on the part of some hon. members. They apparently think that the Select Committee on Pensions disposes of a matter finally, but actually the final responsibility rests with the House. It is only to expedite the work of the House and to facilitate it that the select committee considers petitions and makes recommendations, but when the latter come before the House their acceptance cannot be insisted on. Anyone in the House has the right to object if he does not agree with the recommendation. I do not want to discuss the merits of this particular case, because I did not go into them.

I do not think anybody would contend that the select committee’s decision must be final. But once a committee has considered a petition, the Minister, if he wishes to upset that decision, should make out a strong case for its rejection by the House. The Minister urges that the acceptance of the select committee’s recommendation would thereby establish a new principle, but no one has ever urged that the select committee’s decisions are final, so that they must be accepted as precedents for other cases. On the contrary every case must be decided entirely on its own merits. That is the answer to the Minister’s argument that if we give a pension in this case we must do so in every case of this kind. The whole essence of the existence of the select committee is that it deals with people who have no legal rights whatever, but who petition for pensions on compassionate grounds. What objection is there in this particular case to agreeing to the select committee’s recommendation?

Will the Minister inform us whether this man’s 31 years’ service was continuous?

Continuous.

The Minister argued that if the pension were granted in this it would allow quite a number of temporary employees to petition Parliament for a pension, but that was rather exaggerating the effect of the recommendation. Here we have a case of a person who has served the country for 31 years, the greater portion of it being continuous employment. Had this person been entitled to be considered a member of the permanent staff he would have no need to petition Parliament. This committee and the select committee are influenced by the fact that this particular individual served the state for 31 years. One must take that fact into consideration. Had I been a member of the Select Committee I should have said that any person who had served the state for 31 years, quite apart from the conditions of his employment deserved some measure of consideration, because it was only by a freak of chance that his original employment was in the nature of temporary. When you have taken 31 years’ service from an individual it is only fair at the conclusion of that service to say it may not have been permanent at the inception, but it has been pretty permanent in fact. I do not want to know the reasons on which the select committee has come to its conclusions, but I feel sure that the Minister, no doubt actuated by the fact of the temporary nature of this man’s employment, is trying to prejudice the select committee’s recommendations and to avoid the granting of this pension. If any member has served the State for 31 years, I do not care on what basis, I say that is pretty permanent and continuous, and we have no right when he is no longer of use, to turn him off and treat him on exactly the same grounds as if he had never given one day’s service to the State. 31 years is a pretty big slice out of a man’s life, and I appeal to the Minister not to suggest that by granting this pension we should be establishing a precedent whereby every person who has served the state in a temporary capacity, could come and apply for a pension. We know that every case is considered on compassionate grounds. A man comes to this tribunal because he has no right to a pension, and because he has no right this committee is set apart to consider the case and submit its recommendations. I think the Minister, having satisfied his departmental conscience, could, with credit, withdraw his motion and allow the recommendation to go through.

I do not follow the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance in their argument in asking the committee, to reject the recommendation on the ground that there is nothing in the law to provide for it, because, if the Minister will refer to the terms of his motion for the appointment of the committee, he will find this is what he said—

It seemed a hopeless task, but I hope even at this stage the Minister of Finance will support the committee in the appeal that has been made.

As a new member of the committee, it does seem to me a strange thing that these recommendations should be turned down at such short notice. The Minister said he did not converse with any member of the committee after it had met, and I accept that. All I can say is that within three days of the meeting we were told that this particular pension was to be objected to. In this case there is no doubt whatever that the award was recommended entirely on compassionate grounds. There were no other grounds. A commercial man like myself feel that when a man has been employed for a long period, he should be given a chance of joining the permanent establishment. This man was apparently an ignorant man, and did not know that after ten years’ service he could apply to be put on a permanent footing. He was kept on for a long period and now we are told that because he was in temporary employment, he cannot get a pension. We have considered pension after pension on exactly the same ground, and if we were to act in the way the Minister suggests, there would be practically no such pensions granted at all. Compassion must enter into it, and there are some very bad cases. This is one of them. Although I am a new member of the committee this case appealed to me, or I should not have voted for it. It does seem peculiar that we had this news three days afterwards; I am quite sure the matter must have been talked about. The Minister would certainly not come here and say he knew nothing about it if he did. In this case the suggested award was made entirely on compassionate grounds, and that being so, I think the committee should agree to it.

Motion put and the committee divided:

AYES—58.

Alberts, S. F.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

De Jager. H. J. C.

De Souza, E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. D.

Du Toit, M. S. W.

Du Toit, P. P.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jansen, E. G.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Potgieter, C. S. H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Roberts, F. J.

Robertson, G. T.

Rood, K,

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sauer, P. O.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strijdom, J. G.

Swanepoel, A. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Visser, W. J. M.

Vorster, W. H.

Wentzel, L. M.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: Naudé, J. F. T.; Vermooten, O. S.

NOES—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Baines, A. C. V.

Blackwell, L.

Borlase, H. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chiappini, A. J.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Friend, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Kayser, C. F.

Kentridge, M.

Kotze, R. N.

Krige, C. J.

Lawrence, H. G.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Pocock, P. V.

Richards, G. R.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Roper, E. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williamson, J.

Tellers: O’Brien, W. J.; Struben, R. H.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Recommendations (4) to (44) and recommendation II put and agreed to.

On recommendation IV,

In view of the fact that the select committee was unable to deal with a large number of petitions, I would ask that a commission be appointed. If I remember aright, in 1926 a commission was appointed, which did very good work during the recess. I submit, as one who has been on that committee for the past five years, there is no committee in this House which has worked more strenuously and continuously; the nature of the work is sometimes heartrending, and it is not fair to people applying for pensions that there should be this unnecessary delay until next session. I therefore appeal to the Minister of Finance to appoint a commission, and if it is considered it is going to be a big expense, I must differ entirely from him. If I remember rightly, that commission sat in all about four or five weeks, and the total expenditure was in the vicinity of £200. That small sum is nothing compared with the good that can be done in alleviating the position of these people. I hope that the Minister will appoint a commission.

Recommendation IV put and negatived.

House Resumed:

Resolutions considered and agreed to; report adopted and sent to the Senate for concurrence.

In regard to irrigation I just want to explain to the House, and I think everyone will agree, that if there is anything on which the future of South Africa to a great extent depends, and especially the agricultural industry, then it is irrigation. If we want to assist agriculture then we acknowledge the great thing the Government must do is to construct irrigation schemes, although they have practically been failures in the past. I am not going into the reasons for the failures, but I want to call the Minister’s attention to what is being said about irrigation, and I want to refer him to the important congress of delegates from the north west, which was recently held. I think the Minister should consider and adopt the recommendations which were there made. Various commissions have already been appointed with regard to irrigation. The last commission has already done good work, but we find nothing in the report which assists or solves the matter. I see they were given authority to investigate any matter; I do not find in the report why irrigation in our country has been a failure. They say that the present system is wrong, but they cannot substitute anything. I want to point out to hon. members that there are two kinds of streams in our country, namely, permanent and flood streams. We only have a few streams which can be called permanent.

The hon. member can only discuss the direct policy of the Minister or the Administration, but he cannot now make a budget speech.

I only want to point out that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) during the Native Affairs vote specially asked whether, in view of the fact that the Minister’s salary was not being voted under the irrigation vote, irrigation could nevertheless be discussed here, which unavoidably would also affect the policy to a certain extent.

I said that under the circumstances the policy could be discussed. I have no objection to it, but have a strong objection to the hon. member making a fresh budget speech.

I do not want to make a new budget speech but to discuss the question of policy. As stated, nothing is suggested as to what ought to be done to make a success of irrigation schemes. I want in the first place to debate the flood water schemes. Nothing is suggested here as to how to make a success of them. Those schemes are a failure in every respect, and the only way to improve the position is to subsidize them. I want to point out that irrigation schemes are subsidized in other countries. That is the case in Spain, where a subsidy of 50 per cent. is given to irrigation schemes. In Italy we find that the contribution amounts to 45 per cent. And let us now look at America which is laying itself out to make a great success of irrigation. We find that those irrigation works are assisted by exemption from interest for a certain number of years. The report of the last financial year shows that in America there was, nevertheless, a loss of £3,000,000 on irrigation schemes. That is tangible proof, seeing that notwithstanding the knowledge of the experts losses are still made, that irrigation schemes need a subsidy. The Government must do something to assist the schemes. We never expect them to pay at once, and therefore help must be given by way of grants or otherwise. Any Government that can help on irrigation and the development of the country is going to do much for the future, not only of agriculture, but of the whole country in general. I want to point out to the Minister that we have the Orange River. It is very unfortunate that all the water runs away and we ought to dam up the river. The Minister will say that he has already had the matter investigated, but I want to point out that in the report of his own official, the chief engineer, Mr. Lewis, pointed out that although there are difficulties, there are schemes that can be carried out in the future. I say that even if such a scheme does not pay in the immediate future it is Still of great value to the country for those areas to be developed. I hope the new Minister of Irrigation will give his attention to this in order to see that those assets, because I call the Orange River a national asset, are used to irrigate the valuable land. Then it will become an asset on which we can reckon in future, and which will benefit the Government, and out of which the people can be assisted. As for flood schemes I think that the Government should assist them by way of grants as in other countries. Then I also want to mention the need of water bores in the North-West. The only solution of the drought in those parts is to provide the people with water. I want to emphasize that people there cannot be assisted as in other parts because circumstances there are different. We find that there they have to bore through ironstone so that it possibly takes the whole day to go a few feet. If the same costs are incurred as in other parts the people find that it does not pay. They are practically afraid to bore because they think they cannot afford it. I want to point out to the Minister that special privileges must be given in that area in future in connection with bores so that they can get even with other more privileged parts. I also hope that the Government will introduce a system of sinking funds, in other words that the amount which has to be paid for boring can be paid off over a certain number of years. I hope the Minister will not only promise to send bores there but that he will take immediate steps to assist the people.

I would like to ask the Minister if nothing can be done to meet the demand for boring machines more expeditiously. My experience is that an applicant who gets a machine within twelve months after making an application is very fortunate. I know of farmers at Klip River who put in their applications in February last and on making enquiries a few days ago I was told a machine might be sent in about four months time, towards the end of the year. I suppose there is a shortage of machines and I would like to know what steps, if any, have been taken to increase the number, because at no time have there been enough machines during the last ten years to meet the demands. I was told that some applicants had been on the waiting list for eighteen months, and I hope the Minister will take steps to increase the number of machines and to deal with the matter more satisfactorily than has been done in the past. I asked a question a few days ago regarding allocation and was told they were mostly employed in the Transvaal and Cape. Natal has had a very small share. A certain number were employed in 1929, mostly in Zululand, and only one machine was employed in Natal outside Zululand. I hope the Minister will see that we get a fair number, commensurate with the importance of Natal and equitably apportioned in comparison with other provinces.

I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of what the previous Minister of Irrigation, Gen. Kemp, has done to push irrigation in the country, especially by means of the appointment of the Permanent Irrigation Commission which has greatly contributed in writing down the over capitalized irrigation works to a normal value. This has doubtless encouraged the irrigators to carry on their operations better. I feel especially thankful for what was done in the Ladismith constituency because thousands of pounds were written off on non-paying irrigation works. By this I do not mean to say that our irrigation system is quite perfect, and I cherish the hope that the present Minister of Irrigation will continue building on his predecessor’s foundations so that we can have an entirely effective irrigation system. There are many respects in which an improvement can be made. Hitherto irrigation has mostly failed in South Africa because the schemes cost too much. It is not necessary to investigate the causes of the failures too closely. Some people blame the engineers, but I cannot give them all the blame, although it is true that their estimates were too low in many cases. The greatest cause for failure must however be looked for with the irrigators themselves, because according to law irrigation boards were chosen, and they in my opinion were too lax and allowed the engineers to dictate to them so that the expenses became too heavy. Here I am not referring to the engineers who made the surveys, but the engineers who were locally appointed to see to the completion of the schemes. In this respect irrigation boards can do more by keeping an eye on the work and seeing that no unnecessary costs are incurred. I think it important for the Irrigation Department to change its policy. As the system existed till now the irrigation loans are given on the redemption principle over periods of 20, 25 or 30 years during which periods the interest and capital must be paid off. In our country of unfavourable climatic conditions and long droughts that cannot be done and therefore I think that the Government should introduce the system of grants so as to support the irrigators on a fairer basis. Here we should follow the example of older countries, who have already for hundreds of years gone in for irrigation before there were any Europeans in South Africa. The older countries found that irrigation could not succeed without a system of grants. Here I can instance Italy where the State has contributed 30, 50 and even 60 per cent. of the cost. I can here point out that the climatic conditions and the rainfall of Italy are more favourable than in South Africa. If the system of grants is necessary there, it is the more necessary in South Africa with poor rainfall and worse climate. Then the department should also assist private persons in the building of small irrigation works. I know a man in my district who completed a scheme at a cost five or six tunes less than the amount at which the engineer estimated the cost, and the low expenditure can only be attributed to the fact that he personally supervised it, and did not allow an engineer to dictate to him. As for bores I think that certain parts of the country should be assisted more and I say this, notwithstanding the generous conditions we got last year in connection with the Government bores. I am particularly referring now to areas like the North-West and the district of Laingsburg where people also have to fight droughts, and do not share the benefits of the southern areas. Then I would like to mention certain irrigation schemes in the district of Laingsburg which were surveyed a number of years ago, and which were rejected. There was a drought when they surveyed the place, and therefore the best results were not obtained. As one who grew up along the river I know it has sufficient water to justify the completion of the scheme. A large dam can be built on the upper side of Laingsburg for £400,000 but it is impossible to build it without proper support. The Government ought to support the people and contribute a certain amount. The people of Laingsburg nearly perished from thirst during the great drought and if it had lasted another month the railway administration would have been compelled to carry water there. Then I want to point out that the Gamka Kloof scheme was surveyed two years ago but we have no report from the Department of Irrigation as yet. Such long delay is intolerable, and I hope the Minister will attend to the matter so that we may shortly have the report. Calitzdorp is to a great extent dependent on it and during the drought people there would have died of hunger if it were not for the assistance of the Armesorg and of the Provincial Administration. If this scheme is completed, however, they will be able to make a living and will not run any further risks of suffering from hunger.

I wish to ask the Minister to make a statement on the policy of the Irrigation Department regarding the irrigation developments on the Orange River. I think the Minister will welcome the opportunity to make a statement that will clear up a lot of misconceptions regarding economic irrigation on the Orange River. I know that the Minister is subject to a lot of pressure, much of it un-informed pressure in regard to this matter. If the Minister has studied the reports of his technical officers as I am sure he has studied them he will have come to the same conclusion that I have reached, that the prospects of economical irrigation on the Orange River are very meagre indeed. Unfortunately the public do not read these reports, they only see a large river and demand that the Government jam a dam across and turn out the water, like shutting one door and opening another. I am not speaking as a Cape man or a Transvaal man and I hold no brief for any province or any particular scheme but I do hold a brief, and I think I am qualified to do so, for irrigation in general. I agree with the hon. member for Prieska and consider this country will be richer in having a large number of relatively minor schemes than in a few large spectacular ones and I am afraid the Minister may give so much attention to the large schemes that he may overlook the smaller and more feasible ones. I have referred to the matter of pressure on the Minister but I do not suggest in the most remote way that he is likely to be influenced by political pressure, but experience in other countries shows that of all the large activities of state enterprise irrigation is most subject to political pressure, let me quote the following from the evidence given before the select committee upon the Irrigation Commission Bill: “Experience has proved that no one man can stand up against political pressure of people interested in pushing irrigation schemes.” I think one of the reasons for forming this commission was to interpose a buffer or barrier between the Minister and people interested in pushing schemes, possibly unsound. The Irrigation Commission fails to function properly if its recommendations for or against any scheme are not available to the House at the time the funds for such scheme have to be voted. My complaint is that the House has not the information it should have, when I visited the Irrigation Commission office I was met with great courtesy and a masterly silence upon all the points I required information on and when I went to the offices of the Irrigation Department and asked for information about water from the Orange River I was offered morning tea and that was all I did get. I suggest that if the dams the Hon. Minister proposes building leak as little water as his Department leaks information they will be very watertight jobs. The last report of the Irrigation Commission is dated 30th March, 1928 and does not contain information upon the schemes before the House. What is the position when the recommendations of the Commission are in conflict with the intentions of the Minister as reflected in a loan vote? Or when the commission is silent upon any proposal? I suggest this is the occasion for the appointing of a select committee especially upon all large schemes. I want the Minister to regard me not as an unfriendly critic but as one seeking information upon which to base fair and unbiased criticism.

We have been under the impression that the Government Would, during the recess, consider certain irrigation work, and I should like now to say a few words about the matter, I hope that when the Minister is considering irrigation works that he will give special attention to conditions in the Western Transvaal. We have the best kind of soil there, but continual droughts make it almost impossible for the farmers to make a living any longer. In the past they have always had an opportunity to make a kind of existence on the diggings, but the chances become less every year. The diggings are fewer, and the diamonds are becoming exhausted, so that the farmers there have gradually to rely solely on farming. I, therefore, feel that the Western Transvaal deserves special consideration. The ground is some of the most productive in South Africa, the Vaal river passes it and thousands of morgen could be irrigated. I understand that various schemes have been considered, such as a dam that was to be built at Parys, and another at Vereeniging which was under consideration, and in addition that the Kromellenboog scheme was being considered. The Minister must of course consult his experts about the best scheme, but if the dam can be built between Parys and Bloemhof I think it will be the best and will bring the most productive ground in the Western Transvaal under irrigation. What is more, that district has a hopeless future without irrigation, and a scheme like that will put the people on their feet once more. If we build a dam at Vereeniging I fear we shall only assist Potchefstroom and the neighbouring districts, which can make a living to-day without irrigation. Let us in the first place look after the districts where the state of affairs is bad, where the ground is fruitful, and irrigation is required.

I was speaking the other day about the north-west, and I would like the Government to consider the broad policy of supplying drills in those parts to obviate trekking in time of drought. If those parts had been supplied with water, nine-tenths of the farmers would not have trekked during the last three years’ drought. Money should be given more liberally in Land Bank loans. Boring loans are repayable in five years, fencing loans in ten years, and I suggest the boring loans should be put on the same footing as the fencing loans. It would be money well spent. Regarding the much discussed scheme of diverting the Orange River at Aliwal North, the Director of Irrigation has said that if you put 20 cusecs of water in the canal only one cusec would reach the Zak River, his objection to the scheme is the reason why I am in favour of it, because instead of the 19 cusecs running into the ocean it soaks into the earth. To-day everyone is putting down boreholes and taking water out of the earth, and no one is putting a drop back. Much can be done by irrigation, much has been done, but there are many schemes which I am afraid will have to close down. A lot of silting has taken place. We must be very careful before we tackle a scheme to see that we are on the right lines, to see that we have sufficient water. I would advocate first of all, schemes where we have running water every year,

I have no doubt the Minister has had a good deal of information on that subject placed at his disposal. I think the Minister will agree that he could not get more valuable information than by visiting the irrigation schemes himself and seeing on the spot what has happened. I am quite sure the Minister intends doing that, but it will put heart into the irrigators if he intimates in this debate that it is his intention to do so. Perhaps he will be able to give them some information on the question of transfer. It is a very big factor which makes a big difference whether a man owns the ground, or whether he is only an expectant owner. Also, we have heard during the last six months or so, that a very large sum indeed—some £3,000,000—is proposed to be devoted to establishing new irrigation schemes. I do not know whether this money will be expended all at once, or spread over a number of years. I would like the Minister to give us what information he can, and above all would like if he could assure the country that he will do his utmost to make existing schemes a greater success than they are before embarking on new ones. The Minister will find, not only from personal inspection, but from what he has heard, that the position of irrigators is in a bad way, and anything he can do in the way of sympathy and the alleviation of their burdens will be very welcome. He may consider how far it will be possible to write off the dead weight debt which hangs on the necks of some of the settlers. It is a very big question, but obviously something of that nature has to be done in order to enable these settlers to conduct their operations with prospects of success in future.

It will perhaps be well if I say a few words now in connection with hon. members’ speeches. The failures of irrigation schemes in the past have been mentioned and it was said that neither the commission nor anyone else had given a reason for the failure. I think it is fairly well known that with regard to the so-called failure in the past it is to a great extent due to the fact that a too large area was always regarded as rateable and that as the hon. member has said irrigators often themselves made the mistake in mentioning a quantity as taxable which was entirely unsuited for irrigation and which on the other hand could not be adequately supplied with the water conserved by the dams. Then I come to the point that in most cases the cost was more than the estimate. I do not think we can say at this stage that irrigation has been a failure in this country, for undoubtedly many farmers have owing to it, remained on the land, who would not otherwise have been there; and not only this but land has also been made available for closer settlement than otherwise would have been the case. The Irrigation Commission has been engaged for some time in making enquiry into the existing irrigation works in order to try and put the schemes on a proper basis. The way the commission is setting about it is to enquire what capital such a scheme can carry, and this involves the exclusion of certain land which is included in the taxable land. Then recommendations are also made with regard to the capital which in many cases has to be written down to the amount that the ground served by the works can carry. In part such writings off are already authorised by law, and for the rest provision will have to be made by this House. In general I think I can say that where we have already written off large amounts we must assume that the future, further large amounts will have to be written off. Various hon. members have spoken about grants and represent that there are other countries that give a forty or fifty per cent. subsidy on irrigation schemes. Let me point out that in many cases in South Africa more than fifty per cent. has already been written off the capital already spent on irrigation schemes, and that there are cases where the whole amount has been written off, so that in this respect we are actually assisting the irrigators as much as we can; but the question arises whether it will be preferable rather than to make the writing off after the irriagtor has been hard put to it, to have a scheme in future which has first of all been properly investigated and a recommendation made to ascertain what the economic position precisely is, and what capital can be borne by the irrigators, and then to write off an amount at once, so that a balance is left which can be properly carried. Perhaps we shall assist the people applying for grants in that way. The matter is being considered. I hope to be able to say next session in what way the grants will be made and what the future policy will be. I think we may assume that a subsidy in one form or another will be given. The fact that writings off in the past have been made and the idea that grants will be given in future have set up a cry for irrigation works throughout the country and I want to warn hon. members that it will probably be very difficult, if not impossible, to immediately start many of the schemes which have been suggested. I have already given the assurance that all these schemes will receive proper attention, and when we consider it is in the best interests of the country to make enquiry at once and to start work immediately, the necessary enquiries will take place without delay. The engineers have been criticised. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) referred the other day to the danger which he thought was again threatening, that the engineers are just as wrong as in the past, when according to him, a dam which could be built for £5,000 cost nearly £42,000. I think the Irrigation Department will be only too pleased to have fair criticism, but when it is made I think it will be a good thing if hon. members were certain of their facts. According to my information it appears that the dam in the Somerset East district—I think it was Blyde Rivier—was actually built by a farmer. The Irrigation Board which existed there consisted of farmers and gave the contract to a farmer to build it for £16,000. The farmer made an entire failure of the matter. The wall of the dam broke and then the engineer, not one belonging to the Irrigation Department, but an independent engineer, was appointed to rectify the matter, so that in that respect, the hon. member for Albert in quoting the case, has chosen his example somewhat unfortunately. I also want to point out to the hon. member that in regard to farming he was not quite fair when he compared the cost of private boring with that of the Department. He quoted that in the Free State boring is done for 3/6 and 5/-a foot. My information is that the Department has also bored there at 2/6 a foot, but this is due to the fact that the ground there is extraordinarily suitable and very easy for boring, but when we come to the north-west which the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. C. H. Geldenhuys) mentioned, we find that we have to go through granite banks there, and it goes without saying that it is rather difficult and more expensive than in the part of the Free State he refers to. I just want to say a few words about the present position in regard to boring. Hon. members will see that we have put £118,000 on the General and Loan Estimates for boring for farmers, and on Crown Lands in general. On these Estimates there is the amount of £66,000. This amount is considered as irrecoverable in respect of boring operations. It is practically a subsidy to the farmers and is regarded as irrecoverable. The amount which we hope to recover is £52,000 which appears on the Loan Estimates. We are considering an alteration of the boring regulations, so that in the first place in regard to boring by private bores loans can be given to the farmers who want them, in the same way as loans for fencing, etc., are granted, in which case the amount is repayable over a long period. In regard to boring by the Department I am also considering a further reduction in the charge for boring. Perhaps a longer time will also be allowed for paying the money due. These matters are being considered and I hope the regulations will soon be settled and published so that everybody can ascertain the position. As for the number for bores available, I want to say that we shall have approximately 77 bores available this year. At the commencement of the year there were 62 in use, and we hope by the end of the year to have 30 more. Most of the bores are made in our own workshops in Pretoria, and they are of a class specially suited to the circumstances and conditions in South Africa, as experience in the past has taught us. I now want to answer a point raised by various hon. members. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. C. H. Geldenhuys) pleaded for the north-western districts. He referred to the recommendations of the conference held there some time ago. The resolutions of the conference will receive my serious consideration. The system of grants he referred to I have already dealt with and showed the way we propose to settle the matter in the future. With regard to the Orange River there is a difference of opinion between the hon. members for Prieska and Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) on the one hand, and the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) on the other. The question of the Orange River will be closely investigated to see what can be done. I do not think that we have too much data as yet to take decision, but I can assure hon. members that the most careful enquiries will be made to find out precisely what can be done. With reference to the supply of water bores to the north-west I want to point out to the hon. member for Prieska that the supply of bores takes place according to the number of applications made, and as far as the north-west is concerned the number of applicants falls very far short of the number required. The rule is that no bore is supplied if there are not fifteen applicants and I understand from the Department that very few applications for bores have been made in Prieska. On the whole the number of applications for the North-West, Namaqualand and other such areas is very insignificant in numbers. Hon. members will understand that it would be unfair to send a bore for possibly one applicant. This also applies to what the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) said in connection with boring in Natal. As for Namaqualand we are considering special conditions there and for other similar areas. I want to point out to the hon. member for Prieska that we have received less than half a dozen applications from that constituency. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) discussed the subsidy question and I have already replied on that point. I just want to tell him and the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown, that where there are schemes in existence for building irrigation dams or works on a large scale they will not be passed before due enquiries in all respects have been made. This however does not mean that the small schemes will be neglected, and all applications for loans by private persons will be sympathetically dealt with, and they will also be able to get any advice on their schemes from the Department. The question of the dam at Laingsburg will be seriously considered. The report on the Gamka Kloof scheme will shortly be available. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) advocated the interests of the Western Transvaal, and I may say with regard to the Kromellenboog scheme that it is one of the big schemes which will cost millions, and very careful investigation will be necessary before we start it.

The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) has asked for a statement of policy but I regret that I am not in a position at the present stage to state the policy which will be followed in future, I want to repeat the assurance that I gave just now that no great irrigation scheme will be embarked upon until the fullest investigation has been carried through, so that he need not be afraid that we shall embark on any spectacular scheme. The Orange River scheme will be investigated to the fullest extent, and some smaller schemes are also being investigated at the present time. Naturally I will be guided by the recommendations of the irrigation commission. That commission has done very good work for the last few years, investigating existing schemes and trying to make recommendations to place those schemes on an economic basis, so that irrigators who are served by these schemes can remain on the land. The question as to what is to take place in case of a conflict between the department and the commission will have my earnest consideration. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) spoke of the need of boring machines for Natal, and he wishes machines to be placed at the disposal of applicants. Owing to the number of applicants for machines it is quite impossible for the department to send miles and miles away to one individual, but where there are a certain number of persons in one locality, they will get a machine if it is asked for. The general rule is to have 15 applicants to one machine. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) dealt with the Sundays River scheme. I must say that at the earliest possible opportunity that I can take—I do not know if it will be during the recess—I shall certainly visit this and other irrigation schemes. The question of the Sundays River is a very complicated one. The Irrigation Commission has compiled a very comprehensive report which is having our consideration at the present time and we hope to deal with the whole position.

I would like to know if the hon. Minister can give information as to what will be the irrigation policy in Zululand and in his own constituency. I notice in the Gazette that an irrigation settlement along the Bongola River is in course of formation, and although there are very few persons concerned, I would give that my warmest support. But I would have the Minister keep in mind the larger aspect. We have in Zululand a large tract of country, half a million acres in extent, and it would be very unfortunate if we set up riparian rights in that area, which although suitable for Cape conditions is unsuitable to Zululand.

We are under the same law.

Yes. But the law should be altered to suit the conditions of Zululand. It is not applicable to that area where there are large running rivers. The Cape policy adopted towards Northern Zululand would merely render impossible all irrigation settlement. The whole of Zululand should be considered en bloc, as a whole, rather than spend a lot of money to start one or two small schemes which would set up individual rights and prevent the ultimate development of the larger area. The whole of the rivers should be considered as one, and if all the vallies which run down from the hills to the plains in Northern Zululand were dammed up so as to utilize the rain water you would have with the rivers, a reservoir of water which would make the country exceedingly rich. I believe that the Black Umfolozi River, for instance, could be taken out of its bed and diverted so as to irrigate the Hluhluwe and so prevent the volume of water flowing down in times of flood to devastate the Umfolozi settlement. But before anything is done in a big way there should be a thorough irrigation survey of the whole region. Some of the sugar estates, such as the Mount Edgcombe, have been spending large sums of money on private irrigation projects. I do not think that any member of the staff of the Irrigation Department has any knowledge of the irrigation of sugar fields, so that it would be advisable for the Minister to send one of his staff to Hawaii, where sugar cane is very largely grown and irrigation has been brought to a fine art. The knowledge would be of great value to the country.

I have every sympathy with what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has said in regard to the rivers in Northern Zululand. For instance, there is the Pongola River, around which there are thousands of acres of irrigable land; and an irrigation district has been proclaimed there, but that does not bind the Government to anything. I do not know whether it would be advisable to deal with the matter on such an extensive scale as the hon. member desires, but his suggestions will receive serious consideration. At present there are two schemes in regard to which investigations have been completed—Nquilene and Umkuzi. The people on the Pongola River have every reason to be optimistic with reference to the prospect there. The Government has sent a man from the Agricultural Department, and the experimental block has proved very successful. As to the irrigation of sugar fields, most of that would have to be by pumping, as the water is very low-lying and the fields are located on the sides of the hills. The question of sending an official to Hawaii will be considered.

I am very glad that so many bores will be available and I hope to be assured by the Minister that boring will be started at once on Crown lands. I mentioned the other day the Namaqualand reserve was subdivided seven years ago into bits of ten thousand morgen and I hope that this area will receive the special attention of the Minister.

We have been hearing all the afternoon from the Opposition how the Government should deal with irrigation. The expert, the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) now wants to tell us here what should be done, but he is one of the greatest sinners. He was a member of the Land Board when land was bought in my district and turned out one of the greatest failures. Now the hon. member comes and tells us what to do. The Government must do just one thing and supply bores to the Nationalists on long terms and to the Saps on the old short terms, and the money lent by the Land Bank must also be given by the Government on long terms to the Nationalists and on short terms to the Saps. Then the Government will see that it is really acting in the interests of the country and the farmers. The hon. member and his Land Board made the greatest failure in the world at Riversdale and ought to be quiet. He knows himself he had made a mistake. They bought ground and we have already had to write off £54,000. He has come himself to help write it off.

On a point of order the hon. member accuses me of buying ground at Riversdale. I have not bought an inch of ground there.

The hon. member was one of the hon. members of the Land Board who bought the ground, and a number of Saps. from whom the ground was bought, now live in smart houses and Nationalists are left with all the trouble. The hon. member can safely leave irrigation matters in the hands of the Government. The farmers are sitting on this side and we know what to do.

While thanking the Minister for his information I would like to make one point in regard to write-offs. The total writeoffs amount to less than 2½ per cent. of the total amount of money spent on irrigation schemes.

I should not have spoken again but the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) accused me of buying ground at Riversdale. The Minister of Lands however can confirm that I have not bought an inch of ground there. It was bought by the Land Board long before I was on it.

It was an S.A.P. Land Board.

The hon. member also said that beautiful houses were built, but all the housese were bought by his supporters. More than £150 was never advanced, and if he still says that his people are living in houses that are too expensive—

On a point of order!

I should like to point out to hon. members that this is not a Budget debate, and that they therefore cannot discuss the policy of either party, but must confine themselves to the Department of Irrigation. I want to ask them not to make attacks and counter attacks.

Mr. Chairman, you allowed the hon. member for Riversdale to speak on this matter and therefore I want to reply.

You can deny it and that will be sufficient.

If he thinks his supporters live in too expensive and too large houses then I can tell him that further erven are shortly to be issued and then he can suggest to the Land Board of Bredasdorp to have houses built under £50.

The hon. member for Hottentots is again saying something inaccurate. I never said such a thing.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) entitled to refer to the hon. member for Hottentots (Holland) (Mr. Faure) as the “lid vir Hotnots”? I would ask you to request him to withdraw.

I just forgot “Holland.”

The hon. member must refer to another hon. member by the name of his constituency in the proper way, and must not omit part of the name.

I want to say that the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) has now spoken about the settlers’ houses. I am thankful for them. What I Was referring to were the luxurious houses which the sellers of the land built for themselves out of the large sum they got from the S.A.P. Government.

I want again to remind the hon. member that this is not a Budget debate.

I only want to remove a wrong impression created by the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure).

Order! Order!

I shall not allow myself to be shouted down by a lot of Saps. The hon. member for Hottentots Holland accuses me of saying that the settlers’ houses were too expensive, but I said that the favoured ones whose ground had been bought by the S.A.P. Government were enabled in that way to build themselves beautiful houses.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 37, “Public Service Commission,” £27,733,

I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the report of the public service commission, and that is where they deal with the position of the post office, and point out that they have drawn the attention of the Minister to the position raised by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and that it has not been cleared up. As regards the advisory council the post office side are functioning on their own, and they seem to have more privileges and advantages than the ordinary public servants’ association.

I did not quite catch the meaning of the hon. gentleman. I understood him to refer to the constitution of the advisory council. All I can say is that the advisory council system, as altered by the present Government, is on the whole working very well, and I think the constitution of the council, as at present, has been agreed upon by the public service commission on the one hand and the advisory council itself on the other, and the latter, I take it, is in consonance with the various public service associations.

And the Whitley Council?

The whole question was gone into very carefully a few years ago when the Public Service Act was passed.

They promised to give it a trial.

It was decided that instead of having a so-called Whitley Council, members of the advisory council of the Public Service Commission should be nominated by the commission to consult with members nominated by the Government. That is working very well.

What is the practice now in obtaining the recommendations of the Public i Service Commission for appointments and promotions? We discussed this matter before, and we were told by the Government that it was their practice when they wanted to make a particular promotion or appointment to inform the Public Service Commission of their desire to do so, and ask for the concurrence of the commission. That is a practice which I take exception to. In my opinion the authority to decide which is the best man to be appointed to a particular post, or to be promoted on a particular occasion, is the Public Service Commission. It is not for them merely to give their approval, but it is for them to make recommendations to the Government. The Government, of course, can overrule their recommendatians. I hold that it is important that the recommendations should come from the Commission, and I would like to know from the Minister what the practice is.

I think the conception of the hon. gentleman as to what is taking place is altogether wrong. It is not the practice of any Minister, as far as I know, to make representations to the Public Service Commission that a certain man should be appointed to a post except in the case of a very superior post, for instance, the head of a department. In that respect I do not think that we depart from the ordinary practice which has been in vogue for many years, and also under the Previous Government. It is the most natural thing in the world if a Minister has to appoint the head of the department, that he should personally discuss the matter with the Public Service Commission, make suggestions to them, and give them an opportunity of making suggestions. It is only right that there should be consultation in such a case, but with regard to the lower posts in the service, I do not think it is done.

Yesterday afternoon during the course of the debate relating to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs Vote, I drew the attention of the Minister to page 3, section (10), of the recent report of the Public Service Commission. I was not at all satisfied with the attitude the Minister adopted then. In the Public Service Commission report the point is raised on page 3, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he has studied that part of the report as to whether an officer has the right to go straight away to the Public Service Commission. What are his views on the matter? My reading of the matter is that any member of the public service has the right to go straight away to the Public Service Commission, and I would like the Minister to enlighten us as to his views.

I think it is a sound principle that any officers who have a grievance should go to the head of their department and discuss the matter with him, and if he wishes to approach anyone in higher authority, the Minister, for instance, he does so with the permission of the head of the department. These are very sane lines. I think it is very wrong to allow officers, especially inferior officers, to approach Ministers direct, and to go behind the backs of their superiors. That is a principle that is followed everywhere.

That is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I am discussing the civil service report, and the salaries are laid down in that report.

You may not discuss policy.

I am not discussing policy, I am discussing law. The law lays down certain procedures, and I want to know if the Government has gone outside the law.

That seems to me a matter of policy more than administration, and we cannot discuss policy at this stage.

We were told that when it comes to irrigation, we can raise questions.

I contend that the law lays down a certain rule to be followed, and there has been a departure from the rule in regard to this report. I want to know if that departure is confirmed by him, or is he going to see the law carried out.

I think the hon. member refers to something laid down by the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. With regard to that, I do hot agree with it.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I move—

with the object of discussing the question of unemployment.

A portion of the item on the estimates refers to the salary of the late Minister.

A number of men have been employed on Government works in and around Cape Town, one being the Koeberg stone quarry. A number of them have been discharged although the work is not finished, and they have thus helped to swell the ranks of the European unemployed. They give as the reason of their dismissal that they belong to the South African Party; they say most of them were discharged on that account, although the work is by no means completed. Both European and coloured unemployed demonstrated before Parliament House last Wednesday. The following day they again appeared. I happened to meet them and asked them their mission, and I was successful in getting the Minister of Labour to see a deputation representing the Europeans. He informed the deputation that he could give the men work at the Molteno and Sir Lowry Pass railway works, there being vacancies for 50 or 60 men at the former place, and 40 or 50 at the latter. The men were satisfied with that, and the Minister told them to register at the Labour Bureau. The men left, but came to me on the following day and informed me that there were no vacancies for them at Sir Lowry’s Pass, while at Molteno they said the conditions were impossible. It is not reasonable to send men from Cape Town, where their families reside, to Molteno, a distance of 600 miles. They showed me a receipted account from Molteno; this showed among other things rice was 1s. a 1b. and other articles of staple diet were high in proportion. As these men were informed by the labour bureau that the most they could earn was £5 per month, and as many had families here it was unreasonable to expect them to go. Added to that there has been an outbreak of typhus in the Molteno district. I have a cutting from yesterday’s Argus which says that a serious outbreak has occurred. Under these circumstances is it reasonable to expect men to seek employment there? I told the Minister of Labour about this. He said he had not heard of it, but he invited me to go to the telephone with him and he would communicate with his department. The department could not enlighten him, but he enquired about vacancies at Sir Lowry Pass and the reply over the ’phone was that there were 54 vacancies. As the men were desperate I advised them to go to the labour bureau and secure these 54 vacancies. They came back and said there were no vacancies. They wrote a letter to me to this effect—

These men are desperate. They have families who are starving. I told the Minister he must do something to relieve the situation, but he would not go out to see them. Whether they will raid the shops for food or not I do not know, but when a man is desperate and unemployed and his family is starving you can expect anything. There are 140 to 160 Europeans in Cape Town who are anxious to work but cannot get work and have applied to the Government in vain, and there are 600 non-Europeans. I was instrumental in bringing a non-European deputation to state their case. The Minister said: “Are you prepared to go on farms in the Western Province and take employment at 5s. a day and all found?” The men said “What about our families? and the reply was “Oh, they can go too.” These men of course were most willing to accept this employment. I asked about how many could be absorbed. He said as far as he knew 100 or more. I asked when could these men be employed, and he said from next Monday.

Who said so?

Your head of department said so. I took the precaution of making a note of all the Minister said and I have it here. Is it likely I should send 50 men to find employment if there was no employment promised? The Minister denies telling me there were 54 vacancies at Sir Lowry Pass, but I took it down.

Was there a third person present?

Yes, there was the head of your department. He gave the information. You did not seem to know the first word in regard to it—and from the Minister’s manner he cares less. In regard to these coloured people, their case is desperate. I have gone into their cases. They are respectable civilized non-Europeans, men who are chefs, plumbers and various other trades. They have been householders of small cottages. They have had to leave and now have to live in one room with 13 or 14 others. That is a common occurrence. It is no wonder that the housing problem in Cape Town is so acute. The Government supineness in this matter is criminal. I would like the Minister to tell me how many of these non-Europeans have been engaged at this figure. There are hundreds waiting to go. He further asked if these men were registered at the bureau. I have found that 400 of them are registered. But what about the Europeans? Surely when these people are starving the Government must come to their assistance. They have explored every channel in Cape Town. This applies to other parts of South Africa but I do not know that it is as bad as here. Surely if the Minister knew his job and took any interest in it and earned his money he would provide work for these men. The Government cannot see these people starve. They must provide them with food We have been told £1,000,000 is to be granted for road making and £300,000 of that is allocated to the Cape. Why did not the Minister provide for them out that money? There is the development of the Crown land at Strandfontein, which will probably rival Muizenberg, but roads must first be built. About 100 men are employed there but the work could absorb far more. This country is facing a period of depression. The reasons are various; agriculture was never in such a parlous condition as it is to-day, spending power reduced, and numbers of people have been thrown out of employment. I refer to shop assistants whose employers cannot pay the wages determined by the wage boards. If the Minister leaves the stabilized industries alone as regards wage determination this position would not be created. The Government is making no provision for this unemployment. In my own constituency there is a boot factory employing several hundreds of men, boys and girls, and the highest paid workmen are Indians who receive £2 per week and were quite contented to work at that. After the determinations these wages jumped up to £5 per week. Contrast that with the wages of shop assistants not earning a living wage and discharged through this determination. What a magnificent sphere for the Wage Board to operate in regard to the civilized labour on the railways, where there is enormous scope for their energies. The Government are lacking in their duty, and I am sorry the Minister of Labour is so callous about this question. Any Minister with spunk in him would have provided for it with some comprehensive policy. I warn the Government, as I warn the Minister, that we are facing a desperate position in Cape Town, which is only one phase of the question; and the same applies to Johannesburg; I have no doubt the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will develop the position as it exists there. At Pietermaritzburg unemployment is growing. I can see, unless something is done to meet this, a serious position will arise in the country. Surely the time is ripe when the Government should speed up the question of national insurance; the Bill should be brought into force as soon as possible; this country is lagging behind the rest of the world in this respect. I hope the Government will tackle the matter soon, otherwise the consequences will be disastrous.

I do not want to make the Minister bankrupt but yet I want to propose a reduction of his salary by a further amount of £1 to discuss emergency relief in Namaqualand.

The hon. member cannot debate emergency relief by means of a motion for reduction of salary under this vote, because emergency relief comes under the Minister of Finance. He can debate it on the next vote, but even then not by means of a motion to reduce salary.

May I point out that although the relief falls under the Department of Finance the actual handling of it falls under the Minister of Labour, who finds all the employment—or does not find it.

This is not a vote for the relief of distress, and by the usual procedure we have to follow these votes and discuss them as they are printed.

Would the hon. member be in order in discussing unemployment?

There is a motion already on the unemployment question.

In December last year the Government agreed to the commencement of relief works in Namaqualand, to assist the people there and the work has continued up to now. I can assure the Government that it was a tremendous relief to the Namaqualand people, so great that they can hardly realise it, because more than 800 men got work on the road, at least 80 per cent. of whom are married. When you remember that each married man has a wife and three or four children, then it is clear that thousands of people have been saved from certain ruin or from certain misery. Last week, however, the Minister of Labour told me that the road relief works would be stopped as soon as the Parliamentary session was over. I was almost breathless from fright when I heard it, because it will mean that thousands of people will again be thrust into the depths of misery. I cannot understand the reason for this decision, because if relief of December, 1928, has lasted till August of this year then the need has not yet disappeared. When I pointed out to the Minister that the need was just as great he replied that it had rained in Namaqualand, but it certainly has not rained sheep or money. Moreover, if it does not rain in September the people can get no harvest. They are so impoverished and so many of their animals have died that they have not even got donkeys to plough with. The Minister appreciated the justice of my remarks and he then said that the people could go to Buchuberg. Buchuberg is, however, in the Prieska district, 400 miles from Namaqualand, and it will take a man fourteen days to go there by donkey-cart and if the people are to go there by motor lorry it will cost a good deal for the 400 mile journey. Further, it will be no relief to the people because the men will then have to maintain two households, himself at Buchuberg and his wife and children in Namaqualand. Under present conditions the man can go home every Saturday, and his wife can prepare food for him, and wash his clothes, and therefore his share is merely the daily share which he would have got if he had been home all the time. Another reason why I cannot see the people going to Buchuberg is just owing to the fact that 80 per cent. of them are married. Why should our households be divided up in an unnatural and cruel way? The Minister may say that it is sentiment and I agree, but what is affected in the world of any value without sentiment. The two great parties in this country are divided for sentimental reasons, if it is Nationalism it is sentiment; if it is Imperialism it is sentiment. It seems to me that the only one who sits here without sentiment is the Independent. I want to ask why the people should go 420 miles from their homes when there is plenty of work in their own districts. If the work was necessary up to now why can it not be continued? Then I want to point out that the Government last year decided to cement the canals along the Oliphant’s River, because half the water is lost to-day because it sinks into the ground, and not only is the water lost but the ground becomes brackish and salt. For this reason the Government decided that the canals would be made with cement and in answer to my question the Minister said it would cost £175,000. What is the case now, however, A group of coloured people are doing the work and it will take them years to complete the canals. I asked the Minister why he did not take some of the 800 Europeans and put them to work on the canals, because when the canals are finished double the quantity of water will go to the lands and the brackness and saltness will also be prevented. There will then be plenty of work along the Oliphant’s River, and in that way the whole irrigation scheme will be saved, and this will mean a good deal to the Government, seeing that £800,000 has already been spent on the scheme. I further asked the Minister why he does not extend the railway to Garies, the first village in Namaqualand, and he replied that the branch lines were stopped because the motor lorries had taken their place. I then said that the lorries also needed roads and why should not the roads be extended by the people. If the lorries use these roads and they are not properly constructed and maintained then the case will be as the Hollander said, that your inward parts are being exhibited. I put another question to the Minister. If he cannot use the railways or the roads or the canals to supply works why are not the people placed at Alexander Bay? Why are not some few hundred more of them employed there? Here I want to point out something in the speech of the Minister of Finance which struck me, when in answer to the question why the general manager of the State diggings got £3,500, second manager £2,065 and the assistant technical manager £1,753, said that these officials were entitled to them because they were working in the desert and doing a highly responsible job. It is a fact that the people in Alexander Bay work in a part like a wilderness where ne and I would not work and is responsible because they have to do with diamonds which are a great temptation, and which may result in the worst consequences for them. I want to point out to the Minister, the Government and the House, that according to the reply the Minister of Finance gave me, diamonds to the value of £7,000,000 were discovered in one year on the State diggings. Now I ask if poor Namaqualand has given £7,000,000 to the Government in one year which enables the Minister of Finance to be so happy to-day and to say that he has a surplus of £3,500,000, and all this from Namaqualand.

No.

I ask inasmuch as the Minister has got £7,000,000 in one year out of Namaqualand whether the Government cannot give the Namaqualanders anything. Is the shirt not nearer than the coat? Does charity not begin at home? I want to ask the Minister what is the use of a rich Government and a poor people. In conclusion I want to appeal also to the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I want them to understand that the people in Namaqualand look up to them as the fathers of the people. One cannot blame them for doing so because during the second war of independence the Prime Minister went there as a general from the Free State and then many Namaqualanders went into rebellion, and thereafter the hon. member for Standerton came there and made more rebels. More than a thousand joined up. Many were killed and many ruined. Now I want to appeal to the two leaders of the people to think of the distress of Namaqualand and its inhabitants. Is that asking too much? I ask it in all deference. The Minister of Justice—there is no one for whom I have more respect—and the Prime Minister as well; said that my speeches in Namaqualand were the cause of diamond thefts. I may correct that by saying that during my election campaign no one was arrested nor indeed after it. On the contrary I threw water on the fire at Port Nolloth because the public were prepared to rush the diggings. I want to point out to both Ministers that the thefts were not caused by my speeches but by hunger and distress. [Time limit.]

I am very glad to say that my experience has been entirely different from the experience of two hon. members who have spoken I have always found that the Department of Labour has taken every possible step to assist me in helping those whom I wanted assisted. I have corresponded on one or more occasion with the department in connection with unemployment at the diggings on the Vaal River and I have the pleasure to report that on all these occasions the repartment have assisted as many men as they possibly could, and I fail to see how the difference could be made between these men and those represented by the last speaker. I am inclined to think that when he was speaking on behalf of the unemployed, he had a secondary object in view. I am deeply disappointed at the attitude of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp). I have always known him to speak what he feels inwardly, but I do not think he has spoken in that strain in this House or with the logical correctness which he was known for many years ago as a student. If that is the correct attitude which he adopts, we may say that the produce of the alluvial diggings at Lichtenberg belongs to Lichtenberg only, that of Kimberley belongs to Kimberley only, and that of the Rand to the Rand only. I cannot for a moment think that a responsible man should take up that position in the House. We want in this House a speaker who can argue coolly, rationally and consistently. I wish to thank the Department of Labour for what they have done for my constituents. I appealed to them and they responded immediately and in a very satisfactory manner.

Let us into the secret.

There is no secret, only I act sincerely and openly, and I do not believe that all the other members of this House do the same. This is to my mind one of the great opportunities the Government has to relieve the indigency on the alluvial diggings, and I hope that this beginning which has been made will be continued by the Minister and his department. There are many others along the Orange River who want to get away from the diggings and we have always felt that this country owes a great debt of gratitude to the ex-Minister of Mines who has done his best to prevent a rushing from the country to the river diggings. I think the time will come when those who have been his traducers will see he was one who has benefitted South Africa. The difficulty is this, that the men are at present allowed to go by themselves. The distance from Brakfontein to Douglas is about 200 miles. Family life is a foundation of our social life in South Africa and we want to maintain that as much as possible.

On 5s. 6d. a day.

Their request has been forwarded to the Minister and that request is that their families may be sent. I think that we cannot honestly and consistently plead for a pure home life unless we make allowances for the needs and wants of these people. There is this feeling in me that has been aroused, what will be the prospect for these men on new works for irrigation purposes, for the present it is only relief work and it was a great relief to them. I think the time has come personally when various departments dealing with irrigation works has to come to a definite understanding as to the role of his department. I hope the Minister will give us some information on the subject.

Before I go further I want to thank the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) for the compliment he pays, and I think that I can return the compliment. I think, however, age is beginning to tell with him, just as with me, because otherwise he would have been more logical and remembered what I said. I did not ask that the Namaqualand diamonds, or the money should be only spent on Namaqualand, but I asked for a part of it for Namaqualand. All I want is that Namaqualand should also get a few of the crumbs which fall from the master’s table, but now nothing is given to Namaqualand; even the work on the road which was done there from December to June is being taken off. Namaqualand is now not even getting the crumbs. If it is raining on the State let a few drops fall on Namaqualand as well. The hon. member said that I am claiming Namaqua land diamonds for Namaqualand and asked whether Kimberley also claimed the Kimberley diamonds. I want to point out that the diamonds on Kimberley go to De Beers and let Namaqualand just get a part like De Beers, a much smaller part, but yet something. The Minister of Justice averred that my speech was responsible for diamond thefts in Namaqualand. I want to assure him that it was not my speeches, because during and after the election there were no thefts, but because of hunger and distress and the detectives of the Minister of Justice who went to the hungry people and held the diamonds under their noses, the possession of which would make them rich in a minute. I consider that just as bad as holding a piece of roast meat before a man who is hungry and forbidding him to eat it. I do not: know whether I correctly understood the Prime Minister, and if I draw the proper inferences from what he said about my statements about the Government, Must I take it that his conclusion is that my personality is preventing the Government from being merciful to Namaqualand? I just want to point out that we must be careful in our conclusions from speeches, especially when we have to do with the interpretation a hostile press gives to them. If it were not for a Wrong interpretation of words by the same Minister at the time there might not I think have been the greatest calamity in our country, and we might not to-day be seeing the sight of two great and respected leaders of our people continually flying at each other’s throats. But let me assure the Minister that in all my speeches in Namaqualand, I always placed the crown above the head of the Prime Minister. I can only say what William the Silent said: “I always honoured the King of Spain.”

I cannot help contrasting the light-hearted, almost callous, way in which unemployment is treated now on the Government benches with the way in which they used to regard it a few years ago. They assume that unemployment is abolished now, but the poor people outside do not seem to understand that.

They do not talk about it.

They talk about it, but the Prime Minister does not hear about it. I want to move—

in order to call attention to the policy of the Government in regard to the Doornkop Sugar Estates. The last Parliament heard a great deal about this matter, and I am not going into the whole history of this business again. All I wish to say is this—that having regard to the manner in which the question was left at the end of last session we cannot in the interests of decent government allow the matter to rest there.

Are you reviving the airy imputations of last session ?

No, I am not doing so, and the Minister knows it.

What do you mean by decent Government ?

By decent government I mean that the Government last session moved for the appointment of a committee of enquiry into certain imputations alleged to have been made against the then Minister of Labour. What we moved for was an enquiry into the whole business, but the Government would not agree to that, and it had a committee appointed to enquire into imputations which were disclaimed at the time.

But they had the desired effect.

What desired effect?

The desired effect of creating the impression in a great many minds that my predecessor, Mr. Boydell, had been guilty of dishonourable conduct, and that had a great effect on the elections.

There are two answers to that. One answer is that the hon. member who is alleged to have made these imputations entirely disclaimed any intention of doing so, and the other answer is that the select committee found expressly and clearly that in the case of Mr. Boydell there were no grounds for these imputations. I agree that this had one effect—that an unscrupulous use was made of the findings of this select committee in order to whitewash the Government. Mr. Boydell did everything to use it for that purpose in Durban. I disassociate myself entirely from any imputation against the honour of the late Minister, but why I say it is in the interests of a decent Government that the matter cannot rest here, was that the enquiry by the select committee was made into certain allegations, but owing to the shortness of time at the disposal of the select committee it could not possibly go into the whole affair. The select committee brought up a report, stating that there was no ground for imputations against the personal honour of the then Minister, and the report was used—as some of us foretold it would be used—to whitewash the Government. That is why the matter cannot be left there. On the last day of the session the Prime Minister said that after the elections an enquiry must be set on foot. He agreed with me that the matter could not be left there.

No, something different.

According to Hansard on March 27 the Prime Minister said—

Not your question.

Running away!

I am not asking for a further enquiry into any imputations against the Minister.

Are you running away now? I was prepared to have an enquiry.

All the Prime Minister says is that he is prepared to have en enquiry into imputations against the Minister. Other people were dragged into it and they are entitled to have the opportunity of clearing themselves. Rosenberg and Major Trigger have both pressed strongly that their cases should be enquired into in order that they may have the opportunity of clearing themselves. They complain that they have never had the opportunity and they never will have it if the enquiry is to be limited to imputations made against one Minister. Apart altogether from that, what is our position? The Government entered into a contract with Rosenberg’s company. A hundred men were placed as tenants on this estate. They were to be paid £150 each and so on, and they were to be established there as tenants with the ultimate prospect of getting a certain share of the estate. The whole thing has hopelessly broken down, the agreement has been cancelled, a new agreement has been entered into and the position is that this Government is left with a liability from the company to the Government of about £145,000, for which all the Government has, as security, is a mortgage bond over the estate. I think arising out of that, there are matters which call for enquiry. The then Minister, Mr. Boydell, told the select committee that Mr. Rosenberg came to him with an introduction from another Minister. He put in general terms the idea before Mr. Boydell, and without enquiry, Mr. Boydell told the secretary to fix matters up. This scheme, involving the Government in large liabilities, is entered into without any enquiry and they did not even know that this company had tried to float a settlement scheme at Doornkop which had been a hopeless failure.

Did Mr. Boydell say that to the select committee ?

Yes, he did.

Without any enquiry whatever ?

Yes. He told us Mr. Rosenberg came with an introduction. They talked over the matter and then he called the secretary and told him to go ahead. He told us he did not know anything about Rosenberg’s past, or that the company had already had a previous scheme which was a failure.

That is not an inquiry into the scheme.

We want to know how it is that a scheme of this kind can be entered into by a Minister without any enquiry and without taking the trouble to find out what the past history of the scheme and of the company is. Granted that a particular Minister may be a child in these matters, as I think Mr. Boydell was, he has an expensive department behind him whose business it surely is to go into matters of this kind and find out whether on the face of them they are likely to succeed or not and to find out what the standing of the company is and what is the reputation of the persons concerned with it. We also want to know why this thing failed, why it came to grief in the way it did. I know that the answer over there is that certain members on this side of the House went about poisoning the minds of people so that they would not have anything to do with it, but that explanation requires a good deal of faith to be believed. There should be an enquiry as to why this thing failed and why this Government was left with this enormous commitment of £145,000. We want to know also what chance we have of getting anything back.

Do you want an investigation into that too ?

Yes, of course we do. We want to know what our security is. It is a very important matter. I know we have these great surpluses nowadays, but it is a matter of importance that we should know what security we have for this money. The Minister told us last session that the value of the land on the estate was £100,000. I understand that a few years ago it was acquired for £16,000. We are told a lot of money has been sunk in mills and buildings, but we want to know what security we have for this advance. Another point is this. The agreement by which the first arrangement was cancelled provided that the estate should be worked, as far as possible, with white labour. We should like to know how that is going on. That, I suppose, was one of the conditions under which Mr. Rosenberg was released from his obligations and was allowed to have £60,000 without interest. I want to know also whether the Government are clear with Mr. Rosenberg or whether he is not contemplating bringing an action. There is an action? Well, what is the action about? I say the matter cannot be left where it is, because the enquiry set on foot last session was only a partial enquiry. It was en enquiry into only one point—implications against the Minister. It decided that, as far as the conduct of one Minister was concerned, there were no grounds for such imputations. Personally, as far as I am concerned I do not believe there is any ground against the other Minister either. But it left aside the very important matter of the administration of the estate, the circumstances that led up to the agreement and how the agreement came to be entered into. We are entitled to an enquiry on that point because a very large sum of money is involved. We are entitled to an enquiry as to what led to its failure. We know that every Government makes blunders of this kind. Every Government is responsible now and then for the loss of considerable sums of public money, but we on this side, when that sort of thing happened to us, did not shirk any enquiry. When a mistake was made, in regard to the Durban elevator, we at once had a public enquiry.

What about the other mistakes? For every time you mention Doornkop you will bear of something else.

I ask the Minister to do the same thing as we did—to have an enquiry. I ask the Government to set up an enquiry such as we did in regard to the Durban elevator, and give the men whose names were brought in in connection with the affair an opportunity of saying what their connection with it was, and giving them an opportunity of rebutting the allegations made against them. It is due to them and to the country that such an enquiry should be held.

I rise immediately to deny the interpretation put on my words as quoted from Hansard. The position we took up from the first day is that with regard to an enquiry into the administration, and mistakes which were made, or not made, in connection with the scheme, no enquiry will be held as far as the Government is concerned, and the Government will maintain that attitude, but what we actually did was to have the systematic attempts which for days on end were made to blacken Ministers’ characters, to attack their good name in badly disguised ways, to have those lies investigated by a select committee, which should make a report. The committee did investigate and they did, at any rate in part, publish their findings in regard to one Minister. When in regard to that matter an enquiry was made into the truth or untruth of the accusations against the Minister it was then on behalf of the Government that I said that if the enquiry should not be commenced before the adjournment of Parliament, to express a finding in connection with the whole matter, that I would then, after the elections, see whether that enquiry ought to be further proceeded with. But never did I in connection with matters referring to the administration, or the success, or the non-success, of the scheme, say that such an enquiry would be instituted. In this connection I stated just as clearly as my hon. friend here that no enquiry would be held because there was no reason for it simply because there was nothing that this House cannot get to know. Hon. members can at any time get any information they want. There is nothing the Government is not prepared to lay before them. Now the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that we must follow their good example. It is impossible. The Doornkop scheme is the only failure they can point to, at least I know of no other. But when we look at the last Government and turn our eyes to the Free State, the Cape, the Transvaal or Natal the eye beholds S.A.P. failures everywhere, and greater failures than Doornkop. My hon. friend now says that we must have an enquiry made as they did, but if I mistake not it was only about the Durban grain elevator they had an enquiry. That was so disgraceful, and we pointed it out so much, that they had to have an enquiry, and if I mistake not it was one of the things which told very much against them, notwithstanding their enquiry, in the election which followed. They could no longer refuse to have the enquiry because it would have been too scandalous if there had not been one, and because the mismanagement—I do not use mismanagement in the sense of “bribery ”—but mismanagement in the execution of the work—was so great that it looked as if the people entrusted with the work were not competent, and enquiry had to be made. Did the last Government have an enquiry in regard to Sunday’s River? If Doornkop was a scandal then that was a much greater scandal.

What scandal ?

The mismanagement, the waste of money; that is surely now all that be said about Doornkop that it will possibly be a loss of money to the State. Hon. members opposite say that the charges are not meant against the character of the Minister, that they are in connection with the administration for which the department is responsible, that must be enquired into think that this is the same thing as took place in connection with the Sunday’s River scheme, otherwise why did the last Government lose so much money over it? But that is not all. Take Umvolosi. Here my hon. friend the Minister of Lands is left with that mess. £160,000 has already been written off that, scheme.

What is wrong with that scheme ?

It is that from a State point of view it cannot exactly be called a success. £160,000 was a loss. Take again the purchase of farms along the Modder River in the Free State. Take the farm in the district of Riversdale on which £54,000 has already had to be written off. Did they make an enquiry after it? No. I mention it here because hon. members come and tell the country that the enquiry is necessary. Why are they so much concerned about Doornkop? The reason is that it is the only case which they can lay their fingers on. If we had to investigate all the mismanagement which occurred under the previous Government, then the House would soon say that we cannot allow so much money to be spent on Blue Books. We refuse to allow an enquiry into the administration of the scheme because there was not a single reason for it. If hon. members wish, we will frankly admit that the scheme was not a success, but we are prepared to lay all the facts before the House. What then is the need of a further enquiry? The hon. member commenced by saying that we had had dealings with Rosenberg and commented in his character, but on previous occasions the hon. member tried to blacken the character of the Minister in a shameless and because of that, and false charges, or what sounded like false charges, we ordered an enquiry.

I would like to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for a further investigation into the management of this Doornkop venture. I was asked by the late Minister of Labour (Mr. Boydell) to go on to this committee, and I hesitated to accept the invitation because I felt that the terms of reference were so limited, and the time allotted to the investigation was so short, that it was practically impossible for the committee to investigate the matter, but I hesitated to refuse because I knew that if I, coming from Natal, had declined to go upon that committee, the most sinister use would have been made of that circumstance. That committee met. For a whole week the time of that committee was taken up by an examination, and the cross-examination, of Mr. Marwick, the hon. member for Illovo. One would have thought from the conduct of the Government’s representatives on that committee, that the whole of that enquiry was an enquiry into the conduct of that hon. member, that it was a punitive committee set up to investigate what he had said. Let me tell you what they did. They examined that hon. gentleman on every speech he had made for the past three years connected with Doornkop. They subjected him to a most minute examination as to everything that he had uttered in face of the fact that it is laid down by the highest authority that the greatest care must be taken not to intimidate members of this House with regard to statements they make. Objection was frequently taken, both by Mr. Marwick and others, but it was overruled. The hon. member for Illovo was not loath to give evidence, but he opinted out that the character of the proceedings of the committee might interfere seriously with the rights of members of this House. In our first report, the whole of that committee came to the conclusion that there was matter for further investigation, and so seriously did we regard the evidence given that we unanimously decided that that evidence should not be published in fairness to gentlemen who were not present, and could not then answer the charges made against them. The Prime Minister said “we must examine Mr. Boydell.” What earthly-chance had we got of investigating all the matters in connection with Doornkop by an examination of Mr. Boydell in one day? Let me refer to an admission made by Mr. Boydell. Mr. Boydell said that he had accepted a letter written to him by Mr. Roos, the then Minister of Justice, introducing this man Rosenberg to him at a time when the Government was not advertising for land for settlement, and at a time when he said he did not know Rosenberg, and acting on this letter, he sent him to the Lands Department and told him to investigate the scheme. I asked Mr. Boydell “Did you speak to Mr. Roos?” He said “No.” He was asked “Did you know that this man Rosenberg was the man whose character had been assailed in this House, and that you interjected something in connection with him?” He said “I did not recognise the fact that that was the same Rosenberg.” Let me give you another aspect of this case. One of the most serious aspects of the case is with regard to certain bonus shares. These bonus shares were said to have been issued, to be given away by somebody in connection with the railway. I asked Mr. Boydell whether anything was said about the granting of a railway to the company. He said “I do not know.” May I tell the committee that if the company do not get a railway it will so increase the carriage on their sugar that it will make a difference of some 3s. or 4s. per ton, and the Minister could not tell me whether any discussion had ever taken place with regard to the construction of a railway from the company’s estate. This question of a railway was the one vital need which meant either failure or success in connection with this matter, and yet this Minister had no discussion about it, and could not tell the committee whether there had been any discussion.

Do you want to insinuate anything against the character of the Minister ?

I am not imputing anything to anybody. As an ordinary man of the world I want to say that if a responsible Minister, two responsible Ministers, can enter into a transaction of this description without enquiry, on such slender evidence, with an individual who had not only been stigmatised in the courts of this land but whose character had been attacked in this House, it is clear there is a case for investigation. I have pointed out that the method of enquiry adopted by the committee; was unsatisfactory. At the elections you were; perfectly successful in your methods. Mr, Boydell was able to stand up on the public platform and say—“ I am clear. Doornkop has been raised above any suspicion. The lion member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is a liar and a coward.” I ask whether the hon. member for Illovo can be stigmatised as a coward. That word coward was used in this House by the Prime Minister. I have followed his Dutch enough to know that he will not follow up this enquiry further. What I understand the Prime Minister to say is this—“ I place this on the same basis as Umfolosi and Sundays River, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that no one ever suggested in connection with these matters that there was any malpractice.”

Do you aver that?

I must say I am more than astonished at the speech delivered by the hon. member as he was one of the select committee which absolved Mr. Boydell from any sort of suspicion of malpractice of any kind. Now he tells us to-day he went to serve on this committee because he knew that if he refused all sorts of use would be made of his refusal. That was the only reason why he served on it. That that committee was diverted from its proper object and made into an instrument of attack on the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). What do these speeches amount to? Am I to understand that my hon. friend’s statement that he imputes no dishonourable practice on the part of the Minister is now withdrawn.

You will not trap me.

That gentleman will be back in this country in the course of a month or so and we have every hope that he will come back in good health, and then there will be no need to ask for an investigation. Let us be clear on this matter. As the Prime Minister has said on this matter the hon. member can disclaim any innuendo till doomsday, but the ordinary man in the street who reads his remarks will infer there is something fishy behind it. He succeeded in making many people believe this, and the man in the street in many cases really believe that there was something in which Mr. Boydell had not played the game.

Why not have a proper enquiry ?

The hon. member is not satisfied.

That is not the point.

Here we took in good faith the statement by the hon. member that they did not believe that there was the faintest ground for any malpractice.

Do not obscure the issue.

We are ready to give you any information. I was asked the other day for a certain document. We have given you every information. You have only to read the pages of Hansard to find that we have made an attempt to use a new field for the reclamation and putting on their feet of the class of the population on whose behalf we should try and experiment. That attempt failed but that should not deter us from trying again in every direction in order to make it a success.

Hopeless incompetence from the very start.

We are quite satisfied. We have not the talent·, of course, of the hon. members opposite, but still there are some brains scattered about this side of the House here and there, and with what brains we have we still mean to carry out experiments to improve the condition of this class of our population.

Is not Rosenberg suing you owing to incompetence ?

If you are being sued by someone, does it then follow that you are being sued for incompetence ?

What are you being sued for ?

If the hon. member will put that on paper. I, will now turn to the other champion from Natal,· the hon., member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). I congratulate him. He has made himself the champion of certain gentlemen. I do not think he would willingly mislead the House, but the impression I gained was that he stated that I would not have seen Mr. Haggar and the deputation but for his intervention. There is not a word of truth in that. I came into, the House and the hon. member, in his zeal, ran after me, and before I could hang up my hat. he said “Do see these men.”. That was the first intimation I had that they wanted to see me. The hon. member says that I was most callous in dealing with this matter, but I have to deal with this matter in some sort of business-like way. The first thing I had to do was to call for a departmental report, which showed that the works at Yzerplaats was closed on the 3rd instant. The engineer had foreseen this was coming for some time; he gave the men ample notice and also communicated with the department. The divisional inspector at once got into communication with the engineer of the Molteno—Jamestown railway construction and the divisional inspector at East London and found that there were vacancies there and elsewhere for altogether 87 men. These vacancies were offered to the men, the Government to pay all costs of their transportation. The average earnings on piece work would me 8s. 6d. per day; seven men accepted, but I think seven men left. Only yesterday seven men said they would go. The fares were ready for them, but not one turned up to go to Molteno. This afternoon the hon. member (Mr. Deane) asked me if I had seen the terrible prices charged for food at Molteno, such as 1s. a pound for rice. I sent for the divisional inspector, who is a very reliable man, and we found that the real price in the case quoted was 1s. 4d. for four pounds of rice, a very different thing. Generally speaking, the prices were the normal prices in these dorps. Let me say quite clearly that I am by no means callous on the question of unemployment. Unemployment there is still, but compared with what it was when hon. members opposite were in office, it is like a pimple to an abcess.

It was a very painful pimple.

We are tackling unemployment, and will certainly endeavour to do my utmost to reduce it to the lowest possible amount, but I cannot, at a moment’s notice introduce great works. Our main business is to shorten the road between the man who wants work and the man who has work to be done.

You have not shortened it.

Of course not as much as my hon. friend could.

By jove, you haven’t.

I cannot do more than offer what work there is, and try and stimulate other departments and other employers to engage this class of labourer, but I cannot at a moment’s notice find work at their doors for 70, 80 or 100 men. I would sooner see men accept work some distance away rather than they should be encouraged by my hon. friend to come to the House every day. I am doing my best in every direction to open avenues of employments.

How many non-Europeans have you found employment for ?

My hon. friend came to me again this afternoon and said there were no vacancies at Molteno and there was typhus at some other place, I at once telephoned to the divisional inspector who denied that all the vacancies at Molteno had been filled, and told me that there were over 50 vacancies there. I informed the hon. member of this and then he goes out and tells the unemployed that there were 54 vacancies at Sir Lowry Pass.

That is what you told me.

No.

You did.

The hon. member is a new hand at this business, and he does not appreciate the necessity for accuracy. I certainly hope that with the grant for roadmaking there will be opened up a considerable area of employment which will relieve the position, but road making is not the aim-all and end-all. It is only one of the pallatives on to which you can turn a man who has no skilled trade. What we can do we do. Men have been earning on piece rates an average wage of eight and sixpence, and a good man can earn more. These men were earning £8 to £16 a month on the avoiding line.

It is six shillings a day at Sir Lowry Pass.

I have no details here. That is probably Divisional Council. I prefer to see these men on piece work. With regard to coloured labour, this is the report I have received—

There it is. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) smiles that sardonic smile of his. He would pay them £20 or £30 per month. We have to deal with the actual working facts and my business is to try and find as big an area for the employment of these people as I can and to try and help them by good organization and good piece work so that they can earn a decent wage. In reply to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) I have been taking a very considerable interest in these people in whom he is so interested. I have been trying to get them to transfer to this place some 420 miles away. The hon. member rather indicated they were left to find their own way there. That is not so. We arrange for their transport.

Won’t these dreadful fellows leave their homes to go 400 miles?

They prefer having the work near their homes. They insist upon working in little gangs along the road there spread out at long distances so that each little gang are not too far away from their own homes. You cannot carry on work like that. It is not going to do them any good and it is certainly not doing them good as workers. On piece work they earn eight shillings or nine shillings a day and good gangs a good deal more.

Why not give them piece work in Namaqualand?

As soon as I possibly can I will put it on piece work. In regard to the million pounds grant for roadmaking the province is the road making authority. We can only lay down broad principles. Whatever road it is that is decided on up there I propose to put it on the piece work basis at the earliest possible moment.

But will you do it for Namaqualand ?

I say that as soon as we can bring that work to an end it is going to be brought to an end. If there is work 300 or 400 miles away and the men will not take it they cannot expect us to make work which is not required.

When one listened to the Minister on this question of unemployment one could not help realizing that the attitude he displayed must make the unemployed very hopeless. I contrasted the vigorous excitement which he displayed when he was befriending his friend Mr. Boydell and the very quiet hopeless tone which he adopted when he was dealing with unemployment, and then the Minister comes along and says “I am not callous.” His attitude condemns him and his manner condemns him, and the reason is because he is not only callous but I am afraid he is hopelessly inefficient in dealing with this matter. He has shown it in the few remarks he has made. He congratulated the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) for suddenly becoming the spokesman of the unemployed. It is the destructive tactics of the Minister himself which has made it possible for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) to replace the late hon. member. Has the Minister given a single indication that he has anything in the nature of a consistent and constructive programme to deal with these people? He does not deny that there is this problem, but asks what he can do. Surely in a country like this, with the resource that it has, it is truly a pitiable spectacle that the Minister of Labour should say, when we want work for 70 to 80 men, “I cannot find it.” Cape Town and Namaqualand are not alone; we have unemployed in Johannesburg, and within the precincts of this House is the Mayor of Johannesburg who can tell us what is going on there and the number of deputations coming with regard to employment. It is no good the Minister saying “I will find them work 400 miles away ”; what he is doing, or pretending to do, is nothing but tinkering with the subject; if this particular work is finished, these men will be unemployed again. I do not blame the Government, because they are relying on the Minister, who was at one time a labour man; I pity them and admire them for their undue generosity which they have displayed in the formation of a Cabinet. But the position is, there is this poverty and unemployment in almost every part of South Africa, and the Minister, who has been in office before, is not yet in a position to come to the House with anything in the nature of a constructive scheme and programme to deal with this matter. He may turn to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs behind him and ask him for an answer, but I do not think he is capable either. The Minister of Labour spoke about this question of unemployment in a callous manner, not only because he does not know what to do, but because he is indifferent; if he were not indifferent, he would scorn to occupy the position he does. I admit that even a political doormat has its uses; you have a very comfortable resting place, even if you lose your self-respect;, but it is not going to solve the question of unemployment and lead to something. He should see that some measures were initiated in a practical manner, and not in a helpless and hopeless manner.

I should also like to add a word on the question of unemployment, and may I say at the outset that it was rather interesting to hear the Minister, in defending the policy of the Government, say that there were many brains scattered about on the Government benches. It is indeed refreshing to hear the Minister’s candid admission that the Government is scatter-brained. I agree with what hon. members have said, that this matter cannot be localized. We have had a number of demonstrations in Cape Town during the last day or two with regard to unemployment in this city. But it is a national matter, and the Government in this matter cannot draw any distinction of colour. It is up to the Government to provide work for all; it is the moral duty of the Government. In the sphere of humanity there can be no colour bars. In Cape Town there are also a large number of coloured unemployed. We have had practical demonstrations that there is a great deal of unemployment, but one had been led to believe that this problem has been solved. If I may be allowed to do so without disrespect, I would like to refer to what the Prime Minister said during the course of the last few months. He addressed a meeting at Witbank in May last. There was an audience of some 1,500 people, and, according to the newspaper report, he said—

He went on to state, no doubt amid the plaudits of his audience—

On that occasion I quote again from the press report—

There are some in the Peninsula who had hoped that the Prime Minister would not have confined his visits to the rural districts. If he had visited the Peninsula during the elections he would have learned, not only from his own experience, but from the voices of the electorate, that unemployment was not a thing of the past there. To-day we have the position as set forth by those hon. members who have spoken on this question. Unemployment is still with us, and it has to be tackled. We cannot allow, the people of South Africa cannot allow, men and women to sink lower and lower in despair, in a state of semi-starvation and in misery. We must adopt some practical scheme. Do not let it be thought that I am here merely to offer destructive criticism. I should like to make one or two constructive suggestions. I would suggest to the Minister that he might confer with his colleagues in the Cabinet and put forward some methods of attacking this problem of unemployment. The Government has dealt with it in one way, by employing white labourers on the railway. I admit that there are merits as well as demerits in that scheme, but it is not a complete solution of the problem. I suggest that the Minister might consider going in for national trunk roads. It may be said that that is a matter which is in the hands of the provincial councils, but it is also a matter the Minister can consider, and it is a reasonable way of attacking unemployment as well as of conferring great benefit on the country. Then there is the question of building houses. I suggest that the Minister should confer with his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, on the matter of housing with a view to the building of better houses. There are a large number of unskilled labourers unemployed at the present time, and given a reasonable opportunity those people could fit in with that work. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has accused the Minister of being impotent. In regard to finding effective methods of dealing with unemployment he certainly has been impotent. During the general election, however, he proved one of the most powerful political seducers the country has produced, but I hope, now that he is in this House again, he will endeavour to find a solution to this problem. I do not find fault with the Minister for not finding work at once for all the unemployed, but I do criticize the Minister for his total lack of sympathy for members on this side of the House who are endeavouring to bring this question forward. [Time limit.]

I will at once answer my young friend from Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I do not even want to know the paper he quoted from, and although I will admit that I sometimes do unwise things, I never was so foolish as to say such a thing as he has quoted from the paper, about unemployment. If there was one thing which I put in the clearest words at all my meetings then it was this, that only a fool would say that he had put an end to unemployment. Further, I pointed out that to-day, i.e., during the election campaign, there were only 3½ per cent, of the European population unemployed, and that that must be regarded as a very small percentage. I said that this percentage was so small that it compared favourably with the position in any other country in the world. What is so strange to me is that my hon. friends opposite feel so sore about there being such a great improvement during the past year in the unemployment problem and then we still find that the hon. member for Salt River has in his peroration said that this side of the House was so hard-hearted and unsympathetic. In other words look how sympathetic we—on the S.A.P. side of the House—are towards the unemployed. Yet the party opposite during the fourteen years before 1924 brought the country to such a state that when we assumed office in 1924 there were 120,000 to 150,000—some even say 170,000—unemployed in South Africa. To-day there are not 50,000 to 60,000.

How can you say that?

We took care that the 7,000 people the South African party Government threw out of the railways were employed there, and, with their families, that amounts to from 20,000 to 50,000. Then we saw that those who were unemployed owing to the foolish free trade policy of the South African party, instead of protection, got work owing to our protection policy. Between 12,000 and 15,000 men were given posts in this way, and, including their families, that means another 20,000 to 25,000 saved from need. In similar ways this Government has made provision for the unemployed, so that I could say at all my meetings that unemployment was no longer a problem in South Africa. I certainly did not say that there were no more unemployed. There certainly was an unemployment question in 1924, which was so awkward for the South African party Government, that when we asked the responsible Minister if he could not do something to improve the position, he had to throw up his arms in despair and say it was such a great problem, so hopeless was the state of mind of the South African party. Now we have to come here and listen to speeches about the warm hearts of hon. members opposite towards the unemployed. I am prepared to accept that the hon. member for Salt River has a very warm heart, but, good heavens! he is in bad company, and it will take him many years before he can convince the unemployed in South Africa that, with his warm heart, he will do more for them than the present Government has done in their interest during the last five years. I actually rose to correct the hon. member for Salt River, because if I did not do so, it would subsequently be said that I was present and remained silent. I say it the more because the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in his election travels, said that I had said that unemployment was now a thing of the past and no longer existed. For this reason I denied it at once now, and I want to add that I also denied it at my meetings that I ever said such a thing. I said at my meetings that, according to statistics published a few months before the election, that only 3½ per cent, of the white population was unemployed, which is more favourable than any country in the world.

I want to ask the Prime Minister to carry out his bond. I want to read out to the House the words which he uttered on the 12th March last—

A couple of days later the Prime Minister said this—

What question?

This question is one which concerns every member of this Parliament. The Prime Minister and the Government take action on this matter in an unexampled way. Let me put the facts before this House. Members read out statements made under oath in a court of law. These three members made repeated statements in this House, and they were made on oath in a court of law. These statements were allowed to pass by the Speaker as being a customary parliamentary practice. On one occasion the Minister of Labour protested against the statement that was made, and said that an imputation was cast upon him. The Speaker from the chair ruled that no imputation was made. The Government goes outside the House and gets an officer of the law who overrides the Speaker, and then appoints a committee to try members on statements they have made in this House. The Government have not yet become accustomed to parliamentary government. That is what has happened throughout this enquiry in the proceedings which have undoubtedly shocked the country. Members’ privileges are undermined, and have been through the last three years by the attitude the Minister has adopted. It is only a punitive committee, and it is a thing which has shocked every member of this House. I want to state the facts so that hon. members who were not in the previous Parliament should have information. Why was an enquiry necessary? A magistrate, a Mr. McCormack, enquired into this business, and he said regarding his report about the tenant farmers, the Government put an end to the tenancy against their wishes, and without their consent, and deprived them of a good living. This was to be the grandest scheme ever established here in South Africa, and it has miserably failed. The people have worked under the most strenuous conditions, and they are to-day scattered all over the Union, and the gentleman who was put in charge has all the trump cards, and the Government has nothing. All that has taken place is a few days’ enquiry. The whole circumstances, the inception of the scheme, and the result should be thoroughly investigated. I would urge the Prime Minister to honour the bond which he gave to this House.

In regard to Doornkop it is appropriate that I should say a word in reference to the astounding statement the Prime Minister has made this evening, namely, that at no time did he agree to enquire into anything in connection with Doornkop but imputations against Ministers. I was the one who objected in this House to the narrow scope of the enquiry laid down by the Prime Minister in the terms of reference proposed by him for the select committee. What did I get for my pains? I was called a coward by the Prime Minister in this House, and I regret to say that for a whole afternoon I unsuccessfully endeavoured to persuade Mr. Speaker to allow me to draw the attention of the country to the unworthy words the Prime Minister had used against me. Why was I called a coward? Because the Prime Minister maintained that the scope of the enquiry was so wide that no subject referred to by us in the several debates was excluded, and that I was deliberately running away from the enquiry.

That is not so.

Hansard is my witness. When I spoke specifically of the origin of the Government’s association with the company being excluded from the scope of the select committee the Prime Minister said the enquiry was completely comprehensive and without limitation. What was my position before the select committee? I wished to call attention to what the Prime Minister had said, but the committee repeatedly intimated that the scope of its enquiry was limited. The Prime Minister, when he spoke in March, would have the House to believe that there was no limitation to the scope of the enquiry, and he succeeded in getting the House to believe that, and he called me a coward and said that I was running away from my own statements.

That is not true.

The Prime Minister’s words are in Hansard. In regard to the enquiry I am to-day, as I have always been, willing to stand or fall by every representation I made in this House for an enquiry. I pointed out the need for an enquiry and was and I am prepared to give my evidence fully and answer every question. It was suggested that I brought forward in this House a statement that was not given on oath (with a view to deceiving the House) when I was not justified in doing so. I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Marius Maxwell, the man who made the statement in question to his counsel and who has since made a sworn statement, now with his solicitors in Johannesburg, covering every fact that I referred to. He is now in Kenya, East Africa, and I have no doubt that if summoned he would appear before any commission appointed by this House.

Do you still persist in those accusations ?

That is an instance of the manner in which the Prime Minister has set out to try and intimidate me from time to time. I have never made any accusations. This is all done with a view to avoiding the issue. The gentleman who made the statement I quoted in this House—which statement I maintain proves the need for an enquiry—writes to me—

If the documents I have called for are produced I am prepared to make good the statements I made in this House. I offered the Prime Minister the opportunity of appointing a commission, I still continue to hold that offer open to the Prime Minister and I shall continue during my public life to press for an enquiry into matters which call for investigation in this House. Never before in the history of South Africa has a Minister of the Crown lent his name to the boosting of private land selling schemes in the public press, and to the misleading of a would-be investor at the instance of a Johannesburg adventurer. Never before have these things been glossed over. Never before has it been possible for a man who was assisted in this manner to be further assisted by the Government through a so-called tenant-farmer scheme, and a proper enquiry shirked. The Prime Minister told us that he never intended an enquiry into the administration of this matter, that he never offered an enquiry. It is impossible for the Prime Minister to get away from his own considered speeches, from his own contentions and from his hurtful accusations against me because I ventured to point out what was perfectly true, in which I was upheld by the committee, namely, that the scope of the enquiry was limited and that a large portion of the transactions in this matter would, of necessity, be excluded. It is idle for the Prime Minister now to take refuge in a statement that he never offered such an enquiry. The enquiry which is sought by the public and by this House is an enquiry which will lay bare the meaning of this whole matter. Here is a Minister, now an ex-Minister, who says that upon a man being introduced to him by a fellow Minister he made no enquiries as to his bona fides or his previous record. He instructed his officials to prepare the contract but he himself made no enquiries. Here is the question, No. 850, put to Mr. Boydell—

Here was the ministerial head of the department who made no enquiries in regard to this man. He himself knew of his previous connection with a land selling scheme and yet he made no enquiries. The Minister of Defence has quite wrongly accused me of being the author of the unfavourable impression created among the public by this Doornkop business. The ex-Minister’s own evidence has created a more unfavourable impression than any statement I could ever make. The publication of the evidence in Durban was a matter that went closer to the understanding of people there than anything which had occurred up to that time. They realized what manner of man Mr. Boydell was. Here was a Minister.—[Time limit.]

I am only rising again because I feel I must deny what the hon. member said, but before I do so I want to ask him what the enquiry is to establish assuming it were to be held. Is it to show that there was stupidity or negligence on the part of the Government department? Then as far as I am concerned just as little enquiry will take place as there was in the time of the South African party Government, when great follies were committed in connection with Sundays River, Umfolosi, etc., etc.

Did you ever ask for an enquiry ?

It was silly to waste money, seeing the facts were known and could be got The hon. member at that time continued making long statements but did not have the courage to say frankly what he insinuated, and it looks to me very much as if he wants to play the same game to-day. Let him honestly say that enquiry must be made because dishonesty, bribery or what not has taken place, and that one or more Ministers are concerned in it. His Natal leader has spoken of malpractice, and we insisted on his saying what he meant by that, to be quite clear, but every time a demand was made he retired to thereafter again the same attack and pursue the charges of malpractice. We had an enquiry made at the time, but the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), then said, through the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), that the enquiry was not sufficiently comprehensive. I then said he could go back as far as he liked and mentioned no limit in that respect—the object of proving malpractice. The Government is, however, consistent, that no enquiry is necessary where administrative stupidity and negligence are concerned. I must say the hon. member must be very dull not to feel that what he is now starting is practically the same thing in connection with which a slander enquiry has taken place. At the time he was for days engaged in uttering nothing but slanders against two Ministers, and he is starting on the same lines to-day. I want to say that I agree at once to further enquiry being made, but then he must come out and manfully put into words what he is now insinuating. The one ex-Minister is in the country, and as for the other, we hope he will soon be here, and I will undertake to have the necessary enquiry made immediately after his return if the hon. member is prepared frankly to put his insinuations on paper.

The Prime Minister seems unable to get away from the view that this is merely a question of the conduct of two Ministers. It is a far wider question than that. Wrapped up in this matter is a question of the interests of no less than 100 people who were taken on to this property under conditions which were never clearly explained to them. I have received during this session petitions from these very men asking for an investigation into the circumstances under which they were deprived of what was originally held out to them by the Government. Everyone of these people were taken on to that land under the supposition that they were to become two-thirds owners of the property and the mill. Those alluring promises were held out by the late Minister of Labour. When members on this side of the House took leave to doubt that he would be able to implement those promises, we were scorned for doubting. When we pointed out that Rosenberg, the man he was dealing with, had been severely trounced in court by the present acting Chief Justice for dishonesty, we were told that the person who had been, referred to in those scathing terms by the acting Chief Justice was a more honest man than the hon. members who sat on these benches. From the: beginning, sir, the Minister treated us with contumely and scorn on these benches·in everything we brought forward in the interests of the people who were being misled. We have arrived at a stage at which these people maintain they have been unfairly dealt with by the late Minister. This statement has been made so persistently to the Government themselves that they appointed the Chief Magistrate of Pretoria to investigate, and this action only served to show how wrongly the Government viewed the matter. It was a matter for this House or a judicial commission to investigate. Here was a complaint of the people which constituted an indictment of the callous conduct of the Minister concerned. The Minister appoints one of his own subordinates to hold an enquiry. Is it humanly to be expected that a subordinate is going to take on himself the unpleasant duty of condemning his own Minister. The Government should have shown these poor people that their interests are as dear to them as are those of Rosenberg. The 100 men who were taken on were promised by Mr. Boydell that they would he two-thirds owners of the mill, but they never had a square deal. I have documents from these men crying out that they should be heard by Parliament. Although they sent a petition to the Minister he sent no reply, and he signed a contract with Rosenberg which was a cancellation of their rights; and he sent a representative of his department to interview them after he had signed away their rights. It meant going to other settlement schemes or going home. They say he forced them to sign a document relinquishing their contract without a chance of reading it themselves. They were refused time to consider the matter, and had they been given an opportunity for consideration, 75 per cent, of them would have agreed to remain on under the then existing agreement. These are the facts. An enquiry is asked for in this House and no member can hear these facts without hanging his head in shame. There is no doubt that these men were betrayed by the late Minister of Labour.

They were not.

I proved it when I gave evidence. I also said that I considered that the late Minister had acted with incompetence, stupidity and ignorance. There is no doubt that is the case. There is no doubt these men were the victims of the incompetence of the late Minister of Labour, and of his callousness after he had attained to a comfortable position himself. The late Minister is no longer with us. The Government appears before us like a man with a missing front tooth. It is true it was only a horse, tooth, and they are glad to get rid of it·. The Government is very much like the lad who went to a dentist, and, after having his front tooth removed, came back smiling and saying that it did not hurt a bit. The Government has suffered a dental operation that has not caused any pain or anguish, and it is here to-day absolutely indifferent to the feelnigs of the poor men who have suffered such disappointment and betrayal. I again challenge the Government to hold an enquiry into the whole of this matter; the circumstances call for an enquiry and demand the fullest investigation from beginning to end. My appeal to the Government is that a judicial commission should be appointed to investigate and report on the origin of the association of Ministers and Government officials with the Doornkop Sugar Estates, Limited, and the establishment and administration of the tenant farmers’ scheme at Doornkop, the justification for the financial assistance given by Government to the scheme and its subsequent abandonment, and the extent to which the interests of the tenant farmers were sacrificed by its abandonment, and the responsibility of the Government for the financial liability now resting on the country in connection therewith.

Before the election the Opposition laid two eggs, the German treaty and Doornkop, but the public examined both and they both appeared to be addled. It is really refreshing to hear from hon. members opposite how sympathetic they are towards the poor man and the unemployed. We are very glad to hear it, and heartily hope that they will help us in solving unemployment. If I mistake not, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stated that the poor white question was insoluble. Just like Darwin—not that I am a follower of Darwin—the hon. member believes in the survival of the fittest. This question is of much greater importance than Doornkop, and I hope the Opposition will abandon the latter, and give more attention to unemployment. There is more than one kind of unemployed, honest and dishonest, but many are also lazy poor people. We must supply work to the honest poor man, and even the dishonest people must please not be put into gaol on the first offence. They ought rather to be sent with their families to labour colonies, because if they go to gaol their families are only in distress. Then there is the lazy poor man. During the election I often heard from South African party supporters that the poor white question was greatly due to laziness. There is an element of truth in that, and I notice that provision is being made on the estimates for labour colonies. I hope the Minister will put them through, and I want to assure him that he has the support of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Transvaal, which is the mother of the labour colony Bill. We have the lazy type, who will not work, and such people ought to be put on labour colonies. I heartily hope that we shall regard the matter as a national one and not a party one. Seeing that the Opposition are so willing to help us, we must accept their help. I hope that when the Government establishes labour colonies the Opposition will not try to make political capital out of it.

Very reluctantly, I also feel myself compelled to move a reduction in the Minister’s salary, but I will temper the wind to the shorn lamb and will move a reduction of £15.

That is not my salary.

The hon. member is confined to 10 minutes, even if he does move a reduction in the Minister’s salary, as two hon. members have already made similar motions.

Then the hon. gentleman’s salary is safe so far as I am concerned. I would like to call attention to the arrangement of the division of this salary. On the labour vote it is put down at £550, but a footnote states that he is also Minister of Defence, and his salary is provided for under the defence vote. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs. Here is a Labour man and the Minister of Labour has his salary paid under defence. It is an appropriate yet significant combination, for I very much fear that the hon. Minister labours defence very much more than he defends labour.

That was fairly laboured, too.

Anyhow, it seems to have got under the hon. gentleman’s skin. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Minister has failed completely to put into operation what his own conference insisted he should do, namely, pay a minimum wage of 10s. a day. We have never heard a word about this from the Minister. We have never seen any indication of any effort on his part to introduce the 10s. minimum. I suppose it was one of those things designed to deceive the public—a cruel deception indeed. When we approach the Government on this question of unemployment, we have also to remember that there is a tremendous amount of underemployment in South Africa, and I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not here, because, if there is a disgraceful exhibition of a lack of ministerial sense of responsibility towards the people of South Africa, it lies with the Minister of Railways, in that you have white men having to eke out an existence at 3s. 6d. a day on the railways of South Africa, and, after having served their apprenticeship—apprenticeship, mark you—they become fully qualified as journeymen, and if they conduct themselves well and work honestly for two years, they get a tickey increase on 5s., with a possible ultimate figure of 5s. 9d. I say there is considerable underemployment, and I want to know why it is the Minister of Labour has not brought pressure to bear on his colleagues and made efforts in his own department to institute what his conference demands, namely, 10s. a day minimum in industry. I must make reference to the exclamation on the part of the Minister that he is perfectly helpless in this question of unemployment. “What can I do,” he says. “I am asked suddenly to find employment for 74 men here in Cape Town, and what can I do?” He has had five years of influential associations in the counsels of the Cabinet. He has started off gaily on another five years, and even at this stage he knows no more how to cope with this grave national question than he ever did or ever will. I am perfectly satisfied of that, because he is not prepared to tackle the question on a sound and reasonable basis. Here we have brought before us a revival of the old-fashionable habit of slumming. People are wandering about slumming. They hold up their hands in holy terror at the horrible sights they see, and they talk about it, and do nothing. The hon. gentleman is, in effect, engaged in the fashionable habit of slumming. He also talks about the condition of things in Cape Town and elsewhere, but, like a good many other people, he does not attempt to put his finger on the spot and provide employment, and well-paid employment. The very fact of this housing need gives him one of the finest opportunities for practically eliminating unemployment. If he took his courage in both hands, and embarked upon a scheme of state housing to build sufficient houses for all those people who need houses in South Africa, it would provide work for carpenters, joiners, quarrymen, bricklayers, masons, and all the other trades, with their attendant army of unskilled labour. I make bold to say that if they were to utilize the £3,000,000 surplus for that purpose, they would be able to employ all the people who are at present unemployed in South Africa. May I say to the Prime Minister that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was perfectly correct in his quotation, including the psalmist’s blessing. The Prime Minister did say that the poor-white question had been completely solved, and yet hard on the heels of that pronouncement came the official report of the medical officer of health for the Union, where he said there were 150,000 white people below the level of civilization of the higher standardized natives in South Africa. Yet the Prime Minister glibly states to a swallowing public in Witbank that they have solved the poor-white question. [Time limit.]

My hon. friend on the left complains that the Minister has ceased to be a good Labour man.

No, he never has been one.

I call him too much of a Labour man. I want to know exactly the policy of the Government with regard to the application of these wage determinations to the agricultural industry. The Wage Board has been enquiring in Durban into the wages of slaughtermen. Up till now the slaughtering of cattle has been done by natives and very well they have done it. They have had wages of £2 10s. to £3 per month, and they have been perfectly satisfied with that. A draft determination has now been made, and is now in the hands of the Minister. At the meeting where that was discussed, evidence was adduced to show that under the new scale, wages would be £6 13s. a week. The evidence also showed that the cost of killing one beast, instead of 2s. 6d., will, under the determination, be 14s. 9d. That is the effect the determination will have on the agricultural industry. This determination is deliberately taking 12s. 3d. out of the pockets of the farmers for every beast killed in Durban, in order to bolster up the Minister’s labour policy. Will the Minister make a statement how long this white-anting of the agricultural industry is going on. We are trying to build up an export trade, and the average parcel of bullocks will fetch no more than £7 10s. per head, and this policy will reduce the net return to £5 17s. 6d. I contend that this slaughtering of cattle should rightly be considered an agricultural operation; it is a secondary industry if you like, but comes close to a primary farming industry. This determination is going to make all the difference between the small profit and loss. Is the Minister, on behalf of the Government, going to put into operation a policy which is going to be a tax of 12s. 3d. on the meagre profits farmers are making out of every head of slaughter stock? Every farmer, in no unmeasured terms, is going to raise a protest against a wage policy which will operate in this direction.

It is a pity that the hon. member does not consider this is giving somebody a living. But he need not worry himself. The wage determinations so far, due to the slipshod methods of the department, have been declared ultra vires. There may be one exception. Has the Minister considered the desirability of reducing the hours of industry? I turn his attention to the good trade union principles of the reduction of hours in order that further employment might be provided, because, with reduced hours, more workers would be required. It is in the interests of the nation, and not against the interests of anybody, that there should be increased wages. The Minister has had a conference. He is the conference; in one voice he can declare a 10s. minimum wage, and in another voice, he can decide not to do it, Is the Minister bringing pressure to bear on his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Justice, to bring shops under the provisions of the Rent Act; and, if so, with what result? In former years he has had it brought to his attention by shop renters and the public, whose prices have been increased because of increased shop rents. I have been informed that in Benoni one man has had his shop rent put up no less than £15, and in Johannesburg a landlord has given notice that three shops will be turned into two, and the rents raised to £105 and £100 per month. While we are talking about the cost of living, we realize that the enormous increase of shop rentals, by the rapacity of landlords in increasing their rents, has increased the cost of living. When I ask for an eight hours’ day, I ask for an eight hours’ day, and not an imitation eight hours’ day; each day to stand by itself.

I would like to ask the Minister, in view of my representing one of the districts containing the largest number of unemployed, whether a scheme cannot be devised to provide employment for the unemployed walking the streets in Johannesburg. The Labour Bureau has nothing on hand to deal with the present question of unemployment. Another thing I should like to see done is the institution of some check on the influx from the rural areas into the urban areas, the latter of which are becoming the dumping stations of unemployed. I advise the establishment of a quota system, applicable to the Government, the provinces and the local bodies. The local authorities should be given some responsibility in checking this influx instead of balling the unemployed from pillar to post. There are certain municipalities which are not always responding to the call to pay attention to the unemployed question, and to provide employment. The provinces also are not paying due attention to the provision of employment. Provision could be made by Johannesburg for the employment of hundreds of men, but there you find a body of South African party men ruling the town. If the men go to the municipality for work they are told that the onus is not on the municipality. If they go to the province they are told to go to the Government. A quota system fixing the responsibility for the provision of a certain amount of work by the State and the provinces and the local bodies should be considered.

The hon. member behind me who asked a question with regard to a report quoted certain figures, but the report has not yet come to me, so that I cannot deal with it. With regard to the people in the diggings a good many of them will have to find employment elsewhere.

On a point of order, should not the Minister address the Chair? We cannot hear a word he says.

It is difficult to speak with the front of your head and the back of your head at the same time.

I think you generally speak with the back of your head.

It is difficult for me to do other than to address members who have put questions. I hope that I shall be helped in the provinces in the expenditure of this money, and also by local authorities.

Order.

Really hon. members are a little childish over there.

On a point of order, we really cannot hear. Will the Minister address the Chair ?

I think that is all I have to say.

I see there is an item of £7,000 set down for a compulsory work colony at Elgin. When this place was chosen for a Settlement it was pointed out that it was unsuitable climatically, but the Minister determined upon his course, and the Government spent £16,000 or £17,000. The settlers all left when the winter came along, as was predicted. I would like to know if the Minister is satisfied that this place is suitable for the purpose. People who were anxious to work could not exist there, and the Minister is now establishing a penal settlement for people who are not prepared to work. Is the Minister prepared to give the countryside protection against the people he proposes to settle there? They are not very desirable people. I am not speaking from a political point of view. When I warned the Minister two years ago it was flung against me that I opposed the settlement for the sake of votes which may go against the South African party, I distinctly said that if there were an election, they would vote against the Government. To my great regret when the election came along every settler had left. I am Speaking from the point of view of the good of the country. After the Minister’s experience, is he satisfied that this is a suitable place to convert into a penal settlement? You have, already spent about £17,000, and you are asking for a further vote. This money will be wasted. The Minister knows there are several farmers in that area. Is he making provision for proper protection against these criminals when they live there ?

Criminals?

If the Minister will look at the Act of 1927 he will see that people who are guilty of certain crimes can be sent to a labour colony. The people are concerned enough with regard to the protection afforded against these people. At present there is no protection. What protection is the Government going to afford them.

The Minister has got to get power to enquire into a certain industry or trade. I would like to know whether the Minister has instructed the wage board to enquire into the slaughtering business and does the Minister intend to allow the suggested wage determination to be made in the slaughtering of cattle. It is a very big point as it simply means that if you do you are going to knock the export trade on the head. Johannesburg has not an abattoir where export cattle are being slaughtered. If you are going to increase the cost of slaughtering our cattle by 12s. 3d. you are going to knock the trade on the head altogether and to make it impossible to export, if you fix wages according to the determination. The Minister knows very Well of the position in Australia. You may say it is not due to excessive wages, but Mr; Bruce does not think so anyway. We do not want wages in this country to place us in the position that Australia is in to-day, and if you are going to increase the cost to 12s. you are going to stop the export trade altogether. It is going to make cattle farming impossible if we get this wage determination.

Amendments put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 39, “Relief of Distress,” £100,000,

How is this to be expended?

It will be spent largely on Namaqualand.

Vote put and agreed to.

I would like to know what the cost is of the construction of the line—the Cape Central Railways. What does item 77 mean? “Opening as train crossing station.” I want to ask the Minister about several items. Whether he is going to use steel sleepers or wood? I have mentioned the matter before but the Minister did not think it necessary to reply at the time. On page 27, item 487, I see an additional £16,500 is being spent in alterations to the tea-rooms, Cape Town station, and I would like to ask whether it would not be better to spend that amount in the alteration of the railway offices. The position is extremely serious, the offices. are dangerous and would it not be better to spend this amount on the offices, and be able to protect our employees in case there is any great trouble such as an outbreak of fire.

Why has it been decided to locate the points and crossings shop at Bloemfontein? I have no doubt very careful enquiry was made into the matter, but Bloemfontein was not one of the places recommended by the workshop commission. The Minister should give us the departmental report on this matter. I submit that the best place for such an establishment is at the coast if it is proposed to use imported material, or if it is proposed to use South African material then the works should be located at Pretoria so as to save unnecessary handling of the raw material. The next point is what is the actual experience the railways have as to the expense of making these points and crossings. I believe the view is held by the administration that it can manufacture points and crossings quite as cheaply as it can import them. I understand the Minister has had offers made to him to establish points and crossings shops privately, but that the sponsors of the scheme desire a duty of 15 per cent, to protect them against the imported article. In many ways it would be desirable that these works should be established by private enterprise, because then they could be used in other directions and thus help the mining and other industries, whereas if the works are government-owned they can cater only for railway requirements. Will the Minister lay upon the Table fully detailed information regarding the cost of manufacture, both in respect of labour and material and in respect of all “on cost” charges of switches, crossings, check rails, scissors crossings,, etc., for 60 lb·. and 80 lb. rails as manufactured in the, points and crossings shops of the administration. Such returns to be so arranged that they can be compared in all respects with the same articles now being imported, and further, will be also give for the information of the committee the latest quotations he has received for the exactly equivalent articles from import.

I have read the report of the Departmental Workshops’ Commission, in which it was stated that there were two alternative courses open in regard to the erection of these workshops. In the report it is stated to be desirable that the workshops should be concentrated at one place. At a later stage it says the number of desirable sites was reduced to two—the Cape Province and northern Natal. Everything seems to point in favour of the extension of the workshops at Salt River. One sees, according to the present report, it is the intention of the Minister to erect certain workshops at Bloemfontein and one feels some explanation is called for overlooking the claims of Salt River, and I would like to know why the Minister has over-ridden the unanimous recommendation of this commission.

I want to refer to item 920, wireless apparatus on tugs at Buffalo Harbour. It appears to me it is useless to equip the tugs with wireless when you have not a station to receive the messages. It is absolutely necessary to have an installation at East London, because the set we have there now is really only, I think, a two-valve set and is inadequate and at times it is even impossible to communicate with vessels lying in the roadstead. We have had on that coast steamers in distress. I need only refer to the Caribou. If we had had a wireless installation possibly that ship could have been saved. I would like the Minister to say whether provision could be made for a wireless installation to be set up on the signal stations.

With regard to the question of the hon. member for Sea Point (Major G. B. van Zyl) we are providing £35,031. I will give the hon. member the total sum at a later stage. With regard to the section Athlone-Wetton, greater facilities are necessary. With regard to the tea rooms, I am glad he recognizes that we should provide better accommodation. The railway tea room is very well supported, and the extension of the room is most necessary. We are losing revenue because we have not sufficient space available. As to the office accommodation, to which the hon. member referred before, I have taken note of his remarks. We have made certain improvements and the matter is still under consideration. As to steel sleepers, the policy is that we are using them for our branch lines and also on certain sections of our main lines. Steel sleepers have a much longer life, and are cheaper. It is quite an open question whether they would give the same satisfactory service on main lines as wooden sleepers, owing to. heavy traffic. In Great Britain, where they make steel sleepers and have to import the wooden sleepers, the companies have always used wooden sleepers, but on the Southern railway I understand they are making use of steel sleepers. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) must not confuse the establishment of a central workshop with the points and crossings shop; and the same remark applies to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). It is merely a small portion of the manufacturing work. After very close investigation by the officers concerned the recommendation was made by them that Bloemfontein would be the most suitable place for this points and crossings shop. The Government thought the interests of the Railway Administration would be best served by the establishment of the shop there. I believe it was recommended by the late general manager. A tribute is due to our workmen and artizans. We are producing at Salt River a small quantity of points and crossings, notwithstanding that they are produced under very adverse circumstances. Our price compares very favourably with the imported price. If they are produced in our own shop when properly equipped on a larger scale than at present at Salt River we will, I hope, be able to compete with the imported price. I have no hesitation in saying so on the authority of the chief mechanical engineer. With regard to a wireless set for East London, I am not sure that the responsibility falls on the administration and that the local bodies should not should the responsibility.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter of great importance to Kingwilliamstown, my constituency, in the matter of cartage equipment, eastern section, page 41 of the estimates. Is it not possible that some of this work such as trailers and trollies not mechanically hauled be given out under specification to old established wagonmaking works such as we have in Kingwilliamstown? We have there one of the oldest established works in the Union staffed by men who in some cases are the second generation of skilled tradesmen at this work. There are three hundred and seventy-five men engaged in wagon-making and a further hundred and fifty dependent upon the industry and as the Minister knows this industry has suffered greatly owing to the competition of the motor buses of the railway and motor transport generally. I have inspected and studied the wagon-making plant of the administration at Salt River and at the docks, and find that eighteen horse-drawn trollies were made there and sent all the way round to East London. Why cannot those wagons be made in Kingwilliamstown where the supply of hardwood is close at hand? Again I found an order for 200 wagon wheels at a unit cost of £4 each made of material grown near Kingwilliamstown; I was informed also that at one time when there was a rush of work at the docks’ plant that an order was placed for wheels in Kingwilliamstown and that those wheels were the best the department ever had. This matter was brought before the Rail and Road Competition Commission when it visited Kingwilliamstown and we were advised to switch over to body building for mechanical haulage, but you cannot just switch over an industry unless you have reasonable prospects of work and employment for the changed conditions. This industry is one of the oldest established in the country and well worthy of the Minister’s support in the direction I have indicated and I earnestly request him to consider this matter.

The local authorities in this case had nothing at all to do with it. It is a matter which concerns the Government. I would like to give you instances of what happened. A message was sent out that a fishing vessel was in distress. A tug was sent out from East London to look for this vessel and could not find it. On the tug returning to the harbour they found the fishing vessel alongside the quay. If this signal station had been equipped with an efficient wireless set they could have sent a message out and recalled the tug. In another a steamer, the “Caribou,” became a total wreck. You are not only losing valuable ships but valuable lives, and it is the duty of the Government to see that in case of urgency, as well as for the sake of commerce, this wireless installation should be provided. This is a matter of extreme urgency so far as Buffalo Harbour is concerned.

I fully recognize the necessity but I am not satisfied that it is the responsibility of the railways and harbours to provide a wireless set. I will have the matter looked into, but do not want to commit myself.

Postal authorities say they will have nothing to do with it, and I was referred to the Minister of Railways and Harbours.

The hon. member has raised the question of wagon building. I am quite aware that we have excellent wagon works in this country, and I will see whether it will be possible to. do something in the direction indicated. Tenders might be asked.

I noticed in the press yesterday a report that three big railway workshops—points and crossings, wagon and coach—will soon be constructed at Bloemfontein, and I understand that tenders have been called for their erection. Why has the Minister deliberately over-ridden the report of the commission which was presided over by Mr. van der Horst, an eminent economist, and left out the claims of Salt River? Pretoria has been selected as the site of the Iron and Steel Works and it may be that the claims of the Free State have been ignored up to the present, but now they are being recognized. One hopes it is not political considerations that have induced the Minister to over-ride the definite recommendations of the report. After the country has incurred the expense of a commission we are entitled to have some explanation from the Minister, and not merely a bald statement that he has acted on the recommendations of his advisers.

I hope hon. members understand that when we deal with our revenue estimates they will be able to raise all questions of policy in a far more complete manner than they are now able to do on the loan estimates. We might save time by following that course.

Included in this vote is an amount of money for labour. I want to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to have a general investigation into labour organization right throughout the country.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Rolling Stock ”, £1,180,061,

I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered decreasing the number of types of engines ?

I may say at once that the present general manager feels very strongly on this question of reducing the number of types of engines. He has taken steps as a result of which the number of types will be very much decreased in future. The point raised by the hon. member will be fully borne in mind.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Harbours ”, £363,628, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Working Capital ”, £265,417, put and agreed to.

Head 8, “Unforeseen Works ”, £160,000, put and agreed to.

Large sums have been lent to the university. The costs of putting the loan through are £2,000 in stamp duty and expenses generally, and the Minister is protected under his own Act. It is clear that without any mortgage bond the Government is fully protected; in spite of that it insists on these bonds being passed. I hope the Minister will go into it.

This is a question which, I must say, has not come to my notice before.

The Government has had its attention drawn to this before.

I will look into it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote G, “Land and Agricultural Bank ”, £500,000.

Is this the last amount the Minister is going to provide for the ostrich feather industry? It looks like throwing good money after bad.

For a long time already we have ceased making advances. This is merely for preserving the feathers we have in stock. I understand no further money will be required for the purpose.

† Mr. STUTTAFORD; I would suggest to the Minister that the cheapest way is to cut the loss. There seems no likelihood of the prices of feathers going up.

That is not our advice. We have gone to the expense now, and I do not think we should sacrifice them. The ostrich farmer persists in saying that his day will come again.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote H, “Forestry ”, £335,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J, “Native Affairs ”, £3,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K, “Agriculture”, £8,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote L, “Iron and Steel Industry ”, £300,000,

Will the Minister indicate how further capital is to be raised? Some provision should be made for securing the rest of the capital which will be required.

The Act lays down how the capital should be raised. The whole matter will be considered when it comes before the treasury. It will then be decided whether we shall first have debentures issued, or whether we shall go to the public. If the public, when it is invited to subscribe, do not do so, the treasury will provide, the balance required, as we are going to have our industry.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M, “Labour ”, £297,000,

With regard to the irrigation schemes named here there is one project which was submitted to the irrigation commission in April, 1927. It was represented that it would be in the nature of relief work to alleviate the sufferings of drought victims. The commission reported against the scheme. Is this the same scheme as that which now appears under these estimates? If so, why is it brought forward, and what is the estimated cost of the work ?

The scheme is probably the same one. The reason it is not on the irrigation vote is that it is for purposes of relief. It is one of the subsidized schemes.

What is the use of subsidizing a scheme if it is bad? Why does the Labour Department start on irrigation? We have got a forestry department, and yet under the labour vote we have a large sum of money down for afforestation. We have an irrigation department which is supposed to advise the Government with regard to irrigation schemes, and yet we have a scheme of irrigation here under the labour department. If we are going to carry out irrigation schemes why does the labour department carry it out ?

None of these schemes are economical schemes, and they were only made to deal with the terrible drought conditions. At Prince Albert the conditions were very bad. We had no money on the estimates for irrigation schemes, and instead of a wasteful expenditure on roads, the Government thought this was the best way to relieve the distress in that district. My hon. friend knows that it is laid down that he cannot start an irrigation scheme until it is approved of by the Irrigation Commission, so the only way was for us to ask my hon. friend if he could raise the money on his vote. It does not show any change in the method of the department.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N, “Defence ”, £5,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote O, “Relief of Distress ”, £170,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote P, “Capital for Advances ”, £20,000, put and agreed to.

“ Defence Endowment Account ”, £55,000, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (including the Defence Endowment Account), and Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours, to be reported without amendment.

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

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported that the committee had agreed to the Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (including the Defence Endowment Account), and the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours, all without amendment.

Progress reported; to resume in committee at the next sitting of the House.

Report considered and adopted and a Bill brought up.