I should like again to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance and of this committee to a matter connected with the financial provisions made by the State for the provincial administrations. As the committee knows, the provincial administrations have three sources of revenue. In the first place there is the subsidy, secondly there are taxes which are allocated to them, and thirdly there are the taxes which they, themselves, levy within the restricted area that the Union Parliament has given them. The Minister of Finance only recently drew the attention of the House to the limited nature of this field for taxation, and he said that the provinces had not much rope. But two years ago we find that the Minister agreed to the still further restriction of that field of taxation.

The hon. member cannot discuss that point. It contemplates new legislation.

No, I am not concerned with new legislation here. I only want to draw the Minister’s attention to the effect which that further restriction had on the taxation reserve of the provinces, and especially on the way some of the provinces were injured.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want briefly to recapitulate the facts in connection with the matter. In Durban it was laid down finally at that time what the powers of taxation of the provinces were to be. It was specially decided that the provincial councils would control liquor licences, a tax which they could increase if they thought it necessary. After two years, however, a liquor Bill was introduced into this House and in that Bill uniform liquor licences were laid down for the Union as a whole. Two provinces in particular, viz., the Free State and the Transvaal, objected to it, that their taxation reserve should be further curtailed. They submitted certain figures to prove that. The Minister of Finance on his side quoted figures to show that the alteration would mean a doubling of revenue from that source in the Transvaal. The provincial administration questioned those figures, and to a certain extent successfully. But, notwithstanding that the provinces were again given the assurance that they would suffer no damage, I want to point out what the effect of the passing of that Act was. In the case of the Cape Province the revenue from that source increased from £66,000 to £150,000. In the Transvaal it was reduced from £66,000 to £52,000. In Natal it increased from £12,000 to £33,000, but in the Free State it dropped from £15,000, to £12,500.

I suppose there were too many licences in the Transvaal.

Is the committee to infer from that that the consumption of liquor in the Cape Province is three times as much as in the Transvaal because the revenue from the licences is three times as much? What I want to call the attention of the committee to is that as a result of this alteration against which those two provinces protested they not only lost revenue, but there was a curtailment of their taxation reserve. We have in this respect gone back on the Durban agreement. I, therefore, want the Minister of Finance to go into this point. I agree that he cannot now go back on the principle which has been adopted in the Liquor Law, but what is the reason why the Transvaal gets so much less now? I should very much like to know whether the Minister of Finance will go into the matter. Is the cause not possibly the way in which the scale of liquor licences is fixed? It may be possible by way of a slight amendment to put the matter right, or there may be some other concession. While I am using the word concession I want to call the attention of the Minister to another matter. About a month ago when it was brought to his notice that the provincial councils would this year probably have deficits he replied that he had already explained to the provinces that it would be impossible for the Government to give further assistance, and that they must put their own houses in order in the best way they could, but a week ago the Minister made the following statement in answer to a question by me—

The Prime Minister said that I was rousing sleeping dogs. If anything were calculated to rouse sleeping dogs it was this statement of the Prime Minister. That sacred word “concession” is again heard, and the provincial councils will again try to find their salvation in it. The way of imposing taxation is not an easy way for the provincial councils to take, and they will choose to rely on possible concessions. It may be that the Prime Minister did not mean it that way. If that is so we shall be very glad to hear it from the Minister of Finance. His words are, however, open to that construction, and if that is the correct construction then there has apparently been a change of policy since the Minister of Finance spoke, and before the Prime Minister referred to the subject. But if it is still the policy of the Minister of Finance that the provincial councils must put their own houses in order then it will be a very good thing if he will say so here. I should like to bring another matter to the notice of the committee and the Minister in connection with the unsound matter in the provincial finances, viz., the constantly increasing expenditure of the provinces for interest and redemption of capital lent them by the Government. I want to give figures in order to compare the year 1924-’25 with the year 1929-’30. Unfortunately I only have at my disposal the figures mentioned in the estimates, because the final expenditure figures for last year are not yet available. In the year 1924-’25 the Transvaal provincial estimate provided for £220,000. In 1929-’30 the figure was £270,000, or an increase of 23 per cent. In the Free State the increase was proportionately much larger, viz., from £109,000 to £167,000, or an increase of 53 per cent. In the Cape Province the increase was from £220,000 to £39.1,000, or 76 per cent. In Natal the increase was from £81,000 to £145,000, or 80 per cent. It will be seen that the position in the Transvaal is perhaps more favourable than in the other provinces. It is partly due to the policy followed in using surpluses, partly at any rate, for the payment of debt; a policy which is not followed in other provinces. I particularly want to call the Minister of Finance’s attention to the increase of this expenditure, and of the effect of it on the financial difficulties of the provinces. I should like him to ask himself the question whether they are not proceeding too fast in granting capital funds to the provinces, especially in the case of provinces which do not use their surpluses to redeem debt. As a concrete case I may mention the Free State where there was an increase of £58,000 in the five years, and that is almost the total amount of the deficit of that province for the year which has just ended.

May I ask the Minister how we stand in regard to the provincial councils and their future? It is time that we knew this because every Government has adopted the system of holding the threatening sword of Damocles over the councils. It has been done to such an extent by the various Ministers of Finance that the position has been that unless the provincial councils have agreed to fall in with the policy of the Government of the day, they have had the prospect before them of being starved out of existence. As a matter of fact, they have never had a fair chance. They have been stripped of their powers, the powers laid down in the Act of Union, and consequently have had the public criticism levelled at them which has been totally unfair. Natal’s position in this respect is different from that of any other province in the Union. Natal, as we all know, was out for federation, being entirely opposed to anything in the form of unification; but a compromise was arrived at which was a compromise between federation and unification, and the provincial councils were established, after a referendum, on that basis. Under the Act of Union certain powers were given to the provincial councils, and those powers are very clearly set forth in Section 85 of the South Africa Act, which reads as follows—

Every Minister of Finance, every Government, has interpreted those powers as being delegated powers, powers which could be delegated or withheld at the sweet will of the Government of the time being. Now we have sat down under that injustice ever since we went into Union, and we should never have known that those powers were not delegated powers but for a judgment of the Appellate Court recently delivered at Bloemfontein, from which we now know that these powers are really statutory powers. Let me refer to the borrowing powers of the council, which have never been conceded. Had the provincial council the power of borrowing on their own credit, the credit of the province, much of the criticism levelled against them would never have arisen, for the simple reason that they would have pledged the credit of the province and not of the Union. Take the question of roads alone. They have had to make their roads out of revenue, which is unfair to the taxpayers, because they are called upon to pay out of immediate income for permanent improvements which posterity is going to enjoy. If the powers of the provincial council which have been wrongfully withheld from them had been exercised, they would have been able to spend £1,000,000 in permanent roads which could have stood the stress and strain of weather and traffic instead of a smaller sum, and the smaller sum would have provided for the interest, and so I should like to know what the policy of the Government really is. The other day words fell from the Minister of Finance to the effect that unless the councils showed a vast improvement in their financial methods, the whole position of the provincial councils would have to be re-considered; if that means extinguishment let us say that Natal will never agree to the extinguishment of their provincial council. It is time that this should be made perfectly clear here and now.

Order; that is a question which cannot be discussed under the estimates.

All we want to know is, what is the policy of the Government in regard to the provincial councils. I understand I am in order there?

Any question that involves legislation cannot be discussed on the estimates.

With all deference I ask what legislation am I discussing? I am only discussing what fell from the Minister of Finance, which involves a matter of policy. I do not suggest any alteration to the law. I am simply asking that the law should be carried out. In the Act of Union, provincial councils have certain statutory powers which have been withheld. Why have they been withheld? Had those powers been admitted to be statutory powers as they are not delegated powers, the whole position of the provincial councils would be different to-day.

There is a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister with regard to native administration. I notice here that there is £340,000 voted for native education. Recently I had occasion to approach the provincial administration (who usually make grants to agricultural shows) with regard to grants to native agricultural shows, but could get no satisfaction from them. I understood that no provision had been made for grants towards these native shows. They referred me to the Minister of Native Affairs. The Minister of Native Affairs is surely in favour of these local shows being held, and it has been a practice to hold them periodically. It is one of those little dissensions that cause a lot of feeling amongst the natives that they cannot get grants for their shows. It is advisable for the betterment of their stock that they should have these small agricultural shows, which have a great educational value, and I hope the Minister will take the matter into consideration. I feel that there should be grants made, especially as substantial grants are being made to European agricultural shows. Another question is with regard to native teachers’ salaries. As far back as 1928 in the “Education Gazette” there appeared a new scale of salaries providing a far better basis of salary to the native teachers, and this has never been given effect to, and naturally the native teachers are very exercised about the matter. I hope the Minister will agree to give effect to this new scale to the native teachers; it is these little pinpricks which cause dissatisfaction amongst the native and a feeling of not receiving fair treatment. Also the very unsatisfactory state of the wood and iron buildings in which the schools are housed. These are all matters that need looking into.

When the Minister replies I would like him to give us some information about the roads policy pursued, or rather not pursued, by provincial councils, and how far the Union Government have been able to supplement the work of the provincial councils in regard to roads. In the “Star” a few days ago, there appeared an account of the roads in Waterberg. I see that the road board for the district has resigned in a body, as a protest because members were not in agreement with the actions of the provincial council in that district. The grant used to be over £4,000, and has been reduced to approximately £2,000, which the board say is barely the cost of transporting the workers to the places on the roads where they are working. To vote £2,000 for the whole district of Waterberg is simply playing with the question. The railway cannot extend their road motor services on account of the condition of the roads; the whole district is in a state of chaos, because of the way the provincial council is functioning in regard to roads. I wonder if the Minister will be able to give us any enlightenment, as to how the question of roads is being carved up between the provinces and the Union, and what has been done with that vote of £500,000 made some time ago to be expended on roads.

It has been said that the testing time of the provincial councils is coming, and unless they get their finances in order, some other steps will have to be taken. This House and this country cannot get away from the fact that the provincial councils carry out very important functions, functions which are nearer to the daily lives of the people than those of Parliament. There is a continuous demand for roads, and for education, and the provincial council are saddled with hospitals. They have to make provision for all those services. It has been said that provincial councils are a spending body without any responsibility of providing the funds which they spend. I submit that that statement is not true. I have gone into figures, and I find that the Transvaal raises 50 per cent, of its total revenue by taxation; in Natal 57 per cent, is raised by taxation, and, by way of contrast, the Free State only raises 37 per cent, of its total revenue by taxation.

I do not think the hon. gentleman may discuss that question in this debate.

I am not discussing the wording of the Act. I am pointing out how the provinces are taxed. I understood your runng was that we could discuss matters of policy.

Only so far as the particular vote is concerned.

I would like to know how far we can go.

Hon. members may discuss the Minister’s, policy, but not the policy of the provincial councils. At the same time the hon. member must realize that this is not a budget debate, and I cannot allow any budget debate as regards policy.

I would like to read Section 85 and sub-sections I to VIII of the South Africa Act as found in Standing Orders of the Assembly—

Would it not be in the power of this committee to refuse to grant this amount? Cannot the hon. member, if he thinks that one province is getting more than another, give his reason why he thinks so?

In order to put this matter in order, I beg to move—

That will not help the hon. member in any way.

Can I discuss, incidentally, the question of provincial administration, and how this policy of the payment of the subsidy is unfair and unjust?

Whatever the hon. member discusses in committee he must discuss under some vote. If he discusses the question of subsidies fixed by legislation, then that involves legislation, a change of an Act of Parliament, and that cannot be allowed.

I understood a ruling was made the other day. A point was raised in connection with some remarks made by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) on the subject of members’ allowances. I understood it was then ruled that this House could discuss those allowances and even move a reduction in them.

The hon. member moved a reduction and gave his reasons for moving a reduction.

That has already been given effect to by a change in the law. I submit, on the strength of that precedent, that the hon. member will be quite in order in giving his reasons why the subsidy paid to Natal, for example, was less than it should be, or that the subsidy paid to another province was larger than it should be.

The question of statutory grants appearing on the estimates, and the rights of hon. members in regard thereto, has formed a subject of enquiry by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It was then felt that although strictly in accordance with our laws, it was not necessary at all to bring up these items in the estimates, yet they were included for convenience sake to let the House know what expenditure we included. I think I am right in saying that these subsidies, and various other statutory grants, are appropriations. Even if the House refused to grant them, I think the Treasury would still have to pay them.

Would that apply in a case of pensions?

In the case of pensions, in nearly all cases our statute lays down that the pension payments “may” be made; it is not “shall.” If Parliament decided to delete these items from the estimates it would not have any real effect on the expenditure, as shown in our estimates, and that is why we include these sums. So far as this discussion is concerned, it is one of the rules of the House that any matter which entails legislation cannot be discussed. The future of the provincial councils is laid down by the South Africa Act, and these particular cases, in regard to existing policy, whether right or wrong, are undoubtedly advocating a change in legislation. In these circumstances I think the ruling of the Chair is quite right, and they cannot be discussed.

I wish to refer to your ruling on page 426 of the Votes and Proceedings, in the fourth paragraph, which says—

As I read that, in the circumstances, I think the hon. member is perfectly right in discussing this matter.

Matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee.

If the Minister’s contention is right that the mere discussion of the Government’s policy in respect of anything, is a matter involving legislation, then I fail to see what we can discuss in this House at all. We maintain that we are discussing the Government’s policy, the Government’s policy in regard to provincial councils. Surely there is nothing irregular in regard to that. The question of legislation involved is entirely a matter for the future, and I am encouraged in this attitude by the decision of the Chairman of Committees who ruled as recently as the 10th April in this very debate as follows—

An Act of Parliament is carried out by any Government, and the Government’s policy is simply to carry out the Acts passed by this House. That cannot be discussed.

Our contention is that the Government is not carrying out those Acts.

That can be discussed.

Am I in order in moving a reduction of £1 in the Free State grant? Can I give my reasons for moving the reduction?

Yes.

I move—

That also is by Act of Parliament.

A discussion took place on members’ allowances, and there was a proposal to reduce them. That was also by an Act of Parliament, and I contend this is on exactly the same basis.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) complained of the inadequacy of the provision made for road construction in Waterberg. As the hon. member knows, road expenditure is incurred by provincial councils from three sources—from revenue, from loan funds placed at their disposal by Parliament, and from the special grants out of the £1,000,000 which was made available last year, of which the Transvaal had its share. The Union Government does not attempt to interfere with the particular locality in regard to which roads are to be constructed, although the Minister of Labour has reserved the right finally to approve of the programme put forward. This grant is made also to facilitate the finding of work for the unemployed, and consequently the final programme has to be submitted to the Minister of Labour. The selection of the various roads is made by the provincial administration. I am unable to state whether the money is fairly allocated to any particular roads.

How much does the Transvaal get?

The Transvaal gets £300,000, the Cape £300,000, and the Free State and Natal £200,000 each.

Has it all been spent?

It has to be spent over a period of three years, and the first period was the year which has just passed.

Have the provincial council administrations fully committed themselves to the expenditure of that amount?

Yes. They have selected the roads for last year. I do not think the programme for the second year is finally approved yet. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) raised the question of the insufficiency of grants for native agricultural shows. That is a matter which does not fall under the Treasury; all we do is to make available a sum of money to the native development fund which is controlled by the Minister of Native Affairs. The hon. member should put the question to the Minister of Native Affairs.

The Minister of Native Affairs referred me to you.

No, this is a block sum and we do not control the details. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) takes exception to the policy laid down by me in regard to borrowing by the provincial councils under the South Africa Act. As far as the merits of the question are concerned, in my opinion, this is the wisest course we have adopted—that is refusing the councils permission to go into the money market and raise loans. We see what that policy has led to in Australia. We have decided that there is to be only one central borrower —the Union Government, which borrows for the provincial councils and for most of the local authorities, only a few of the larger local authorities having the right to go into the money market. I think this is a very wise policy. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has pointed out how the interest and redemption charges to be met by the provincial councils have been increased, and that those charges would have been greater but for the control exercised by the Treasury. Every year I have applications from the provincial councils for much larger amounts, but I cut them down. If the day should come when the provincial councils shall disappear the whole of their debts would fall on the central government, and therefore we have always done our best to control their expenditure. Under section 85 (ii) of the South Africa Act the provincial councils have the power of “borrowing of money on the sole credit of the provinces with the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council and in accordance with regulations to be framed by Parliament.” Therefore I have acted intra vires. The regulations have never been framed, because I have laid it down that the provincial councils should obtain their loan funds from Parliament

The Appellate Court does not agree with you.

I do not know, but I should say the wording of the Act of Union is very clear. I think the hon. member is mistaken.

†*The hon. member for Johanesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) raised three points in connection with the provinces. The first refers to the powers of the provinces in connection with the fixing of liquor licences. I am sorry that the hon. member did not put the question before so that I could have gone into the matter. I have not got all the data here now, but I remember that when the Liquor Bill was before the House I received certain representations from the provinces, and especially from the Transvaal—the hon. member was then Administrator of the Transvaal—reminding me that they were powers which were reserved to the provinces under the Durban agreement. I remember that I replied that I had made strong representations to the then Minister of Justice to point out to him how we should encroach on the powers of the provinces if we were to fix uniform licences for the sale of liquor. As, however, the hon. member knows, that was not a Government measure, and the Minister of Justice in consultation with me fixed a certain scale which I think would give them more or less the revenue which they expected in that connection. I believe, however, that the House amended it. I believe that on a division this House reduced the scale.

No.

I am certain of it. The Minister’s proposals were amended, that is the reason why some provinces are now getting less. Parliament in its wisdom took the decision. I did my best, and saw that if uniform licences were to be introduced, some provincial councils would get less.

Are you still prepared to reinstate the old conditions?

If there are no practical difficulties, yes. From a financial point of view there was not the least objection at that time, and the Treasury has no objection to it at present, but I do not know whether it suits the framework of the Bill.

It will be a departure from the principle of uniform licences.

I did not urge it in Durban, it was the provinces themselves. At the request of the provinces we made the arrangement with regard to the liquor licences, and I undertook the unpleasant task to introduce a uniform Bill into this House, but to allow the liquor licences to remain. That was my view when the liquor Bill was before the House, and if it is possible I am still in favour of it. As far as I remember when the liquor Bill was before the House the position was that if we had to get rid of certain things we must have uniform licences. As for myself, they can impose any licence for financial purposes. They can come to-morrow and say that they want the old system back again. I have no objection to it. The hon. member further said that he thinks that there is a difference between what I said and what the Prime Minister said a few days later in connection with the eventual future of the provincial councils. I do not think that there is a difference. I think that the Prime Minister said, and so did I, that sooner or later we must deal with the whole question of provincial councils. I, however, added that I did not believe it would be a sound principle if we were each time to pay a larger sum from the Union Treasury. The provinces must first of all use their powers because otherwise it will necessarily merely amount to the Union Treasury from time to time giving certain amounts. That would be an unsound policy. That was what the Prime Minister said. If, however, it does not succeed we shall have, sooner or later, to review all the circumstances, and if the provinces cannot go on, Parliament will have to intervene.

Is that the meaning of the word “concession”?

Certainly.

Then the hon. member referred to the alarming increase in the monies the provinces have to find in connection with loans for capital purposes. I have already pointed out that the provinces are entitled to borrow money; I merely said that they cannot go outside of, but must go through us, so that we can exercise control. We did that, and try to do it still, and I do not think that we can say that the provinces have in the past been extravagant. The monies that the provinces got were used on necessary capital works which were necessary for development purposes. The hon. member may possibly say that the Free State spent more, but there is a very good and historical reason for it the Free State came into Union with a much smaller capital debt than any province, with the result that the Free State had hardly any public works; schools had to be built, and all kinds of other buildings. I do not believe that the larger and richer provinces can to-day take it amiss in the Free State spending money on capital works. I think that will be very unfair. I may just say that since I have been in office I have treated the two small provinces more or less on the same footing regarding capital and expenditure. The result is that Natal which was much better provided with capital works at the commencement of Union has a very great lead, and I do not believe that in this respect hon. members are entitled to object.

I want to raise the question of the power of veto by administrators and provincial executives on municipal undertakings.

Under which item is this?

Under Administrator’s salary.

That is also under an Act.

It is under the old Local Government Ordinance taken over under Union and re-enacted.

What the hon. member is allowed to discuss is not the policy of the administration or of the provincial councils, but only of the Minister concerned.

Precisely. I want to discuss the action in connection with that veto. I want to raise a question of policy, whether the Government has considered whether they should adopt a fresh policy in connection with that veto.

The hon. member may proceed.

The Act very clearly lays down—the Local Government Ordinance lays down clearly—that the administrator has the power. It is conceivable, and has happened on several occasions, that the Government may wish to have buildings erected on certain public squares in the various towns. It may be a matter of Government policy, but under provincial Acts, the administrator has the power of veto; for instance, in Johannesburg we have the extraordinary position that while the Government may decide to put the law courts or some other public building on a public square, it is in the power of the administrator to veto that action and to prevent that building going up. I want to ask the Government without criticizing any particular administrator, whether there, should not be an appeal to the central Government over the action of the administrator.

That is clearly a matter for legislation.

It is a very important matter and should be discussed.

The Minister has turned my point in regard to the increase of provincial expenditure on interest and redemption by embarking on a defence of the Orange Free State.

. I was replying to another hon. member.

The figures show that the Orange Free State is certainly not the worst of the provinces in this respect In the Transvaal, over a five-year period, the increase is 23 per cent.; in the Free State, 53 per cent.; in the Cape it was 76 per cent., and in Natal, 80 per cent. I would reiterate that these figures give us cause for serious thought. In the Transvaal, the figures are low because of the policy there of using surplus funds, in part at least, for debt redemption—a policy followed in no other province and on which the Minister has gone back in the House. In any case, taking the four provinces as a whole, there has certainly been a very serious increase in the amount of the capital outstandings of these provinces, a very serious increase in their loan indebtedness, and in the money they have to find as interest and redemption. I would like to ask the Minister to consider this matter very seriously in future, and also to consider the possibility, when better times return, of giving the provinces some encouragement to apply surpluses to debt redemption. I am not going back to the other points raised by me, nor shall I comment on the Minister’s significant smile when I asked what was meant by “tegemoetkoming”; but I would ask him to give the assurance that he will investigate the question why the amounts received by way of liquor licences in the Cape are three times what they are in the Transvaal. Certainly we cannot assume that the consumption of liquor in the Cape is three times as much as in the northern province.

I think if the Minister had some experience of the work of the provincial council, he would have viewed the whole matter very differently.

I was on the provincial executive.

During the past five years we have passed through different experiences because of acts of this Government, and I do not think his experience then would help him very much now with his apparently changed outlook. There is to-day a very ineffective expenditure on public works because of the method of rationing, which forces the councils to carry out on a piecemeal basis works that should be concentrated on and finished without undue breaks in the interests of economy. I think that we, as a House controlling the actions of the provincial councils, should to-day mark time and see where we are heading for. If we examine some of the items of expenditure by the provincial councils, and analyze the way in which the money is spent, we must see that the policy controlled by the Minister of Finance is to-day almost hopelessly—

I am not controlling the policy.

But by your method of rationing, you are controlling it very effectively. The provincial councils have to spread this expenditure over sometimes a period of eight years. They start the work in all good faith and then, because of control exercised by the Minister, it is spread over an unnecessarily long period. I have a particular instance in mind; by this policy of rationing, the road has cost £1,000 a mile more than it ought to have cost. That is the effect of the wonderful control over the provincial councils by rationing.

Ought we to let them go full steam ahead?

No, but there should be some definite understanding as to what work is going to be done. In granting loans to the provinces, you should ask in what period they are going to complete the work, and then provide finances accordingly. The provinces then should be held to get the work done in that time. I am giving you my practical experience of what is the position in a number of cases. I do not say that the Minister should let them go full steam ahead, or they might spend too much. There must be some control, but the control that is being exercized to-day does not lend itself to effective work, nor to economical work. I want to deal with the point that if we are not careful, the question of the interest and redemption charges paid by the provincial councils will ultimately strangle them. In five years these charges have grown in Natal to 10 per cent, of the total expenditure of the council, and now stands at £145,000. If you want to kill the provincial councils, this is one of the most effective ways which may be employed. The councils have not an expanding revenue, proportionate to cope with the expanding expenditure with which they are faced. They have been given certain taxing powers, but they are direct and unpopular, and anybody with any regard for public opinion is faced with the fact that if they exercize the powers they possess, they will create a public opinion in favour of their abolition. That is what the extreme exercize of the power of direct taxation must ultimately mean. In Natal we want to retain our provincial councils, and we are faced with the difficulties I have outlined. I believe the time has come when this House should face the taking over of trunk roads. You have your growing road transportation under the railway—which to-day is an additional and important reason—

Order !

If we want to look at the whole question from a Union point of view and save the taxpayers’ money, then the time has come when the House should seriously consider the taking over of the trunk roads, and handle new construction on a scale worthy of the bigness of the task before the country. Dealing with road construction on the present provincial basis must remain wasteful and ineffective.

I want to touch upon the provincial subsidy.

It can be dealt with on this vote, but not in a way that involves legislation.

In Natal there is a feeling that this financial criticism of the provincial councils requires to be rebutted.

You cannot have a budget debate on what Natal thinks of the financial criticism.

I want to know why, if there is a potential financial deficit in these provincial councils, that should be used as an argument for abolition.

You cannot discuss that question at all.

I do not know whether I am in order under this head, but I would like to make a few remarks in connection with the double tax which the taxpayers in the Transvaal have to pay.

The hon. member cannot discuss it now.

I should then like to know under what head it can be discussed. Can you, Mr. Chairman, possibly tell me?

I want to ask the Minister of Finance why there is a different scale of payments for labourers on the roads employed by the Government as compared with that for labourers employed by the provincial council.

I know nothing about the Labour vote.

Where is the Minister of Labour? This is a matter I can only discuss on this vote. Before I am prepared to vote any money for the province to spend, I must be sure that money will be spent wisely. If I find that the province is employing labourers on the roads at a certain rate of pay, and side by side with the province, the Union—

The hon. member is, I submit, quite out of order, unless he can point out the item on which he is speaking.

There are certain labourers in the Transvaal working on the roads whose work falls under the control of the Transvaal provincial administration. The overhead charge in connection with the work is borne by the provincial administration. Therefore the subsidy on this vote goes towards that particular item of expenditure. But the total pay received by those labourers is paid out of the Union exchequer. It is, therefore, a provincial matter. I understand that the point which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised is why, in the case of these particular labourers, certain rates of pay have been fixed by the Government, which are higher than the rates fixed by the Administration.

This falls under the Labour vote. I can only allow discussion so far as the Minister’s policy is concerned.

It is the question of differentiation between two departments I want to raise. I wish the hon. Minister of Finance would leave you alone for a moment. I do not know why he should try to stifle the discussion. This is one of those clashes where you have the state and the provincial council system operating side by side. I submit that this is an occasion when a certain amount of discussion might be permitted.

Of course, the Union votes money, but not for a specific purpose. Where the Government does not control expenditure Parliament is not entitled to give an opinion. If Parliament votes money for a particular service, Parliament is entitled to criticize. If the hon. member asks me to give information about the policy followed by provincial administrations, I am willing to get it for him.

You fix the scale in this case.

If the Union Government disburses certain money to these labourers, it must be under some other vote, and not under this vote. Beyond that I obviously cannot go. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) says that we fix the scale in this case, because some of this money is used for overhead charges in connection with the matter. I suggest to the hon. member that I shall, at the proper time, get the information for him. While I am on my feet, let me reply to the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton). I cannot follow him. His point is that as a result of loans by the Durban council and the interest charges they have to meet, they will eventually have to disappear. He says, “You must abandon your policy of rationing the councils.” By rationing them I take it he means controlling the amount of their expenditure. His complaint is not against the Treasury but against the provincial administrations. We give them a lump sum for roads, hospitals and school buildings. As far as the actual allocation between the various services is concerned, that policy is controlled by the administrations, and if that policy is extravagant the complaint should not be against the Treasury, but against the provincial councils.

I think the hon. Minister has just missed the point. It was not a question of rationing only, but that the provincial councils to-day find themselves embarrassed by the increase of interest and redemption charges. Rationing only comes in to this extent; that by rationing he controls the matter. What I want the Minister to remember is that he has given these councils certain powers of raising money which are rather unpopular. If these powers were not so unpopular these provincial councils could raise more money, and so meet the growing charges for interest and redemption.

What are these unpopular powers?

The powers you have given them; they have to face capital expenditure, which means a growth of redemption and interest. If they want to meet it satisfactorily, they have to go in for odious taxation. I want the Minister to appreciate the invidious position in which the provincial councils find themselves. I want to emphasize our uneconomical road policy. I think the Minister is at fault in that.

What are you on now?

I think that when you give them this money you have some responsibility as to how the money is spent.

Then you must give me the power; I have not the power to-day.

I think it is high time that the hon. Minister sought that power.

The hon. member must not discuss that.

We want to give the House the benefit of our experience, so that we may have sounder government. When we see money thrown into the gutter by wastefulness, where are we to go?

To your council.

The money is voted by this House, and this is where I intend to exercise my right to criticize.

That cannot be discussed here.

I do not know whether this House is responsible for the money which it spends or not.

I rise to a point of order. You ruled that the matters that the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) was bringing forward were not relevant to the matter under discussion, and, therefore, could not be discussed. I want to ask is it not in order, seeing that there is a lump sum of money asked to be voted by this committee this afternoon as a subsidy to the provincial councils, if any member of this House knows of an unwise method of spending that money should he not have the right to demonstrate the unwisdom of it to this House with a view of reducing the amount of money which might be allocated to a particular council?

Hon. members may refer to matters in that connection, but they cannot discuss any policy of the provincial councils or of the administrators as if that policy is the policy of the Minister. Further, they cannot discuss any question involving legislation or discuss a question in such a way that it has the nature of a budget debate.

If any member has knowledge or experience of a matter dealt with by the provincial councils such as this, and desires to bring it forward in order to secure economy in the spending of the subsidy by that province, I take it he has a right to refer to it.

Any question of such a nature must be dealt with in the provincial council itself.

I wish to discuss something of the matter of policy as to whether there should be provincial councils at all.

That is not in order.

Can I discuss the basis on which the subsidy is based?

That is laid down by an Act of Parliament.

Cannot I discuss any matter bearing upon that subject in any way? I want to say, for instance, that, so far as I can determine, the idea of basing the subsidy on the number of children at school came from Canada.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter.

Either the Act of Union is being carried out, or it is not being carried out. Either these powers embodied in an Act of Parliament in respect of provincial councils were statutory powers, or they were delegated powers. If they were statutory powers the Act of Union has never been carried out. The Minister has not attempted to answer that point at all. We maintain that they are actually statutory powers, and have been treated by the Minister and by his predecessors as delegated powers, and that is what I understand from the judgment of the Appellate Court is their opinion also. The Appellate Court does not regard these as delegated powers, and the necessary regulations have not been framed for the carrying out of the powers provided for by the Act of Union. The Minister says that whether they are delegated powers or statutory powers it is a minor matter, and that he has acted in the wisest possible manner in the interests of the country. I dispute that point. I debate it from this point of view; it is not a question of the central Government and the provincial councils going into the money markets and competing against each other, that is a policy which has existed in South Africa from time immemorial. Every big municipality is allowed to go into the public market and raise its own loans, and the extraordinary part of it is that the municipalities can go into the public market on the authority of the administrator and raise money, but he cannot give that power to his own provincial council to borrow money for their own purposes. That is an extraordinary anomaly. The result of this is that roads that are constructed are often of a temporary nature, and money has been wasted. I think that has been a disastrous policy. It would have been more effective had a provincial council been able to raise a lump sum of money and expend it in permanent works, and to use taxation for the purpose of upkeep and interest. I say that a constitutional question arises. Either the Minister is right and he has acted within his powers, or he is wrong. If he is wrong then it is about time the matter were put right and he should be told exactly how we stand.

I support the hon. member. I think the time has arrived when we should give more consideration to that aspect of the question. I think that public expenditure must be made in the interests of the taxpayers in every way. When an hon. member raises a question such as the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mai. Richards) has raised, I think some latitude should be given in order to discuss it.

The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) was discussing the question of loans and the application of the South Africa Act.

If you take that question of loans it results ultimately in certain works being done, and the question arises whether they are being done in the interests of the country.

I have already ruled that that is out of order.

It is a most important matter. There are inherent injustices in these subsidies that we are voting for now. I want your permission to show how, arising from that fact, one province is contributing very much more per head to the general public expenditure of the Union than any other province.

I cannot allow that. Any question which involves legislation cannot be discussed, and it is not for me to advise the hon. member how to deal with the matter or how not to do it. I can only give my ruling according to the standing rules and orders.

I do not think the hon. member has said anything which calls for a further reply. I have already told him that, according to the wording of the South Africa Act, the consent of the Governor-General is necessary, before provincial councils can raise loans, and that consent I have refused to obtain as a matter of policy. The hon. member has not raised a new point, and I am not going to repeat these explanations.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services,” £153,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London,” £64,787,

I understand that Mr. Andrews, who is a B.A., LL.B., has been appointed political secretary for the Union in London. I understand it is a very good appointment, and I am told Mr. Andrews is thoroughly well qualified, but I think his salary should appear under this vote and not under the Prime Minister’s vote.

The hon. member cannot discuss something which does not appear in this vote.

This is a question of policy. I thought the chairman ruled that this expenditure should come under the High Commissioner’s vote. Will the Minister kindly explain the matter to us?

Until now the High Commissioner’s office in London has been more or less of a business department, but as a result of changes that have taken place (changes which were debated here the other night with such unanimity which we all appreciated very much), in future the High Commissioner will do a great deal of political work. Consequently, a political secretary was appointed and his salary appeared in the Prime Minister’s vote. The question may arise whether part of the High Commissioner’s salary should not be transferred to the Prime Minister’s vote if you want to be very fastidious about the resting places of expenditure. The work the political secretary will do will be in connection with the diplomatic duties of the High Commissioner.

I was glad to hear, when I was in London recently, that the High Commissioner was doing his diplomatic work very well and creditably, being in very great contrast to what has taken place on previous occasions. Will the Minister kindly give us some information regarding the alterations to the offices of the High Commissioner in London and also in regard to the temporary offices in the Strand? Will the area of the land to be occupied by the new premises be of the same size as the land occupied by the old building, and is the site that formerly known as “Morley’s Hotel”?

I wish to draw attention to the stores and shipping department. It is clear that of this amount something like half is paid for by the Railway Administration. This position has existed for a very long period, and the cost of the department has remained very much the same. During recent years, however, we have established a Tender Board in South Africa for which, I believe, we have voted some £6,000 or £7,000. The Tender Board must be doing a considerable amount of work, but the expenditure on the stores and shipping section in the High Commissioner’s office remains the same. If the tenders are returned to South Africa, then two similar organizations, one in London and one here, are not required. As I understand the tenders are mostly determined in South Africa, is it the policy of the Government to do away with the buying and shipping department in the High Commissioner’s office? There is a considerable increase in the staff of the Tender Board, which appears to be developing at such a rate that the whole of the work should be entrusted to it. If all the tenders could be dealt with here, people would prefer that buying from the High Commissioner’s office should cease altogether.

It is rather difficult to deal with these things here. The hon. member has raised a question of policy which falls under the railway department. Most of the work done by the London officials still has to be carried out by them, notwithstanding the existence of the Tender Board in South Africa. These officials have still to do a vast amount of work in regard to seeing that supplies are up to standard, and to deal with the shipping of stores. Although some of the work is concentrated in South Africa, it has not been possible to reduce the personnel on the other side.

There is no reduction whatever in London?

That is the position the department went into. They sent an inspector overseas to see how far they could reduce the personnel there. One of the officials came out. I believe the work is of such a nature that all these officials are necessary. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) asked me what we were doing in London with regard to the new premises. This expenditure is merely for the temporary premises which have to be occupied while building operations are taking place. I believe last session I told the House what our plans were. There were to be new premises, which would be very suitable.

Have you renewed the lease?

The lease has been satisfactorily fixed up, but we are paying a much bigger amount. It is the same site. We are not getting extra land. We had great difficulty to get the lease fixed up—in connection with the new Charing Cross scheme.

For what period is the lease?

Ninety-nine years. We have consulted Sir Herbert Baker, upon whose services we called to advise the Public Works Department.

Will the Minister tell us why the Government is paying this amount —£13,000—for temporary offices in the Strand, plus £4,000 local rates, and £500 water rates? The total of £17,500 for the rent of temporary offices while Morley’s Hotel is being reconstructed seems enormous.

We have to vacate the present premises and move to new premises. Our lease has not expired yet. It expires, I find, in October this year. The matter to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) referred is in connection with the temporary offices in the Strand.

That is what I am worrying about.

That is the best possible lease we could get.

It seems enormous.

I think it is enormous.

Could you not get it for less?

No.

The whole buildings or portion?

It is just sufficient for our requirements. We have always been letting part of the premises to other people, and there is a certain amount of revenue obtained. We have had great difficulty in obtaining accommodation, and this is the best we can do.

I see there is a personal allowance of £1,000 for the High Commissioner. Has the £350 entertainment allowance anything to do with that?

The £1,000 is exclusively fixed by the Act, and the £350 has nothing to do with that.

For the coming year the expenses will be much greater, with the imperial conference sitting in London. I do not know whether the amount will be sufficient.

That is probable, and we may have to make other arrangements.

I want to know if anything is being done in the High Commissioner’s office to encourage immigration to this country. I have some difficulty to know when to raise this question. As far as my recollection goes, it has always been raised on this vote. What I want to find out is whether it is any part of the High Commissioner’s duty or of his staff to do anything to encourage people who are desirous of coming to this country. Two instances have come to my knowledge within the last 12 months—I will give the names to the Minister, if he likes—where no effort has been made in that office to give that information and to encourage emigration to this country, but the officials in the office threw cold water on it.

It certainly does not fall under my department.

We have passed a measure to exclude certain people from coming to this country. If I cannot raise this point here, where can I raise it? These two persons were told that if they would take the officials’ advice, they would not come to this country. Something should be done, not only to give information, but to try to encourage people to come to this country, if it is the class of immigration we want.

The High Commissioner carries out all sorts of duties. You can discuss that on the budget, on the Appropriation Bill and on the Prime Minister’s vote. If there is any complaint about the action of the High Commissioner as an official, I am called upon to defend that. If you want to know what the policy is in regard to immigration, I submit that that cannot be discussed here.

Supposing you gave instructions?

Those instructions would be given by a particular state department. The hon. member can discuss that on the Prime Minister’s salary. The High Commissioner’s office gives information about our Land Settlement Acts in this country. I think the hon. member would be quite out of order to discuss immigration policy on this vote.

There are certain clerical assistants in the High Commissioner’s office. Are any of them qualified to advise people who enquire at the High Commissioner’s office about land settlement out here? At one time there was trouble about wild-cat land schemes. Even now I understand there is some difficulty about advice as to the value of land in the Union. When I was in England a few months ago I advised people who came to me to go to the High Commissioner’s office and to the 1820 Settlers’ Association. I should very much like to know whether there is an official in the High Commissioner’s office who keeps abreast with information as to things of that sort, and who is qualified to give people advice, and to guard them against wild-cat schemes.

There is such an official, but I would ask the hon. member to put that question to the Minister of Lands. Obviously the Minister concerned should give information about a particular question of policy. The hon. member can see that it would not be right for me to deal with a question of policy affecting another Government department. I have no doubt that the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) has occurred, and I suppose our people there are not very enthusiastic about land settlement in South Africa. They have had their experience of wild-cat schemes.

They should not go to the other extreme.

I am not able to express an opinion about that, whether they did go to the other extreme or not. I think hon. members can see the reasonableness of this being discussed under another vote. We had a similar discussion last year,

If I can get an assurance that information can be obtained from the Minister of Lands, I shall be quite satisfied for the matter to stand over. The information I want is as to having a person at the High Commissioner’s office able to advise.

Is it quite clear that the railway matters mentioned by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) can be discussed under the Railway Vote?

Yes, it is a question of policy.

I think there was a case last session which stood over, and subsequently it was found that the question standing over could not be dealt with.

It is very difficult to give a definite ruling on this point, but I am quite clear that I will not allow the High Commissioner to be discussed again in the course of discussion on the estimates.

I am not, for the moment, interested in the High Commissioner’s vote, but I am interested in the matter of principle, and in the right that members have to examine all these things carefully. You have definitely stated, sir, that under no circumstances will you allow any matter to be discussed regarding the High Commissioner under any other vote, except by way of a mere question.

As far as the High Commissioner is concerned, but when any Minister is responsible for any act of a servant of his department, the Minister can be called to account.

But the High Commissioner cannot be called to account, and the point is that if any member desires to discuss any question affecting the High Commissioner’s actions, if he does not do it now he has lost his chance for the remainder of the session.

I want this matter cleared up. I quite follow that it is impossible for the Minister of Finance to expound policy on any particular subject not within his department, but when we come to the question of people overseas coming to this country, and when we come to the vote for the Minister of Lands, and the officials dealing with the point raised are in the High Commissioner’s office, are we debarred?

Members are not precluded from discussing the policy of the Minister himself.

If there is any complaint against one of these officials, and they have to be called to account for a dereliction of duty, then I am prepared to answer for that, but if the hon. member wants to know whether adequate provision is made at the High Commissioner’s office for dealing with these things, the matter must be raised under another vote.

The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) has asked what was being done with regard to helping a certain organization with which I happen to be concerned in regard to giving advice to settlers. I am sorry the Minister said that he had to be very careful and cautious in advising people to come here because of wild cat schemes. The whole interest of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association is to protect settlers from such schemes. I want the High Commissioner’s office in London to realize that there is an organization because it may relieve the Minister of a lot of work. I would like the hon. Minister to realize that the people in London can refer enquiries to a body capable of helping them. I understand that under the present High Commissioner there has been a change of policy and I hope it will be for the benefit of South Africa.

With regard to the director of publicity, I notice the amount is paid by the Railways and Harbours Administration, and I take it that if we want to criticize the publicity we shall be able to do so under the railway vote.

I understand the Minister says that there has been a policy of land settlement in South Africa laid down by the Minister of Lands. I asked whether, supposing the Minister of Lands wants to encourage immigration, and that a particular official in the High Commissioner’s office did not carry out his duty properly—I understood him to say I should be limited to putting the question to the Minister as to whether he has laid down a certain policy in regard to land settlement, but that after that I am precluded from asking a further question of the Minister. Surely some responsible Minister can tell us what is the policy in this regard. My information is that cold water is being thrown on the desires of people who want to come into this country.

The hon. member cannot now discuss this; he can only discuss the High Commissioner or his clerks.

I must point out that we are having this kind of thing every year, and unless the House will co-operate there will be only one course open to me; I shall break up this vote altogether and transfer all these items to the various departments. I cannot be asked to deal with the policy of the High Commissioner’s office even if I had the information. I do not see the least necessity for hon. members to be anxious. They can raise the question whether our immigration policy is right or wrong, or whether we have any policy at all; Parliament provides proper machinery for that without discussing it here.

We have only asked the Minister a question. It is very convenient having these matters all grouped together under the High Commissioner’s vote. The Minister has given us his assurance that the matter will be dealt with fully afterwards. We do not wish to press it. Quite apart from the question of land policy, all I want to ask the Minister is whether we have anybody over there who is there for the purpose of keeping himself posted on the question of information for intending settlers. I do not want to be faced afterwards with a ruling that the matter cannot be discussed in regard to the question of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association. So far as the Minister is concerned, he is very anxious that the High Commissioner’s office should do all in its power to co-operate with the association. I want to know if the Government is giving its protection to co-operation between the two offices in regard to giving advice to intending settlers?

In regard to the first question I believe it is so. Anybody is entitled to go to the High Commissioner’s office in England and get information on any conceivable subject. But when the hon. member asks me what use is to be made of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, this is not a matter for me at all. There is another department concerned and I suggest that this question should be put to my colleague.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Inland Revenue,” £154,959.

I am exercised in my mind by item D. If hon. members will turn to the itemised account they will see that there is an amount of £2,000 for president; £713 for registrar; members’ fees amount to £1,400 per annum; subsistence and transport to £600 per annum. The total for that vote is £4,763 per annum. If you add the expenses of the office they occupy, etc., you will see that the cost of the court is well over £5,000 per annum. I am wondering whether it is really good business to have such a court, especially at such a cost. Perhaps the Minister of Justice might be interested in this particular case, as to whether we would not be better off to let the work be done by judges of the supreme court. Some years ago we used to have a separate water court judge in the Cape Province. Then it was found better to appoint an additional judge of the Cape court and to allow the work of the water court judge to be done as a part time job by Mr. Justice Lourens. In view of the fact that the functions of this judge are of a part time character I want to know whether this could be undertaken by judges of the supreme court. That is, in the same way as the functions of the water court judge have been taken over by that court. [Interjection by Minister of Justice.] Probably that will follow in the Transvaal when the present water court judge retires. The Minister of Justice should be grateful to me for raising this point. This is a scheme to give you two extra judges for the supreme court at the expense of this court. I am sure I am earning his gratitude by raising this point, whatever the Minister of Finance may say. I do not think the Minister of Finance will say that the work undertaken by this court is really such as to justify the appointment of a whole-time officer. I should like to ask him to tell we whether he thinks that the importance of that court is such as to justify the payment of a salary at £2,000 per annum to the president. As soon as that court has a point of law to decide, it refers the point to the supreme court, and the supreme court has finally to be the judge, to whom we pay the beggarly salary of £2,250 per annum. That is all they get. We pay the president of this court £2,000 per annum, and the registrar £730. It is conceived on too expensive a scale. I should like to say a word in regard to the personnel. I see the president or chairman, whatever he is called, Mr. Maritz, is now an acting justice. I understand it is the intention to promote him permanently to the supreme court bench in the Transvaal. That will leave the post of president vacant, and will give the Minister the opportunity, if he wishes it, to review, first of all, the whole question of the expense of this court, and secondly, the scale on which its expenditure is incurred. I should like him to tell me if he has made arrangements for the appointment of a successor. I saw an interesting announcement on that subject in the local press some time ago, concerning a member of this House. But as it was only a press statement, I do not think I shall give the name. If the appointment has been definitely settled in place of Mr. Maritz, perhaps the Minister will tell us.

I am entirely opposed to the remarks made in this connection by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I was an original member of this court when it was first formed and I know its working. The emoluments have been raised since then, but I know it is one of the best and one of the most economical courts which exists in the Union, and saves more money for the taxpayers than probably any other similar body. I deprecate in the strongest possible manner any interference with the court.

The gratitude earned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) would not be shared by the commercial community. I have no hesitation in saying it has done useful and important work, and it is recognised by the judges of the supreme court.

I do not deny that.

The court has to decide issues which are as difficult as those which come before the supreme court. The constitution of this court was laid down by Act after consultation with the commercial community, and provision is made for certain accounting and commercial members.

And the minute it gets a question of law to decide, it goes to the supreme court.

No, that is not the case. Questions of law are decided by this judge. We are fortunate in the constitution of this court as far as the president is concerned. The judgments have been very sound from the legal point of view. Here we are providing a cheap form of justice for these people, and it was specially called into being to deal with questions that crop up under this particular legislation. I may say I have been pressed very hard by the commercial people to establish such a court for the customs department. The customs people feel that if they are dissatisfied with the ruling of the commissioner and ultimately, of the Minister, they have to go to the supreme court, and they do not want to do that. They are pressing me to provide a court similar to this court, and the hon. member wants me to go back to the, supreme court. I do not think that view is shared by the people of the country and I think it would be a retrograde step. So far as the emoluments are concerned, we have to select a barrister of ten years’ standing for this position.

There is nothing about 10 years’ standing.

Yes, from seven to ten years are laid down in the Act. We have to see that we have someone who has the confidence of the people who can decide these matters.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Customs and Excise,” £248,118,

Under this Vote there is an item of £11,000 to the training ship “Botha.” I should like to ask why is this item under the Customs vote? Is there any special reason why it should not be under the Educational Department? I understand that the £11,000 is purely for educational purposes on nautical matters. Can the Minister give me any idea how the amount is expended?

I agree with the remarks of the Minister on this matter of the courts. The question has been raised as to whether the Minister will reconsider his decision in regard to the establishment of a court to deal with customs matters. I know the difficulties of the merchants in this matter. The creation of such a court or extended powers given to an advisory board would be of great use to the business men of South Africa, and I hope the Minister will seriously consider the question.

In the first place I rise to thank the Minister for his concession to the fruit farmers by the granting of 3d. a 1b. on dried fruits.

That cannot be debated under this vote.

The reason that the question of the “Botha” comes under my department is that my department is supposed to administer the Merchant Shinning Act. The young men trained on the “Potha” eventually become officials on our merchant ships. Once I tried to get rid of this vote, but such strong objections were raised that I agreed to allow it to remain where it is. The amount in question is a contribution towards expenses. As the hon. member probably knows, there is a committee of management appointed to deal with the training on the ship, and the Government contributes a certain amount. So far as the board is concerned, the hon. member knows the difficulties, and I have discussed them with the commercial community. I do not know whether people would bless me if I introduced such a board as suggested. I do not think it will function so well in the case of customs as in the case of income tax.

Can the Minister give us an idea how the sum of £11,000 is arrived at, and whether there is any control, supervision or inspection of the training ship “General Botha” in regard to the educational work done on board that ship?

There is a board of trustees, and the Prime Minister is one of the members. I do not think my department does very much besides paying over the money.

Is anything done by the Education Department?

I do not know. The amount has been reduced because the trustees have been economizing.

Do we pay the amount on the £ for £ principle?

No.

Then I can only recommend the matter to the Minister’s attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 13, “Audit,” £72,781,

I should like to ask the Minister why the new auditor-general was placed on the top notch of salary in view of the fact that he had not reached the top notch of salary in his previous post.

It is laid down in the Act that the salary of the controller and auditor-general shall be £1,800. Under the circumstances, we could not offer Mr. Schmidt less than the full amount fixed by the Act.

It would be better not to have a scale at all for this important position.

I do not think the Act provides for a scale. We corresponded on the subject with the Public Service Commission, and in view of the salary he had previously been drawing, he was appointed at the top salary. I think there is something wrong in the way these matters are arranged.

There is something wrong. The salary and local allowance total £1,940. The new incumbent of the office draws his salary on the highest scale straight away.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 14, “Interior,” £245,803,

I move—

In order to draw attention to a most important matter—the campaign against cancer. It is with extreme diffidence that I, a layman, presume to speak on such a technical subject, and one which must appear on the surface to be completely outside the scope of a farmer. I intend, however, to deal with the matter mainly from the human aspect, as I come in contact with the problem, and, as far as possible, not from the medical or scientific viewpoint. But in doing so I shall have to touch on the technical side a little, to explain my attitude towards the matter from the poor people’s point of view, and it is in their interests that I am speaking. I raise the matter for two reasons, one, because of the appalling misery of the sufferers from this scourge in the distant countryside, where those who are suffering from the disease have to undergo the most terrible misery and torture; and two, because I feel most strongly that we in the country are at the parting of the ways. Our future in regard to the combating of cancer will depend entirely on what course we adopt in the near future. If we step off with the wrong foot now, it is unlikely that we shall ever be given an opportunity to change step. With regard to the first point—the misery of sufferers in the country who are far removed from any help—I wish to refer to the mental and physical tortures suffered by the very poor who have simply to sit alone, frequently without the elementary comforts of civilization, suffering untold agonies and with terror in their hearts while the horrible disease slowly eats them away. No one living in urban areas can fully appreciate the plight of the sufferers from cancer in the remote portions of the countryside. I refer, of course, to the poor. Those who have a little money can move into the towns and obtain relief from surgical treatment or narcotics administered by their doctors. But the poor on the platteland, without even the comforts that the healthy need, must simply suffer till death brings relief. It is close contact with this side of the tragedy —the helplessness of these poor people—that gives me the courage to speak on this matter. I am going to bring a few facts and figures to the knowledge of the House. I am going to do so because they should be known, and not for the sake of effect, for I think that anyone striving for effect on a matter so appalling as this would deserve the just contempt of this House, and I have not the slightest doubt that he would get it. In discussing this subject, statistics are desirable, but in this country they are gravely lacking. With regard to statistics as to the deaths from cancer amongst natives, one can say that statistics do not exist, or any that do are merely guesswork. With regard to the coloured population, the statistics are very inaccurate, and as to the white population, the figures are certainly not reliable. The only returns available are those showing the causes of death, which depend on medical certificates which, in turn, depend on the accuracy of diagnosis. Now, it is an accepted fact that death certificates, even in the very best centres, which are not based on a post-mortem, are inaccurate, and the error, as far as cancer is concerned, makes for a low estimate. This is clearly illustrated by the statistics collected in centres where post-mortem examinations are the rule. It is known that many causes of death returned as due to old age, heart failure, pneumonic infection, and so on, are, in reality, due in the first place to disease caused by the destruction and lowering of resistance of the constitution by cancer. I mention this as a reason why I cannot give South African statistics, as they are not easy to compute, but the best statistics of other countries, such as America, England and Germany, put the ratio of death from cancer as one in seven, and capable observers tell me that our ratio is certainly not less than that, of the countries I have named. Based on these figures there are at least 30,000 people living in greater Cape Town to-day who must die of cancer. Taking the military method of calculating, the length of a column marching in fours, namely, one yard per man in the ranks, we find that this column of 30,000 doomed people would be 17 miles in length and take 5¾ hours to pass a given point. If these figures are correct, Mr. Chairman, at least 21 members of this House will die from cancer. But the position is worse than that. The ratio of one to seven is based on all deaths from childhood to old age, and it is known that cancer is a disease mainly of the aged. If we take members as on the average middle aged. The figure is more nearly forty than twenty-one We, at least, have some means, and cancer should not hold that terror for us that it does for the very poor in the country districts, for at least if you have means you can get surgical attention, which, if it cannot cure, can ease the pain. Failing that they can afford opiates. At the risk of being platitudinous let me say that we all must die some day and if the end comes without unnecessary pain and torture then we have no grievance, but Mr. Chairman, let hon. members go into the countryside and see what is happening there and then they will realize why I have presumed to speak on a subject so obviously outside my element as a farmer. I want to help these poor people of the country from the bottom of my heart. I don’t want to appear theatrical, but I want to stick entirely to reason and logic, therefore I want to give the ghastly details of cases that have come under my notice. The great cry nowadays is for people to be allowed to live decently and in comfort. All I am asking for is to allow these people who are hopelessly stricken to die in comfort. Surely they are entitled to that. The ordinary layman knows that medical science has gone a very long way in describing the way cancer appears. An enormous amount of knowledge has been collected on the anatomical structure of new growths. Medical science has further defined a few hundred different varieties according to the tissue, and anatomical localization, and its mode of development. But the two main groups which suffice for the layman are sarcoma and carsonoma. There are many schools of thought who differ from each other on the main points, but there is one thing that all pathologists agree on, and that is that in the beginning cancer is, with very few exceptions, an essentially local disease. Therefore medical men and surgeons agree that if it is possible to destroy all the disease cells, and this is done, then the disease is cured and will not recur. Up to recently this could only be done by surgery, that is by cutting away all diseased tissues. Let me quote from an article which appeared in the Journal of the Medical Association of South Africa by the most eminent radiologist in this country—Dr. van Rooyen—

I am informed by an eminent surgeon that 80 per cent, of the cases he sees are inoperable by the time they come to him. I am further informed by an eminent gynecologist that uterine cancer constitutes 40 per cent, of all cancer in women, and that with expert radiological treatment, 25 per cent, of the cases will be cured, and on a conservative estimate, 70 per cent, to 80 per cent, can be cured if seen early enough. This shows the great importance of early diagnosis. Since we have known of X-rays and radium, we have found a method by which it is possible, in the ideal case, to destroy all diseased cells, cell for cell, without affecting the healthy cells surrounding them. A cure is, therefore, possible without mutilation. The most favourable cases for this process of cure are rare. There are other cases that are not so suitable, but are suitable enough to obtain the object in view if the greatest care and skill are applied. Therefore the greater the care and skill available, the greater the number of cases possible to cure. Radiotherapy is the term used to cover both radium therapy and X-ray therapy, and this is the term I shall use. It has been found that a great number of cases can be cured by radium, and a lesser number by X-rays, yet there are certain cases where X-ray treatment is preferable to radium. But the whole success of radiotherapy is based entirely on the knowledge and the ability of the radiologist. As one of my main reasons for speaking on this matter lies in this, that we have not sufficient men in this country with the requisite knowledge to allow of our having centres for radiological treatment scattered all over the country, therefore we must concentrate our efforts. To show the part that experts play in this matter, let us take the more favourable case where the amount of irradiation to kill the disease cells is so small that there is no danger of destroying the healthy tissue by applying it, even if a somewhat too large dose is given. Here, perhaps, a less skilled radiologist could do the cure successfully. On the other hand, you usually have the type of diseased cell which requires nearly the same dose to kill it as would destroy the healthy cells, and here only the more skilled man can deal with the case. The difference between the dose that will kill the diseased cell and the amount that is required to destroy the healthy cell, is known technically as the margin of safety, and here again I will quote Dr. van Rooyen—

Further Dr. van Rooyen goes on to say—

And that gives us the crux of the whole matter as to why we should concentrate our efforts, as only the most highly skilled radiologist can hope to cure the cases where the margin of safety is very small, and the knowledge for this can only be obtained by research and experience. The knowledge required is roughly as follows: (1) Great knowledge of the structure of tissues, (2) knowledge of their pathology, viz., their spread, conditions and growth, (3) technical and physical knowledge of the radiations required, (4) special knowledge of what is now known as radiobiology, which deals with the behaviour of living cells under the action of radiations. Furthermore, even with all this knowledge, and the facilities to carry out all these applications, little could be done if at the same time the best facilities were not given to carry out the necessary diagnostic work by X-ray and other means. Further, the aid of surgeons must be relied upon to carry out the surgical part of the work which forms such an important part in radiological treatment. Now scarcely a man will be found who possesses all this knowledge at the same time, and it is therefore recognized the world over that this work can only be done properly in centres where whole teams of experts for the different types of work can pool their knowledge and skill. In addition to that it is realized that the necessary equipment is elaborate and expensive, and a true experience can only be won when a large number of cases are dealt with. We can realize the necessity for the emphatic words of Regaud, the famous expert of the Paris institution, when he issues a warning against the dissipation of effort all over the country. He exclaims “Concentrate your patients, concentrate your material, concentrate your knowledge and skill.” It is a fact that only where this has been done have good results eventuated, whilst where it has not been done, results have been disappointing. Radium is certainly a mysterious substance, but it is not so mysterious as to be superhuman, and that it is merely sufficient to apply it to a patient to ensure his cure. We can compare it to strychnine or digitalis, two most useful drugs in the treatment of certain conditions of a heart failing or heart disease, if in the hands of a skilled physician, but a danger to life if wrongly or carelessly administered. It is owing to the necessity for wide knowledge and experience that only recently, more than 30 years after the discovery of radium, it can be claimed that a new means has been found by which it is possible to deal effectively with this scourge in many hitherto hopeless cases. In stating this I refer to statements made at the cancer congress in London, July, 1923, and the international radiological congress in Stockholm, which was held about the same time. At these congresses it was shown, as was already known, we may say to those experts working in this field, that not only could cures be effected, but that cures had been permanent over a period of 10 years of observation. In most European countries centralization has been shown to be essential. In France they have established so-called anticancer centres. In Great Britain it had been decided that radium supply should not be distributed over more than 40 hospitals, which works out very roughly at one centre per million of population, and it is absolutely certain that this number would have been far less if there had not been so many establishments of research already in existence. On the other hand, we in South Africa are not tied by a large number of existing established centres of research, and we are, therefore, in a position to strike out on the best lines straight away. In countries like Holland and Belgium, where they have an abundance of experts; they have nevertheless very few centres. But let us take Sweden as an example that can be fairly supplied to our conditions here. Rather like us, they have a large country sparsely populated. Her area—173,000 square miles—is over one-third the size of the Union, and with only a population of 6,000,000. They have only got two radio centres. That is, one to 3,000,000 of population, and originally it was only one, and they have by means of concentration brought their work to such a state of perfection that they are an example to the whole world. I don’t want to go into details and take up the time of the House, but here are just a few points which might be of interest to hon. members, and which might assist them in any action they may take in the establishment of anti-cancer centres. The Swedish Parliament has passed a law that every person not possessed of sufficient means is allowed to travel to these centres free of charge, wherever consultation or treatment is considered necessary. And here where there are state-owned railways the same can be done. This brings me back to my opening statement, wherein I showed how deplorable are the conditions of the really poor sufferers from cancer who are situated miles from any centre, and have, therefore, no chance, not only of cure, but not the slightest opportunity of obtaining any relief from the pain they have to suffer. Now here is an important point. If once we have these centres established the public can rest assured that the work will be carried out with zeal and enthusiasm and complete honesty. All endeavours will be made to ascertain the true facts without bias or a desire to boost one method as against another. In fact, all the ideas will be pooled to gain the best results. And it has been experienced that in such centres a difference of opinion between the surgeon and the radiologist, as to which method has to be followed in any type of case, scarcely exists. This is understandable when they see cases together, where they can discuss the matter fully, weigh carefully each other’s opinions, and can come only then to one conclusion. Now I have shown that in countries where they have an abundance of experts, even then the main idea has been to concentrate efforts, and have as few centres as possible. In a young country such as South Africa we have not got an abundance of experts, and it would be most unjustifiable, and a grave danger to the future of combating the disease if an attempt was made to starve the centres where the best experts are found, in order to satisfy the wishes of similar centres which have not got the same facilities, in order to have a cancer institution of their own. I referred just now to the question of transporting the indigent poor to centres where they could receive treatment. The importance of this point is not only to ensure effective cure, or at least relief, but also that the experts may continue to keep patients under observation, and therefore gather most useful information for research. It is essential that patients should see the experts at definite intervals. Sometimes there are considerable lapses of time between one visit and the next, and these poor people cannot afford to come long distances; they literally have not the means. The result is that where the expert wishes to keep the case under observation not only for the sake of the patient, but also from the point of view of research, he has to keep the patient at the centre, or in one of the hospitals, and this means that country-patient has been maintained for a long period, quite unnecessarily, at the expense of the local body or institution, when that patient might just as well have spent 50 or 60 days at home. All that is required is for these people to see the doctors once every few months, and it will be very much cheaper in the long run to give bona fide poor sufferers from cancer free transport, as is done in other countries. We have seen in the papers that philanthropic citizens have been subscribing large sums of money all over the country to buy radium, with a view to having centres of treatment all over South Africa. The man in the street is beginning to believe that you have only to buy the radium, and the treatment can start. But the purchase of radium is only one small part of the expense that will have to be met, and radium without the experts and all the other appliances for diagnostic work, etc., is of very little avail in reality; in fact, in some hands it can be a danger. One might liken it to a man with 100 rounds of ammunition and no rifle to fire with. The value of radium itself is only one small part of the expense. It is the utilization thereof which is the real cost, and even if you have the radium and the appliances, and if you have not the most skilled radiologists, it is still of little avail. My plea is that the matter should be treated nationally, and not parochially or provincially. The big centres, where money has been raised, should be patriotic enough to pool everything for the common good, so that not only is the best treatment afforded, but opportunity for the best research work is given, and further means of treatment discussed. And here is where I appeal to the Minister of the Interior to use his great influence to get the various centres to see this point of view before it is too late. I am not anxious to make a suggestion, but, as I have raised the matter, I would put forward the following: Let the main centres be at Johannesburg and Cape Town, where they have medical schools, with associated scientific and research departments, as at the universities, available for further research into the application of radium itself. All that we know so far is that radium does do good, but it is only by research that it can be ascertained how much good can be done. Today we stand only on the threshold. My further suggestion is two-fold (1) to assist the very poor sufferer by giving him free transport to the anti-cancer centre, and there either to cure him or ease his suffering; and (2) by assisting him, you give the radiologist the means to investigate and throw further light on the cure of cancer by radiology. Therefore I again appeal to the Minister to throw in his whole weight and influence into seeing that this child, which is hardly yet born, is guided along the right lines. If he does, he will, in the future, earn the undying gratitude of the people, even if now his intervention leads to his being misunderstood and, perhaps, blamed for interfering in this matter. With regard to Durban, that beautiful and progressive town has subscribed the large sum of £25,000, and the size of their town warrants it in having its own centre. Further, I believe that the money raised is a trust and cannot be spent outside Durban. My reason for mentioning only Cape Town and Johannesburg is because they are the only centres which have medical schools and the necessary associated scientific departments. I quite see the difficulty of Durban, and the hon. Minister would, no doubt, see his way to arranging for a third centre there.

I am very glad that the hon. member has mentioned this matter, because it brings us to a very important point in connection with our public health. The point is that for 20 years public health has come under various administrations, and in that way public health has suffered in many respects year after year, so that in respect of public health we have never had co-ordination, in order to make a great national service of it. Before going into the matter I want to make it clear to the House that with regard to radium and the treatment of cancer, it is just because it is a national matter, and because there are cancer patients in all parts of the country, it will be impossible to concentrate the treatment of cancer by radium in South Africa in two centres alone. I agree with the hon. member that it is such a big question that it is difficult to have more than one or two centres, but I feel just as strongly that the conditions in the country are such that we must conclude that it would be possible to have cheap centres in Cape Town and Johannesburg, but further to establish places as well, like Port Elizabeth, Durban and Bloemfontein, as subsidiary centres. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) made it quite clear that for the radium treatment of cancer, experts are required, pathological institutions, the necessary beds, a hospital and the necessary radium, and prevention appliances. The last mentioned appliances are not only to be obtained in Cape Town and Johannesburg, but also in Port Elizabeth and Durban; I do not think that Bloemfontein has the Rontgen rays. Port Elizabeth gets its pathological appliances from Johannesburg, from the Medical Bureau, while Durban has its own. The Port Elizabeth Hospital Board has already gone the length of making beds available. I think it advisable to have two cheap centres, Cape Town and Johannesburg, but I say that we must also bear the other sub-centres in mind. I know that the experts are speaking through my hon. member the member for Bredasdorp, and, therefore, I just want to make it clear to them that when they speak of free transport it will not lead to early treatment of cancer cases. Early treatment will not be advanced if the centres are far away from the sufferers. Every hundred miles that the sufferer is away from the centres makes it less probable of a case being treated early, and increases the number of inoperable cases that we get. I want to issue a warning to the experts. They are enthusiastic and, because they are experts, they have inspired a very great amount of hope into the hearts of the cancer patients; that is not only so in our country, but all over the world. It will lead to terrible disappointment if the sufferers subsequently learn that only 10 per cent, of the cases which cannot be treated by a surgeon can really ultimately be cured by radium. Therefore, I want to give the warning that we must not run away with the idea that radium can cure all cancer patients.

I made that clear.

Time after time sufferers have already been disappointed. When in 1888 Dr. Koch discovered the first tuberculin in Berlin thousands of sufferers hurried to Berlin to return disappointed, yet Dr. Koch was a great benefactor of mankind. I am, therefore, warning against the arousing of false hopes. Now I come to the point that what South Africa needs are cancer hospitals, because the ordinary hospitals cannot do the work effectively. I do not say that South Africa must have four or more fully installed cancer hospitals, but I do think that in one or two centres there should be institutions for far-advanced cases, which cannot be treated locally in another way, but that the cases of earlier cancer must go to the nearest centre. I feel that it is unjust to place the people of the Eastern Province and Natal in the position of not being able to get early treatment, because I know what the position is, and a man does not lightly travel 400 or 600 miles from home. The greatest transport will not bring the cases of early-discovered cancer sufficiently quickly under treatment, if there are one or two centres for treatment. I still hope that the experts will be satisfied with chief centres in Cape Town and Johannesburg, and subsidiary institutions in other places. If necessary let them be put under experts in the other centres as well. Then, however, I come to the point that, as my hon. friend said, the whole matter, according to law, has very little to do with the Minister of Public Health. According to the due of a medical head official, the services were first confided to the provincial administrations, but public health was not even mentioned. Only later was it decided that all the matters in that connection where it was not specifically provided that they should come under the provincial administration, should be a matter for the Union Government. In that way the existing position came about which is sad and regrettable. For 20 years no decision has been come to in this country, and I think the time has arrived finally to come to a decision now as to whom the public health services will fall under, not only with regard to radium treatment, but with regard to all the whole hospital services, etc.

This House and the country are greatly indebted to the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). By a strange coincidence only on the 31st of last month I received a letter from which I will read an extract dealing with the cost of radium—

I have also an extract from the Star to which I have referred. It is a report to the Johannesburg general hospital by Dr. Steuart, who is radiologist to the hospital. He says, in supporting the hon. member here, that about five people die from cancer in the Union every day on the average. He says that at present of every 10 persons born, one dies of cancer. He also refers to the price. He says that about five gramme are in hourly use throughout the year, the cost of each is between £50,000 and £60,000, and he says that pitchblende (the radium ore) can be obtained from south-west territory, and it is the duty of the Government to exploit it. Some years ago I asked the Minister whether it was not the duty of the Government to subscribe the amount required for the purpose, and the hon. the Minister said it was a provincial matter. A question was asked by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Williamson). He asked—

The hon. the Minister replied—

I think the Government would do a great service by telling us what they are doing in the matter. The question is dated August, 1929. This is a matter of the greatest importance, and if it is true that there are deposits of pitchblende in the south-west territory, we should see whether they can be worked, so that it may be possible to reduce the high cost of radium.

The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) should be complimented on having brought the matter before the House. It is, undoubtedly, a national question, and the speech was well prepared and well delivered. We should not quibble over his suggestions, and we should agree that it is not a question of provincial council control, but for this House to control. Referring to radiology, he said he did not think one doctor knew how radium should be used as a cure for cancer.

That is why I suggested team work.

While the hon. member may be correct, it would not be a good plan for us to enquire into it, seeing that according to the hon. member no doctor in the world is quite capable of using radium. What we ought to do is to ask the Minister to set aside a sum of money with which to send one or two young men in the research department to the Rockefeller Institute in America, and other institutions, to collect all the information possible. That should go a long way towards achieving the hon. member’s object. The Minister, however, should see that the services of these young men should be retained by the Government for a certain period after their return to South Africa. As to the value of radium as a cure for cancer, it is most unwise to raise false hopes. Subscriptions are being raised in Johannesburg and Cape Town for the purchase of radium, but I do not think that is the way to approach the matter. The Johannesburg subscription list was open for eighteen months, but the radium which was purchased with the money raised on the Rand did not arrive in South Africa until a few days ago. If radium is so valuable as a remedy for cancer, it should have been purchased immediately by the Government, and should have been imported at once. Mr. Hannen Swaffer has recently visited Denmark, and, referring to the hospitals there, he says that there is no charity and no degradation involved in receiving treatment in a public hospital. If you want a private room you pay 3s. or 4s. a day extra, otherwise all the hospital treatment is free. We should secure in future that we do not see these subscription lists going round, but the Government and the department should buy radium and send it to a certain centre. I quite agree with my hon. friend about the free transport, but we should secure that only by the way. I do not want to say for one moment that the research departments we have should keep out of it; let them carry on and do what they can, and let us also get and train men who will become specialists. A man died recently in the Rockefeller Institute who had lost his right arm and his hand and had to pay the penalty as far as his own frame was concerned for his research work. The matter is one of national importance, and that many people feel very much. Whether it is 10, 15 or 20 per cent, of the population, it is a matter of concern, and what matters most is that if it is only 10 per cent, these people are suffering from a very grievous disease. No pain is equal to it, and it is one which cannot be described and imagined by those who have not suffered from it. The hon. member should be complimented, and I am sure the Minister is going to give us some comfort and encouragement that as far as his department is concerned they are going to do all they can within reason so that we shall keep pace with the rest of the world.

I would like to associate myself with the previous speakers in complimenting the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) on having raised this question, and for the very able way in which he presented it. But the matter by its very nature is one of extreme difficulty on the floor of the House. There is no question, I think, that there are two things which are most essential in regard to this dreadful scourge of cancer. One is education, and the other is the question of concentration, to which the hon. gentleman referred. I understand that the one great drawback to radium is that it should be used at the earliest stage, at the very inception of the complaint; and there should be a certain amount of education, in the public press, and otherwise, to teach people to take notice of the symptoms showing that they are suffering from cancer. In Durban a most successful effort has been made in regard to obtaining subscriptions from the public. The total amount raised in Durban is, I think, approximately £25,000, and I am quite convinced that the people of Durban are sufficiently patriotic to agree to any arrangement that may be necessary with regard to centres of treatment. It has been suggested that these centres should be only Johannesburg and Cape Town, but I am not convinced but what some suggestion like that of the hon. gentleman opposite would not really be a better scheme. The difficulty which has arisen in Durban is that people there have subscribed to the fund on the understanding that it was to be used in the province of Natal. It is really a matter of a trust. Money has been subscribed in terms of a specific trust, and on the conditions I have indicated. To-day we are up against this great difficulty. We have the money, and we are prepared to purchase the radium, but there is no room at Addington Hospital, Durban, where operations can be carried out. The hospital is overcrowded, and cannot find accommodation for its ordinary cases. There is land adjoining, I understand. We are, however, in the position that while we have the money for the radium we have no money for putting up a building. The hospital itself has not the means, and has to get funds from the provincial council. The provincial council say they have not got sufficient money to enable them to put up a building. It does seem to me that this question of dealing with cancer is really a national one, and that some scheme should be devised for dealing with it on the lines suggested by the hon. member who introduced this question. I hope the Minister will not make a definite statement to-night. The Natal members propose waiting upon the Minister to discuss this question with him. I have endeavoured to explain our difficulties, so far as the service of the public is concerned. It has been raised specifically for the use of people in Natal. I do not see how we can consent to this sum of money being allocated to the national fund, but where it is so urgent, I think that some practical scheme should be possible, and I think, if the centres have to be limited, one of the centres should be Durban. If the Minister is not prepared, however, to assent to any particular national scheme, I hope he will take into consideration the question as to whether it is possible for him to give us a sum which will enable us to put up buildings and utilise the moneys subscribed for this purpose. I am sure there could be no more tragic case made out than the statement by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), as to the conditions that obtain in the platteland where poor people can neither get medical treatment nor have they the money to come to the large centres. In the large centres, if they cannot cure these unfortunate people, at least, they can afford them some measure of relief. The question is not a provincial question; it should be a national question. [Time limit.]

I now just want further to point out that the country has got into this pernicious position as the result of the divided control that exists, and it could not have come to the attention of the committee better than by the speech of the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), because he made a speech here on a matter which does not come under the Public Health Vote. If there is anything which shows us how this divided control stands in the way of development, and progress in this matter, then it is the speech the hon. member made here. Because it is a matter which so deeply affects the progress of our public health as a whole, it is so necessary to bring it to the notice of the Minister. The Public Health Board last year passed a resolution, and it is necessary to bring that resolution to the notice of the Committee and the public, not to the notice of the Minister, because he has it continuously before him. [Resolution read.]

The hon. member can discuss that point under public health.

I only referred to the amendment of the hon. member for Bredasdorp. If I had to confine myself to the radium treatment of cancer then I want to point out that the Department of Public Health has practically nothing to do with the matter, and that it is therefore time to draw the attention of the country to the existing divided control. The one authority says that it has not the money for the purpose, and the Minister says that, according to law, he has nothing to do with the matter.

I wish to associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Robinson). This is a national question. If the Minister will make a statement to-night it will be welcomed by thousands of people in the country. The time is overdue when the country should have a definite statement from the Minister as to what the Government’s policy is in treating cancer patients in South Africa. So far as Natal is concerned, a sum of approximately £25,000 has been subscribed. It has been subscribed for one purpose, for the purchase of radium for Natal. It was not subscribed for the purpose of erecting the necessary buildings in which patients could be treated. We would, therefore, like to know what the hon. Minister’s attitude will be in regard to making provision not only in Natal, but in the other provinces, for buildings in which radium can be used. Our difficulty in Natal is that there is no accommodation for the treating of patients with radium when it is purchased. There is no place where cases can be treated, and it is very important that we should know exactly what attitude the Minister will take up in regard to providing funds necessary to erect these buildings. I entirely agree that it is a national question, and should be dealt with on a national basis. I think the time is due when we should have a definite statement from the Minister as to exactly what the policy of the Government is. The Minister realizes there is a great deal of public opinion which is in favour of this movement, and which recognises the necessity of making this provision. Unless provision is made I do not know what will happen to the funds that have been subscribed. They cannot be given back to the subscribers, for they were given in special trust for the purchase of radium. I agree with the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) that we should send young people to the older countries where research work has been undertaken, so that they can collect information and co-ordinate it for use in this country. It should be disseminated throughout South Africa. I hope the Minister will be in a position to give the House a definite statement as to what his policy is on this very important subject.

I make an appeal to the Minister concerned in this matter. The position has arisen in Natal that a large sum of money has been subscribed for the purpose of purchasing radium for that province, but it can not be used because there is no suitable housing for it. I say that here is a splendid opportunity for the Minister to do a very fine patriotic act. The money is available, and some of the radium is purchased, but as yet it is not available for use because there is nowhere to house it, and to effect proper collaboration with a hospital. If the Minister will view this matter in a broad manner and appreciate that the people of Natal have subscribed very generously to this fund, and that it is therefore reasonable to ask the State to provide the necessary funds to find housing accommodation, he will be doing a very fine and patriotic thing.

The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) suggested in his otherwise well-reasoned speech that there should be only two radium centres—Cape Town and Johannesburg.

I also suggested Durban.

I suggest that there should be no fewer than three centres and Durban should be one of them. Natal has set a very high standard in this matter, and it would savour almost of discourtesy if that standard were not given an adequate recognition. It is singular that the Ulster of the Union is so often the Cinderella of the Union as well so far as the sister provinces are concerned. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) suggests a pathological institute, hospital beds, radium and a radium expert. Well, in Natal a pathological institute already exists, hospital beds, I trust, will be provided by the Minister, provision is being made for the supply of radium on a more generous scale, and a radium expert will be available when required. It will probably be necessary that three or four radium centres should be established in the Union, and, if necessary, they should be under the control of one man. I appeal to the Minister to treat this matter in a high, broad and generous manner and to adopt the standard of high endeavour set by Natal.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have fallen from my colleagues in regard to this matter, and to congratulate the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) on his manner in bringing forward a very difficult subject. All I can suggest to the Minister is that he will give serious consideration to the speeches which have been made, and I am quite sure that, if he gives the matter his serious consideration, a working arrangement can be arrived at to attain the object we have in view—to make use, as soon as possible, of the funds which have been collected, and use them to the very best advantage.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) made some very pertinent observations, and as he is one of the few medically trained men in the House, we must treat them with respect, for they carry some weight. Let me give the assurance that I was approached by nobody; not a single medical man approached me on the subject as suggested by him, with a view to my taking the matter up. What first started me on this was the appalling misery in my own district, the misery of some of my friends, and employees of my father. I then approached certain medical men for information. The views I have expressed are views of experts, further I have studied and read the matter up. I do not know anything about it other than what my medical informants have kindly given me and what I have read. Only when I asked medical men for certain information were they kind enough to give it, but I wish to deny most strongly that anybody approached me to speak or air their views. My whole object in suggesting two centres was because there are only two centres in South Africa where there are medical schools and associated scientific and research departments, and the men who can run them. With regard to Durban, hon. members for Natal did not wait to hear what I said before they got so excited. I said quite clearly that Durban, having shown greater philanthropy and patriotism than any other centre in subscribing £25,000. and further as the money had been subscribed and it was more or less a trust fund and could not be spent except in Natal itself, I thought a third centre there would be a good thing. Durban is certainly too far to go to from Johannesburg for treatment, and if they raise the money they will soon have the equipment. But I must warn this hon. House that once a departure is made from the course of only having centres where there are research departments and medical schools you will have the very trouble which I had hoped to avoid, viz., the dissipation of efforts, because then Port Elizabeth and Kimberley, etc., if they raise the money—will have the same right as Durban to want a centre of their own. Therefore once you start leaving the position I took up you have to bring in everybody else or give offence, and that is why I brought in only the two. I think the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) said that radium was not a cure. I entirely agree that they have not yet found a cure for cancer. We are still floundering in the dark, and we want to get the necessary apparatus and teamwork. Many cases might be cured provided that diagnosis was early enough and people might go to the nearest centre to have the disease diagnosed. Perhaps an extra centre would be an excellent thing. There is another point I would like to bring out; what the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) said rather made my case stronger—they have not the necessary beds or appliances for diagnostic work at Durban, and the amount collected cannot be spent on anything but radium. I think Durban—that progressive town—ought to have first consideration on a matter like that. I sincerely trust now that I have raised this question we can think the matter over. I wish to withdraw my motion, and I would rather wish to increase the Minister’s salary. I hope he will not give any definite statement to-night. I made my statement only that we can think the matter over. Let it be in abeyance, and let us think out what is best for South Africa.

With leave of the Committee, amendment withdrawn.

I think this matter ought to be discussed before we go on to minor matters. Personally, we would like to hear something from the Minister. We do not want a detailed statement as to policy, but a rough outline of what is in his mind. The effect on my mind is that the hon. member (Maj. van der Byl) was not setting up one place against another in rivalry, but that the matter was one on which we ought to concentrate our efforts. That it is most urgent, and that we should not dissipate our energies as appears to be done at present, is manifest—I don’t think the Minister’s salary would have any effect on the Minister’s opinion on the subject.

I think by saying a few words on this question I might dispose of the question as far as the discussion is concerned. I am very glad that one point has been made very clear by various speakers, namely, that this matter is definitely as the law stands now hot a Union concern, but a provincial concern. It has been generally recognised during the discussion that that is the case. If there should be any doubt in regard to this matter, I think that the doubt disappears when we think, in the first place, that what is being asked here, namely, the making of provision in the Union for treatment of cancer by means of radium, belongs to hospital equipment. It is an improvement of hospital equipment, and hospitals generally fall under the provincial administration. Another point is that cancer, though a very serious disease, cannot be classed amongst infectious diseases. Infectious diseases fall under Union Government, though the measures to be taken in the first instance must be taken by the local authorities; but the Union Government concerns itself with infectious and epidemic diseases, and not with ordinary disease. Cancer certainly cannot be classed as an infectious disease. These two considerations point to the fact that with this matter the provincial administrations have to do, and not the Union Government in the first instance. Certainly the position in the Union with regard to this matter is serious enough, but it becomes more serious when we think of the fact that, according to all the available figures, the disease has been on the increase. It has increased in successive years between 1912 and 1927 as follows: I quote here the deaths subscribed to cancer: 607, 622, 625, 717, 672, 772, 764, 811, 884, 916, 993, 1,127, 1,143, 1,099, 1,127 and 1,179. These are for Europeans.

Is it not contagious?

I do not think it is considered to be contagious.

Are not those increases due to improved diagnostic methods?

It is not diagnosis here. It is a report by medical practitioners in connection with the registration of deaths. That is the only information we have at present.

Don’t doctors ascribe deaths to cancer to-day which they would not have ascribed to cancer years ago?

That may be so. What has been asked for this afternoon is that this matter should not be considered and dealt with as a provincial matter, but as a matter of national concern. I don’t know whether hon. members realize to the full what this will involve financially. In the first place, if it becomes a Union concern, we must see to it that we have a proper radium supply, a radium fund. According to the estimate which has been made, the department will require, if we supply the centres which are agitating at present for the provision of a supply of radium, and where there are hospitals of, I should say, first-class importance, not less than £100,000. A sum of £100,000 is required for a proper supply of radium. Further, an hon. gentleman has pointed out this afternoon that the supply of the radium that is required is not the only thing that is necessary, and that even in a centre like Durban, where there are first-class hospitals, and where a sum of no less than £25,000 has been collected for this purpose, the great need is accommodation, a hospital where cancer patients can be treated. An appeal has been made to the Government this afternoon that the Government should provide Durban with such a hospital, and, by implication, all the other centres where a supply of radium is provided by the Government. That is not all. The hon. gentleman who has raised this question in the House this afternoon, has told us that provision will have to be made for a very large number of poor people from outlying parts of the country to come to these hospitals, that transport must be provided free by the Government. And not only that, but they must be maintained in the hospital of the particular centre to which they are sent. Another hon. gentleman has raised another point. We not only require the radium, but we also require an expert staff. We have not these people in the country, and the Government must provide the funds to send a number of people oversea to be trained there. Take all this together, and it will mean not £100,000, but several hundred thousand pounds. Before hon. gentlemen press this point to a decision, I think they must first of all realize what all this involves financially. There are several countries which have tackled this question in recent years, and made at least some move. First of all, we find that in England a commission has been appointed to go into the whole question, and they have made a recommendation. I don’t think anything has been carried out. They have recommended that radium should be supplied by the central Government. They have merely gone so far as to say that the Government should subsidize the provision by local authorities or hospital boards of radium supply on the pound for pound principle. I don’t think that this recommendation has even yet been adopted. It has not gone further than investigation and report, so far as I know. There is one other country that has gone a good deal further, and that is Australia. Australia’s position is more or less similar to that of South Africa because they have their various states more or less similar to our provincial administration. Their hospitals fall under the state government, but the central Government there has provided a fund for acquiring an adequate supply of radium for the most important hospitals in Australia. They have provided the money and have entrusted that radium fund to what they call a central radium bank. As I said previously, this whole question is not, as the law stands to-day, a union concern but a provincial responsibility. I should say that, before the Union Government makes a move in the direction which has been pointed out by various hon. members, surely the provincial administration, whose responsibility this matter is, should at least be consulted, and, what is more, I should say if they are not willing or able to shoulder their responsibility they should in the first instance approach the Union Government to come to their assistance; but nothing has been done so far as I know. No request has come to me from any provincial administration that the Union should shoulder the whole or any part of the responsibility. On the contrary, we find that the Transvaal Provincial Administration has contributed £1,000 to the fund they hace raised in the Transvaal to provide the Johannesburg Hospital with an adequate supply of radium. £1,000 only out of £14,000 they require has been provided by the provincial administration. I may also say here in reply to a remark made by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) that something has been done usefully under the existing system for the training of expert staff overseas. The Johannesburg Hospital Board has actually sent overseas Dr. Stuart and the Cape Town Hospital Board has sent Dr. van Rooyen to be further trained there in connection with this matter. The other question that has been raised here and I think hon. members have concentrated on this, is the question as to whether radium treatment should be concentrated more particularly in the two centres mentioned, Capetown and Johannesburg, or whether we should encourage other centres also to provide radium treatment in their hospitals in the same way for treating patients there. All I can say in connection with this matter is this, that it must be clear to everyone that we cannot have everything at once; we cannot actually carry out our ideal—if we have such an ideal in this respect—all at once. If we are going ultimately to have radium treatment in Capetown and Johannesburg and Durban and Port Elizabeth and Kimberley and Bloemfontein, we cannot have it all at once and we must go slowly. We must first of all equip adequately two or at most three hospitals before we go any further. Now, as to what the Government is going to do in connection with this matter, I am not prepared to-night to say. That is a matter which, before any announcement can be made, will have to be considered. The Government has in the past come to the assistance of provincial administrations in connection with the carrying out of some of their functions which they could not themselves adequately carry out; which they felt was beyond their powers. Take for instance the question of roads; on two different occasions the central Government stepped in and made a present, so to speak, to the provincial administration of a certain sum of money for making better provision in connection with roads. We cannot therefore say it is out of the question that it should step in in a case like this and come to the assistance of the provincial administration. But when the Government stepped in in connection with roads, it gave that assistance in this way; it gave to the provincial administrations a share in the surplus that we had for that particular year on our administration. Now if we were in the same strong financial position, I would not hesitate for a single moment to say that, personally, I think that, much as the central Government should step in and assist the provincial administration for the provision of good roads in the country, so much good reason is there for the Government to come to the assistance of the provincial administrations in a matter like this. But we must not forget that the Union is not is a strong financial position and therefore the provision of money as asked for—a great sum of money such as is required in this connection —is a matter requiring a great deal of consideration on the part of the Government and and of this House.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister what is his policy in regard to plague.

That question can be discussed under public health.

I understood we were discussing a motion to reduce the Minister’s salary.

That has been withdrawn.

I understand your ruling is that this can only be discussed under public health. Unfortunately I will not be here. I would therefore move—

in order that I may discuss this matter.

On what specific point?

I would like the Minister to tell us what is his policy in regard to plague, which unfortunately seems to be becoming endemic in this country. I would like to call attention to some anomalies. We are spending some £3,500 on the eradication of plague, while we are spending £160,000 on the eradication of diseases amongst animals. Only £3,500 is being spent on the eradication of an exceedingly dangerous human disease. That certainly seems to be an anomaly. This plague seems to be spreading its tentacles right throughout the country, and the hon. Minister has on the estimates a paltry sum of £3,500 for combating plague throughout the Union. We have had now several hundreds of fatalities as the direct result of plague. It seems to me that our policy is to pay far more attention to animal diseases than to the human animal. Apparently, the former are more important. The Free State, the Western Transvaal and other parts of the country, are becoming more and more perturbed at the alarming spread of plague. I ask the hon. Minister, therefore, to tell us exactly what has been done. To me it is an extraordinary state of affairs that that there is only a sum of £3,500 on the estimates for combating this fell disease, while I see for eradicating citrus canker in connection with those unfortunate sour oranges which the Minister will export to Europe, we are spending £6,000 a year to eradicate the specks and blobs of citrus canker. I think there is something radically wrong, and I think it is due to the Minister to explain to the country exactly what he is doing. I can tell the Minister that things are becoming very bad in the Free State, and in Heilbron. Are fatalities on the increase during the warm season?

I do not rise so much to lay down or to explain the definite policy of the Government in regard to this matter, but I shall be very glad to be advised on any policy by any hon. members who are in a position to do so.

We are not medical men.

First of all, I will explain what the present position is. During the past year the position in regard to plague has not been so bad as it was in some previous years. The investigation which is continualy going on, has shown that the plague has not spread during the course of this year among the rodents further than the plague existed during the previous year.

When did the plague start in this country?

During the Boer War at Port Elizabeth.

It was quiescent for many years, I think.

No, it was not quiescent, but the Karoo was not very favourable to the spread of the disease. There are not many rodents in the Karoo district, but when it passed right through the Karoo and came to the Free State, in the grain producing areas, it became very serious all the time it was in the country. The worst outbreak during the past year was, as the hon. gentleman correctly mentioned, in the Heilbron district. There have been this year 63 cases, including five Europeans. There have been 31 deaths, all natives. Further there was a serious outbreak in the neighbourhood of Vereeniging. There were two or three European fatalities and 9 native cases, 4 being fatal.

What is the total death roll for the year?

I think more or less I am including the whole year. There has been an outbreak at Daniels Kuil in the Barkly West district. It was not the bubonic type but the pneumonic type which is much more dangerous. Fortunately it was confined to one farm. There were 7 European cases, unfortunately all of them fatal. Other cases occurred but they were of a sporadic nature. For instance at Britstown, Carnarvon, there were some cases. Some years ago we sent from South Africa one of our leading medical men who has been of great assistance to us on the Council of Public Health, mainly, Dr. Porter, medical officer of health in Johannesburg. We sent him overseas, more especially to visit those countries which had been subject to the plague for many years, to find out exactly what is being done there, and to see whether we could benefit by the experience. We sent him to British India, to California and to other places. He came back and he reported that the Governments of those various countries have practically, so to say, thrown up the sponge because it is realised that you cannot eradicate plague unless you exterminate the rodent, and to exterminate the rodent altogether was practically impossible. The best that could be done was to keep down the rodent, and thereby to keep down the danger of infection from plague. That is the only policy we are following at present in regard to this matter. I may just here say that in the Free State, in the northern Free State, at Heilbron especially, there was a serious outbreak of plague this year. We have had very enthusiastic and very valuable assistance from the farmers. We sent out Dr. Fourie, one of our assistant health officers, to organize the farmers. They came forward quite voluntarily, and a good deal there has been done to exterminate the rodents. That has been done and it has been a very great help in keeping down plague, not only during this year, but we hope also, to a large extent, for the future. I may say that there is one element which is very hopeful. It is this. The plague infects human beings. We have also in this country a disease affecting rodents only. It is the so-called “darak” disease, and it kills off rodents by the thousand. There has been an outbreak of this particular rodent plague confined to rodents at Beaufort West and the neighbourhood during this year.

Can you separate the two diseases bacteriologically?

Yes, they are quite distinct. This matter has been investigated now by the expert, and by the Institute of Medical Research in Johannesburg, and we hope that some day we may go so far as to be able to spread this disease amongst rodents generally in the country.

I should like to refer to the matter of cancer again. I am not at all satisfied with the reply of the hon. Minister as to the Government’s policy. The hon. Minister said the whole matter pointed to it being a provincial council matter and not a Union matter. On the contrary, in my opinion it points to the necessity of the hospitals and public health, as one subject, being under the Union Government. That is what it points to. It is quite clear that the provincial councils are not able to handle this subject. Mental hospitals, mental defectives, leprosy, venereal diseases and tuberculosis all come under the central Government which should also take over the whole matter of public health instead of leaving it to the provincial councils and town councils. In fact everybody seems to have a finger in the pie. Reference has been made to the Australian states in this matter, but the states of the Commonwealth are self-governing, with the exception of certain subjects specifically reserved to the central government. I do not think any country such as ours handles the subject of public health from the provincial point of view. The statement of the Minister in regard to the expense of cancer and radium research is another argument in favour of Government taking over the matter, as none of the provincial governments has the means of tackling the problem adequately. That is the reason why no provincial council has yet tried to deal with the matter. Provincial councils do not know where they are to get the money to provide for their present necessities, and therefore they are not looking round to find some other means of spending money. The whole of the Minister’s arguments leads one to the conclusion that the Union Government must carry the burden—there is no other way open.

Next year we shall be told not to spend so much money.

We ask you not to waste money. You will save money by concentrating on this matter, but you will waste money by giving four provincial councils an opportunity of doing the work badly in each of the provinces. It will be very much more effective and economical for the Minister of Public Health to spend the money in his own department—that is the only satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

I think the Minister’s head is already itching to-night and he does not know where to scratch because day after day attacks are made on him about the increase in expenditure, viz., £6,000,000 since 1925. Then they come again to-day, and member after member asks for more and more expenditure. One would expect hon. members to be consistent, and if they advocate more expenditure, they must not, on the other hand, say that the expenditure is increasing so much.

In the beginning of March a circular was issued by the Secretary to the Interior informing each departmental head that the General Manager of the Railways had under consideration the question of revising the regulations governing the granting of railway concessions to public servants. The circular stated that “Many irregularities have come to light regarding the issue of certificates by departments.” The only persons who were entitled to railway concession tickets were those coming within a definition in the Public Service Act, and this definition excluded all persons filling unclassified posts. I understand that, as a result of the circular, 7,000 civil servants will lose the concession they have hitherto enjoyed. These men have been in the service from three to sixteen years and as a result of the circular, they will no longer be able to travel on the railways at civil service concession rates. It seems to me to be a very arbitrary and very extraordinary action for any department to take in a matter of this nature. How many other regulations I should like to know have not strictly been adhered to? Why this sudden change of policy?

The House listened with interest to the explanation given by the Minister of the plague position, but while we appreciate the difficulties he referred to, I hardly think his statement is very reassuring. He appears to be adopting a “non possumus” attitude, but if as many animals had died from some mysterious disease as people have died from plague in the Union in the last 12 months, we should have heard a great deal more about it. The Minister should do something towards reassuring the country. I understand that in California, India and West Africa, where the disease is endemic, it is agreed that it cannot completely be eradicated; but nevertheless the Governments spare no efforts to keep down the number of rodents, and their efforts have so far succeeded that in California the incidence of the plague is so light that it is no longer a menace. I hope the Minister will tell the country that owing to the measures which have been taken and are still to be taken he believes that although the disease may be endemic, its incidence will be very slight. I think the public will get an exaggerated idea of the disease if the Minister is not able to tell us more than he has been able to do. I presume a mierkat is a rodent.

I want to ask the Minister to give us some information with regard to the repatriation of Indians. I have reason to believe, from what I have seen in the papers, that the hopes held at one time that there would be a steady stream of repatriation, will not be realized, and that the stream has virtually dried up. I see we have a fairly substantial amount down on the estimates in this regard. I see under G1 a vote for a Government translator at a salary of £962. According to what I see in the papers, that appointment has been given to some gentleman who was a schoolmaster. What I want to ask the Minister is, was this post advertized? I see an item down for the census, £44,000 altogether. I believe the census is due next year, and has his department an eye on the position which will be created if the Bill, whose third reading we passed last Friday, becomes law, as we have hopes it will? The electorate will be more than doubled.

I want to mention just one aspect of this plague matter to the Minister. It seems to me that, in order to satisfy the public—there appears to be a demand for it— I think it might be well if we could consult other parts of the world with regard to this question; it would reassure the country to know that we have probably a good deal to teach the world in this matter. There have been advances made in research in this country, which is expensive, costing thousands of pounds, which are not represented in the £3,000. A great deal has been done in the way of research and discovery, and this De Aar disease, which was proved to be a separate disease, was discovered simultaneously in two laboratories in South Africa, showing again what valuable work is being done here. That disease may help us a great deal in the eradication of rodents. We could not have learnt that from any other part of the world. I do maintain that California and the Dutch East Indies also have something to teach us, and we can gain something by consultation with those parts of the world where plague does occur, provided we do not incur a large expenditure, because we know of the necessity for economy. The work done and achievements made have been as great here, if not greater than those done in other parts of the world. We know the difficulty is the wide expanse of the country, and of making houses, rodent-proof. The great difficulty is the native population, who do not live in rodent-proof houses.

There are one or two matters here to which I wish to draw attention. With regard to Indian repatriation, it looks as if the stream is abating. There is also the registration of voters, which has increased from £6,000 to £22,000. It has been said that this is an intelligent anticipation of the women’s vote. I see there is an increase of £3,478 in regard to payments to temporary clerical assistants and so forth. What is the exact position just now, with regard to the housing of the archives? I believe something has been done, and, if so, I hope the Minister will give us something reassuring. I am afraid our archives are getting into rather a bad position through indifferent housing.

I do not like to intervene in these matters, but feel constrained to do so because of the important things referred to, which seem to warrant considerable attention. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) that a certain circular has been issued notifying that certain railway concessions have been withdrawn, it will be noticed that these withdrawals are not with reference to the highly-paid sections of the public service, but with reference to the poor unfortunates who, though in State employ, find they are hard put to come out. I was rather surprised to hear about that circular, because I know personally the Minister of the Interior is not in love with the withdrawal of concessions from the lower-paid public servants. It is worthy of note, and realizing the contrasts that your higher paid man and woman in the public service still have retained to them their railway travelling concessions, while the poor unfortunate man at the bottom of the ladder has had them withdrawn. It is a particularly mean action. I am not accusing the Minister of being mean but it does seem a particularly mean action on the part of someone which withdraws from the poor subordinate the little that he has while the man who is further up retains it. There is this other point, which to me is a matter of extreme importance, the question of the treatment of cancer. I am not going to express myself as dissatisfied with the Minister’s answer. That would be ungracious, but I do say that the matter has got to have considerably more attention given to it. In the first place, with regard to the question raised, that in these matters, and the matter of plague, and so forth, it is desirable that our Government should get into touch with the other governments in the world. Whether radium is a cure or whether it is a haphazard method of cure or alleviating the sufferings of those afflicted with this disease, we are faced with this position, that the Minister has told us “Be careful, because it will run into several hundreds of thousands of pounds.” That is a confession that leads me keenly to urge upon the Government the desirability of getting into touch with other governments of the world, with a view to removing the commercial control of the production and distribution of radium, holding the sick up to ransom. If all the governments get together, realizing that this is of burning interest to the whole world, I feel certain they will determine ultimately to remove radium from commercial control. Here is our Government, after five or six surpluses, saying “We cannot do anything, because we have not got the money. It will cost several hundreds of thousands of pounds.” May I draw attention to the fact that in our estimates we are asked to provide over £500,000 for the feeble minded. Not for one moment do I begrudge any of that money, but if we can afford over £500,000 for the care of the feeble minded surely we can afford more than £100,000 to try to cure the unfortunate people who are suffering from cancer. This is not a fit subject for exploitation. Therefore the Government should get in touch with the other governments in the world, and supposing in the ultimate they have to pay large sums even then I say that the expenditure is warranted in view of the alarming increase of the disease shown by the Minister. It does not matter whether to-day’s people are written down to-day as having died from cancer who would not have been so written down years ago. The fact remains that, as far as we know, our statistics show that there are considerably more deaths from cancer than ever before. It is the same all over the world. Surely it is the business of the Union Government, and I ask the Minister not to say that this is a provincial matter when the provinces have been deprived of the opportunity of raising money. It is beyond them; their sources of financial supply are so limited that they cannot possibly deal with a question like this. It is going to cost an enormous sum for equipment. The time must arrive and it is not far distant when the State will have to take over provision for hospitals and treatment of the sick. This is peculiarly a matter for State control and State ownership. How many unfortunate women and children have had to die because they could not possibly afford the necessary medical attention and hospital accommodation. That is true not only of this country, but of every country in the world except Denmark where they have hospitals and medical services under the State free for all the people. Sneering at these suggestions will not carry us anywhere. It will be brought home to you before very long that all your medical services will have to be provided by the State.

I would like to point out that the figures mentioned by the Minister are for Europeans only, whose deaths have been certified. The disease is frequent among non-Europeans as well, so that the matter is far more serious than would appear from these figures. I feel rather encouraged by the reply which the Minister gave to the proposal of the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). I understand him to admit that the case for the intervention of the Central Government has been established and the Minister quoted the case of Australia as a precedent, and said that if the Exchequer were all that he would like to see it, he would not hesitate to make the necessary recommendations. That is encouraging. I want to put him right, however, with regard to one statement, which he has made which I do not think should go uncorrected. The Minister said he had had no application made to him from the provinces in respect to this matter. I would like to say that every hon. member from Natal went as a solid deputation to wait upon the medical officer of health, and the matter was laid before him.

That was not the provincial administration.

Well, we considered ourselves a fairly representative deputation, and I think the Minister may take it that Natal opinion was pretty accurately represented. It appears to be a misunderstanding. We did make representations and the Medical Officer of Health said he would put the matter before the Minister. I do not know whether he did so or not, but I presume he did. I wanted to put that on record because the people of Natal, reading the Minister’s statement, might imagine we had let the matter go by default, In the interview we had with the Medical Officer of Health we laid the matter before him to be dealt with at the proper time; and I have no doubt that the hon. Minister will conduct an enquiry as to the methods to be adopted as soon as possible in order that the first step may be taken to tackle this very important matter. It does not necessitate the spending of a vast sum of money in one year; the amount may be spread over a period of a number of years, but a start should be made as soon as possible.

I want to clear up a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) said that I contradicted myself over a very important matter in saying that no one man was in possession of all this knowledge. After giving details of what knowledge was required, I said that there was no one man with all this knowledge, and therefore you must have team work: the bacteriologist, radiologist and surgeon working together. I want to take the opportunity of thanking the Minister for what he said. I purposely stated that I knew it was not under provincial control, and that I hoped he would co-operate with the provincial councils in the matter. I did not suggest that the money should be found by Union funds. I purposely left out the question of funds as I did not want to start a controversy or acrimonious discussion because we must try to get these people to work together in order to secure concentration of anti-cancer centres.

I want to refer to a matter which is causing a good deal of trouble in Cape Town. Two years ago the Minister concentrated all the officials for the registration of births, marriages and deaths in Pretoria. We understood that no extra inconvenience or trouble would be caused to the public by the change. But I understand that it has caused not only a lot of inconvenience but a good deal of loss to many people who cannot afford it. On the provision of a certificate of registration of death depends the payment of insurance money, and when there is delay the money cannot be got with promptness, due to the way in which the office is being run in Pretoria. There is either too much work or there is somebody wanted who can introduce some method into the office, or there is a lack of appreciation of the necessity of attending to these matters promptly. I have taken examples of the time occupied in obtaining a marriage or death certificate from Pretoria. In one case which I will call “A” the date of death is 24th December, 1929. The first application by the solicitor was made on the 13th January and acknowledged on the 18th. The second application was made on the 6th February, the third on the 17th and the fourth on the 21st of February. On the 12th February the department wrote a letter stating that they could not trace the application. Finally a fifth application was made on the 24th February and a sixth application was made on the 25th February; that is to say it took six weeks to reach only partial finality in the matter. In the second case which I will call “B” the date of death was the 4th August, 1928. The first application was made on the 27th of September, and the second application on the 26th October. A letter from the department forwarding the certificate was received on the 2nd of November, five weeks after application had been made. There is a curious feature in this case. The solicitor wrote a letter to Scotland at the same time about this matter and received a reply from Scotland on the 16th of October. Therefore you can get a reply from Scotland quicker than you can get a reply from Pretoria. Here is another case. The death occurred on July 13th, 1929. The first application was made on the 9th September, the second application on the 24th September, and the third on the 22nd October. A reply was received from the department asking for 1s. search fee on the 2nd November. The fourth application was on the 7th November. That took two months. I will give one more case. It is of a marriage certificate. The first application was made on the 18th July, 1929, the second on the 14th August, the third on the 27th August, A letter was received from the department dated the 26th August. It took them over a month before they even got on their hind legs. The fourth application was on the 28th August. Then they got a letter from the department asking for the usual shilling extra search fee. They get 2s. 6d. to start with. They hold the application for a month and then they ask for another shilling search fee! The letter was dated the 17th September, that is two months after the first application. The fifth application was on the 23rd September, that is eight weeks before they got the marriage certificate. I do not make these remarks captiously. The matter is a very serious one. The lawyers are held up for want of the certificates and there does not seem to be any hope of getting them from the department. Either the concentration has been too much for the staff, or the concentration has been unsatisfactory. We criticized these matters when the Minister removed the local offices. We told him of the trouble likely to occur and we were assured there would be no trouble. The results have proved that we were absolutely right. It is not only the extra work that is put upon the legal fraternity, but there is actual loss owing to people not being able to get money and having to wait for these certificates. I ask for a special enquiry to be made in the department to see if the matter cannot be remedied.

I would like to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to the repatriation of Asiatics. I notice on the estimates that the amount has been reduced from £70,000 to £55,000. Can the Minister say whether the £70,000 last year on the estimates was fully exhausted, or whether there was a saving on that vote? I also want to know what the reason is of the reduction in the amount which is put upon the estimates. Is it correct that the number of Asiatics who are now voluntarily allowing themselves to be repatriated has fallen considerably? Can the Minister also say how many Asiatics have come back under the agreement? Is it correct that the conditions in India are not at all satisfactory, and are the statements we see in the newspapers correct that there is an intensive propaganda going on in Natal by Asiatics to stop their compatriots leaving the country owing to the unsatisfactory conditions in India? I think the Minister should give us a full statement as to the position because it appears to be unsatisfactory, and I should like him to say whether, if this continues, he will review the agreement or whether, if repatriation stops, the agreement will be cancelled. Can the Minister tell us how long the agreement has to run, or whether it goes on indefinitely? If the repatriation stops, does the agreement continue notwithstanding? From the information I have received in the last few months, few Indians have offered themselves to be repatriated. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if that is so. Can the Minister also say whether the saturation point has now been arrived at when no more Asiatics will leave the country?

My hon. friend the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) referred to the commercial position of radium. I think it is only right that this House should know, and the country should know, that radium to-day is controlled by a Belgian corporation. It is controlled by a Belgian concern who, since it realized that radium can do all the things claimed for it, has put up the price of radium, I understand, 80 per cent. They have put up that price and this country and other countries are finding money to send to Belgium to buy radium at this profiteering price. Now this is not a point one would choose to raise so much as when we realize that we have so many of our poor people in this country who are paying their 2s. 6d. or 10s. or £1 and think the money is going to buy something that is going to give them relief. That is, that in the negative sense that they have been told that they can help to get these cures from this particular product. The very fact that the Minister himself and his department are not prepared to make a statement in regard to radium treatment is sufficient indication that neither the Minister nor his medical advisers are prepared to say it is essential in the treatment of cancer. We are concerned to this extent. We have reached the stage when individual doctors and other professors say one thing and others say another. Sometimes it is a case of medical illusions and sometimes of medical delusions. These are affected in the negative sense. People believe that radium is such a wonderful thing and is able to do all the things that is claimed for it.

Ten per cent, of cures.

My hon. medical friend says “Ten per cent, of cures.” I can only again say to my hon. medical friend that he also knows that the question of diagnosis is a very questionable one. It is questionable in the early stages. It must be questionable in the early stages. My hon. friend knows it as well as I know it.

If you make an examination, you are quite certain.

My hon. friend is a fairly young member of the medical profession, and he will remember it is only a short period of years that we were told that there is only one cure for cancer, and that is to find a germ which will kill the cancer germ. In other words, the policy of investigation and research is the policy that has been successful in other diseases that the human body suffers from, with three exceptions. The three exceptions are cancer, diabetes and Bright’s disease. These three diseases are classed as incurable diseases. Every disease has been approached from the point of view of setting one microbe to equalize the other or to kill it. My hon. friend shakes his head. That does not matter to me because he can have his own point of view, and I can have mine. I do not suggest it applies to whooping cough or measles. I am dealing with serious diseases.

What about leprosy?

I accept the correction. There are four diseases including leprosy. Does the hon. member say that excluding all minor diseases, you approach the question of curing diphtheria, tuberculosis and other serious diseases by means of serum? Up to now all successful research and attempts to destroy disease have been along the lines suggested by my hon. friend—we put one germ in to fight another. Now, however, we are told that we ought to go in for a policy of using radium as a cure. As to the commercial side of the matter, it is high time that the Minister and his medical officers should also become a little bit commercial. We are to-day in the hands of a commercial corporation making a huge profit of the sale of radium.

We have no control over it,

I agree. But we have a permanent committee of the League of Nations which controls the distribution of opium, cocaine and other habit-forming drugs, but when it comes to radium, nothing is said on the subject. A Belgian corporation has the control of this wonderful matter, but it has no right to make a penny out of its disposal. The Minister should have that point placed before the League of Nations. This point of view has been expressed in medical journals in England and America—that this little nation of Belgium is blackmailing the world in regard to radium.

I should like to refer to the increase of expenditure under the immigration vote. During the last week or two we have passed a very drastic immigration Act, and as every immigrant must have a passport, and, as a check on the entry of immigrants is therefore exercised on the other side of the water, what necessity is there for increasing the number of immigration officials, and also for doubling the general expenses? It is true these estimates were drawn up three or four months ago, probably before the Minister had made up his mind to press forward the Immigration Act, but surely now there is no necessity for this increased expenditure.

We gather from the Minister that the use of radium is considered a provincial matter, but there is a responsibility on the central Government of imparting information to people, and thereby encourage them to go to their medical advisers because of knowledge to detect symptoms. The Minister should go into this subject and see whether people cannot be educated so that they may know when they should seek medical advice. It has been proved that most of the deaths from cancer have been the result of neglect to attempt to check the ravages of the disease when in its earlier stages.

Every man is his own doctor.

Yes, from the point of view of being fortified with a certain amount of knowledge. Everyone should have a certain amount of gumption in going to the doctor at the proper time.

I wish to refer to the immigration forms we are asked to sign on board ship when we return to our own country. I returned a few weeks ago from England, and was given one of these forms to fill, and if I had been facetious, I might have given amusing answers to all the questions on the form; for instance, I was asked why I was coming to South Africa, details of my occupation and means of livelihood, how much money I could produce, what European languages I spoke and wrote, had I ever been restricted, been guilty of any crime, or was I suffering from tuberculosis. I could have answered all these questions in the affirmative and the Munster must have allowed me to come in. For a South African there ought to be a blank on this sheet saying that if you are a South African, fill in the following and be done with it. It is absurd every time we come into our own country to be asked if we can produce £50. We can be convicted for everything up to murder and not kept out of our country, this form should not be applicable to South Africans returning to their own country. It is a minor point, but it would be much pleasanter to us when we came back to our homeland not to be pestered with all these questions.

This form about which the hon. member complains has been in use almost for generations. It is nothing new—it is not something produced by this wicked Government. Another point he made which I wish to correct is that a certain gentleman to whom he referred did not win his case against the Government; he won it in the magistrate’s court, but on appeal he lost it.

Did he sign?

He did not.

Did you turn him out?

No.

You could not.

No, we could not, unfortunately. I know there is a grievance in connection with the form, and the form is unnecessarily complicated. For that reason, I am going into that question now, and am busy altering the form to be filled in by South Africans. Another question was asked in connection with immigration—the increase in the number of the new guards employed at the docks. The reason is now that the work is not done by the police, they have been withdrawn, and we have to make other arrangements. It figures on the vote of the Department of the Interior, because the police officials have been displaced by officials of the Department of the Interior, The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raised another point in connection with the registration of births, marriages and deaths in Pretoria and complained there had been a good deal of delay in getting certificates from Pretoria. If there is unnecessary delay, and there is good ground for complaint, I will go into the matter and see it does not recur in the future if it can be helped. That is not inherent in the fact that the registration is in Pretoria. If the hon. member will investigate it, he will find that such delays were probably very common before that change was made and we had the office here in Cape Town. As far as the Cape Town office itself is concerned, and local registration, no change has been made; but only as it affects areas outside Cape Town, the registration has been moved to Pretoria. We are effecting economies by that, and the number of officials affected amounts to only four or five. A question was asked by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) about the housing of the archives; this is a matter he should raise when dealing with the loan estimates and not the ordinary estimates. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in connection with the repatriation of Indians asked some questions which were also asked by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). Under the new scheme, as the result of the agreement with the Government of India, in 1927 for five months, since the beginning of August, the number was 1,677; in 1928 it was 3,489 and in 1929 1,336, so in all it is 6,502. Hon. members will see there has been a remarkable falling off in the figures for 1929. I think the rate of repatriation was maintained during 1928, but fell off in 1929, especially during the latter part of the year. In March last it increased rapidly again.

That is an accumulation; these people are waiting for a boat.

I hardly think so. If we look at the figures for various months during the year we and they vary very considerably from month to month. Very often during the monsoon period they do not like to emigrate, and very often it depends on conditions of employment in the country; during the sugar cane cutting season there is more employment in Natal; but there is no doubt about it on the part of a certain section of the Indian community there has been a growing hostility to the assisted emigration scheme and there has been a great deal of propaganda against it which has certainly affected the position. All sorts of rumours have been spread by Indians who are themselves hostile to this scheme, as to the way that repatriates are being treated by the Government of India when they arrive on the other side and the conditions under which they are being sent by the Union Government. I can only say the whole position with regard to the falling off in numbers has been reported by me to the Government of India, and I am glad to say that Government has given its very serious attention to this matter; according to the latest report I have received, a specially appointed officer is to go into the whole question and report to them, and then they will get into communication with us. So I think it is premature now to discuss this whole question, and I think it is much better to await the communications which we expect from the Government of India in regard to this matter.

What truth is there in the story that these Indians are treated so badly when they get back to India?

That is a matter which the Government of India is going into now, and they will report to us.

How many of the repatriated Indians have returned?

I think the figure was 40 out of a total number of 7,000. In connection with the post of translator, concerning which a question has been asked whether the post was advertised or not, I may say that I cannot state whether it was advertised of not. This is a post with regard to which we got a recommendation. The Public Service Commission sometimes advertises a post. What has been done in this case is that some person who is in a position to make a recommendation has been approached. Here we wanted an expert in Afrikaans, and the most likely thing for the Public Service Commission to do, and I think they did it in this case, was to approach a man like Professor Smith, who trains students, and who is in a position to know. Other persons have also been consulted, and as a result of these consultations the appointment was made. It is certainly better than advertising in such cases. With regard to the arrangements for the registration of women voters, of course we could not make any provision on the present estimates for that because it is not law yet. If the Bill passes both Houses of Parliament and becomes law then the women will be registered at the next biennial registration. Provision for that biennial registration, which will be next year, beginning in January, will remain on the estimates.

So they will be on the roll on the 31st August, 1931?

Yes, additional provision will have to be made, but that will be dealt with in the ordinary way. The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) has asked for further information as to the policy of the Government in connection with plague. Perhaps I have not been complete enough in my reply. I will just briefly say that there is a continual propaganda among all those interested on the part of the Government, to teach them what to do, especially in connection with the extermination of rodents. We are very glad that we get the very hearty co-operation of the farmers. Further, we try as much as possible to keep away the plague, as far as rodents are affected, from urban areas, or the thickly populated parts of the country, because there the position is the most dangerous. For that purpose we form what are called fire belts, strips of country where we specially have people to exterminate all rodents. We have got such a belt along the Olifants River to keep infection away from the Malmesbury district, which is grain producing, and very favourable for the spread of the disease, and so to keep the disease away from Cape Town. Such a belt we have in the neighbourhood of Ceres. In other parts of the country it is impossible to have such fire belts. We tried it in the Free State, but without any success. Of course the most effective policy is what is generally called building out the rat, and to make stores where foodstuffs are kept rat-proof.

Is it not the meercat which is the real culprit?

Yes, the meercat, too. We have regulations with regard to these provisions, and I think the municipalities, generally speaking, are trying to carry out these regulations. They can be carried out in connection with new buildings. It is very difficult to carry them out in connection with old buildings. There is just one other point, raised by several hon. members, and that is in connection with a circular sent by the department to a certain section of public servants in connection with railway concessions. I may say that this circular was sent by the Department of the Interior for the very apparent reason that the Department of Railways cannot communicate directly with public servants. It must be done through another department, and so really this circular is the circular of the railway administration, but it was sent to that section of public servants mentioned through the Department of the Interior. That was how the Department of the Interior came to deal with it. The great point in this circular is this. Concessions were made by the Department of Railways to public servants but they point out now that, according to the Public Servants Act of 1923, these unclassified public servants are not public servants in the ordinary sense of the word. They say, looking at the definition, these persons occupying unclassified posts are not public servants.

They are temporarily employed?

Yes, but I may say that I referred this matter back on behalf of the public service. I have not yet received a reply, but the matter is before the Railway Board.

In connection with the last point, I take it that it is not in the discretion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to decide what is the correct interpretation of the Public Service Act. Surely it is a matter for the Minister of the Interior. It is a question whether these are classified or unclassified public servants. That is a matter for the Department of the Interior. As the Minister is going into the matter, I hope he will be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice that the rodents are affected with rabies. Last year two children were bitten in the western Transvaal by rodents and in fourteen days they were both dead. Is anything being done in that direction to find out what the animals are infected with? It seems to us farmers in the western Transvaal that the rodents have rabies. The farmers’ associaitions would like to support the Minister in any action to eradicate those animals. We also think that those animals carry the bubonic plague; they go into the holes where the mice and rats are, and I think that if the Minister will do something in co-operation with the farmers to eradicate the rodents he will do a great deal to get rid of the plague, and of the increase in rabies.

I should like to revert to a point which was mentioned by the Minister in the course of his reply. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) asked him a question in connection with the Translation Bureau. The Minister in his reply gave certain information, but I would like to go a little further and ask him what the actual object of the bureau is, and how it would go to work. I think we can all rejoice at the establishment of the translation bureau, and so far we can heartily congratulate the Minister, but I would like to know from the Minister what the work of that bureau will be. All that is proposed in the estimates is to appoint one translator and one clerk; is it the intention to increase the staff, or only to coordinate and bring together the work of other departments. I would very much like to have a reply from the Minister. In addition I want to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that on page 43 provision is made for the payment of certain officials of the Natal Museum and of the Pretoria Museum. On the next page we find under H2 that provision is again made for the same institutions by way of additional grants. I want to suggest to the Minister that it is not desirable to make provision for the same institution under two heads. I want to ask him whether it would not be desirable in future to make provision for these institutions under one vote.

With regard to the assisted emigration scheme, I want to ask a question. The Minister has said there is a hostile propaganda and I would like to ask whether this emanates from the Union or whether the Minister has any knowledge to show that that hostile propaganda is related to India. I ask this because it is well known in Natal where, of course, this question is most acute, that there is an association of Indians, and it is commonly supposed that they draw their funds and the bulk of their inspiration from India. If that is a fact and the Minister has knowledge of it, I hope he will take the committee into his confidence, because it is a serious matter. The figures quoted by the Minister show that the hostile propaganda is steadily incrasing and that the assisted emigration scheme is becoming less and less of value. The coast belt is concerned to know whether there is any change in the class of emigrants that is being returned to India. If the Minister has any knowledge that there is a dwindling in the percentage of undesirables, and an increase of the labouring class, I hope he will take the committee into his confidence.

In reply to the question as to the inefficiency of the department that deals with the registration of births, marriages and deaths, I think the Minister has made the case even worse. He pointed out that Cape Town has its own registry here and I would like to bring to his attention the case of a man who died at Wynberg hospital. The relatives wrote on the 27th September, 1928, in order to get a copy of the death certificate. The department did not reply until 2nd November. I do suggest that however inefficient the department is, some time between 27th September and 2nd November, they might have sent a postcard down to say the matter could be dealt with in Cape Town. It took five weeks and the Minister tells me the information could have been got within five minutes at Cape Town. As a matter of fact, everything that I have heard of the working of this department shows that it is inefficiently run.

I understand the Minister is going to look into the matter of immigration forms. He might also go into another matter which requires attention, that after one has been passed by the immigration officer one has to wait several hours before being allowed to land. It appears that the reason given for this, ostensibly, is that one has to wait until the last passenger on board ship is examined before the others can go ashore. That leads to a long delay. One gentleman who travelled with me said, “You do a great deal to encourage people to come to your country by advertising in Europe and in England, but when we reach Cape Town we do not seem to be very welcome, as it takes a long time before we can land.” From what I saw in England and on the Continent of this system of examining immigrants, there does not seem to be the same delay there. I suggest that we might look into their methods and perhaps copy them.

In answer to the question of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Wentzel) as to whether anything was being done for the eradication of animals that spread rabies, I want to say briefly that I do not know whether the hon. member can mention any more cases than those he referred to, but I do not believe that that is so, because they are exceptions. If there is danger, then the destruction of those animals forms only a part of the general destruction that is taking place. I want to point out to the hon. member that there is a general misunderstanding that the Central Government is responsible for the destruction of such animals. That duty has never rested on the Public Health Department. Under the existing law it rests on the local bodies, and, where they do not exist, on the individual owners of farms or lands. The local bodies are represented in the Transvaal by the magistrate, and the costs must be borne by the provincial administration, the system which the Government adopts in connection with all such matters where the Government has taken upon itself is to have the duties performed by the local authorities. They must incur the expense, and on a basis which differs according to the various diseases dealt with, a portion of the expenditure is paid back by the Central Government, but in the first instance it is not work which is done by the Central Government. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) asked for information of our intentions with regard to the translation bureau. He remarked that provision was only made for the salary of one translator and one clerk. The intention is that we must be satisfied with this for the first, until experience has taught us what other arrangements have to be made. The translations will still be made by the translators in the various departments. Accordingly we are only providing for one simple translator, and the immediate assistance that he wants. The need is not so much for more translators, but for proper coordination of the work. We must not forget that we are concerned with Afrikaans which has only recently become one of the official languages of the Union. Many translators have never yet had the opportunity of learning Afrikaans at school, and for that reason instruction is necessary from a qualified source. The great need hitherto has been co-ordination because one translator takes one course, and another a different one. One translator possibly uses a set of technical terms which differs entirely to those used by another translator, and therefore we find great differences in the standard of the translations in the way the various blue books are translated. Some translators do the work well. On account of lack of guidance others again do it badly. We now want to place this individual over all the translators who will instruct them so as to get uniformity in the work as much as possible. If there are translators who are incompetent they must be got rid of and used in another department of the public service.

Is it not too much work for one man?

He will be the connecting link between the translators.

Will he have to check the work?

Well, he will, from time to time, have to check specimens of the work and decide whether the person can do it. It is impossible for the work of all to pass through his hands.

Will he have control over the translators?

Yes. Then the hon. member asked a question in connection with the museums. It was not quite clear to me, but I presume that he wanted information on the point that some museums get a general grant, while other museums get a special allowance in addition for certain officials. If that is his meaning, then I want to point out that some museums got public servants who do the work there. The hon. member must not forget that the museums were all in existence before Union, and belong to the different states. Some were entirely government institutions, and they had officials to do the work. These officials have always been seconded to those institutions, and they are therefore paid by the Treasury. They are, however, gradually disappearing so that the museums are steadily being put on the same footing.

†I rather think the hostile propaganda organized in a society—I am speaking under correction—calling itself the South African-born Indians. I daresay the idea behind their propaganda was that they did not want to weaken their numbers and their power in South Africa. I think the commercial classes are affected only to a small extent, as the repatriated Indians belong to the labouring classes, but we may be sure that their children are potential traders. A very large section of the Indian traders here consist of children or grandchildren of those who came to this country originally as labourers. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) asked a question regarding the landing of passengers. I am afraid that a delay in this matter is inevitable, but my own experience—and the experience or a good many others—is that the same delay is experienced in other countries. I remember in my own case that in the most important seaports and harbours in the world we had to wait considerably longer before we could land than is customary in Cape Town.

I want to deal with a question of policy regarding education.

A point of policy must be discussed on the direct vote.

Must the question of malaria be brought up under this vote or public health vote?

Under public health.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 15, “Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded,” £585,471,

I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the sum of £500,000 which is being spent on the mental hospitals and institutions for the feeble-minded. This matter trenches deeply into public health, and, in my opinion, it has more to do with public health than anything else. I therefore do not understand why it does not come under the Minister of Public Health and the Public Health Department. I only mention it because I want to hark back to the great principle that all matters affecting public health should come under one Minister and one department, that of Public Health, so that the spreading of these matters over various votes can be avoided, and also divided control possibly in this connection in future. I only want further to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have 1,000 children in the feeble-minded institutions, and the children must, when they grow up possibly re-enter the world. Then there is a great danger of them further continuing the problem by their possibly contracting a marriage and bringing more feeble-minded people into the world. I think that we should seriously consider the position, and ask if there is no possibility of treating such children voluntarily, or with the knowledge and consent of the parents, so that they can no longer propagate. That can, of course, only be done if it is proved by the institutions that there is no possibility of recovery. I do not want to apply it to mental hospitals, because there are grown-up people in connection with whom there are hopes of recovery. Then I also want to draw attention to a letter from Europe which was written by a Cape nerve specialist. He visited mental hospitals on the continent of Europe, and in his letter he says, more or less, that after visiting the institution, if he had to make a comparison between it and the institutions in South Africa, he can only compare them as between Heaven and Hell. Unfortunately the Hell is the institution in the Cape Province. His whole point is that the institution in Europe which he visited is appointed as much as possible to train the people and to make them work. They do not sit idle there, and that, according to him, is a great difference as a result of which the people there are far happier.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the position now with regard to the accommodation at these mental institutions. We know in some years past it has been a very great problem on the part of the Government to find accommodation for patients who have to be treated in these institutions, and great additions have been made to these in the last two years. Have we now got to the position where the accommodation is satisfactory, or that position is within view? Connected with that is the question of classification. One knows from the little experience one has had, even speaking as a layman, that question is a very serious one. What used to happen a few years ago when one got to these places was that you would see there one patient who was normal on many points, fully aware of what was going on around him and was quite sensible enough, but in one or two matters he was abnormal and had to be kept under restraint. He was in the midst of other patients who were fully abnormal. It is a very great affliction when a man whose condition is not hopeless is kept in the midst of other people whose condition is quite hopeless and abnormal. Is it possible to do anything to provide separate institutions, or sections of institutions, for those cases in which there is some hope of a cure, or whose cases are of nervous breakdown rather than alienation. In connection with that point I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any foundation in the statement one saw in the paper some time ago that the removal was contemplated of the Alexandra Institution for the Feeble-minded to Worcester, to provide additional accommodation, and whether that idea has been proceeded with.

Can the Minister give us some information as to the progression of mental disease? There is an increase of 380 patients provided for the coming year. Is it possible for the Minister to tell the committee the number of Europeans and the number of natives comprised in this total?

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) asks for information of the rate of progression of mental disease. I cannot give separate figures for Europeans and natives, but I might say in general that the rate of increase is say between 400 and 500 every year.

Is that Europeans?

No, generally. But we are still far behind other countries. I stated before that in most civilized countries the average of the mental patients is 40 to the 10,000 of the population. In South Africa it was, up to recently, only 20 to 10,000 of the population. That is partly due to the fact that we are a sparsely populated country, and a mental patient does not come into contact too much with other people. When a country becomes more densely populated he does more often, and it is more necessary to segregate. The increase now is 400 or 500 every year. That makes it necessary for us to get additional accommodation. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has asked a few questions, first, in connection with accommodation; whether it is satisfactory. Just at present I can say that though in some institutions there is a certain amount of congestion, that congestion is not very serious, but, if we do not make provision ahead, we foresee that the congestion will be very bad in two or three years’ time, so we must always make some provision ahead. The hon. member will know that we established some time ago a new institution at Fort Napier. I may say that, in connection with the accommodation at Valkenberg and other places, the buildings are old and they have not been specially designed for that purpose. It is difficult to get the proper scientific classification of the patients, but, for instance, in Queenstown, in Pieter-maritzburg, and, to a large extent Pretoria, it is possible to introduce the cottage system and to have a proper classification; as far as it is possible to carry out proper classification, this is done.

*I should like to reply in Afrikaans to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) who asked whether the mental hospitals ought not really to come under the Public Health Vote. There is, of course, something to say for that but the hon. member will admit that lunacy is not a disease ill the ordinary sense of the word. It is a disease of the brain, but it is of such an entirely specialised nature that it does not make much difference whether it comes under the Interior or under the Public Health Departments. In the past it always came under the Interior, and it will need a great deal of reorganization to alter it and there is no urgent necessity for the change at present. I think it ought to remain as it is until any possible amendment in the provincial system.

What about the Alexandra Hospital?

I am very sorry that reports have been published in the papers in regard to the transfer of that institution to another centre. It is certainly not the fault of the department that that was done. I am sorry, because anything in connection with that matter is altogether in a very provisional stage. The position is this, that the provincial administration of the Cape has approached us with a view to the re-purchase of that institution for some purpose of their own. The Alexandra has not been specially built for feeble-minded patients, and we have been considering the question as to whether it would not be advisable, from that point of view, to sell that institution to the provincial administration, if we can get our price, and then build with that money a new institution for the feeble-minded at some other place where we can not only get more ideal accommodation, but where we can run the institution cheaper than we can at present.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether a survey has been made of our orphanages and industrial schools, of the feeble-minded children and mentally deficient and if the Minister can give the committee the result of those investigations. The reports appearing in the newspapers as to the extent thereof were rather alarming at the time, and I feel that the country should get some information on the subject. A good deal of fuss was made in the press which rather reflected upon our schools and the children in these orphanages and industrial schools.

An investigation was carried on, and is still being carried on, by an inter departmental committee. It is really an inter departmental enquiry. They have sent in, I believe, a preliminary report, although I have not yet seen it. The report proper has not yet been prepared or sent in. The reason is that one of the chief members of that commission has gone to attend an international conference which, I believe, is to be held in America on the feebleminded question. The committee wishes, for the purposes of this report, to benefit by his experience at that conference. For that report we shall have to wait some time yet.

People are sent to these mental hospitals not only for detention, but for treatment and cure. I should be glad if the Minister can tell us whether we have a fairly large percentage of people who are discharged, cured from the hospitals.

I am glad to say that a good many of the patients are being discharged from time to time. I cannot exactly say what the percentage is, but I believe it is fairly high.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell us whether any results have been secured in regard to the investigation of the effects of underfeeding on feeble-mindedness in children. He may remember that some of his officers some time ago found that there was a high percentage of retardation in certain schools and they believed that it was due in part to underfeeding. As a result of this, special provision was made for the feeding of such children with a view to ascertaining later whether the correction of the defect of underfeeding would lead to a similar correction in the defect of the retardation of the feeble-minded. Can the Minister tell us the results of these experiments which took place about eighteen months ago?

I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. member the information, but I daresay that the committee of enquiry, to which I have referred, will draw attention to the matter and will report upon it.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether he can give us information with regard to this disease of feeblemindedness, as to whether it is peculiarly found among any particular class of the population, or in any particular centres, or amongst the people of any particular form of occupation. In other words, whether it is in any way localized? If there is any information under that head, I would be very glad indeed to have it.

I am sorry to say I am not an expert myself, but I have to get my own information from that report.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 16, “Printing and Stationery”,

£263,906.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee tomorrow.