Before the Order Paper is reached, may I be allowed to make a personal statement? Last night the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that I had been a State Attorney of the South African Republic responsible or partly responsible or in some way responsible for the press law of the old Republic. I denied it at the time, and during the course of the evening the hon. member withdrew his statement and apologised and accepted my denial. Subsequently in the course of the evening the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) returned to the charge and repeated the charge against me. I had no time then to reply to him, and I should like, with the permission of the House, now to make a personal statement in order that the facts of the case may be before the House. The facts are these: I became State Attorney of the South African Republic on the 8th June, 1898. The Republic had a press law, Law 26 of 1896. This contained the provisions read out by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) last night. This law was amended in 1898, and it appears that the amendment was introduced by the Government of the Republic into the Volksraad on the 2nd May. The law was read a first time on the 9th June, the day after I became State Attorney, and was passed on the 13th June. The law, therefore, was not drafted by me. It was introduced before I became State Attorney, and I was never consulted in connection with it, and at no stage of it had I anything whatever to do with it, and, in fact, the provisions which the hon. member read out are contained, verbatim, in the old Act of 1896. I have thought it necessary to bring these facts to the notice of the House; because I had categorically denied the charge of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), which he had accepted, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) had thereafter returned to the charge and made certain statements which I believe by these facts I have completely disproved.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I hope the Minister has reconsidered the matter in the interval, and will be able to give his assent to this amendment.

I second.

I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

On Clause 7,

I beg to move the amendment on the Order Paper—

I have moved it in order to meet the objections of some hon. members.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 14 and 15 put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On Clause 18,

Amendment put in lines 33 and 34.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in paragraph (a) put and agreed to.

Amendment put in paragraph (b).

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

The amendment deals with the question which has arisen as the result of an amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). This will be an improvement.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 19,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 22, 29, 59 and 63 put and agreed to.

On Clause 66,

Amendment put in lines 3 and 4.

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Amendment in sub-section (2) put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 66, and the amendments in Clause 72, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I want to call the attention of the House to the report of the Commission recently appointed to go into the position of manufacture of railway rolling stock and railway requisites in the Union, because this report, in my opinion, shows a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It reveals a great deal of inefficiency in the railway manufacturing establishments. The report is an extremely interesting one, and the House is indebted to the Minister for appointing this Commission. It certainly reveals a state of affairs that ought to be remedied. On page 27 of the Departmental Workshops Commission’s report, hon. members will find—

I ask the Minister what steps he is going to take with that object—

Of course, when the engines and rolling stock are in the workshops there can be no revenue.

This, to my mind, shows a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The report says further—

What I want to ask the Minister—I do not see him in his place. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will be able to let us know when the Minister will be here.

I move—

I very much regret that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours is engaged in another place. I am sorry I did not inform the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) before he started to discuss this matter, but I did not know at that time that it would be impossible for my hon. friend to be present.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee to-morrow.

I just want to say to the hon. Minister that it is not clear to me why this section is in the Bill. In the model regulations of the present Act it is expressly stated that every co-operative society can appoint a committee to do particular work. In the case of co-operative societies with unlimited liability it is paragraph 71 of the model regulations; in the case of co-operative societies of limited liabilities it is paragraph 81; for trading companies paragraph 65. The section reads as follows—

Thus we see that in the model regulations full provision is already made for the appointment of such committees giving the capacity of directors in respect thereof. Therefore it is not quite clear to me why this section 4 is put in here. If, however, the Minister insists on retaining this section, then I should like to propose that the provision that the number of directors must be at least nine should be deleted, and I will say why. Take the Lydenburg Cooperative Society. The former Act provides that the number must be not less than three or more than seven. But two years ago an amendment was made in the Act by which the number can be increased to eleven. Some cooperative societies, who possibly have a thousand or two thousand members, would of course prefer ten or eleven directors, but in the case of a society such as the one in Lydenburg, with 400 or 500 members, our experience is that a board of directors of seven members is quite enough to manage the affairs of the society, therefore, because our board has seven and not nine members, we shall be deprived of the privilege of appointing a committee, and that is, of course, not the intention of the Minister. It is done by us nearly every year. Last year I was a member of the committee appointed by the directors to go to Rustenburg to enquire into cotton growing there. In other years a committee went to Pretoria to enter into agreements for the sale of our wheat, and so almost every year one or more committees of two or three directors were appointed to do particular business. Therefore, if the hon. Minister insists on retaining section 4, I wish to propose as an amendment—

The hon. member can surely propose to substitute for “nine” the words “seven or more than seven.”

Is the hon. Minister prepared to accept that?

Yes, I am prepared to alter nine into seven.

That will not assist us, because our co-operative society numbers seven members, therefore I propose to delete the whole provision, but if the Minister wishes to retain this by-law, then I propose my amendment as follows—

The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has spoken about by-laws and regulations. I just wish to say to the hon. member that we have had experience of the court declaring regulations ultra vires. That is the reason why the section is put in this Bill that the powers of directors can be delegated to other people. For this reason I hope that the hon. member will not insist on the section being dropped. I am quite prepared to alter nine into six or five. I think six, as the member proposed, removes his difficulty.

After the explanation of the hon. Minister I understand this section of the Bill, and therefore I am satisfied with the adoption of my amendment to substitute six for nine.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I should very much like this section to be deleted altogether if the Minister is willing. This has reference to insurance work and the exemption of the cooperative societies from certain obligations resting on insurance companies. A company which does life insurance must deposit £25,000 and other companies £5,000. That is a guarantee to the State that the companies will be able to meet their obligations when the public have paid the premiums, so that the public shall not be exploited by a company which later may go insolvent. Insurance work is a very complicated and technical business, witness the fact that our systems, such as the railways, e.g., have already become insolvent although we had the necessary actuaries to make investigations. I do not think that ordinary co-operative societies have sufficient knowledge of it. I hope that the Minister will agree to delete the section. The co-operative societies have enough business to attend to and if they have too many irons in the fire they will possibly make a failure of things. We want the co-operative societies to be popular with the people and we do not wish to encumber them with too many things.

I can understand that insurance companies will insist on the deletion of this section because they naturally do not approve of other people entering their business because as soon as the co-operative societies commence insuring produce themselves their business will diminish. The insurance companies have, however, always been fair to us and the object of the section was only to make provision for far distant parts where it was difficult to obtain assurance. There we wanted to give the co-operative society the rights to insure. The insurance companies have, however, always met us, and I do not wish to insist on the section if hon. members feel that we should not incorporate it in the Bill.

I understand that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) has moved the deletion of this clause and that the Minister is inclined to agree. I strongly support that. The fact is that an insurance law was set up in this country in 1923, and under that law, every single company had to be registered and has to put up a deposit of from £10,000 to 15,000, besides paying a heavy licence. They have to submit to very stringent regulations in regard to their accounts. Under these circumstances, I hope the Minister will agree to the deletion of the clause.

I do not agree with the deletion of this clause. At present the Farmers’ Federated Association, with which all the cooperative societies, nearly, in South Africa, are amalgamated, are doing the insurance work through these companies and, very likely, if this clause is not put in, they may be prohibited from doing it. I should be glad if the Minister would leave it in.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 18,

I move—

1. (5) For the purpose of this section the term “agricultural produce” means tobacco and shall also include any other product derived by farming operations whether or not such product has undergone a change of form as the result of some process applied to it, if the Governor-General under the authority of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament has, by proclamation in the “Gazette,” declared such product to be agricultural produce.
2. (6) Nothing in this section contained shall be deemed in any way to affect any contract existing—
   1. (a) on the fourth day of June, 1925, in respect of the sale of tobacco; or
   2. (b) on the date of notice of the resolution mentioned in sub-section (5) in respect of the sale of any other kind of agricultural produce.

I move—

The amendment consists of two parts. The first portion is an amendment of the Bill itself. The second portion is an amendment of the amendment just proposed by the Minister of Agriculture. As regards the first portion: The Minister proposes that 75 per cent of the farmers must be members of the co-operative society and that this 75 per cent. must also produce 75 per cent. of the produce which is produced in the district before compulsory cooperation can be enforced. That is clear. But what is now the position of the remaining 25 per cent. of farmers living in such a district not members of the co-operative society who also grow this produce? They may be compelled to sell their produce to the co-operative societies. What is the object of that? To benefit the co-operative society. Thus in most cases a co-operative society will desire that it should be done and to make use of the law so that the provision of the Minister practically comes down to this that the people must sell their produce to the society. But it is not said that that will always be the case with all co-operative societies. I know a co-operative society which every year causes two or three of its members to be removed as undesirable. They are persons who, e.g., do not always deliver their produce properly, incur unnecessary debts and subsequently possibly will not pay, persons who provoke feeling against the co-operative society and thus bring co-operation into discredit. In short, people who are inimical towards the co-operative society, and I do not think that such a society will again desire to be encumbered with produce from such unwilling persons and to be compelled to sell their produce. The whole intention of this section is to strengthen the position of the co-operative societies and I would suggest that the Minister should leave it to the co-operative societies to say whether this section shall be applied to them or not. Therefore I propose that the Minister shall only make use of this right if such a co-operative society asks for it. The second portion of my amendment is meant to alter the provision with regard to the supervision of the acceptance, grading and valuation of the produce of the 25 per cent. outside farmers. I can quite well understand that with persons who are compelled to bring their produce to the co-operative society certain distrust will arise whether they are actually being treated justly, a certain distrust with reference to the grading, the weight, the testing of produce, in short whether everything has actually been done in the same way as with the produce of members. To prevent this distrust and to see that the people are treated honestly the Minister has very rightly proposed an amendment that an officer should be appointed by himself, the Minister, to assist the co-operative societies when produce is received, to count the bags, to check the weights, and to grade, classify and appraise in the case of tobacco. But the Minister has also provided that such officer must be paid by the co-operative society. To a certain extent this is right, but I question whether it will be necessary in the case of every co-operative society. I can well imagine as regards tobacco that e.g., in Rustenburg for positively a few weeks day after day a large number of wagons with tobacco will arrive at the society’s premises and that an officer there will be employed day after day checking matters. But in the case of smaller societies mealies perhaps arrive to-day, the following week a load of wheat, a few days later ground nuts or a few bales of wool or cotton, but there is not sufficient work for a special officer to be always with the co-operative society and employed there. It may also happen that the Minister has the fullest confidence in the board of the co-operative society, full confidence in the secretary and in those who are charged with the receipt, the grading and the testing, so that it is not necessary to run the society into great expense to pay such a Government official. I therefore wish to leave the whole matter to the discretion of the Minister so that he can say if it is necessary or not. Hence the second portion of my amendment which I understand will be accepted by the Minister.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

The object of the Bill is to help the farmers to co-operate better and to organize and it may occur some times that there are factories which are interested in the farmers not organizing, and they may make efforts to bring about a failure of the organization. For this reason I propose that when 75 per cent. of the producers, producing 75 per cent. of the produce resolve to co-operate that then those shall not be included who produce on the land of such factories. Hon. members will think that this is an imaginary danger, but I can assure them that in my constituency it is a real danger. Since the second reading of this Bill it has been brought to my notice that certain factories are not sympathetic towards the organization of the tobacco growers. They have threatened to get ground to put people on it and that these people will then vote against the proposal. This means that if they get enough people they can stultify the principle of this Bill. I hope that the Minister and hon. members will support me by accepting the proposal. I can give them the assurance that it is very necessary in my constituency, in as much as the chief object of the Bill is the organization of tobacco farmers and my district is unique in this respect. I hope hon. members will support me.

I want to know whether members think that it is clear that the Bill only applies to tobacco. Paragraph (5) of the amendment of the Minister reads as follows—

I understand the last portion hereof, but the Minister clearly said on the motion for the second reading that the Bill would only apply to tobacco and that he would make that clear by an amendment. Here he does not exclude other agricultural produce. He talks of tobacco and then also of anything else. That is not the promise of the Minister. We were more or less satisfied after his promise, but this section does not co-inside with what the Minister said.

I am sorry my hon. friend got excited over this simple little amendment. Whether he votes for this clause of not, all this amendment of the Minister means if this clause goes through, is that by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, you can describe what primary or secondary agricultural products come under the operation of the Bill. It would be a good thing if the Minister would read to the committee the clause now as amended, so as to give us an opportunity of knowing what we are voting on. The Minister has introduced an amendment which makes the clause more liable to acceptance by the House than before. At the present moment, dealing with tobacco, the co-operative society not alone must produce 75 per cent. of the product of the district or area, but not less than 75 per cent. of the producers must be members of the society. It is a serious thing for the committee to decide whether to introduce the compulsory principle into co-operation or not. I have thought a great deal about the subject, because I understand men like Sir Horace Plunkett and others were opposed to the compulsory principle. In this country we have a different condition of affairs to deal with. We have a section of people going through the country doing all they can to break up the co-operative spirit amongst, the farmers. They assist in every way by giving advice and financial assistance, but the whole effect of it is to defeat the co-operative spirit and encourage farmers not to join a co-operative association. Except in Denmark and Ireland, the tendency of farmers in a country like this and most countries, is to be individualistic and to be opposed to co-operation. There is no doubt the tobacco industry in this country is in a parlous condition, and the whole effect of co-operation is to see the farmer gets a good price for the product put on the market, and to handle the product in such a way as to command good prices in Europe as well as here, and I think the only way to do that is by co-operation. But it is a serious thing to decide whether the committee is going to say they will compel the other 25 per cent. to sell their tobacco through the co-operative society under the provisions laid down by the Minister. Not alone here, but in other countries, there have been determined efforts to break up co-operative organization and to prevent them from getting to the position which would enable them to trade their products as they should do.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has laid down that co-operation is the only salvation so far as farmers are concerned. That is not actually the case so far as South Africa is concerned. Take the position at Vredefort; the alteration of this clause is going to mean that the element of competition as far as it affects the farmers’ products is going to be considerably restricted. The only people who are going to sell their products is the co-operative society, and by that you will eliminate from the field every farmer and small dealer. The co-operative society deals with one party only, and that is the United Tobacco Company. The tobacco trust is not peculiar to South Africa, and it means that the element of monopoly, which is the one element you are fighting on behalf of the farmer, is just that element you are putting on to the farmer at the present time. The element of compulsion is bad and the principle of monopoly is wrong, because it takes away the element of competition. The farmer to-day has to sell his product through the tobacco co-operative society, and by dealing with it through one factor in this way the bulk is exported to countries abroad and your local markets are entirely cut out by this. I have a definite mandate from Vredefort. A large number of tobacco producers in Vredefort do not want to be compelled to sell through the co-operative society. Can the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) show me anything in this clause which indicates how this 75 per cent. is going to be determined? Is it going to be determined by the co-operative society or the people outside the co-operative society? Again, I would urge that we should state that for the purposes of this section the term “agricultural produce” means tobacco and shall also include any other tobacco product. Don’t let us put in this omnibus regulation. If it means that this clause is to be a general clause in regard to all produce, then let the clause state so.

If I were in order I would move the deletion of this clause altogether. It is certainly better now with the Minister’s amendments, but still I say it is a very objectionable thing to have on our statute book. The short title to this clause is almost enough to condemn it—

I have not understood the Minister to prove that this is required by any particular agricultural industry. Before we are asked to assent to such a drastic clause as this we certainly should have some proof of the necessity for it. The farmers do not want it, as far as I have been able to ascertain their feeling. The farmers in my district feel that this clause will not promote or benefit co-operation. I think that it will tend to prevent or hinder the formation of co-operative societies. Farmers do not like the element of compulsion that is here introduced. When all these amendments on the Paper are accepted, as apparently they are going to be, and included in this particular clause, it will be a very complicated business indeed. It is not clear to me what would happen if a second co-operative society wishes to start in the same district, area, or province, where there is already a co-operative society operating. It might be very desirable to have more than one co-operative society in a district or area. I hope that this clause will not be accepted by the committee, and, in any case, I trust that the Minister, if he insists upon putting it through, will give full and sound reasons for its inclusion.

I hope that the Minister will stand firm on this clause: It is proved by experts all over the world that you must have compulsion. If you do not, you will allow the speculator, by using sums of money and by paying for the product rates which are higher than the ordinary market value, to break up the different co-operative societies. You have to look at the ultimate result, and I am satisfied that the ultimate result will be, if you do not pass this clause, the destruction and breaking up of the different co-operative societies.

I welcome this clause and I hope the Minister will stand firm and pass it through this committee. In my district we have a wattle industry. Before co-operation we had middlemen acting as agents, supported by speculators, who were competing with one another in selling for as low a figure as possible, and it got to such a state that the production of wattle bark became non-paying. We were forced into co-operation, and through co-operation the wattle bark was sold through one channel and the price was stabilized. But still there was that 25 per cent. who would not join the cooperative society, who were disloyal, and who to-day are the pawns of the speculators, with a tendency to undermine co-operation. For that reason I welcome this clause.

The discussion in regard to this clause has proceeded from the point of view of the grower. Now I want to approach it from the other end, and indicate to the Minister that, as far as our experience in this country has gone in regard to the compulsory sale of produce, it has not been an entirely favourable one. We have had some opportunity of observing these effects from the only Act similar to this, which is the Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1924. Throughout the whole of this discussion it has been assumed that solely the interests of the growers are concerned. The two other interests concerned are those of the distributor and of the consumer. I want to put to the Minister some of the experience gained by the operation of this other Act. I see in that, possibilities which may eventually work to the detriment of the grower as much as they may be working to the detriment of the distributor and the consumer. The defect which seems likely to emerge from the Wine and Spirit Control Act is this: That Act was passed at a time when there was an outcry for some immediate assistance to be given towards the position that was likely to result from over-production. Provision was made whereby, if there was over-production a portion of the crop produced would be converted into something other than wine, or destroyed, and a contribution levied on all growers as compensation to those whose vintage was destroyed. The two consequences which will emerge from that experiment seem to me to be these: One will be that over-production will continue. The second will be that the quality of the product will deteriorate. If all producers can be satisfied, they will get only a: particular minimum price and of course they will go on with unlimited production. If there is no reason why they should produce a good article, naturally they will produce one inferior. I would like some hon. members to tell me whether it is not the case that, in consequence of the provisions of the existing Act, you have in these districts beyond the “mountains” a tendency to over production, and whether as a matter of fact the directors of that organization are not now endeavouring to prevent that over-production by disseminating propaganda showing what detrimental results over-production will have for the industry. Let me illustrate to the Minister another difficulty for which he has made no provision. He requires the minority of the growers concerned to contribute their produce, to bring their produce to the co-operative society for disposal. In a case where that society decides to build up reserve funds then these hon. members have no right to participate in them. They may not care to become members, but their produce is taken away from them compulsorily. Let me illustrate what is taking place to-day under the system of wine control. There the co-operative society has built up large reserve funds, but those non-members who are compelled to contribute their produce for sale have no legal right to participate in that surplus, although their products go to build up the surplus, and although compulsory co-operation enables the society to secure these products. Where you have a world price, then it may be that unfair prices as against the South African consumer cannot be created. But what is the position where you have to sell your product in the local market? Who in the long run, is going to pay the bill? Obviously the consumer. Where are the interests of the consumer protected in this particular legislation? In view of the wide terms of the Bill, there may be other products other than tobacco and wine which may be manipulated in the same way. What are the steps to be taken to protect, not only the grower, but the consumer? Where is the principle in the Bill to protect consumer against exploitation? That is the point I ask the Minister very seriously to consider. The suggestion I would make with regard to this clause is that, rather than he should take on his shoulders the responsibility of applying this clause, he should have the assistance of some body which would be able to advise him, and might be able to make the necessary enquiry from the three points of view I have indicated. I think the Minister will realize that, by this clause, as it stands now the onus falls upon the Government in applying compulsion, and it may be very unfair to cast the responsibility on the Government. My suggestion is this, that this question of production, distribution and consumption should be dealt with by the Board of Trade and Industries before the Minister decides to apply it to any class of product. You then obviate, as far as possible, both the consumer and the distributor from having just cause of complaint that the principle of compulsion had been adopted without due enquiry. I could give the Minister instances of the difficulty of arriving at a fair conclusion in a matter of this kind. Here no provision is made for the consumer and I would like, approaching the matter from this angle, to suggest to the Minister that an enquiry of this kind should be made, and therefore. I move an amendment—

I am sure the hon. member who has just spoken has more confidence in what he is going to get out of the Board of Trade and Industries than our experience has been in the past over certain matters. Whatever may be the objection to this clause as regards the principle of compulsory co-operation one thing is certain, that the producer is going to get fairer prices for his products in the future than he has had in the past. When the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) tells us that the farmers are combined and that you are limiting the individual in selling his products, he must think the committee is composed of very simple people, especially if there are producers among them. That is opposed to the whole experience of co-operation throughout the world. I should say that about 10,000,000 pounds or a little more of the tobacco produced in this country is for local consumption. If the tobacco industry is ever going to take the position it ought to take, according to our climatic facilities for growing tobacco, it can never do so without co-operation; because except the tobacco is brought into a co-operative warehouse, where it can be properly treated and fermented, it is impossible to get a European market for that tobacco, but with co-operation there is no reason why we should not, in the Western Province, be able to grow a Turkish leaf that would compete with the Macedonian and Mediterranean Turkish tobaccos. The fault is that the individual producer is not able to treat and ferment his leaf properly, the result being that he cannot produce a first-class article, and cannot compete with growers whose tobacco is treated in a most scientific manner. One thing is certain, that the individual producer in this country has had no chance whatsoever of getting a fair price when he has to compete with a great combination, but when individuals combine, they are able to deal with a big corporation and say that is a fair and reasonable price for our product.

Who pays for it?

The consumer.

No, the consumer does not pay more, but the profits are more fairly distributed between the grower and those who manipulate that produce. If my hon. friend would just take the balance sheet of the ordinary tobacco farmer, and then go into the balance sheets of the big corporations that deal with tobacco, he would find a great gulf fixed. I have no objection to the big industries, who deal with our tobacco, getting a fair and reasonable profit; but I want to see the producer get his reasonable share of that profit, which he does not get just now. If the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) takes an interest in the producers, and studies the question, he will find out that it is only by the co-operation of the producers, under the present world conditions, that it is possible to get a fair and reasonable price for their product. Tobacco is a luxury to the consumer, who is just going to pay as much for it as he can spare, and you must not put up its price to an unreasonable extent. The position in regard to leaf tobacco is that I am certain the producer is not getting a fair and reasonable share of the price which the consumer pays for it.

The middleman gets it.

At any rate, the unorganized individual producer does not get it. In regard to the district of Rustenburg, I understand that there are influences at work trying to break up the Magaliesberg institution, which has been of enormous benefit to the tobacco farmers of that area. It treated large quantities of tobacco, and if influences are at work that are going to break up that institution, by preaching the doctrine of the hon. member for Vredefort, that if they combine, they will get a worse price for their product, it will be a bad day for the Rustenburg tobacco farmers. I agree that it is a bad principle to introduce compulsion in any way. It is a most serious step, but knowing the tobacco industry, if it is in any way justifiable to introduce a measure of that character, it is justifiable in connection with the tobacco industry, which by that means can become a large industry. I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) now standing up for co operation, because if there is one district that wants that co-operation, among tobacco growers, it is the Oudtshoorn district. So anxious was the late Government to spread the spirit of co-operation, that with the help of my hon. friend we made proposals to advance a certain amount of money, free of interest, for five years, to establish co-operative organizations, and set up a proper store to ferment their products. I do not like the spirit of compulsion, but when we have to weigh the greater of two evils, and realize the possibilities of the tobacco industry in this country, as a producer. I feel inclined to agree with the amendment of the Minister of Agriculture.

I just want to say a few words with reference to what has been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that I am an individualist and opposed to co-operation. No, that is not my intention, but I can assure the hon. member that I have been engaged on co-operation for the past 15 years, that I have given the best time of my life to it, but that my experience is such that I do not think compulsory co-operation will be such a success as the House thinks. I am afraid that it will take away all initiative, that the people will become slack, because they will think that they will in any event be protected and need not do their best. If they think that then they will, of course, make the greatest blunder possible, and therefore I do not think that compulsory co-operation will be a success. Further, I stated at the second reading that co-operation, just like any other sound business, should rest on sound business principles to be a success. If all producers could be compelled to be members of the co-operative societies then it will possibly be another thing. It is, e.g., the case with the wine farmer; but this Bill does not speak of co-operation throughout the whole country, but only of certain districts. Rustenburg, Vredefort and Oudtshoorn, e.g., will come under it, but it does not attain the end for which we are striving. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) himself let the cat out of the bag at the second reading when he clearly stated that the difficulty was not the few farmers who did not belong to the co-operative societies, but the fact that Rhodesia was busy capturing our tobacco market, especially in the Cape Province. The hon. member then quoted figures and pointed out that five years ago the imports from Rhodesia were about 600,000 lbs., while they now amounted to about 5,000,000 lbs., as against 7,000,000 from the Union itself. For this reason I believe that the Minister would be better advised to take into consideration the taxation of the tobacco from Rhodesia and to protect the farmers in the country rather than to force people to join the co-operative societies. The hon. member for Rustenburg expressed the view that, e.g., in Rustenburg forces were at work to oppose the co-operative societies. Yes, I know of similar circumstances in other parts of the country, but does not the hon. member think that it will be better to pass an Act by which it will be made a criminal offence for anybody to interfere with a member of the cooperative society by bribing Kim or influencing him not to join a co-operative society? I think that would work better. I hope the best from compulsory co-operation, but I am afraid. I have here a long letter from an English farmer in my district, and he says that he had an interview with the Minister of Lands, who had assured him that compulsory co-operation would only be applied to articles of luxury. He is now, however, still afraid that the section will also be applied to other produce. He telegraphs and says that they are afraid that compulsory cooperation is also going to be applied to mealie farmers, and he informs me that they are busy there establishing a mealie pool and that people are already going about selling shares and as inducement state that mealie farming will also be brought under compulsory co-operation, and that in this way persons are being encouraged to buy shares in the pool. This is making a bad impression upon people, who think that they are able to look after then own business. I am a great supporter of cooperation, but if it cannot stand on its own legs then it is not worth having. We are going to kill all initiative. I believe, however, that we have the House against us, and that the section will pass, but I do not wish that to happen without rioting my protest against it. Compulsory co-operation will possibly provide better markets for the farmers for a few years, but then we will lapse again to precisely the same position that we are in to-day.

We have to make up our minds either that we believe in co-operation or that we don’t. If we do not then let us be candid and say so, but if we do, then let us get on with it. Short of actual compulsion, the Bill is as near a compromise between the voluntary principle and compulsion as we shall get. Farmers, generally, do not like the compulsory idea, they believe in co-operation, and co-operation to’ be successful must be complete. The whole community interested must be in it, and as the Minister has agreed to place the minimum at 75 per cent. of the growers producing 75 per cent. of the produce in any district, that is a safeguard against the compulsory objection. Now I am a firm believer in the spirit of co-operation nor could I be otherwise as I was responsible for forming the first co-operative creamery in South Africa. We had a capital of only £3,000 and the first year we paid 8 per cent. to the shareholders, and distributed £500 as profit among the suppliers. The reason the institution succeeded was that owing to our co-operative effort we were able to enter into large contracts which the farmers individually could not have looked at. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) said that one of his main objections to the Bill is that the individual grower of tobacco is prevented from making individual arrangements and will become a prey of the big tobacco trust. This Bill, however, is the answer to the trust, for co-operation is the only effective reply that farmers can make to trusts. It has also been urged by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) that co-operation will lead to over-production, but in that event a co-operative concern can arrange to export its surplus. Now as regards the consumer we admit that he is entitled to a certain amount of protection against the results of co-operation. The real object of co-operation is not to bleed the consumer. The moment the consumer is forced to pay too high a price the tariff can be utilized to meet the situation. I hope the Minister will be very careful indeed in respect of some of the amendments, and I particularly warn him against the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) for if that is adopted it is likely to lead to complications which will make the Bill almost unworkable,

I think that it is possibly desirable that I should reply now because it is possible it may shorten the discussion. I want to say at once that I was not surprised that the hon. member for East London (North) (Gen. Byron) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) have used the language they did in connection with this Bill because of course a tremendous amount of tobacco is grown in their constituencies! But I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk). The hon. member for Vredefort knows what the farmer gets for his produce and yet he argues here against the provision that a co-operative society shall be permitted to control the produce of a specified class if 75 per. cent. of those farmers are members of the cooperative society. The hon. member says: Yes, but what will become of the smaller dealers? Those people can easily get their tobacco from the co-operative society and the consumer will pay no more than at present. The producer some times gets only 2d. or 3d. per lb. to-day or still less. If we co-operate we can get better prices for the product and as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has shown, the consumers need not pay more for it. If the farmers will not co-operate then they will be the sufferers. Why cannot the farmer do his own business and get the profits of the middle man? I hope that the hon. member will regard the Bill correctly and will see that he is not assisting his electors by going against them. This Bill does not say that other produce shall fall under this section. The hon. member will have full opportunity to make his voice heard when we bring other produce under it, because there must first be a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Why should we be compelled to introduce a short Bill for that purpose? The introduction of the resolution will give sufficient opportunity for discussion. The hon. member for Waterberg has talked about breach of faith on my part and that I am not acting as I promised to do during the second reading of the Bill. He said that this section will not apply only to tobacco, but that is not the case, unless the two Houses of Parliament have first decided to that effect. I do not know whether he does not read or does not wish to understand what is contained in the section and whether he only wants to have a grievance against me. He said in any case that he had a letter in his pocket supporting the second reading of the Bill. I do not share the objections of the two hon. members. I will repeat again that if the farmers do not co-operate they will constantly go under and will become heweres of wood and drawers of water. It is time to try to introduce a certain measure of compulsion in our cooperation in order to save the position of the farmer. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has said that there will be over production as a result of co-operation. There is nothing that we will welcome more, we shall then get much more money and export the surplus.

And if we have no overset market?

We have an oversea market, because I have this morning received a letter from the trade commissioner that there is a market for our tobacco in Poland if we only manufacture it in the right way. He further objected that it may result in our not continuing to produce such good tobacco. I do not believe that with the advice which can to-day be given to the tobacco farmers we need be afraid that we will produce worse tobacco. We are constantly trying to send produce to the market which will sell better and to plant the best kind of tobacco. Two hon. members have remarked that too much tobacco comes in from Rhodesia. They are actually Turkish brands of tobacco and the manufacturers tell me that they cannot get enough of it. I hope that we will go in much more for Turkish tobacco, and if there is not a market for it here any longer then we will try to export it. I agree with what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has said. It is difficult to create co-operation by compulsion. People are afraid that something may go wrong. But if we do not commence now then matters will simply drift. We cannot permit it. As the hon. member has said there is a prosperous co-operative society in Rustenburg. Fresh capital however is now coming in and the people are now getting money to plant the kind desired by the capitalists. They get money to prepare the ground on condition that they will sell the tobacco for five years to those people. After a few years that company will have attained its object. The co-operative society will no longer be there and then he buys the tobacco at his own price. The farmers will then be in his clutches. For this reason I think that the time has come that we should stipulate that 75 per cent. of the tobacco farmers shall have the right to decide that all the tobacco must be sold by the co-operative societies. But we even go further in the Bill. The 75 per cent. of the farmers who take that decision must also produce 75 per cent. of the tobacco or otherwise the resolution is of on effect. We must not permit a small group of people to spoil matters for all the others. It is said that other countries do not have these provisions. Our circumstances are different. There the people live close together and they can easily discuss co-operative matters with each other. Here the people live far apart and we find that they do not come so much into touch with each other. They are easily dissuaded from co-operation. That is one of the reasons why co-operation has not been such a success here as one would have expected. I want to repeat that the co-operative societies have often been a failure in the past because the societies wanted to act as trading concerns. They did not confine themselves to disposing of the produce of the farmers. I hope that this will go on no longer. The hon. members for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and Weenen (Maj. Richards) support the Bill with the expectation that other produce also will be brought under it. I am therefore glad that the section on the whole has the support of members. Here and there something has been said against it, but nothing better has been suggested. The hon. member for Waterberg has suggested that we should legislate to punish people who try to draw people away from co-operation, to sell their produce outside the co-operative society. I do not think that anything of that sort will be adopted by the country. What will be the cost of carrying out the proposed act. It is impracticable and impractical.

No, we are not mad.

Now I would like to come to the amendments which have been proposed. There are quite a number before the committee at the moment. The first amendment is my own as it stands on the Order Paper, and I am very glad that it has met with such approval in the House and will be adopted. Then there are the two amendments of the member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). It seems to me that the hon. member is a little sorry for me. He wants to take away some of my burdens and proposes that I should wait until a co-operative society asks for it before I provide that all the farmers are compelled to sell a specified product through such a society. I think the amendment reasonable and I am prepared to adopt it. It takes a certain responsibility off my shoulders and also a part of the reproaches if I take such a step before the co-operative society asks for it. I therefore welcome the amendment. The second amendment is that when there is a small number of farmers who are not members of the co-operative society that it should then be left to the Minister’s discretion to fix whether a grader should be appointed for the produce of such people. It will mean heavy expense and if the farmers trust the members of the cooperative society then it should not be insisted upon that such an impartial grader ought to be appointed. I cannot see any objection to it. Then I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). I have much sympathy with the farmers of Oudtshoorn because I know that the district is in a terrible state owing to the bad position of tobacco farmers at the moment, and because the feather market has entirely sagged. But the position seems to me to be that we shall not know where to draw the line. If we accept the amendment and say that people who produce tobacco on the land of the factories shall not have the right to vote then we may have the position of a rich farmer who is opposed to co-operation doing the same. Should we then deprive those people of the vote? I fear that we shall so complicate the matter that we will make the section a failure. I do not see how we will benefit matters by accepting this amendment. Where a person produces tobacco by his own work I do not see how we can justly deprive him of his vote. I feel that we cannot do that and if the hon. member considers the matter I think he will agree with me. I only just wish to mention further that I have received a telegram from the voters of the hon. member for Waterberg in which they say that they are entirely satisfied with the section as it stands at the moment.

I do not want to intervene at any length in this debate. As I told the Minister on the second reading, provided that this clause would be amended in committee so as to remove its main objection, we were satisfied from this side, most of us, to accept the principle of compulsion embodied therein. He has discharged his promise to so amend the clause, and we should now accept it, provided certain small faults are now corrected. I would like to say that when this clause was drafted the tobacco growers, to the exclusion of other interests, must have dominated the minds of those who drafted it. If this clause is going to be applied to other products as well—cheese, butter and things of that sort—one can hardly imagine how you can speak of “growing” cheese or, butter; you produce it. I would suggest to the Minister that he should amend his amendment by inserting after “produce” in line 4, “as defined in sub-section (5) of this section”, that he should omit “growers” and substitute “the producers”, that he should omit “produce grown” and substitute “products produced and that in line 7 he should omit “grower” and insert “producer”. The effect of this will be that, if at any time this Act is extended to other things, it will be provided for.

I take it that the hon. member is moving an amendment to an amendment.

Yes.

The hon. Minister has said that my amendment amounts to this, that we are taking away the liberty of people who plant in conjunction with manufacturers. That is not the intention. But we cannot permit manufacturers to influence people who plant tobacco, and for them to go and practically make the object of this Bill a failure. It appears that manufacturers own very large properties, and put people on them as bywoners to plant tobacco. If such a manufacturer is unsympathetic towards the co-operative society, and has more than 100 byowners, e.g., he can use his influence over the people to vote against cooperation. This danger the amendment is intended to remove.

We are naturally all anxious that there should be proper co-operation, that we have here to do with compulsory co-operation. This, in itself, is contradictory. Perhaps the position of the tobacco industry is such that in it is specially necessary to adopt such a measure, and I verily believe that when this Bill was drafted only tobacco was thought of. I do not wish to oppose it, but I hope the Minister will agree to its being provided that it shall only apply to tobacco. That will give great satisfaction. If another product could be brought under compulsory co-operation it should first be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The provision regarding other products will moreover possibly be quite different to what we are to-day making for tobacco, and I hope the Minister will accept an amendment to, in the meantime, only include tobacco under the Bill, and if it is necessary to also include other products, then he can introduce a fresh resolution into the House. The people are now afraid that what is being done to-day in respect of tobacco may, to-morrow, be applied to the planting of mealies, e.g., there is great inquietude. I have, inter alia, received a letter and telegram from a farmers’ association in which this inquietude is expressed. There is a large farmer. He came from oversea, but has done much work. He has, at least, seven or eight white men in his employ, and he says that if compulsory co-operation is brought into force with respect to the growing of mealies, he will then rather sell and go to some other country. I hope the hon. Minister will accept my amendment to limit the compulsory co-operation to tobacco and I move, as an amendment to the new subsection (5) proposed by the Minister of Agriculture—

I am very sorry about the amendment of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé). I explained clearly that to make it applicable to any other product it would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Why does the hon. member now wish that we should specially lay down that it can apply only to tobacco? No other product can be brought under it without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. It, therefore, amounts precisely to the same thing as what the hon. member has in view. I almost begin to think that hon. members want to wreck this section. Well, it will not be my fault. I am sorry that the hon. member for Pietersburg, who is always disposed to assist, has introduced this amendment, and I hope the House will not accept it.

I think the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) is unreasonable. If compulsory Cooperation can be made applicable to something else besides tobacco, then application must first be made to both Houses of Parliament, and they will decide whether it is necessary or not. I am glad that the hon. Minister has accepted the amendments of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). The hon. member has set out the position very clearly. I have here a letter from the co-operative society in Rustenburg in connection with compulsory co-operation. From this it also appears that it is necessary for the tobacco farmers to stand together and form a large cooperation. There are strong co-operative societies existing to-day, but we feel that it should be protected by legislation. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is so opposed to co-operation.

I am not.

Now the Government comes and is prepared to encourage co-operation and assist and we should be thankful. Here, in the letter just mentioned, it is stated that a congress was held at which representatives were present from all tobacco districts in the Union, and they unanimously resolved to ask the Minister to introduce a Bill for compulsory co-operation where 75 per cent. of the produce went through the Society. If I had had to draft the Bill. I should possibly have made it 50 per cent. Rustenburg certainly requires assistance in this direction, and if, through this hesitation of members, the section is defeated, then the responsibility will rest on the hon. members. I think that this step we are now taking will enable us to keep our inland market, and also give us the opportunity to export when we know exactly what is produced in the country. I hope the hon. Minister will stand to his amendment with the few alterations suggested in it by the hon. member for Lydenburg.

As the Minister can understand there is not the least intention to complicate or wreck this section. I understood from the Minister that it was the intention to only apply this Bill to tobacco. In principle I would be against this Bill if it were not applied only to articles of luxury, but also to necessities of life. Now we, indeed, accept that principle and, therefore. I say that we should adopt it only with regard to tobacco, so that we can subsequently again discuss the principle if we want to apply it to other produce. If the Minister wants to apply the Bill subsequently to other produce, he will, anyhow, have to amend it from the beginning. I am not personally concerned in the matter, but I have also received a telegram with reference to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), viz., that people are going about selling shares in a mealie pool. They allege that this Bill is going to be made applicable to mealies. It is, of course, wrong, but it shows anyhow that the feeling exists. As the Minister says that it will only be applied to tobacco, my amendment is not intended to wreck the whole Bill or the section, but rather to advance it, and to create more satisfaction in connection therewith.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Agriculture and Mr. Nieuwenhuize put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. le Roux, Mr. Coulter and Mr. Tom Naude, put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I would urge on the Minister the absolute necessity of having the Act, as amended, published separately. It would be almost impossible for farmers and societies to understand what the Co-operative Act is unless the whole of it is published as an amended Act. I hope that will be done, and that copies will be distributed amongst those most interested.

Clause put and agreed to.

Schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

I move—

I want to make it clear that as these persons are to be public servants the appointments will be made under the rules governing the public service. The Births. Marriages and Deaths Registration Act of 1923 includes the provision I have moved. These persons should come into the public service through the same door as any other ordinary appointee comes in at.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment, but I will move an amendment—

I appreciate the objection that persons coming from outside should not come into the public service. I hope to get just a small office, but I don’t want to restrict myself to people who are eligible for admission to the service.

That meets to a large extent my objection to the clause as it now stands. These persons will not be officers in the public service, but officers who are in the public service can be employed in that office, and that time will count as if they were in another office. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has an amendment on the Paper—

I move that.

I will accept that amendment.

I will withdraw my previous amendment.

I want to draw attention to sub-clause (c). By that sub-clause apparently the Minister is able to appoint anyone in the office, whether qualified or not, and by Clause 3, such a person can perform the functions of the office of the attorney. Under that provision such persons who are not qualified can be appointed to perform the functions of the office which under Clause 3 includes the function of an attorney.

I don’t think any difficulty will arise. It might be better to use the word “assist” in the performance.

But as it stands, such a person might sign any document which an attorney might sign. Whereas an admitted attorney may not do certain things, he may, because he cannot be dealt with by the Supreme Court.

If the Minister put in the word “attorney” in Clause 5 that might make it clear.

You have already got attorney in there and this says “such other person.”

It might be sufficient if I stop at the word “necessary”.

I move—

What exactly does the Minister mean by sub-section (4)?—

There are certain acts which may be looked upon as duties which an attorney is not allowed to perform. I think this sub-section is rather wide, and that the Minister ought to limit it in some way.

I do not think so. The intention is that where other work may be required, something of the same type as the ordinary functions performed by an attorney, notary or conveyancer, the Government Attorney can be called upon to perform those functions. I am not certain how one can word it in any other way.

Would the Minister accept an amendment—

I am quite satisfied with that.

Then I will move that.

This point is really rather important, because the Minister proposes to establish the office of Government Attorney in certain of the principal towns, and I am sure he would like the holder of that office to fulfil the best traditions of the profession. There are certain things which are done some times—I do not say irregularly—by attorneys and notaries, which the Government Attorney should not be called upon to perform. I do not think he should become a broker, nor do I think he should carry on the work of an auctioneer. I suggest that the work that should be prescribed by the Minister under this section should be work which would be exclusively professional work proper to be exercised by an attorney, notary public or conveyancer, as the case may be. I move, as an amendment, to add at the end of this sub-section—

It is important, I think, to preserve the status which has generally been here before enjoyed by those members of the profession who have represented the Government. I, therefore, move this amendment.

I may say I am not prepared to accept this last amendment. It would be extremely ambiguous to say, in the first place, what work exclusively pertains to the work of the Government Attorney. I do not want to narrow down the scope of the duties of the Government Attorney to less than the ordinary attorney can do. I agree it would be inadvisable to allow him to conduct auctions or anything of that description. That is the idea; but we would be landing ourselves in difficulties if we tried to cut down the functions below those ordinarily performed by an attorney. I am prepared to accept the amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and “as he may be qualified to perform.” I think the way we must deal with this matter is to avoid allowing the Government Attorney carrying out functions of the nature my hon. friend spoke about.

With leave of the committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by Minister of Justice and Mr. Duncan put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

Why is the Minister inserting “parliamentary agent”? The appointment of parliamentary agent is purely in the hands of Mr. Speaker. When a parliamentary agent becomes a member of Parliament he ceases to be a parliamentary agent, the idea being that as a member of Parliament he might exercise undue influence. Surely as a Government servant he can exercise great influence! Does the Government intend to run private Bills?

A large number of Bills of the Department of Lands are hybrid as private interests are affected.

By this Bill you take away the privilege of Mr. Speaker.

A Government Attorney becomes a parliamentary agent.

It is a privilege which no other attorney enjoys. Why should the Government Attorney be a patent agent? No special qualification is required, but is the Government going to register patents? I move

The hon. member’s objection is well founded. The idea was to place a Government Attorney in the same position as an ordinary attorney. I have no objection to the hon. member’s amendment, and I move—

Does the Minister feel justified in including any references to parliamentary agents who are appointed because of certain qualifications, one being that they must have been in practice for five years, and the other is that the appointment is in the hands of Mr. Speaker. Under this Bill the Minister might appoint in Cape Town an attorney with only three years’ experience, who would not ordinarily be eligible as a parliamentary agent. The appointment is one exercised by Mr. Speaker, and it should not be lightly taken away from his hands. Can the Government be better served than by those who have done its work in the past? To say that a Government attorney should secure such privileges is inconsistent with the principles just laid down by the Minister.

I don’t quite see what the effect of this is going to be as regards the Government attorney acting as parliamentary agent. Does it mean that he is going to be a parliamentary agent without the appointment of Mr. Speaker? The rules provide that application must be made by an enrolled attorney if he wants to be a parliamentary agent, he must have practised for at least five years, and have to be certified by Mr. Speaker. It seems to me undesirable that we should interfere with that.

This clause merely says what work can be done by a Government attorney. He can do the work of a parliamentary agent, but he must first obtain his appointment in the same way as any other agent. It lays down what functions he performs, but it does not make him a parliamentary agent, unless he qualifies in the ordinary way, and the Speaker would have to give his concurrence before he could obtain the appointment as a parliamentary agent, and before he could perform the functions. I don’t want to withdraw this from the functions from a Government attorney, but he must obtain his appointment in the ordinary way.

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

I think the Minister will agree that we should make this as plain as possible, that the Government should not interfere with the prerogative of the parliamentary administration. I think that if we insert after “agents”—

it would be made perfectly clear that the parliamentary agents would be subject to the rulings of Mr. Speaker.

I will accept that amendment. Then, of course, the word “or” would fall away, because we omit “patent agents” and the rest of that subsection.

I am not quite certain whether the additional words that I have proposed may not be construed as applying to the other functions mentioned in this sub-section. I would, therefore, move that the following proviso be inserted at the end of the subsection—

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I wish to move an addition at the end of sub-section (1) as printed on page 173, viz.—

The reason for that is this: It has been held in a case in the Transvaal that it has always been held the Government is not entitled to recover stamps placed upon documents, because the Government is not subject to stamp duty.

I should like to put a point to the Minister which I put at the second reading. He is specially arranging here that as soon as the Government wins a case they can issue a writ. I should like to put it to him whether it is not right that they should allow the public similar special rights and give them power to issue a writ against the Government also. The position to-day is we have to wait. There is no method of recovering your judgment or costs. In one case I had to wait for two years before I could get a settlement. Why cannot we make some provision here by which we can issue a writ, or will the Government undertake to settle any judgment or taxed costs within a certain time?

I am afraid it would be a little undignified if we gave powers to issue process of that kind against the Government. I do not believe there has been any real trouble for years, and I do think it would be somewhat undignified to have a provision of that kind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I have an amendment here—

I accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

moved an amendment in the Dutch Version which did not affect the English.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I want to move a rather different amendment from what appears on the paper—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 10 and the title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I do so in order to bring up an amended Bill, which is now in the hands of the translators, and I hope to introduce it to-morrow. It is an urgent and non-contentious measure, but since the Bill has been before the House, our advisers have recommended a number of important amendments, and rather than amend the present Bill, we propose to introduce tomorrow or next day, a new Bill.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to; Bill accordingly withdrawn.

In the absence of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), is there any hon. member who wishes to move?

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) will move.

Report considered.

In the absence of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), I have been asked to move—

The report really deals with two main features. The difficulties incorporated in this report have been felt by hon. members of this House almost from the inception of the Union Parliament. There are two aspects of the question. One deals with the insufficient ventilation of this debating chamber, and the other difficulty is the great want of accommodation in the building generally for Ministers, members, the Parliamentary staff, Hansard staff, and for committee rooms, in order to give due effect to the machinery of Parliament. Dealing with the question of ventilation, I think it is admitted by members on all sides, that that is a real and bona-fide grievance, which is being felt very acutely by members, and I am not wrong in saying that many members have suffered in health through bad ventilation. At the time of Union, the building had naturally to be constructed in a rather hurried manner, and we shortly afterwards discovered that, owing to the debating chamber being an internal chamber with passages surrounding it, the ventilation was not what it ought to be. I may be allowed to say that, during the time I acted as Speaker everything possible, from the technical point of view, was done to remedy this matter. The technical officers of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and Public Works were consulted, and everything was done to endeavour to remedy the position. Once during those years, we had the advantage of meeting an expert from London. The man specially in charge of the House of Commons ventilation. I succeeded in getting him to go thoroughly into this question here, and he agreed with the Public Works Department’s architects, that the only remedy was radical alteration to the structure of this chamber. Then there is the other position, the want of accommodation. I think hon. members will also there agree, that at present members attending Parliament have very few facilities outside this debating chamber, and in the debating chamber itself it was a punishment to them often to remain inside owing to the bad ventilation. And then we have constantly been harassed by Ministers who have keenly felt the want of more accommodation. We have had twelve Select Committees sitting on one day, and we often felt that the committee rooms were insufficient. You, Mr. Speaker, have often, this session, had to allow Select Committees to meet in your private library, and that has been done on former occasions too. Then members have no opportunity of meeting their constituents in any private room at all. They have no place where they could meet their constituents. They must either meet them in the lobby or the refreshment room, but I can assure you it is very inconvenient to members to serve the public and the country under present conditions. The position became so acute that, a couple of years ago, I think, the House unanimously resolved to refer this question to a committee of enquiry, and that committee had to report. The committee, which consisted of the hon. members for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), Paarl (Dr. de Jager) and Salt River (Mr. Snow) sat during the recess, with myself as chairman. We went fully into the question and consulted with the architects, plans were drawn up and we reported to the House. It is the adoption of that report which I am now moving. No doubt the report does recommend a considerable amount of expenditure.

£40,000.

The question is: Are we going to continue as we are with Parliamentary life rendered very unpleasant, or are we prepared to do something to remedy the present most unsatisfactory state of affairs? It was a mandate from Parliament that this matter should be enquired into; the committee has done its duty, and has, I think, devised a scheme in regard to alterations to this chamber which, according to technical advice, will give absolute satisfaction. The committee also recommends the extension of the buildings in order to accommodate the staff, and to give greater facilities to Ministers and members generally. I do not think it necessary for me to say more than to recommend the adoption of the report, as the alterations advised by the committee are for the good government of the country. Personally I do not recommend the motor garage, and that could be eliminated. I hope members, for the sake of the dignity of the House and the proper administration of the country’s affairs, will agree to the report, the adoption of which I now move.

I second the motion.

What the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said in connection with proper ventilation is I think quite right. There is an absolute necessity for improvement in that connection. In the past we often found that it was not pleasant to sit here long. In the summer it is occasionally so warm that one goes out with a headache. I therefore think that it is absolutely necessary that a change should be made, and we may also expect, I understand, that the acoustics of the chamber will be improved. It is almost impossible for some members because they sit so far away from the Speaker and Chairman to hear occasionally what is going on. Moreover as the hon. member for Caledon has said provision is made to give hon. members an opportunity of meeting constituents, since Union, members have always made an opportunity and arrangements for meeting constituents, but we must not forget that there are more than 130 members and that if this kind of provision is made then we do not know where we shall stop. It may not be agreeable to members that they cannot always receive their constituents as they would wish, but I think that if the principle is accepted of making provision for members to meet constituents then I think we are laying down a dangerous principle and that we shall get difficulties in that connection. Some people will perhaps often receive visitors and occupy the reception room for a long time while other members will have to wait their turn. According to the plan I see that the idea is to extend the building in a southerly direction. My opinion is that if it is at all possible we should avoid that. It will certainly be very costly. We even see that some bathrooms have to be made. I do not know whether this is a reflection on hon. members or that it means that there are members who require it. I think however that hon. members have an opportunity of using the bath where they live and that it does not require to be introduced here. Then there are garages. I think the building of accommodation for them goes a little far. We must acknowledge that it necessitates heavy expenditure and if 130 members with motor cars come here then we shall still not have sufficient accommodation. Some members will possibly prefer horses and to come in cart and horses. Then we shall have to build stables. As for me I cannot lightly adopt the report. I am in favour of going step by step and that the first part should be adopted that the building must be altered according to the plan to provide the necessary proper ventilation and that hon. members will be able properly to sit nearer the Speaker and the Chairman and to hear better what is going on. But we must leave the other things for another occasion and not now go on with the whole thing. I hope hon. members will be in favour of adopting a part and to allow the other part to stand over for a later time when we can go properly into the matter again.

I am sorry that I cannot support the proposal which the hon. member for Caledon has introduced this evening. We must not forget that the financial condition of our country is the hub about which everything turns. If we review the financial position of our country I do not think that we are justified to lightly vote £40,500 for further conveniences and luxuries for hon. members of the House. I acknowledge that the ventilation of the chamber leaves much to be desired, but according to my information we have many more conveniences and luxuries here than members of the English Parliament. Somebody who has just come from Europe told me that the members there have not all even got seats. We have the privilege of everyone having a proper seat and to listen peacefully to the debates. On the other hand I am afraid that if we spend another £40,000 that we will more and more cast our anchor here in Cape Town and it is, I think, an open question whether the time has not arrived when we should now seriously think about the dual capital. I am almost convinced of it that with the climate we have here in the winter everyone will agree that it is a very unhealthy climate here in the winter. On the other hand Cape Town lies here in the southern corner of the continent and the majority of members must travel at least two days to get here and I say that viewing the matter from all points I am convinced that if we took an open vote on the subject there can be no doubt that the majority would vote for a removal of the capital.

Where must it be removed to?

My hon. friend is becoming concerned as to where the Parliament should be moved to. I will not say that it must be Pretoria or Bloemfontein, but it must be more central. We have an ideal little place at Parys on the Vaal river. If we have to remove the capital and we propose that, I know we shall put our head into a hornet’s nest, but I am convinced that after the experience of the past everyone of all sections of the population of the House will acknowledge that it is an expensive system which is now in force and if we had to choose then I am certain that if we put our heads together we can select the most central place. But especially on the ground of the financial position in our country I do not think that we are justified in voting for the spending of such a large sum of money. I think we have managed so long that we should wait a few years more and probably matters will so develop—we do not know what will happen with regard to Rhodesia, e.g., and the hon. member for Standerton a little while ago took a very long view and he will agree that Rhodesia will ultimately certainly very probably join up with the Union—that an alteration has to be made because it will be quite impossible for the members from Rhodesia to come to Cape Town for the sittings of the Parliament. I regret, therefore that I cannot support the recommendation of the Select Committee.

I protest against certain things which are contained in this report, and I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has said. One portion of his speech I cannot understand at all. He says that £41,000 is a large amount to expend on alterations, but he is prepared to spend £500,000 for a new building in the north. That is nothing to him. There are certain things in the report that we must take out e.g., the 12 or so garages which have to be built. There are 135 members and they will then all want garages. Then we see that further conveniences are spoken about. If we look at the conveniences of the farmers on the country side then I think our conveniences are sufficient. There are so many conveniences that we cannot keep the members in this chamber. I admit that the ventilation is not good. There are members who have to keep their hats on. We must take those hats off and I am not against this portion of the recommendation. But I cannot agree to the garages and the other conveniences. We cannot stand that. The argument in connection with the removal of the place of meeting of Parliament I cannot understand because it will cost half a million to erect a new building. I propose as an amendment—

seconded.

I have sat and waited to hear something from the last speaker. I thought that he would propose that we should have a new reading room or possibly a parlour. I think that it would have been a very good tiling if he had suggested something especially in that direction. I have two grievances to bring to the notice of the House. The first is the seating accommodation. It almost seems as if it is more convenient to sit on the Opposition side because there are only two on a bench and here we have three. It is inconvenient especially if a man has long legs. Then there is another matter. There are certain doors here which are too low for me. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) and the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and I some times find it difficult. It is not a joke because I have often hurt myself. If the recommendations are adopted then I hope provision will be made for tall members like myself because the low doors are some times dangerous to us.

I have listened with interest to this debate. Any one who has sat in this House as long as I have will admit it is not the most Comfortable place in the world.

Come to Pretoria.

We are not discussing Pretoria. The law at present is that this is to be the legislative capital in Cape Town. In this House there is only one place where we are free from draught, and that is on the back benches. Some men would sacrifice anything to be on the front bench, but if you want comfort the back bench is the place. I was somewhat surprised to hear my good old friend the hon. member for Ladismith objecting to any alteration. Has be looked at the plans of the proposed alterations? There is to be a magnificent tea-room, where my hon. friend will be able to entertain his friends. Then there will be bath-rooms in the new House. Another member raised the cry that this expenditure would take us away from the idea of going further north for the legislative capital. That is no argument. I would like to make a suggestion. In this new building you are to have a billiard room, card room, reading room and library. I would like to suggest that we should come to some arrangement whereby, so far as these four recreation rooms are concerned, the Senate and this House should be joined together. I am sure if that were done, it would make for a feeling of common friendship and fellowship between the two Houses. I hope that hon. members will not press their opposition to this proposal. Every man who is connected with this House must admit that the lobbies here are draughty, and that they are a serious menace to health. To young men that may not mean much, but to men of advanced years it is very serious indeed. One hon. member has said that the expense will be too great. No expense is too great, if it is properly spent, that is going to be beneficial to those who are responsible for the laws of the nation. Another hon. member objected to the building of garages. Many members of this House live 8, 10 or 12 miles away from Cape Town, and I would ask whether it is reasonable to expect hon. members who are compelled to go those long distances to bring their cars here and leave them in the public streets. I would appeal to hon. members to support this proposal on the higher ground that this place is not comfortable, that it is not what it might be, and that it is not suitable for the duties that we are called upon to perform in it. Take the state of affairs when the Chairman is in the Chair. I am not blaming him, it is not his fault, but it is impossible for members to hear him in this part of the House. By placing him in a position nearer to the centre of the House, it will help very much to improve one’s hearing so far as the Chairman and others are concerned. I make bold to say that if a motion were brought forward next year to increase members’ salaries by £200 per annum it would find unanimous sympathy.

No.

I would sympathize with it. The money that that would involve would pay the interest on these alterations several times over. I object to the view which has been expressed that you should not make members as comfortable as you can in this House. Alterations are necessary, if not for your own comfort, certainly for the health of members of the House.

I think it may be as well before the debate proceeds any further just to make a statement in Connection with the resolution before the House. Several members have endeavoured to bring in the question as to whether we should have two capitals, whether the legislative capital should be here, whether it should be in Bethlehem or some other part of the country. I do not think that that question ought to obtrude itself too closely upon this resolution. If hon. members are of opinion that the time has arrived when a change should be made in that regard, I submit that the right way to proceed is by tabling a resolution so that the question may be discussed on its merits. The hon. member who moved this resolution claimed support on two grounds. The first was on the ground of ventilation and the second that more accommodation is required. Let me say at the outset that the ventilation of this chamber, as we all know, has not been as satisfactory as it might have been. As a matter of fact, I am informed on reliable authority that parliaments in other parts of the world also find it exceedingly difficult to get the right ventilation in their debating chambers.

Too much hot air.

We have fans below to drive it out. We get rid of it as quickly as we can, but the more we get rid of it, I suppose the more it is generated. The fact remains that parliaments in different parts of the world have found it exceedingly difficult to get the right ventilation in their chambers. When we opened this session a few months ago, there were complaints of draught; it was either too hot or it was too cold, and the draughts were “simply awful.” I thought it was time to take a closer interest in this matter, and I investigated and found downstairs most elaborate machinery for regulating the ventilation of this chamber installed by experts at a big cost, all the apparatus to give the right ventilation in this chamber. It occurred to me that it was a wrong principle that when the House was sitting and members were there, to drive these fans with cold air at top speed. What I suggested should be done was this: I said, in the morning up to two o’clock work the fans and purify the air as much as you can—there is an apparatus downstairs, not only for creating air, but for purifying it. Hon. members will have noticed some times when they have come in during the last two months that when they have entered the chamber they could almost taste the atmosphere: it is so pure. Then I told them to switch off until later on in the afternoon, and then drive the fans more slowly. Since that policy has been adopted, there have not been any complaints with regard to draughts.

Oh.

Well, I have been making inquiries, and I find the position has eased considerably. I am trying first of all to successfully work the machinery we have, in order to get the ventilation as good as we can. This building scheme now brought forward—what is it going to cost? £40,500. It is going to provide for tea rooms, bath rooms, card rooms, etc., which, in the opinion of the Government, seeing there are so many public works required in all parts of the country, would not be justified. It seems to me also that it would not be justifiable to spend this large sum on things which can hardly be called essential and necessary to the efficient working of the parliamentary machine. What the Government proposes to do is this: We admit the accommodation is not as good as it should be. Take our Hansard reporters. We suddenly decided to start a Hansard. We did not have any extra accommodation. We had to squeeze them in where we could. In squeezing in the Hansard reporters, we squeezed out the press. I am no particular lover of the press, but I say if we are going to allow them to be here—and I presume we are—it is only right we should provide, at any rate, reasonable facilities and accommodation for them to do their work. Myself, I would not like to work under the conditions under which the reporters in this House have to work. If there are mistakes, the surprising thing is there are so few. They are jumbled up in one room, and the noise of the typewriters, etc., makes efficient work exceedingly difficult. It is very advisable that in any increased accommodation, we should make some provision for the press. Now, with regard to the members. We are crowded out, as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said. We have to use Mr. Speaker’s library. We have not enough committee rooms in which to do our work properly, so perhaps three or four more committee rooms will be necessary. There is also the question of increased accommodation for members who want a little more privacy than they have to-day, because to-day they have to hang about in the lobbies and in odd corners. What the Government proposes is to make provision for what we may term immediate, urgent and necessary increased accommodation, not to go in for tea rooms and flower gardens, and hot and cold baths, and so on. These we regard as things that can wait, things that members can do without in the meantime. We are making provision in the estimates, not for the full amount, but for a considerable sum which will enable us to give the necessary increased accommodation. I would ask hon. members to let it rest there, in view of the fact there is so much opposition in the first place to any more money being spent in Cape Town, because a large section say we have to move the capital, and they do not want to anchor it down here by spending a lot of money. If the accommodation has got to be increased, let us increase it only in respect of those things that are urgently required. I would appeal for the support of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that if we accept this motion, it is on the distinct understanding that the Government is only going to do as much as is urgently required.

What about the debating chamber?

This scheme means rebuilding it. Judging by the number of members who go to sleep, it cannot be too uncomfortable. I admit the ventilation is not what it should be. As far as the seating accommodation is concerned, I have sat—and slept—in many more uncomfortable places than the benches in this House. If this scheme is to be given effect to, what does it mean? It means practically rebuilding this chamber, and then you won’t get it much more comfortable than it is at present. Then you have no guarantee that your ventilation will be better even then. It seems to me the time has not arrived. We are not sufficiently overcrowded as to warrant our practically rebuilding the whole of this chamber. The Government thinks that part of the scheme, at any rate, might stand over in the meantime. Let us only do what is urgently necessary—provide increased room for “Hansard” and the press, increased committee rooms, and rooms which the report says are urgently necessary.

What is your revised plan? How much will it cost?

Not exceeding £20,000. I have gone into this question with the architects of the Public Works Department, and have informed them that we must have accommodation, but limited to what we actually want, and it has got to come within £20,000. It can be done within that sum; but it cannot be done if you are going in for lawns and tea gardens, card rooms, etc. I ask hon. members to leave the question in our hands, and we will do what is wanted.

There is nobody asking for tea gardens.

The hon. member is speaking without his book. Here are the plans and provision is made for tea gardens, lounges and card rooms and things like that.

It is a stoep.

They call it a tea lounge. If hon. members opposite are going to press this, all I can say is, it seems strange that, for fifteen years, while the House has been crying out for all sorts of increased accommodation, they should wait until they go out of office and come along and say they must have this now.

We are not pressing it; it is a joint committee.

The previous Government had ample opportunity, but did nothing. We propose to do something. I do not propose to do the whole scheme; but to do something, which is more than has ever been done before, and I ask the hon. members to accept the resolution on this condition, that we will do what we think is absolutely necessary.

That leaves us in a very unsatisfactory position. The question is essentially one not so much for the Government as for this House. The House has appointed a select committee, and hon. members opposite were represented in a majority on what committee. It so happens that by arrangement the report was moved from this side of the House; but it does not emanate from this side. We were represented only in a minority on this select committee. The committee, after due enquiry and consideration, had made a report, and now the Minister says: No; the Government does not want this scheme, on various grounds; the Government wants a free hand to develop a scheme of its own. If the Government had a scheme, it should have produced it before the select committee, and we would have known what we were doing, and what we were voting, but the hon. the Minister says: No; pass the motion, but not on the understanding that that scheme will be carried out, but on the understanding that the Government will substitute its own scheme. I do not think that is a dignified and proper course to pursue, and I would ask my hon. friend, under these circumstances, not to proceed with his motion. It would be far better to leave the matter. The Minister has said there are many more pressing claims in the country.

Better to spend nothing.

Yes. If there are more pressing claims we must not spend a penny on ourselves, or think of ourselves, and of a better way of doing the business of the country. Let us give precedence to the interests of the country. The Minister of Finance will be coming forward with the loan estimates, which will probably amount to a very large sum of money; they are bound to. The country is clamouring for development. I won’t say his estimates will stagger the country; but they will be an eye-opener, and do not let us add our mite of £20,000 to it. Then, next year we can reappoint our Internal Arrangements Committee, and I hope the Minister will then produce a scheme and let it be threshed out, and then we can vote the necessary monies for that scheme, if it is not too large; but to do now what the Minister proposes would be unsatisfactory. I do not think it is the right thing to do, to have a report by a committee of the House, and then for the Government to say to the House: We won’t have that; but we will have our own scheme, which is more in our interests and the interests of the country.

The report is dated January, 1923.

The report was passed by the committee this session.

I think a clear case has been made out for not taking any action this year, and, under these circumstances, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

I actually entirely agree with what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said. If the Government takes up the position that the report should be adopted and the report is adopted that it should then be left in the hands of the Government to just carry out as much of the report as it wishes as if it was entirely a new matter is, in my view, a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think moreover that it is unconstitutional. The committee has come with definite recommendations and if this report is adopted by the House then practically a polite instruction is given to the Government to carry out the report. If the Government goes and does something else for nothing then it is certainly not fair to expect the House to adopt this report. Nor can I agree with the proposal of the Minister of Public Works. I feel at the same time that there are a number of requirements in the House. We have many needs, but when we think of it that for ten, fifteen years just as good members and perhaps much better than we, have done their work in the same chamber with so much competence then it can very well wait a bit longer.

Those members are all dead.

For small alterations it is really not worth while passing such a resolution in the House. But then I come to the important point that if we do not give effect to this, if we are then going to do a temporary piece of work or whether the Parliament and the Government are going to do a certain amount of permanent work, whether we thereby announce that the legislative capital will be permanently established in Cape Town. As the Minister has practically said no decision has to be taken on that to-day. If we are doing permanent work it practically amounts to a preliminary decision that the dual capital will continue in South Africa and to that we, especially those from the north, have great objections and I think that the people from almost the whole of the Union would protest against it if a vote were taken on the matter to-day. Unless the hon. member for Caledon is prepared to withdraw the motion I will propose another that it should first be decided or at least a provisional decision should be taken about the question whether we should have a dual capital in South Africa or not. Unless the hon. member for Caledon is prepared to withdraw the motion I will propose to insert in the second paragraph that before any alteration in the full scheme as here proposed is made it should be first decided by this House whether the legislative capital should be permanently fixed at Cape Town or that it is necessary to choose a place more in the north. I will not say that it must necessarily be Pretoria, but I feel that the extension of the Union lies northwards. We cannot get away from that. We feel almost certain that one of these days Rhodesia will join the Union. Whether there is a difference of opinion or feeling with regard to a separate independent development that does not matter, but we feel that a development, a larger South Africa lies in the future. When this happens we shall be obliged, whether we spend thousands and thousands of pounds here or not, to decide to remove the seat to the north at a more central spot. I hope, however, that the hon. member for Caledon will withdraw the motion and that the Minister will take certain health measures in connection with this chamber.

I sincerely regret from a parliamentary point of view the attitude taken up by the Minister. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, after coming to the conclusion to recommend the scheme to the House, interviewed the Minister of Finance, who submitted his difficulties in a fair and open manner. He said that Government would submit to the wish of the House in regard to this matter; leaving it entirely as a House matter, and as the House decided on it the Government would be compelled to carry out the wishes of Parliament. Now, however, before members had an opportunity of properly expressing their views on the subject, the Minister of Public Works intervenes and says—

That statement I consider a deliberate insult to this House; the Minister had no right to anticipate what the House was going to decide; it is a House matter concerning the convenience and interests of members and the proper carrying on of parliamentary business. Before, however, the House could give proper expression to its opinions the Minister said that whatever the views of members might be in regard to internal arrangements he would not carry out the mandate of the House, but would carry out his own scheme irrespective of whatever decision the House itself arrived at. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Bev. Mr. Hattingh) has taken up the right constitutional attitude. In the face of the Minister’s declaration I should not be acting in accordance with the dignity of the House in pressing the motion, and therefore I beg to withdraw it.

With leave of the House, motion and amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker—

The debate is closed.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Before you proceed to the second report, I want to move that three of these recommendations in paragraph III be referred to the Government for consideration It is no good referring them back to the committee. I move that items 250, 192, and 85 be referred to the Government for consideration. In the case of G. M. Sheridan I think there has been some misunderstanding about the matter. The House in 1924 passed the recommendation of the Pensions Committee that he should be treated as if he had been retired under section 4 of Act 12 of 1874 and that he should get the full pension, because he was injured whilst on duty. The pension was increased, however, only to £180 instead of £219. I have a document signed by three members of the committee, Isaac Purcell, Dr. Forsyth, and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) stating that the intention of the committee was that this man should get the maximum amount to which he was entitled under the section. I hope the matter will be enquired into during the recess. Similarly I move with regard to No. 192. It is really a matter affecting the administration of the service. This is the case of J. Milne and nine other officers of the engineering branch of the G.P.O. I understand the Government is going through the whole of these matters in the recess and it will be a suitable opportunity to deal with their case. In the case of No. 85, I ask that that also shall be referred to the Government, because he asked to be given an opportunity to be heard by the committee this session, but unfortunately the committee did not give him the opportunity. I move—

Before the House comes to a decision about this matter, I think that I should give hon. members some information about it. Mr. Sheridan in 1918. handed in a petition. In 1919-’20-’21-’22-’23-’24 and 1925 it actually happened as follows. In 1910 his petition was not recommended to the House. In 1919 the petition was referred to the Government. In 1920 a pension was granted to him to which he would be entitled if he were a head constable. In the same year the committee granted him £123 19s. 10d. as a first class sergeant. In 1921 he again asked for an increase, but it was not recommended, nor was it the following year. In 1924 his pension was again increased by virtue of section 25 of Act 12 of 1874. Now his application has been rejected. He now relies on the Act of 1924. If anybody has ever acted well then it is this person, because once he had obtained something he always came again and now he wants the arrear amount. If the Government will agree to it then it is well, but I think that the Select Committee did its duty and I cannot recommend it.

I do not know the particulars of two of the cases which my hon. friend, the member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), has moved should be referred to the Government for consideration, but I do know the particulars of the case of G. M. Sheridan and all I can say is that the statement made by the Chairman of the Pensions committee here to-night is a sufficient justification for the motion of the hon. member for Hanover Street that this case should be referred to the Government for consideration. If, according to the hon. gentleman’s own showing, after two or three years of refusing to recognize the claims of Mr. Sheridan, in 1924, the select committee recognized that he had not received the treatment to which he was entitled, I think that if sufficient justification to show that the Government should injure into his pension. I do not want to go into the details of this case, but if ever there was a case of a civil servant who had been unfairly treated, especially a man of the nervous disposition of Mr. Sheridan, whose whole condition is entirely due to the manner in which he was treated, then I think this is a case which is worthy of the consideration of the Government. I know all the circumstances of this case. I do say that this is a case in which this man’s life has been practically ruined owing to the want of sympathetic consideration when he was in the service of the Government. The duty he was asked to perform was entirely unnecessary. It was not an order that should have been given to anybody in his position. He had been a head constable and he was made to go through certain riding evolutions, I think at Grahamstown, which were most unfortunate, and it is under those circumstances that his health has been completely ruined, and I think the least the Minister can do is to agree, having the papers at his disposal, to have this matter referred to the Government and to take the opportunity of going more fully into it than the select committee has been able to do.

I wish to move in reference to two of these applications that they be referred to the Government for consideration. The first is No. 92 (G. W. Dyzon), a particularly hard case. This man is in the railway department, and it is only a matter of condonation of a small technical breach of service. If ever there was a case that deserved to be looked into so as to do justice to a good servant of the public, it is this. Then the other case I wish to be referred to the Government is No. 119 (F. R. Grindley-Ferris). This is a most extraordinary case. He served in the East African campaign, came back ill, was in hospital, and then went into the air force, and, after three months, he was discharged out of the air force as being physically unfit. The curious thing about this is that after an examination was made he went under treatment, and medical men said he suffered from Malta fever, and that it is not a disease contracted on military service. He has never been in Malta. He could not possibly have got Malta fever except in the service on which he was engaged. Anyway, this particular man has been most unfairly treated. He has gone from hospital to board of enquiry, and then ultimately the force turns him off and tells him there is nothing to come to him. He has served his country; he is absolutely unable to get a living, and it is a particularly hard case, and therefore I move as an amendment—

I hope the House will not set this very undesirable precedent. Hon. members will see it will be absolutely impracticable to carry out such a resolution. In the past it was the custom to move a resolution that certain outstanding cases be referred back to the committee. That was quite a different matter, although even that had undesirable features. Hon. members know that the Government does not award extra-stautory pensions. To adopt this course now because the committee is non-existent at the present moment, I think would be most undesirable. Take the case of Sheridan. I have not all the facts, but I remember I personally went into the history of that case. Mrs. Sheridan complained we did not interpret the statute correctly, and did not pay to her husband the pension the committee intended to award. I said—

I went into the facts and found that pensioners were given the option of being reboarded for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were incapable of earning anything at all. Here, it was said, we should award the maximum pension because Mr. Sheridan was incapable of earning anything further. I said—

The board decided he was not totally incapacitated. Under these circumstances it would serve no good purpose, as far as this particular case is concerned, to refer it back to the Government, because I have personally considered it; I tried to treat it as sympathetically as possible, and I did not see how we could do as Mrs. Sheridan wanted. It was open to her to go to the Pensions Committee. When she did so they did not feel justified in recommending any increased pension to the House. We would be setting a very undesirable precedent, and it would be unfair on the part of the House to expect the Government to take this course of action.

I would like to ask the Chairman a question with reference to petition No. 195, Mr. A. R. Murray. Having the petition before me, I do not quite understand how the committee arrived at the recommendation it did. This case is on a somewhat different footing from the other cases mentioned by hon. members. He was formerly in the service of the Transvaal Republic, and received an undertaking that in his particular case and that of other servants affected, the retiring age would not be 55 but 60. The committee, in declining to act upon his petition, really repudiated the definite undertaking given by the previous Government. I would like to refer him to that petition. Mr. Murray asks that that undertaking should be fulfilled. The effect of the committee’s recommendation would be to repudiate that undertaking. This non-compliance with the terms of the resolution would amount almost to a breach of faith.

I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). The Minister has put us in rather an awkward position. I should like to have petition No. 119 referred back to the Pensions Committee, for the reason that I am given to understand that the Pensions Committee refused to recommend this on the grounds that this man had not exhausted all his legal remedies, and he was advised to report to the special Pensions Committee set up by the Government for the consideration of these cases. I sent the case on to the special Pensions Committee for consideration, and they said that this man’s disability, as pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) was not due to active service, but Malta fever. The committee turned it down under a misapprehension. I hope the Minister will take this case into consideration. I agree with him, on the general principle of not referring cases back to the Pensions Committee.

As far as the military pensioners are concerned, these men claim pensions according to statute, so I am prepared to deal with military matters; but a difficulty has arisen as far as these cases are concerned where it was decided that the pensioner was not entitled to any pension, on account of the disability not being due to military service. In some of these cases the men had exhausted their legal remedies; have gone to the Appeal Board, and it is still doubtful whether such cases should be submitted to the special Pensions Board. I don’t want to debar anybody going to the Special Pensions Board, but it is doubtful whether I can allow them to go to the board when they have exhausted their legal arguments. If they are entitled to be heard we should deal with them in terms of whatever their rights may be.

I think the Minister has left the House under a wrong impression. I was not moving that the petitioners’ prayers be granted; my motion simply means that Government can inquire into the circumstances during the recess. None of these petitioners were heard by the committee this session so that not one of them has had an opportunity of stating his case to the present committee. It is not sufficient to say because there has been an adverse decision previously the door should be barred in future; there have been cases where a request has been refused to one committee and granted by a new committee. Hon. members should not think that because a petition is turned down there is nothing in the case. The whole point has been missed by the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee. I was not in my remarks asking for anything new for Mr. Sheridan, but only that the resolution of Parliament should be carried out. Anyone who reads the report of the Select Committee in 1924 will see that it is perfectly clear that the intention of the committee was that he should get the maximum amount to which he is entitled, viz., £219, and not £180 that he is getting now. I have before me a document signed by Dr. Forsyth, Mr. Isaac Purcell and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) testifying that that was the intention of the committee, but the committee’s intention has been frustrated by the action of the treasury. The Government can appoint a departmental official to hear these people. If these men had been heard and had had a full opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee this session, I should be the last to ask that their case be re-opened.

I must take very strong exception to the manner in which the hon. member has stated the case. I have personally enquired into the matter of Mr. Sheridan. What is the use of referring it to the treasury? I absolutely deny that the treasury has not carried out the intention of the select committee. The point in dispute is the payment of the maximum to which he has been entitled—that is the amount which is paid in case of total incapacity. I told Mr. Sheridan that the board found that he was not fully incapacitated. If the hon. member thinks that the case has not been enquired into he is quite mistaken. The treasury submits, and I told Mrs. Sheridan, if she could show me that in any way the treasury decision was wrong, or that it interpreted the law incorrectly, then I would order she be treated in the same way. A few cases were submitted, and I traced the history of these cases, and found the amount was based on the fact that the man was totally incapacitated. Unless I could prove it was the same in Mr. Sheridan’s case, the auditor-general would have said that I was paying a pension not in accordance with the law. To have got anything more could only have been done on the recommendation of the Pensions Committee.

I think that the matter has been wrongly represented. Sheridan wants back pay up to 1917. The other was given him about which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) speaks. Any matter which is referred back must anyhow go again to the select committee. It will be just as well to file a new petition next year. And if hon. members think that the committee has not done its work well, then the members will be thankful to be discharged from it. The committee, however, did its best.

As a member of the late committee, will you allow me, sir, to explain this matter? The committee decided to grant Sheridan a pension, and instructed the treasury department to grant him the amount to which he was legally entitled to the fullest extent. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was the chairman, and another gentleman belonging to the South African party occupied the treasury bench at that time. It was in March. 1924, and we expected that the then Government would have granted the full pension. I am not in á position to say whether he was entitled to more than was ultimately given to him or not, but he was entitled by the decision of the committee to be granted a pension to the fullest extent to which he was legally entitled.

I would like to support the motion of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), because I have made myself acquainted with the case. The matter of total incapacitation is a debatable point. My information is that Sheridan was found two jobs of a light nature, one in the Forestry Department under the wing of a Government supervisor, but he only held the job for two or three weeks, because it was hopeless to expect the man to do any work which would warrant his retention. My purpose in rising is to ask that, where a medical board under the aegis of Government finds a man is not totally incapacitated, but his market value proves to be absolutely nil then it should be the business of that Government to see he gets work. As a general principle it should be so. No one can get up here and ask the Government to review a considerable number of cases which the committee has dealt with. One recognizes the very difficult work which this committee has to do, and the painstaking and patient way in which the members do their work; work which is slavish in its monotony and interminable recurrence, the committee deserves the gratitude not only of the petitioners, but also of the members of this House. But there are certain instances where the committee is absolutely powerless to carry out what it is humanly inclined to do, and I think this case is one of them.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) raised another case. No. 192 (Milne and others). Provision is being made in the Financial Adjustments Bill to put that right.

I am glad to hear from the Minister that some relief is being given in one case. I would like to say to the chairman of the Pensions Committee that those who have been moving a few of these cases back are not in any way reflecting on the committee. The fact that this is being done in only a few cases out of about 400 in the first report is, I think, a sufficient tribute to the work of the committee. The Minister, I am sorry to say, apparently does not see the point I am raising. The very point that he made that the Treasury has sat in judgment on the report of the select committee is proof of the indictment I made. After the committee has made its report, what right has the Treasury got to re-judge the whole matter, to put the matter before another board and say it is not this and it is not ‘that? The whole point is that the Treasury re-judged the work of the Pensions Committee. There may be said to be an ambiguity in the recommendation. The committee certainly intended that Sheridan should get the maximum. The Minister said that the case would have to go before the Pensions Committee again. Of course, it will. I want to avoid the delay that will be caused in proceeding in the ordinary way next session by another petition. My suggestion is that the Government should let this case go back to the committee after enquiry. I can assure the Minister that this man is as totally incapacitated from obtaining employment as any man ever was. He sustained an injury because he was told to mount a horse on the wrong side, and be fell off. He will never be able to earn his living again. If he were able to earn his living I certainly would not be spending so much time on his case as I am doing. I know this, that whatever the doctors may say that man is absolutely incapacitated from getting employment anywhere. Under the circumstances, I think we are quite reasonable: we are only asking the Government to provide some machinery during the recess for enquiring into these cases. We are not asking them to pay anything; we are not asking them to do anything—simply to enquire. This is not a precedent; it has been done before. I could give him a case in one of these reports in which last year the matter was referred to the Government for consideration. The Government found the full facts had not been placed before the Pensions Committee, and the result is that the man will now get a pension. The same thing might or might not happen in these cases. Mr. Sheridan himself protested against the proceedings before the Military Medical Board referred to by the Minister. I do not really see how the Minister or the Government is prejudiced by going into the matter again.

I only wish to say something about the case of Milne and the nine others. This is certainly a hard case, but the select committee could not act otherwise, because there are hundreds of others in the same position. If the House adopts this it must be prepared for great expenditure. The treasury stated that this is a hard case, but that everything has been done according to law, but that there are many people in the same position. We are going to open the door by this. If the Act is altered, well and good, but it is impossible for the select committee to open such a door. I am not angry, but I just want to make clear to the House the actual position in the matter.

This case of Mr. Sheridan is one I have naturally great sympathy with. What the committee found was that the disability was due to service, not as just stated that he was totally disabled. They passed on to the Government their recommendation that he should be given the highest award he was entitled to. The next step to that naturally is to find out what that disability really is, and that is a medical matter. If it was 100 per cent. he would get a pension of £219 a year. When he was examined he was found to be 50 per cent. disabled, and he was awarded a pension of £180. This question of disability and total incapacity is one of the greatest difficulties the department has to deal with. A man may be only 50 per cent. disabled and yet may have great difficulty in earning a living, but you cannot for that reason award him a 100 per cent. pension. I hope the House will accept the finding of the committee and not agree to refer this case back for further consideration. Under these circumstances, and particularly in view of the fact that this man’s case has been sympathetically considered. I do not think the House should agree to the case being referred back.

If, after some years of consideration, Mr. Sheridan gets this extra pension, recognizing that his case was of such a character that he deserved it, should that pension not be ante-dated, so that he shall receive the difference between the amount he originally received and the amount the committee now thinks he is entitled to? Even that would be some consideration which it would be well worthy of the Government to consider.

This case of Sheridan’s rather emphasizes the necessity for not interfering with the finding of the committee; because the House is apt to come to a wrong conclusion on scanty information. The whole argument of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), in regard to Sheridan, is based on a false ground. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has mentioned the correct position. After making applications to the House, year after year, Mr. Sheridan eventually got a pension of £123 19s. 10d. He was not satisfied and petitioned again. In 1924, the Pensions Committee came to the conclusion that his claim for further consideration was justified, and the pension was increased to £180, and this the House agreed to. The point is whether, seeing he has established that his pension should be £180, whether as a matter of ordinary morality, it should not be dated back to the date of his original pension. We, as a country, owe this man something like £450, if that were done. When this was before the committee I thought that part of this claim should be granted, but I was overruled; but that does not prevent my saying that I think this man has a claim to have his pension antedated—not perhaps for the whole amount, but for a substantial amount of the pension that has not been paid to him.

I repudiate the statement of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin that I have put false information before the committee. He has proved the correctness of my statement. The hon. member must be fair. The hon. member need not think he is Sir Oracle. He has confused himself, and is confusing the House by mixing up two claims which Mr. Sheridan has made. The one claim, which has nothing to do with the Pensions Committee, is that he should get the full pension. The Pensions Committee, in 1924, considered he was entitled to a pension which he has not got owing to the action of the Treasury, and the other claim is that he should get his arrears. The two claims have been made and are just, and he is entitled to both. I have not put false information before the committee. The man has been fighting for years. Eventually his pension was increased. It only shows how long you have to wait until you get justice. Now he has proved his claim up to the hilt in both respects. He has the right to a pension which ought to be paid from the time it was originally due and the correct amount should have been granted him. Did the Minister, when he referred to case 192, mean that it would be put right this Session?

Yes.

Then I would like to withdraw my amendment.

I propose, as a further amendment—

Some time ago the furniture of this person was burnt in extraordinary circumstances. The present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that it would be the best to refer this to the Select Committee on pensions. It was referred to the Select Committee and should have gone to the Government to consider this. It was, therefore, sent to the Select Committee in error and therefore I make this proposal.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Hay put and negatived.

The Chairman of the Select Committee has not replied to my question.

The only answer I can give is that there might be some reason why the person referred to by the hon. member was not kept on after reaching the age of 55, but I cannot say.

I move, as a further amendment—

A definite undertaking was given by the previous Government that the retiring age in his case should not be 55, but 60, and he complains that this undertaking has not been fulfilled. The Minister can hardly refuse to allow the matter to be investigated. Either the undertaking was given, or it was not given. It seems to me from what the Chairman says that he has a record that such an undertaking was given.

Certainly the Treasury is prepared to investigate where a man has a claim on the Treasury. I said that in those cases where they had obviously no claim on the Treasury what is the good of referring to them? The case mentioned by the hon. member is quite different. The man complains he is not getting certain rights which should be carried out. I will certainly go into the matter.

Will the hon. member withdraw his amendment?

Yes. I am quite satisfied.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels and the motion put and negatived.

Second Report.

Mr. CILLIERS moved in terms of the second report.

Recommendations put and agreed to.

About two and three—

The hon. member is too late. It is passed now.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported, considered and adopted.

I move—

The main facts in this report are connected with the modification of the agreement entered into with the Pretoria Iron Mines and which the Committee were asked to examine and report upon. The original agreement made between the railway administration and the Pretoria Iron Mines was dated 24th January, 1920, and was approved by Parliament on 11th August, 1920. In Clause 4 of that agreement it was provided that the company had to produce by or before the 1st January, 1923, up to five miles of rails to be tested by the administration. In Clause 5 of the contract the administration undertook, subject to Clause 4, to purchase from the contractors so much of the rails required by them as the contractor shall be able to supply, up to, but not exceeding 50 per cent. of the requirements of the administration. A penalty clause was inserted which provided that, in the event of failure on the part of the company within the period specified to deliver to the administration five miles of rails suitable for the department’s use, the security for £5,000 furnished by the company would be forfeited. With the approval of the Minister, this agreement was ceded by the Pretoria Iron Mines to the South African Iron and Steel Corporation. Ltd., on the 5th September, 1921. The Pretoria Iron Mines, now the South African Iron and Steel Corporation, have experienced considerable difficulty and delay in raising the necessary capital from the very inception of this company. They have several times raised sums of money, but the capital required to work this company has not been forthcoming even up to the present moment. The Select Committee has gone into the whole question and has had evidence before it, not only from the Pretoria Iron Mines, but also from various other iron concerns in South Africa, and, after full investigation, it has come to the conclusion that the matter is a most difficult one in the face of the contract as it stands. Even in the evidence given by Mr. Allen, for instance, he states that they are not in a better position than they were two or three years ago so far as raising money is concerned. He admits that it will take two and a half years to reach the producing stage for this company. We come to another side of this matter. The Union Steel Corporation have amalgamated with the Newcastle Iron and Steel Works and this last named company has started a blast furnace at Newcastle with a view to producing pig iron from native ore, but before being able to proceed, the company could not raise further capital owing to the preference the Pretoria Iron Works had of 50 per cent. from the Administration. They state that if the Pretoria Iron Works contract be renewed it will debar them from raising their Capital and from extending their present works. The failure of the Pretoria Iron Works, owing to the experienced difficulties and delay in raising money, was represented to the Railways Administration, and the Railway Board by the minute of the 24th July, 1923. extended the period in which the Pretoria Iron Works had to deliver rails from the 1st January, 1923, to the 1st January, 1928. They agreed to eliminate from the agreement the penalty clause which provided in the event of failure on the part of the company to deliver the security of £5,000 furnished by the company would have to be forfeited. The Auditor-General raised this question and urged the desirability of obtaining the Parliamentary approval to the amendments of the agreement and amending the penalty clause and asked if the £5.000 penalty should not be forfeited now. The custom has become very prevalent for the Administration to change contracts in favour of the contracting party and against the Government or against the Administration, and in many instances to the detriment of the Administration. The view of the committee is in the direction of assisting enterprise by way of bounties and not preference. The question arises, if Parliament approved of the report of the Select Committee and did not extend the time of delivery, what the duty would be of the Railways Administration. Should they not enforce their rights and insist upon the company producing within the specified time, or in the case of further failure, to terminate the contract’ I move that the report of the Select Committee be adopted.

I second the motion that the report be adopted. The statement made by the Chairman of the Committee is accurate in the last degree.

On the motion of Mr. Roux it was agreed to adjourn the debate, to be resumed tomorrow.