I see in a foot-note to this vote, that there is a decrease of £30,000 due to the omission from this vote of the provisions previously made for printing services rendered to the Railways and Harbours Administration; in other words, the decrease is purely fictitious. The explanation, as contained in the Minister’s memorandum, is that—

I do not remember the Select Committee on Public Accounts having been consulted, but on principle, I think this is a mistake. In the first place it gives the Minister of Finance a reduction of £30,000 in his estimates. If we take the total expenditure year by year, and we want to see how far the expense has been increasing, we are not told of this item. If this system had been carried on logically in the estimates, I should not complain, but in regard to other departments the whole amount goes down on the estimates; take the post office, the Department of Justice and other departments; no reduction is made there; I believe also on the High Comissioner’s vote, but I have not had the time to look at it. It seems to me it is calculated to mislead, and I do not think it should be done. Really, I do not see any object, unless it is carried right through the estimates. Take, for instance, the vote for the mint, which does much commercial work, strikes medals, and does things of that sort, and gets a fair income, but, nevertheless, the total cost is put down to its debit. Why is this £30,000 to be taken out of this particular item?

The hon. member’s remarks are made as a critic of the estimates, and he would like to show that the reduction, if any, the saving, is not as great as the Minister of Finance makes out. That is the whole point of view from which he looks, but surely there is another side, and it is this: so far as this particular estimate is concerned, the estimates of the Railway Administration are something extraneous and outside. Surely the method that has been followed so far was erroneous in that the expenditure was accounted both to the railway estimates and the general estimates. The difference between the railway expenditure for printing and the expenditure on posts and telegraphs is this: it is a definite principle laid down by the Act of Union that the Railway Administration should be run on business lines, and, therefore, it is only right, if they have printing work done, whether it is at the printing works or outside, it shall be accounted and paid for in the ordinary way. That is the improvement carried out in the estimates, and all other expenditure for the railways is done in the same way.

I quite agree with the Minister that there is another side to the question, and I was glad to hear him refer to the railways being run on business lines. But if the railways have to pay, they can say to the Government: “We want you to pay for the services we render to you.” The railways carry a burden which, if not illegal, is certainly unfair.

I do not think the hon. member should discuss that question at this stage.

With all due deference, sir, I do not think you know what I was going to say.

The hon. member cannot discuss that question at this stage.

When can we discuss that reduction?

It is only a change of item. That must be discussed under the railway estimates.

The Government is asking us to pass the estimates with an amount less than usual, and I want to put it that it is not fair to make this reduction now and put the burden on the railways when they are carrying a burden which is absolutely unfair.

They always paid.

On the next page (60) the footnote states—

Does that mean that they are going to refund a portion of the expenditure set out under the head: 390 artizans? Why has that not been treated in the same way as the £30,000? I would like to ask the Minister one or two other questions. I notice that since the year 1924-’25 the expenditure under this vote has increased by some £37,000. During the same period the staff has increased from 366 to 541. Has the Minister considered whether steps should be taken to enquire into the amount of printing which is being carried on in the Government services to-day, and whether it would not be possible to effect economies in that direction? New members must be struck by the extraordinarily large number of blue books and other data supplied to them. I think it will be agreed that it is absolutely impossible for members to read the whole of this vast quantity of literature. Will the Minister consider the advisability of appointing a select committee to go into the whole question of Government printing, and to see if it is not possible to effect economies? It seems to me that a great deal of unnecessary matter is printed, and that a good deal could, perhaps, be saved if a thorough investigation could be carried out. Perhaps there might also be closer cooperation between the different departments. One department issues statistics, and another department issues statistics covering the same matters. Take your recoveries on account of departmental receipts. In 1924-’25 a sum of £85,000 was recovered, an estimated amount, and this year the sum set down is only £60,000. One would have expected an increase. Considering the huge increase that has taken place in the public service, it is satisfactory to note that the figure for stationery supplies is some £3,000 less than it was six years ago, which shows that with care economies can be effected. I think every member who has had any acquaintance with the Government printer is convinced that he is a very able official, and that he has effected certain economies. I feel certain that with assistance he can effect a great many more.

I think a good many of the wishes of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken have already been met. Since Mr. Kruger assumed office there has been a considerable saving on this vote, despite the fact that more work has been done, and that a good deal of the printing previously done outside is now done by the Government. In 1926-’27 the expenditure was £317,000; in 1927-’28, £314,000; in 1928-’29, £297,000; and in 1929-’30 there was a slight increase, £298,000. This year it drops again down to £263,000. So all along practically there has been a reduction since Mr. Kruger assumed office. I think very great credit is due to him; undoubtedly he is a very able official. As far as further economies are concerned, I may say I have gone very carefully into the whole question as to whether it is possible to effect a saving on our printing expenditure, and the question of the publication of blue books, and the possibility of making a saving in regard to that, has been discussed by the Cabinet. We have done everything that could possibly be done to effect savings. Some of the blue books, which have been formerly printed in both languages, we have combined, where it has been possible to do so, and printed in one language, especially those blue books containing figures to a large extent—statistical tables, for instance. It is unnecessary to have them printed both in English and in Afrikaans. A good many other reports have been abridged to a large extent. I am quite convinced now that it is impossible to make any further savings.

I would like the Minister to deal with the journalistic tendencies of the departments to-day. It will be seen from the auditor-general’s report for last year that the Social and Industrial Review cost £3,058. The total sales and subscriptions only amounted to £258. That shows that, as far as the general public are concerned, they have very little use for the Social and Industrial Review. The advertisements amounted to £705, so that the revenue is something under £1,000, and £3,058 is spent to get that revenue. That shows a cost of over £2,000 to enable the Labour Department to give its views to the world. Personally, I think the world might do without the views, if it is going to cost us £2,000 a year to get them. I think the Mines Department; and the Labour Department might come to some joint arrangement and issue one gazette. The Mines Department issue another journal. I think it is called the Commercial and Industrial Review. In addition to the costs mentioned there are also costs in the editorial department, because even the stuff contained in these reviews requires some editorial work to prepare it for publication, and it seems to me purely a matter of vanity on the part of the Labour Department. Our Labour Department wants to carry on Labour propaganda, and they utilize the state’s money to do it. It seems altogether unnecessary for a department to carry on propaganda of this kind. There would not be so much criticism if they did it at a profit, but the result is ludicrous. In 12 months they get £258 subscriptions. I am perfectly certain that does not pay the man who does the editorial work, and the whole of the printing is done for nothing, and we get nothing back. That is one direction in which the Minister might induce his colleagues to economize by amalgamating these two journals and thus saving £2,000 a year. I personally do not see why we require a Labour Department journal at all. I am certain the daily papers would be only too glad to publish the bulk of the material that comes in from the Labour Department, and the balance of the matter is peculiarly matter which should go into the Government Gazette.

May I ask the Minister whether the amount he has referred to is included in the amount of £30,000?

This is an arrangement between the Railway Administration and the Government printing works. The arrangement between them was a matter of business, and that is part of the contract, and is a part of the £30,000.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister about item D2, £9,520. In the first place, this, I suppose, does not cover all Government advertising! I assume that departments, to some extent, do their own advertising. But I would like to know what items this amount covers, and what is the basis of selection of the newspapers to which advertising is given. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to give us a list of the principal papers to which the bulk of the advertising is given. I want to know what sort of advertising it is; who controls it; what is the basis of selection; and also the names of the principal papers to whom the bulk of the advertising is given?

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has raised an important question, and I do not think the Minister’s reply is satisfactory. On page 50, under B1, the item referred to by the hon. gentleman, I find that last year 382 artizans were employed, but the expenditure has been reduced from £101,100 to £73,834, a matter of £27,000 less. Apparently there were eight increases in the number of artizans employed. That shows on the face of it that there has been a great reduction in the payment to these artizans. Perhaps the Minister will kindly explain this matter.

It is difficult to say to what it is due. The hon. member will know that often we find radical changes in the salaries accounted for on the estimates year by year. That simply depends on how many of the staff retired during that particular year, who they are, and what particular appointments they hold. Of course, those taking their place come in on a lower scale. Those appointed before a certain period benefited by particularly high salaries during a particular period. All sorts of changes take place as a result of that, and it is difficult to say off-hand as to what wages particularly account for this. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), it is difficult to give a list of all papers in which the Government advertises.

I asked for the principal ones.

The principal ones constitute a very long list, and I may give a general assurance to the hon. gentleman that the advertising of the present Government is much more fair to the various papers concerned than ever was the case under the previous Government. There is practically no paper in the country which does not benefit in some way by Government advertising, but, under the previous Government, one particular set of newspapers in the country—namely, those of Nationalist tendencies—were excluded. Further, I may say, for the information of the hon. gentleman, that the expenditure here accounted for covers the advertising of all the departments. The method which is followed nowadays is that all advertising is done through the Department of the Interior, and the various departments merely indicate to the Department of the Interior what advertisements they wish to be placed, and where. The final decision rests with the Department of the Interior.

The hon. Minister seems very touchy when I ask him a question. In his reply, by excusing himself, he accuses himself. Perhaps he will tell us whether his idea is that he gives all the newspapers an equal share of the advertising.

The hon. Minister has gone to great pains to show the treatment which the Government has given to the newspapers, contrasted with the treatment given by the late Government. That does not concern us in the least. In the Estimates the word “various” indicates nothing whatever to us. I know very well, and other hon. members know, if you employ 200 people and you get rid of some at the top drawing the highest pay, and thus you make up the number in the lower grades that that is bound to cause a reduction in the expenditure; but that is not clearly explained here. I pointed out that there are now, eight more artizans employed. Surely the Minister has fuller information to give us. Surely we are entitled to know that, and I am sure the artizans employed are also entitled to know why there has been £27,000 less paid this year than last year. We want to know what is actually being done.

I do not wish it to be thought that in discussing this matter I am criticizing the work of this particular department, because the impression we have formed in the Public Accounts Committee is that the appointment of the Government Printer is one of the best that the Government has made. He is running his department extremely well. I do not quite follow the hon.Minister’s explanation in reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) in regard to the 390 artizans. Does he mean that the 340 artizans paid out of the funds provided by the Railways and Harbours Administration are additional to the 390 or are they included in that number. If they are included in the 390 then this figure £73,000 must represent the salary of 350 artizans and not 390. I have no doubt this is the corollary to the reduction of £30,000. Personally I do not see how this particular item works out.

I was rather astonished at the reply of the hon. Minister with regard to advertising. The basis of his argument seemed to be that they give their advertising to the various political parties. Well, the last thing I should imagine anybody’s consideration would be is that advertising should be given to any political party, and not to the medium itself. The test of the value of advertising is circulation and publicity. The ordinary man, when he advertises wants publicity. Does the hon. Minister say that certain papers under the previous régime did not receive any advertisements, though they had a considerable circulation amongst a certain class of the population? If he said that I could understand that to be a criticism worth having, but the position one infers from the hon. Minister is that he does not take into consideration the publicity which his advertising gets, but purely whether he is dividing it in doles reasonably and fairly amongst the papers of the various political denominations. Personally, I should imagine that that is the way he is doing it. I notice in the previous year Ons Vaderland got something over £1,000 and the Star about £600 odd. I do not know whether the hon. Minister contends that Ons Vaderland has a bigger circulation than the Star. At any rate that should be the basis upon which advertising is given out. That is the value of publicity for a certain sum of money given out. The question as to what the editorials have to say about any given party seems to me to be a matter of indifference. I think that any business firm will take up that position. When I see an advertisement in Die Burger I do not imagine for one moment that everyone who advertises in the paper is a Nationalist, nor do I imagine that everyone who advertises in the Cape Times is a member of the South African party. I imagine that people make up their minds that they want to get a certain class of publicity, and they reckon that the money is well spent for the publicity they get. I hope the Minister will alter his views on the matter of advertising.

What are my views?

We can only judge that from the hon. Minister’s reply. His defence that they hand the advertisements round to political parties I do not look upon as in any way handling the question of advertising at all. That is a question of giving doles to various political parties, and that I say is not a right method of conducting the advertising at all.

The hon. member who has just spoken has put a wrong impression before the House, namely that the Dutch section of the newspapers are getting larger subsidies from the Government than the English newspapers. He quoted the case of Ons Vaderland receiving £1,000 and the Star £600. The hon. member knows perfectly well the reason for that discrepancy. There are a limited number of Dutch newspapers, and owing to the bilingual principle and advertisements having to appear in both mediums the Dutch papers show a bigger return than the English newspapers. That raises the question again of trying to import into this debate a political atmosphere that is quite unnecessary.

The hon. Minister, in an interjection, asked what were his views on the matter? I remember the question I put to him was “What are your views?” I shall be obliged if the hon. Minister will give us the information when he has time to enquire into the matter. I asked what is the basis of distribution; and secondly I asked him if he would give the House a list of a few of the largest newspapers to whom advertisements are given by the Government. I asked the Minister to give us information as to what was the basis he adopted in selecting these newspapers for advertising purposes, and if he does that we can judge whether his selection is a good one or not.

First I will reply to the question of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). The figures referred to are accounted for in this way, that the disappearance of the railway item of £30,000 has caused a reduction in the salary vote. That is the chief explanation. In connection with that, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has asked the question as to whether the 340 artizans referred to here are included in the 390 or not. They are included. With regard to the points raised in connection with advertising if the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) will ask me a question in the ordinary way on the Order paper I shall be glad to get him the information. I have not got a list here, but I am willing at any time to give a list of the papers in which the Government advertises. As to the basis of distribution, in the first instance we take into consideration that these advertisements must reach the English and Dutch-speaking population of the country, and in the second place we consider the circulation of a paper. In a paper having a wide circulation, as a rule we place more advertisements than we do in a paper with a smaller circulation. Some of the advertisements are really of only local concern, and wherever that is quite clear, we place those advertisements in papers circulating in the locality concerned. As far as more important papers go— take for instance the papers published in Cape Town—surely it is impossible to advertise to the same extent in the Cape Times, Cape Argus and Die Burger respectively. Suppose we have available £10,000 for advertisements in Cape Town, we could not distribute that equally among these three papers, for we must take into consideration that Die Burger is the only Afrikaans paper published in Cape Town. It reaches a section of the public not reached by the other papers, but the readers of the Times and Argus are very largely the same people. For that reason we must allocate to Die Burger what is right and just; not to that paper, but to the number of readers reached by that paper— the Afrikaans-speaking public—and the rest is allocated justly to the English-speaking papers, and it must be divided between the Cape Times and Cape Argus.

I am very glad to hear the Minister’s statement, because he has now placed the matter on a very different and perfectly reasonable basis. I quite agree that you must advertise in Dutch papers in order to reach the Dutch-speaking public. The Minister has now removed the inference one drew from his previous remarks that he based the allocation of advertisements not on circulation, but on political grounds. I would like to mention one other matter—the Transvaal telephone directory—on which the Government loses £2,300 annually. Of that amount Government pay £1,733 to the Railway Publicity department for handling the directory. I believe the Cape Town telephone directory is published by private contract, and I take it that the Government receives certain royalties. The same principle applies to the Free State and Eastern and Midland telephone directories so that the Government has a definite income from these sources. Is it not possible to deal with the Transvaal directory in the same way? We are told down here that all the wealth of South Africa is north of the Vaal River, yet that territory does not seem to be able to pay for a telephone directory. Surely there is someone with sufficient enterprise in the Transvaal to publish the telephone directory on contract and thus save the Government £2,300 a year. The Government is bound to lose money every year under the present system.

I am perfectly certain none of us on this side had any idea of bringing in the party question in regard to advertising. That issue only arose when the Minister said that the South African party Government had been guilty of certain offences and that the present Government was putting it right. Now, however, the Minister has laid down certain principles with which, I am certain, every one will agree. But when we come to the actual facts we find that in one year the Government paid £1,086 to Ons Vaderland, but only £497 to Die Volkstem, and yet we are given to understand that circulation is taken into account when placing advertisements. The Minister created an entirely wrong impression as to the manner in which advertisements were distributed.

Can the Minister tell us what is the circulation of the Cape Times, Cape Argus and Die Burger respectively?

I do not think that is a fair question. I must rule it out.

The Minister distinctly said that the question of circulation was taken into consideration.

The hon. member can ask the circulation of the Government Gazette if he likes.

With regard to the Transvaal telephone directory, the department has placed its publication up to tender, but, unfortunately, no offers were received, and the only alternative was to print it ourselves.

While the principle the Minister has laid down is a correct one with regard to newspaper advertisements, I hope he will put it more completely into practice than is shown by the Auditor-General’s report, for I find that while Die Burger received £846 in one year, Ons Land, which was then in existence, received nothing at all.

I notice an increase in the number of natives in the printing and stationery department, from 40 to 56. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the new regulations under the Mines and Works Act will affect natives, presumably employed on or about machinery. I understand the new regulations will shortly come into force. Will these natives be affected?

This increase is only apparent. There was a mistake made by the Treasury in connection with the previous estimates, and a wrong number was put down there. This increase does not reflect the actual position.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 17, “Public Health, £476,261,

I would like to ask the Minister if he will be good enough to make a statement of the position with regard to malaria, in Zululand more particularly than in Natal. I understand there has been a recrudescence of malaria, and I hope the Minister will give us a reassuring statement.

I also wish to raise the question of malaria. I have recently come from my home, situated in my late constituency, and I am shocked at the devastation of malaria amongst natives in the locations there and Europeans. It is an unheard of thing, as far as my experience is concerned, what has taken place there. Some very distressing deaths have occurred amongst Europeans. I should have thought, with the warning the department had last year of the gradual invasion of this disease in the river valleys, from the infected valleys, people would have been warned, and measures taken to check this. It is really heartbreaking, the number of cases that have occurred amongst the natives in the Mooi River valley and tributaries leading therefrom. Surely there is something radically wrong in the department that this state of affairs should have taken place. Last year the disease was prevalent on the north coast, and in some valleys, but this year, entire valleys have been infected miles up. If the Minister knows the number of deaths that have been recorded, it would be very surprising indeed. He cannot know the condition of affairs in the district I speak of. Someone is lacking in his duty in allowing this state of affairs to go on.

Last year the position in the malaria affected areas in Natal was serious, and the matter was brought to the attention of the Government most forcefully by various newspapers, and members of this Parliament. The Government could not refute that 3,000 deaths took place in that area, and a large percentage of Europeans also suffered from the disease. We thought then that something would be done. According to the papers laid on the Table of the House, it became a subject for the Cabinet and the Cabinet decided to turn down the whole proposal in the form of an anti-malaria scheme and agreed to the appointment of a small staff if agreed to by the Public Service Commission. If that is the position Government stands convicted of a very serious —I will not use the term “crime” but something approaching very near to it. The Government had warning, and were advised, and on the advice of officials, presumably, they saw fit to turn down the proposed scheme. I have a letter before me which states that at the present moment there is an epidemic in the district of Verulam. I am glad that the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) have raised this question. We want the matter dealt with seriously. We know that malaria has seriously reduced the efficiency and vitality of nations before, and that if we allow it to become firmly established here, then the same danger is being risked. The Health Department is lacking in its duty to the people of this country if it does not face the position energetically and openly. On the other hand we find that fishery officers have reported that the whole of the waters of this area are becoming denuded of their fish, because of the contamination in the rivers, and we know that fish represent a deadly enemy to these parasites. We want the Minister also to go into this question, which is one affecting the health of a large portion of the population of Natal; and if the Cabinet have turned down schemes propounded by officials, we want definite information why they have done so.

I am thankful that hon. members from Natal have raised this question of fighting malaria, and I hope the Minister will make a statement as to the position, if he is able to do so, especially as not only in this House but also out of it public attention is being called to the matter. We saw recently that the Government was bringing an expert from Europe to assist our officials here in their fight against malaria, and I should like the Minister to say whether this is actually the case. I have not actually risen to discuss malaria, however, but as the hon. member for Natal has called attention to it, I should like the Minister to say what the position is. I should also like him to tell us the position to-day with regard to tuberculosis. I see from the report of the Public Health Department that the Natal Provincial Secretary has given notice that after a certain date no tuberculosis patients will be admitted into the provincial hospitals. I think this is an important matter if a provincial administration can take steps by stating that they will assume no further responsibility for tuberculosis patients. The question then arises whether the State is prepared to take the whole responsibility on itself, or otherwise compel the responsible body to do its duty. In view of the fact that an important enquiry is being made in connection with the question of Government expense, it is very important to know the position as to tuberculosis. Of course I do not know whether the Minister is yet in a position to give information, but without anticipating the report I hope that the commission which has been appointed to make enquiry will also consider the question of the relations between the central Government and the provincial administrations. I hope the Minister can give us the information because I feel concerned if hearty co-operation does not exist between the provinces and the central Government.

I desire to bring up the question of the medical inspection of our schools. A resolution had been passed by the Council of Public Health to the effect that the council regards the medical inspection of school children as an essential and integral part of public health organization, and that steps should be taken to bring this service under the Department of Public Health. Is the Minister satisfied that he has to-day an efficient medical inspection of our schools? When one considers the number of recruits rejected by the Defence Department from year to year, one realizes that the medical inspection of school children plays a very important part in our national life. In the Cape Province, up to a little while ago, we had two medical inspectors, and the present system of sending two or three doctors right through the whole of the Cape Province to examine 130,000 children is very unsatisfactory as nothing is done for the children examined to follow up such inspection. Has the Minister any intention of carrying out the resolution to which I have referred? Because in my opinion it is of the utmost import ante that, some central body should deal with the matter as a whole.

I am glad that the attention of the House is being called to the position of malaria in our country, not only in Natal, but also in the Transvaal. I am glad to learn that an attempt is being made to get an expert here, because the position in some parts of the Transvaal is extraordinarily serious especially among children. Only recently I was in the low veld and found the position there extremely bad, and if district surgeons do not stop the disease there, and there is no change in the position I do not know what will become to our children there. I have chiefly risen, however, to call attention to an occurrence in the leper institution in Pretoria. A doctor there contracted leprosy, and as one who represents the people there, I would like to be convinced that the doctor who is to-day a leper, will be particularly well looked after. He is the victim of his investigations, and should not be left in a position which is most sad for a man of knowledge and education, who is much attached to his profession. I should like to have the assurance of the Government that our friend and his family will be so dealt with as to be able to live in future without want. I urge upon the Minister seriously not to be the least niggardly in this connection. We often speak of people who sacrifice themselves, in the interests of medicine. Here we have a man who is a victim of his work. I feel it is a delicate matter, and I would not like it to be dealt with in public, but I mention it here because the rumour is circulating in Pretoria that the individual is not being properly treated, and assisted. If that is so it would be a scandal. I have raised it for no other reason than that. Then I should like to ask a question in connection with the statements in the report of the Auditor-General with regard to the X-ray plant in the Pretoria Leper Asylum. I should like to know if provision has been made for a building for the plant. The plant is there, but I understand it has never yet been used. The fact that it has never been used has been commented upon.

I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) in regard to a certain officer of the Public Health Department who is said to have contracted a certain disease. I want to express the hope that he will be treated with the utmost generosity. I would also ask for a statement from the Minister on the present position and his general policy in regard to making provision for the general hospital needs of the people of this country. It may be said that this is a matter for the provinces, but it is also a matter in regard to which the hon. the Minister has on two occasions appointed a commission of enquiry. It is a matter to which he has given a great deal of attention, and I think you will at least allow that it falls within the very debatable ground between the spheres of activity of the provinces and the central Government. One of those commissions—I think it was in 1927—found that while there were in the four provinces, at that time 5,002 beds for European patients there was a shortage of 1,338 beds; and while there were 3,602 beds for non-Europeans, excluding native mine hospitals on the Witwatersrand, there was a shortage of non-European beds in the Cape numbering 2,242, in the Transvaal 1,595, in the Orange Free State 631, and in Natal 1,750, making a total shortage of non-European beds of 6,218. Those figures disclose a very serious position, and I think hon. members are aware that certain steps were taken to assist the provinces to deal with this position. But I think it will be agreed that it is very desirable in the interests of this House and of the country that the Minister should make to-day, or at an early date, a statement indicating how far he thinks the position is being dealt with satisfactorily. The particularly serious aspect in that position numerically is the shortage in regard to native beds. In 1927 there was a shortage of over 6,000 beds, and the position is a very difficult one to meet. The provinces which are responsible for the provision of hospitals for general patients are not entitled to impose taxation on the person’s income or property of the native, and it is therefore difficult to procure powers from the provincial councils for native hospital extensions. Moreover there is the point that in two at least of the provinces to-day any new move in the direction of hospital extension lies in the first instance with the local community; it is a question of local initiative. In the Cape and Transvaal to-day you have hospital boards which have executive powers and with which the responsibility lies. In both cases the provincial administrations have certain powers, but in both eases the initiative would normally come from local people. I think we realize that local people tend to think first of all of the provision of facilities for European patients. It is difficult to get local people in a scheme of hospital provision to provide for the needs of the native people. That raises a question which ought to be considered; the question of the possibility of getting some help in this matter from the native development account. It was indicated when that account was established that some help would be forthcoming and I believe that recently certain very small amounts have been found out of that fund for hospital services. I hope that is correct, and that we may take it as an earnest of bigger favours to come. We cannot get very much further in this matter unless some provision is made from that native development account or in some similar way. There is another matter on which I think the hon. Minister should make a statement. It is a matter in which many members of this House, and especially those from the country districts, are very vitally interested. I refer to the question of district nursing. I feel that the provision of district nursing facilities especially in the outlying districts is in some cases at least as important as the provision of hospital beds. This is one of those unhappy questions on which disputes have arisen between the provincial administrations and the Union Government; but the Minister will remember that some time ago he obtained a legal opinion which indicated that provincial administrations were only entitled to provide district nursing facilities in conjunction with an existing institution in the nature of a hospital. The fact is therefore that for all practical purposes it is not possible for the provincial administrations to create a district nursing system in most of the outlying parts of the country. Nothing in this regard is likely to be done until the matter is faced fairly and squarely by the Minister and the Department of Public Health. Up to now the department has done nothing in this regard except to state that provincial administrations are responsible. I want to point out that in this respect the power of the provincial administrations is a very limited one. They could establish district nursing services in Cape Town or in Johannesburg, but I cannot see how it could be done, say, in Pictpotgietersrust. The present position; is that the provinces cannot meet the need in this regard where the need is greatest, and the Department of Public Health will not meet the need. I raise the question in this committee in the hope that the Minister will make a statement of his policy in regard thereto. There is another matter arising out of the report of the commissions to which I have referred, and especially of the hospital survey committee. That committee referred to the question of infectious diseases, and the friction arising today, and for many years past, between the Department of Public Health and the provincial administrations in regard to this difficult matter. The position is that while certain diseases are dealt with in provincial institutions, other diseases have to be dealt with in institutions in regard to which the Union Department of Public Health exercises supervising functions. As a result you have in certain hospitals to-day provision side by side for two classes of diseases, for which ultimately two departments of State are responsible. This leads to friction and difficulty; greater difficulty even in the country districts than in the towns. This hospital survey committee made the statement that not a single practical workable suggestion has yet been made for preventing the friction arising in regard to the treatment of infectious diseases under the present system. [Time limit.]

I think it is quite clear now from the speeches made and the opinions expressed that there is something radically wrong with the system under which the Public Health Department and the provinces carry on to-day. The time has come for the Department of Public Health to have control over everything affecting public health. This is the most important point arising out of the speeches made here. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) mentioned certain matters about the hospitals. He pointed out that the number of hospitals ought to be increased and showed that we must conclude that the provinces cannot do their duty in this connection. I therefore strongly appeal that the time has come for us to realize that it is absolutely necessary for the hospitals and public health to come under central control. The medical associations, the Advisory Board on public health, and I think also the Department of Public Health and the Minister, himself, think that all matters of public health ought to be under one authority. If we go further we find that in connection with infectious diseases provision is only made in the villages and smaller towns for ordinary hospitals, if public health came under one authority then provision would have been made for ordinary diseases, infectious diseases and also for maternity cases, but, on account of the present divided control all that is impossible. Then we come to the district nurses. Here again we have the divided control which has made a failure of the whole thing. The system of divided control that exists prevents all progress. Next we have the medical inspection of school children. Whatever the Minister may be doing in this connection I want to ask him not to entrust that inspection to the district surgeon, because the medical inspection of school children demands special knowledge which all the district surgeons cannot possibly possess. But there is, nevertheless, a large department where the district surgeons can assist, and that is in connection with the treatment and care of the children after they have been examined by the medical inspector. The district surgeons can see to the after care of those children. The medical inspection is being done to-day. If there is a hospital then the children can be further looked after there, but if not then the children of poor parents are dependent on the mercy of the other doctors in the village. Then we come to child welfare; there is a partial grant by the provinces for this. When a nurse is appointed a part is contributed by the Minister of Public Health. I know from my own knowledge how the work is handicapped by the divided control and the absence of thorough supervision. Then we also find that the Government now and then realizes that it must do something. We find, e.g., that a grant of £1,000 is made to the Mothers’ Union in Pretoria; it is a good work which has been done there, and it ought to be extended to the other large towns. But this cannot be done because the Government has practically to find an excuse for giving the grant to the institution. The provinces can do nothing in that direction. Now the Union has existed for twenty years we must decide that public health can be properly maintained only if we put it under central control. We are in the fortunate position that we are here debating a matter which has nothing to do with party politics, and I think we must agree that even if the provincial councils exist another century public health should not continue for another year under divided control. I also want to say a few words about fighting malaria. This amounts to the fighting of the mosquito, and we therefore come more or less to the same position as that in connection with the fighting of plague. The rodents must be eradicated. This cannot take place if the Department of Public Health is to do the work single-handed. The farmers also must do their part, and consequently the Minister and the department have taken up the attitude that the farmers must assist. For this reason I say that the eradication of the mosquito is not the work of the Public Health Department alone. It is a matter for the whole Cabinet, in which the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Agriculture, and also the Minister of Finance are greatly concerned. It is a very big thing, and we must also tackle it by means of education. Here again we come to the question of divided control. We can only eradicate the mosquito if we train up our children so that they will see to the matter. I repeat that the time has come that our public health must he put under one control, and that we must put an end to the divided control that at present exists.

I want to call hon. members’ attention to the fact that I cannot further allow any debate on central control of hospitals.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has followed along the lines which I myself was proposing to pursue when my time expired. I was not, however, intending to go so far as he has gone. He has raised the question of the urgency of a change in the present system. Apart from the fact of your ruling, I think we must accept the position that such a change is not likely to come immediately. I think we have had abundant indication of that. This question of hospitals is a part of the bigger provincial problem and cannot be dealt with in detachment from it. That bigger provincial problem is not likely to be disposed of in the course of the next year or two. We must, therefore, accept the position that this overlapping is likely to continue, and so I come back to the statement which I was proposing to quote in my previous remarks from the report of the Hospital Survey Committee; that is this—

This friction in regard to these infectious diseases is only one aspect of the general friction and difficulty which exists to-day as between the provinces and the Union Department of Public Health. The point I was proceeding to was this. It was to ask the hon. the Minister whether since the time that this committee reported, any such practical or workable suggestion has been made, and whether he sees any hope, along the lines on which we are proceeding to-day, of effectively eliminating this friction, of effectively doing away with the overlapping, and of effectively securing greater coordination than exists to-day? The hon. Minister will remember that a previous committee of enquiry, to which I referred, the Committee of Enquiry on Public Hospitals and kindred institutions, emphasised the importance of co-ordination, of greater co-ordination under the auspices of the Union Department of Public Health. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister has given a great deal of attention to this question of the possibility of securing greater co-ordination within the limits of the present position without proceeding to a definite constitutional change. I hope, when the Minister replies, he will also apply himself to this point and give us some indication as to whether he has found the means, in the present circumstances, of reducing friction and securing greater co-ordination in respect of such matters as district nurses, infectious diseases, the use of the services of district surgeons, and the question of the medical inspection of schools. Also in that connection I would mention the use of certain of our hospitals for the purposes of higher education.

A distinct feeling of alarm has been caused throughout Natal by the spread of malaria during the last few years, and it is generally felt that the control of the disease is characterized rather by retrogression than progression. The disease now affects people not only in the coastal belt, but even as far up-country as the foot of the Drakensberg mountains. This is a very serious matter, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring statement on the subject. Nine months ago he told us that the malaria survey was nearing completion. I hope that survey has now been finished.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) raised a point which, in my opinion, should receive the Minister’s very serious attention. It is in connection with the poor children inspected by the medical inspector of the provincial administrations. The children are examined and it stops there. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to have something done by the state for the children of poor parents, who suffer from some disease or other, e.g., bad teeth. We give old age pensions to-day to people who are over sixty years, but they die some day, while the children form the future generation of our country. I feel that it is our duty to give more attention to the matter, and if the taxpayer’s money is to be spent then it is required for those children. Another point is that there are not only many children who suffer from some disease or other, but that there are also thousands of underfed children. We get reports from teachers which show the children cannot work because they are so underfed. We appreciate the work which is being done by the Christian Women’s Association, by the children’s soup kitchens, etc., when it is cold, but it is in the first place the duty of the state to care for the underfed children. It is no use compelling the children to go to school if they are so underfed as not to be able to work. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that an enquiry will be made, or that something will be done by his department in that direction.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the inadequate salaries paid to dispensers in hospitals and other institutions under his administration. I cannot find that any grade is laid down, but judge from the estimates that the salaries paid are based on commencing £300, rising by increments to £360. I would like to point out that dispensers are professional men who before they can enter as apprentices have to pass the matriculation examination. Thereafter a three years’ apprenticeship is demanded and before they can be registered as chemists and druggists a most searching examination has to be passed. The grading of dispensers in the railway sick fund administration begins at a salary of £300 per annum rising by annual increments, I think, to £480. I should like therefore to ask the Minister to go into this matter and bring the salaries under his administration on a similar basis. Another question I would like to ask the Minister: “Are all the men employed as dispensers duly qualified chemists and druggists? If not, would be see that rectified.”

In connection with the Leper Institution in Pretoria, I see from the returns of the various leper institutions that the cost per patient in Pretoria is 2s. 5d. a day, while at Robben Island it is 10s. 4d. a day. I should like to know the reason for the difference. Is it not possible for the people in Pretoria, as was the case formerly, to get more concessions, e.g., in connection with the work they do there, more support in return for the work. Then they would be more satisfied. As the cost at the Pretoria institution is so much lower I should like to know whether something cannot be done.

I wish to refer to the growing use of habit-forming drugs. According to the report for public health there were 4,228 prosecutions, of which 4,216 were in respect of dagga and 12 of opium. In a recent interview, Dr. Mitchell, medical officer of health for the Union, stated that the evil is spreading amongst our European youths, so it is time the subject—which includes the smoking of dagga—was taken serious notice of. He quotes—

The observation officer on the Rand said there was considerable smoking of dagga amongst the European males of the poor white and delinquent type. One would like to know whether any steps have been taken by the department to prevent the growth of this evil. It is fraught with very sad consequences, especially amongst the coloured people, and is also a grave menace to Europeans. Have any steps been taken to prohibit the growing of the Indian hemp or dagga plant.

I should like to have a clear statement from the Minister about the arrangements between the Union Government and the provincial administrations regarding medical help for poor people. The position to-day is that the local bodies are made responsible for fifty per cent, of the expense of the costs of district surgeons or any other doctor who is called in. The provincial council, however, in turn holds the local body responsible for the full amount of the travelling expenses, and I understand that this is in complete conflict with the arrangement between the Government and the provincial administrations.

At the bottom of page 66 of the estimates is given an interesting table showing the cost of patients in each institution. The lowest is about 1s. per head, and the highest 11s. 11d., which is the institution at Nelspoort. In the first place, I would like to draw attention to the fact that these results are not quite correct. The cost per patient at Robben Island is stated to be 10s. 4d. per day, but if you go to page 64 and divide the amount of £30,382 given there by the 150 patients, one arrives at an average of 11s. 1d., and for Nelspoort 13s. 2d., instead of 11s. 11d. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether it is not possible to transfer these people at Robben Island to some other institution which is cheaper to operate. One finds that the cost is more than four times as high on Robben Island as in some of the other institutions in the country. If that were done there would be an annual saving of £23,000, which would justify a capital expenditure of nearly £500,000 to remove the institution from Robben Island to the mainland. But there may be other reasons which the Minister may be able to give why the institution should remain on Robben Island. One has heard of the cruelty and inhumanity to the lepers because of their being on Robben Island and inaccessible to their relatives, and this would be an additional reason for their removal from the island. I would also like to know whether the Minister can tell us if there is a decrease in the number of lepers as a result of modern methods being applied to effect a cure. One has heard a good deal of these newer curative methods, but little of their efficiency in our own institutions.

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions in connection with “D” “District surgeons, etc.” In the first place in connection with 5 “medical aid in outlying areas,” I presume this is a matter which is dealt with under Section 4 of Act No. 36 of 1927 in the Public Health Act. That section provides that periodical visits can be made by medical officers to places where there is no doctor. I regret to see that the amount has been reduced from £5,000 to £4,000. Although I know that in various parts where periodical visits are very urgently needed they never take place. I could mention cases where people live 60 to 70 miles from the nearest doctor in parts where malaria and similar diseases are prevalent, and where the people are not able to get medical assistance, or, in many cases, not in time. I would like the Minister to make it possible for those districts also to get the benefits of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. I may add that the misery in consequence of high doctors’ fees is particularly great in certain parts of the country. The people have to pay and the debt with the doctor is also greater than they could ever hope to pay off, especially when the distances are great the doctor’s account is very heavy, and I might suggest whether it is not possible to take such steps under Section 4 to pay a certain amount of the cost, if not all, to the doctors. Say that the doctor at present gets 1s. 6d. per mile— I am merely mentioning an amount—will not the doctor in the case of poor people be able to get some payment from the Treasury? As for the district surgeons, I should like to ask a question about the position in the Pretoria district. There is one natural centre there, viz., Erasmus. It is the natural centre, but, owing to circumstances, partly of a personal nature, I think Pretoria has during recent years become the centre, with the result that if a district surgeon has to go to a part where Erasmus is the natural centre, he has sometimes to travel 45 miles, or 90 miles there and back over the distance that he would have to travel if he started from Erasmus. Not only do the charges become much higher in this way, but it has repeatedly happened that when the doctor gets to the patient the patient no longer requires treatment. In some cases the patient has died before the doctor arrives, and in other cases he has, fortunately, got better in the meantime. I know I shall probably get the reply that this is a personal difficulty, but I should like to know whether if one of the two doctors at Erasmus cannot be appointed at cording to the opinion of the department, the Minister will not be prepared to call for applications, so that a third doctor can be appointed as district surgeon for that area. In any case, I want to ask that an attempt should be made to make Erasmus a centre once more; because it is the natural centre.

In respect of an item on page 79, South African Institute for Medical Research (tuberculosis research), £2,000, which is non recurrent, has that research work been abandoned, and if it is carried on, where is it carried on? There is no doubt that excellent work has been done by the Bureau for Medical Research, and it would be a misfortune if research work in this direction ceased.

I should like to ask the Minister several questions with regard to research work. I believe this work is done by the Institute for Medical Research. Will the Minister tell us if research work is being conducted with regard to the problem of cancer, and also with respect to influenza? Will he also say whether the provisions of the Vaccination Law are being strictly put into force? The trouble is that between epidemics we get lax, and then when an epidemic occurs we suddenly find that all sorts of urgency measures have to be adopted. Further, I want to ask whether the provisions of the Act passed a year or two ago with regard to adulteration of food and drugs have come into operation, and, if so, with what results, because the state of things revealed before the select committee which considered that Bill was such as to make it clear that the sooner that Bill came into operation the better.

On page 79 there are two grants of £1,000 each for the mothercraft training centre of Cape Town and the mother-craft and midwifery training centre, Pretoria. Is the output of nurses from these institutions sufficient to meet the demands of the country, and, if not, will the Minister consider reducing the qualifications imposed on nurses coming from overseas? I understand that at the present time it is necessary that these nurses should be bilingual. While agreeing with the desirability of their becoming bilingual, I suggest that during the shortage of qualified nurses that rule might be suspended.

Such a series of questions have been put that it will take considerable time to answer them all. In the first place I will reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) in connection with the amount put down for medical attention in outlying districts. In quite a number of cases it has been found that it is much better to meet the need by the appointment of additional district surgeons in those particular areas, and in various places where the doctors from other districts did the work they have now got their own district surgeon. Therefore, there is no longer a need for spending so much money for medical aid in those outlying areas. With regard to the question of the doctor at Erasmus, the hon. member knows that there are all kinds of difficulties. I have already told the hon. member and the local people, that I am ready to meet them when the difficulties have been solved. I think it is best for me to make no further statement here, and that the hon. member should come and see me about the matter. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. de Jager) asked for more information about the assistance which is given directly by the Cape Provincial Administration to poor people who require medical aid, and the indirect assistance which is given by the Public Health Department of the Union. The position is a little complicated. First of all, we had an arrangement which existed quite a number of years that the provincial administrations were responsible for the treatment of necessitous persons who did not come within the category of beggars. There is no doubt that this medical aid is part of the philosophic work which is left to the provincial councils under the constitution. But an arrangement has been made that the Department of Public Health shall give the services of the district surgeons gratis to the various provinces for those medical services. The medical service itself, therefore, costs the provincial administration nothing. It is not strictly in terms of the constitution, but the Auditor-General was always prepared to pass it, although I must say that he came to see me about it. But there are other expenses, viz., travelling expenses, and the provincial administrations undertook to bear them. At one time the provincial council of the Cape Province, however, took up the attitude that part of those travelling expenses ought to be borne by the local bodies, such as the divisional councils, and the municipal councils. This gave rise to many difficulties. In the first place, it was very difficult for the provincial councils, in the case of serious illness of a person who lived as much as 100 miles away from the village, to give permission for the district surgeon to he sent, if they had to bear half the expense. Before they could give the authority the patient had possibly long been buried. It led to many other difficulties, and various divisional councils and municipalities completely refused to undertake that responsibility. This again caused much trouble and dissatisfaction among the public, but the Government is not responsible for that, but merely the provincial councils. The matter was brought to the notice of the Cape Provincial Administration, and in one way or another it has been so arranged that the original position shall be reverted to, although the ordinance has not been repealed. It is, therefore, a matter for the provincial administration with which the Union Government is practically not concerned. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and subsequently also the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), asked certain questions in connection with Robben Island. I think it is necessary for me to explain what the position is in regard to leprosy in general, and especially in connection with Robben Island. I want to point out that during recent years, since 1921, the expenditure in connection with leprosy has increased to a considerable extent. In 1921 it was £210,000; in 1922 it was reduced to £147,000; in 1923 it was £154,000; in 1927 it came down to £133,000; and in 1928 to £129,000. In 1929 there was a slight rise to £136,000, but in 1930 it came down once more to £132,000. Therefore, we see that the expenditure on leprosy has been reduced from £204,000 in 1921 to £132,000 in 1930. This is a very noticeable reduction, and it is largely attributable to the new policy with which we started. It was found that leprosy reaches the stage when it is no longer contagious, hundreds of cases like that have been discharged from the institutions. This policy has also had another good effect. There are patients who think that it is imprisonment for them to be sent to a leper institution. It was difficult to get those cases into the institutions, and this new policy has had the effect of those patients no longer thinking that the institutions are prisons. They realize that they are hospitals for a chronic disease, and that there is the possibility, possibly not of a cure, but at any rate, of their reaching the stage when the disease is no longer contagious. The result is that it is found easier to treat cases which otherwise could not be got into the institutions without difficulty. With regard to Robben Island, the position, unfortunately, is that the cost per patient is increasing. At present it is 10s. 4d. a day, while in Pretoria it is 2s. 5d. a day. The reason for this is that the number of patients at Robben Island is continually becoming less, while it is impossible to reduce to any appreciable extent the costs in connection with that institution. The number of patients at present is 140. There are 16 Europeans and 11 natives who are also of unsound mind, and who can be better handled in that institution because it has the necessary appointments. The number of persons employed there in nursing the sick is 68, and the Public Service Commission has stated that it is not possible to reduce that number. This makes the cost terribly high, because we must remember that the families of those people also have to live there. There are 143 persons who have to live there in connection with the leper institution. What makes the costs very high is not only the cost of the necessary staff, but the cost of transport from and to the island. For that purpose the Department of the Interior has a vessel, the Pieter Faure, although we exercise every economy, that vessel costs us £4,000 a year, and there is the further difficulty that the engine of that vessel is not in a proper state of repair, and this will cost us a further £600. This explains the high cost per patient at Robben Island. Now we find, further, that my predecessor made a promise to the patients on the island that they would not be transferred to the Pretoria institution. That is the actual difficulty facing us with regard to transferring these people to Pretoria. As I have said, the promise was that they would not be taken to Pretoria against their will, and it is very difficult for me to break that promise. I have, therefore, adopted the policy of telling the patients that they can send a deputation, one for the Europeans, and one for the coloured persons, to Pretoria to examine things there, as to whether they could recommend all the patients going to Pretoria. The coloured people would not even send a deputation. The Europeans sent a deputation, but their recommendation was that they were in no circumstances to be sent to Pretoria. That is the difficulty we are faced with now. It appears, however, that the number of cases is being considerably reduced; there are deaths. Some are discharged, and leprosy is apparently becoming considerably less in the western portions of the Cape Province. There are very few additions. At the end of the current year, there will be not more than 80, and after four years we think there will only be 50. In connection with this reduction, it is also borne in mind that there are two Europeans and 20 coloured persons who have asked to be transferred to Pretoria. If we were to break up the institution at Robben Island, and transfer the lepers to Pretoria, it would mean a reduction in expenditure of £16,000 a year. The question we are at present faced with is therefore this. Is it right for the department and the Government, because the Minister, at that time, made that promise to pay £16,000 a year more from the treasury, than would otherwise be required? I do not want to give any decision on the matter. I will discuss it in all seriousness with the Cabinet. I shall also be glad if hon. members will state their opinions about it. I can say this: that the great objection of the patients is that their relations can come and see them here, but when they are in Pretoria that will be impossible, because the distance is so great and the expense so high. Provision can be made to allow their relations to go to Pretoria and visit them from time to time gratis, or at considerably reduced prices. That objection can therefore be met to a great extent. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) referred to the medical inspection of schools, and asked if it would be possible for the children to be treated by district surgeons. According to him, the medical inspections lead to no practical results. He also asked a question in connection with the underfeeding of school children. With regard to the last point, it must be clear to everyone that it is a matter which clearly comes under the provincial administrations. I believe, moreover, that they actually provide for such cases, even if not sufficiently. With regard to the medical inspection of schools, we have to do with a broader question, which has also been dealt with by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr), viz., the relations between the Union Government and provincial administrations. The hon. member mentioned it in connection with hospital accommodation, and he particularly emphasised that there was not enough accommodation for non-Europeans in the hospitals. He further spoke about the need of more district nurses, including, according to his ideas, I think, as many midwives in outlying areas as ordinary nurses. I can only tell hon. members this: that I have, for some time, acknowledged, as I have already said, and as is indicated by the Public Health Board, that the whole system is extremely unsatisfactory. At present there is a double, and even, in many cases, a threefold control, and in the circumstances it is impossible to realize our ideals. To realize them there must be co-ordination in the services. The hospital system must be coordinated with the system of district surgeons, and this, in turn, with those of medical inspection, sick-nursing, attention by midwives, etc. This is all part of one great whole, but the national convention decided to divide up the medical services of the nation, and to put them under various authorities. That being so, neither I, as Minister of Public Health, nor the Union Government can be blamed for the defects that exist here and there. We inherited them, and as long as the provincial system lasts we must accept the position and make the best of it, or otherwise we must decide to abolish the provincial councils. We cannot simply go and take over all kinds of duties of the provincial councils, because the system works unsatisfactorily in this or the other respect. What would that lead to? We should then have the position that the provincial administrations would be quite prepared to hand over the work to the central Government in all cases where they thought that the rendering of those services was above their capacity. They would evade their responsibility of taxing more, and pass on the duties to the Union Government, and the Union Government would then have to levy extra taxation for the services. This would create an impossible position. I think, therefore, that the whole matter of an ideal arrangement with regard to public health must stand over until we, as the Government, and as a Parliament, can review the whole question of the provincial system. This is not the time for that. There are other great pressing questions, as I have already said, which are receiving the Government’s attention, and when they are disposed of the time will have arrived for us to consider this matter, and I therefore think that the matter of provincial relations which will, of course, require legislation to make any change must stand over until we consider the provincial system in its full extent in view of our experience during the past 20 years. But in the meantime it is no use criticizing the Minister of Public Health on this vote and referring to the defects. The Minister is simply not responsible for them. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also asked the question whether it was not possible to obtain a certain amount of co-ordination between the Union Government and the provinces notwithstanding the existing system. I think the hon. member knows that I have made an attempt. After the hospital commission made its report, I convened a meeting of the four administrators, and discussed with them how far effect could be given to the recommendations of the commission under the existing system. We understood each other on certain points and an agreement was come to. Certain things were undertaken by the Union Government, one of which was that we should give loans to the provinces for improving hospital conditions. The Union Government has faithfully fulfilled that promise. Everything that has been asked for by the provinces for the building of new hospitals where necessary has been complied with, so far as I know, at any rate. I also undertook at that time, although the hospitals came under the provincial administrations, to provide for the medical inspection of the hospitals, and, accordingly, a special inspector was appointed by my department who is constantly engaged going from hospital to hospital inspecting and making recommendations. But there again we have the position that he comes under the Union Government, and that his recommendations have to be carried out by the provincial administrations. As for the provision of hospital accommodation for non-Europeans, and particularly for natives, I appreciate what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said. It is true that the provincial administrations make very meagre provision for the non-Europeans. The argument was actually used that they have no supervision over the natives, inasmuch as they do not tax the natives, and that it, therefore, cannot be expected of them to provide hospital facilities for the natives. The provincial administrations were then referred to the provisions of the constitution, holding them responsible for hospitals, and making no exception in respect of natives. It is a clear duty which is laid on them under the constitution. As for grants from the Native Development Fund, I can only say that it is a matter between the provincial administrations and the responsible Ministers in connection with the administration of that fund. It has nothing to do with public health, and as the Minister of Public Health, I can therefore say nothing on the matter. I understand, however, that the fund is nearly exhausted, and, in any case, there is not much left for public purposes. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) asked a question in connection with the leper institution in Pretoria. There is proper accommodation for the X-ray apparatus, but the expectations which existed as to the help that apparatus would give in fighting leprosy were not realized. That is the reason why the apparatus is not used so much. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and another hon. member asked about tuberculosis. We decided a number of years ago to vote the sum of £2,000 for three years to make further enquiries into the position of tuberculosis, and to enable the Government to lay down a definite policy. That was only an arrangement for three years, and, as far as it was possible, the enquiry was made and the £2,000 was not repeated, because the three years had now expired. The fighting of tuberculosis now comes under the supervision of one of the greatest experts in the world, who is not permanently appointed, but who has come for a period to put the enquiry on right lines, and to return periodically to the Union to examine the position, and if necessary make further recommendations. The enquiry has now been completed, and all that is to be done is for the inferences to be made under his supervision, and for a report to be prepared. The report has not yet appeared, therefore I am not at present able to say any more. As for the taking of tuberculosis cases into hospital, I can tell the hon. member for Hopetown that the position still is where it was, and that, therefore, no solution has yet been found between the central Government and the Natal provincial administration.

†Several hon. members have asked for a statement regarding the malaria position, while the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) has practically asked that the Government shall be impeached on account of its alleged inactivity. First of all, it is necessary to inform the House as to the actual position at present. The bulletin of the Public Health Department for the week ended April 19th states—

That is the latest information I have from the Department of Public Health. Generally, I may say that during last year the position has not been so bad as it was in the previous year. That does not say that in certain localities it may not have been worse, but generally speaking the position has improved on last year. The malarial position year after year depends very much on the state of the rainfall. You must have a certain combination of factors, especially connected with rainfall, to determine what the malarial position is in that particular year. If it is a time of particular drought in the whole country or a particular locality, generally speaking the position is not bad. There must be enough moisture in the air or the soil to be favourable for the breeding of the mosquitoes causing the malarial epidemic. So the position of an extreme drought is favourable, and so is an exceptionally good rainfall, which washes away the eggs of the mosquitoes, and in that way the position is also improved.

What about the distribution of quinine amongst the natives?

I will deal with that. As to the measures which have been taken by the Government, I may say that the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) is quite wrong when he says that a certain proposal made by the Department of Public Health was turned down by the Cabinet, and that, therefore, the Government is to blame for nothing having been done. The proposal on the part of the department was that to deal with special outbreaks of malarial epidemic and also to do educative work—because the best thing in connection with malaria you can do is to do preventive and educative work— for that purpose a small special staff should be appointed. Well, that recommendation was brought before the Cabinet by me in due course. The Cabinet did not take a decision at that particular time, but asked me to request the Public Service Commission to go into the whole question whether the staff we have in the Department of Public Health would not be adequate to do that extra work. That caused a delay. I asked the Public Service Commission to go into the whole question, and they reported that an extra staff was necessary, and when I reported that to the Cabinet they at once sanctioned the extra expenditure, and we have had that extra staff at work, in Zululand and Natal generally, during this malarial season; recently they have left that Natal area and gone to the Northern Transvaal, and from all the reports I have received they are doing excellent work. The question has been asked in the House from time to time as to the future policy with regard to malaria. Well, during the recess, I have given my attention to this matter, and in order to have further research into the position and to assist the Government in regard to laying down a malaria policy for the future, I have communicated in the first place with the British Minister of Health to find for us somewhere in Europe a world expert on malarial matters. The first idea was to get out here, for the purposes of investigation, Col. James, who has had a wide experience, and is undoubtedly one of the great authorities in the world. It was found that he was not available, and then another name was suggested to us by the British Minister of Health—Dr. Zwellengrebel—a Hollander, connected with the League of Nations health work, and undoubtedly one of the leading experts in this connection in the world—and, after some communication, we succeeded in securing his services. It has now been arranged that he will come to the Union at the beginning of the malarial season, in September, and spend a considerable time in South Africa investigating the whole position; if necessary, to come at a subsequent period as Professor Cummins in connection with tuberculosis has done, and he will be of assistance to the Government in formulating a malarial policy. I hope hon. members will see that that is just as much as we could do under the existing circumstances at the present time. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has asked a question in connection with the salary of dispensers. There is only one such dispenser in the employ of the Department of Public Health; dispensing work is as a rule done by the medical officers of health, and not by ordinary dispensers. As far as the employment of unqualified persons for this particular work is concerned, I can inform the hon. member there are no such persons in the employ of the department—all are qualified. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has asked a question with regard to the culture of Indian hemp. I may say that the report to which he refers—that of Dr. Mitchell—does not deal with the present position, but with the position as it was a few years back. Subsequently to that we have had legislation passed in the House, and now that the provisions of the law are much more strict with regard to this matter, we find that the use of Indian hemp has been very much restricted, and the position is very much better than it was. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) asked a few questions in connection with the work of the Institute for Medical Research. As the hon. member will know, it is not a Government institution in the true sense of the word, but a co-operation between the Union Government on the one hand and the Chamber of Mines on the other, and for that reason the functions and the work of investigation of the institute are not under the direct control of the Government. We appoint a nominee to the board, but we have no further control. I am glad to say that the Institute for Medical Research meets our requirements and our wishes to a very large extent, and they certainly do make investigations in various directions. I am not sure about cancer, because I think a good deal of investigation has been carried out by the university, but in other directions, they do make researches. As far as vaccination is concerned, the law is now being enforced. In view of the fact that the law has not been enforced for a number of years, a good deal of consideration is given by the department with regard to its enforcement, but with the use of the utmost tact we are enforcing the law, and the number of vaccinations has increased largely. As far as the Foods and Drugs Act is concerned, it took some considerable time before the regulations could be drawn up. According to the Act, these regulations must be drawn up provisionally first. Three months’ notice must be given to all concerned. They must have an opportunity of making observations, and laying their views before the Government. We drew up these regulations, published them, received observations, re-drafted them, and ultimately published them again, and I think they came into operation on the 1st April. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) asked a question in connection with the allowances for mothercraft training. I think the institutions which receive the subsidy are doing very good work. They are turning out every year a considerable number of nurses trained in mothercraft nursing, but the hon. member will realize that it has never been considered the duty of the Government to provide nurses, either maternity nurses or general nurses or mothercraft nurses, for any locality. It has not been considered so far the duty of the Government to do that, just as little as it has been considered the duty of the Government to provide doctors for any locality. What the Union Government is responsible for is the training of maternity nurses. That is the opinion we have had from the law adviser, and we have accepted that. We are responsible for the training of midwives, but nothing more, and the hon. member will see that we make some provision for that particular need. As far as the reduction of the requirements in connection with qualifications is concerned with regard to nurses coming from overseas, that is not a question falling under the jurisdiction of public health. That is a matter which, under the Act passed about two years ago, is the responsibility of the medical council. It is within the power of the medical council to lay down the qualifications, and I think I must refer the hon. member to that body.

I am much obliged to the Minister for the information he has given me. I am quite aware of the excellent work of the Institute for Medical Research, but the information I asked for is whether, as we have no department of our own undertaking research work of any kind, the institute has investigated the matter of cancer and the matter of influenza. It is important that influenza should be investigated. I am referring to the ordinary influenza, and not to the virulent form which was spidemic some years ago. In England they are paying very great attention to the matters of the ordinary influenza, and I should like to know whether attention can be paid to it here on the lines similar to those in England and elsewhere. Influenza of the ordinary kind is beginning to assume importance in the minds of medical practitioners to a greater extent than has ever been the case before for the consequences which often follow influenza attacks.

I am quite aware that the training of nurses is a provincial matter, but attention has been drawn in the annual report of the Department of Public Health to the fact that the administration is not doing its duty. There is a very serious shortage of trained nurses, and the recognized training schools are unable to turn out nurses in sufficient numbers. I consider this to be a public health matter. I also wish to mention the question of the training of native nurses. Very little provision exists for the training of native nurses. I truly believe it is generally felt that natives should be attended as far as possible by native nurses, and not by European nurses. I think that is the feeling even of European nurses themselves. One remembers what happened at the Vryburg Hospital a few years ago when the Cape provincial administrator had to face a very serious crisis owing to the resignation of certain European nurses. I was struck when I was in Johannesburg with the excellent opportunity that existed there in the hospitals in connection with the mines, of training native nurses at the hospitals on the mines for native workers. I would like the Minister to consider this matter of encouraging the training of native nurses as there is undoubtedly a great need for the same as it is in the best interests of the natives themselves that they should be nursed by nurses who speak their own language and understand their needs.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister, although he has given us a very great deal of valuable information, has not been able to tell us more about the main point which I raised, in regard to the present position as to hospitalization in general. The Minister has been disposed to take up, what I can only call, a non-possumus attitude, but after all, it was he who took the initiative in this matter in the first instance. It was he who brought the present unsatisfactory position prominently before the public. One would have hoped that he would have followed the matter up, and would now be in a position to indicate what advances have been made. Some of us are aware of the advances which have been made in one or other particular province, but I think the Minister should tell us what steps are being taken in the Union as a whole to deal with the admittedly serious position disclosed. The position affects not only European patients, but also non-European patients. There, again, the Minister took up this “non possumus” attitude. He referred to the native development fund but said that it is exhausted. The provinces know that. They have done their best, but have come up against this blank wall. Where could they have found a better ally than the Minister of Public Health to obtain provision out of that fund? The fund may be exhausted, but perhaps the Minister could tell us what provision is being made for it in the future. The Minister of Finance declared that he would be content with £900,000 out of the native general tax, and that the rest might go to the native development fund. But the Minister is going to get £975,000 this year out of native tax. May I suggest that the Minister of Public Health might be instrumental in securing a diversion of that odd amount of £75,000 into the native development fund, and thus meeting this serious need. There is another point which I raised, to which the Minister may have replied, but if he did, it must have been in my absence, and I cannot ask him to repeat what he said. That is the question of district nursing. I should like to say that unless the Department of Public Health is prepared to take the initiative in this matter, so far as the country districts are concerned, not much is likely to be done. I would like to make a suggestion in this regard. The Minister is aware that some little time ago, the problem of bilharzia was approached in the Transvaal on new lines, on the lines of co-operation between the Red Cross, the Public Health Department and the provincial administration. The Public Health Department and the provincial administration provided the funds, and the Red Cross assisted in the matter of organization. I believe the scheme is working very well There is a promise of satisfactory development in the future. I would commend it to the Minister’s attention as to whether it will be possible for him to take the initiative in the creation of an organization on similar lines to deal with district nursing. In the Transvaal the Red Cross would, it has been suggested to me, be willing to organize the work, provided funds are made available. I believe this is a work which can be dealt with much better by a non-state organization with state support than by the state itself. If that is so, I think the matter is worthy of exploration. But I would repeat, and it is worthy of repetition, that unless the Minister of Public Health is prepared to take the initiative in this matter of district nursing, nothing is likely to be done. As I have said, the present position is that the provinces cannot act, and the Minister will not act.

I would like to point out to the Minister that there are four dispensers employed in various institutions.

That is another vote.

Yes, that is so, but the principle is the same and I would like that anomoly rectified.

Does the Minister seriously say that the two sanitary inspectors and the medical officer appointed represent the anti-malaria scheme as propounded by the officers of his department? Do these three men represent the anti-malaria scheme for the whole of the Union? If so, I say it is trifling with the question. It is tantamount to the ineffectiveness of that report where a medical officer states that native medicine was prepared from a gramophone record ground up and mixed with water drawn from a locomotive. One was to make the patient talk, and the other to make the disease go. Two of these officers are only sanitary inspectors. It amounts to trifling with the question.

All I can say in regard to the remarks of the hon. gentlemen is that we should not attempt to be wiser than the experts on this question. The representations to the Government have been the result of consultation between the various departments and experts. They thought that a specialized staff asked for from the Cabinet would be sufficient to deal with the matter in order to supervize and assist in connection with the outbreak of epidemics, and for the rest they can do the work that is necessary. The hon. gentleman should not be wiser than the experts in this matter. Let me say further, for the information of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), that the institute for medical research is actually investigating the question of cancer. As to the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller), I would call his attention to what was stated in the report of the chief medical officer of health of the Union in connection with the requirements and qualifications of trained nurses; the period of training is really the only advice given to the proper authorities, that is to say, the medical council. That is as far as we can go under the law.

I want to support what the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has said. I gather now that the Minister does value reports made by experts, and I would ask him therefore why nothing has been done to put into effect any one of the recommendations made by the Thornton Commission. This is an urgent matter. The commission very strongly recommended that the least possible delay should occur in the provisions of native medical assistants and a native nursing service. If the Minister gives the matter fuller consideration, he will realize it is a very important matter. Where natives live in large numbers, you realize that very little medical attendance is available. Then again, take the native servants on farms. If any of them are taken ill they cannot afford to pay the heavy fees which are required for a doctor to come out to them, and a farmer often cannot afford to get the doctor out. I do know that the district surgeons are available to some extent, put I think, in view of the sparsity of the population and the poverty of the people concerned, that some provision should be made to assist them with medical attendance. I think the district surgeons might be used a little more fully than they are, especially in cases of infectious diseases. We know that infectious diseases are notifiable, but perhaps the Minister is not aware that many cases of these diseases in the countryside are never reported. It is inevitable that that should be so. You cannot expect the farmer to shoulder the expense of having his natives attended to. Notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that these reports are “only recommendations,” I should like to ask why are these expert bodies constituted unless it is to make recommendations which the Government of the day presumably intends to put into practice? I know that all the recommendations cannot be put into effect. When, however, you have a commission like the one I have referred to, which is very insistent that its minimum recommendations at least should be adopted, and there has been nothing done about it, then I take up the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) and say that something should be done.

I do not accept the Minister’s statement that I am setting myself up against the experts. That is not the case. It is a case of whether results are being achieved by whatever you have instituted. This letter which I have, states that your results are almost negligible. The writer says—

We find that hon. members in the Transvaal, in the low veld, have stated that malaria was increasing there. It is increasing in our district, and I say that you are tampering with the matter. I do not set myself up against the experts, but if expert opinion is that the appointment of two inspectors and another official amounts to an anti-malaria scheme, then I say, merely as laymen, judging by results, that their scheme is a hopeless failure.

I should like to ask the Minister for further information and assurances in regard to his campaign in reference to housing. I should like to say at once that I think the Minister certainly deserves the gratitude of those who have been working for better housing conditions, for what he has done. He has redeemed a promise, and on the principle that even the devil—and I do not suggest any parallel—deserves his due, I think the Minister deserves the word of congratulation he has got from the proper quarters. He has shown that he is alive to the importance of the question. We hope the start that he has made will not be merely a start, but that he will go further forward. Hon. members know, as has been stated in this House, that a conference on housing was held at Cape Town on February 17th last. That was a very excellent step, a very excellent course to adopt, and it has not been without results. We have heard in this House the proposals that the hon. Minister has put forward. Let me say this, that I am sure even the Minister will agree that the sum he has allocated, namely, £500,000, to be spread over a period of three years for the sub-economic scheme of housing, is certainly nothing like sufficient. I am sure that he will do his best to see that in the future the sum will be increased if it can be increased. There is one other aspect I should like to emphasize. The Minister has gone a long way to meet the private bodies interested in housing, namely, the Citizens Housing League and the Utility Companies, but there is one desire of theirs that he has not met. That is their wish to be able to deal directly with the Government when seeking loans. The present position is that if the Citizens’ Housing League, or the Utility Companies, wish to get money, they have to get it through a cumberous procedure in which the local city council and the provincial council are both involved. That involves time. It involves the waste of time due to red tape, and the result is that their good work is hung up. It seems to me that it would be more efficacious if those bodies were able to deal direct with the Minister; if they could go forward to him, propound their scheme and go into the merits of the scheme with him, he would be able to decide if it was possible to grant the money direct to those bodies. I commend that innovation to the Minister. There is another aspect of this question of public health and housing, upon which the Minister touched on a previous occasion, and upon which too great emphasis cannot be laid. That is the relationship between housing and decent social conditions in the urban areas, and the influx of people to urban areas from the rural areas. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is really giving his attention to that matter. I believe in Germany there is some system of registration, or some system of ascertaining whether a person who migrates from the country to the town, is in a position to maintain himself or herself.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter, as it has nothing to do with this vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 18, “Union Education,” £889,289,

I should like to ask the hon. Minister if he will take advantage of the opportunity of going a little bit further into a statement of his policy in regard to university development in this country. There are a good many people who have often expressed the view that we have gone considerably too far in regard to the creation of university institutions. That is not the view I myself would be disposed to take. In regard to all our existing university institutions, I think when we come to examine these institutions, and the work that they are doing to-day, we should be prepared to admit that the country, as a whole, and certainly the areas which they serve, are the richer rather than the poorer, for their existence. I would not, therefore, like anything I am saying to be regarded as a plea for a reduction in the number of university institutions in this country. But in that connection I think it is necessary that we should be clear upon a certain proviso which was admirably stated by the Van der Horst commission, which reported two years ago—

There were certain disclosures in the report which were disquieting—disquieting from the point of view of those interested in our universities, disclosures which suggested that in some instances there was a very grave inadequacy in the matter of equipment. I would like to ask the Minister to tell us whether anything has been done to give effect to that very definite recommendation of the commission. Are we any nearer to-day than we were some years ago to the time when all these university institutions will be in a position to do true university work, and will be adequately equipped to give instruction necessary for the taking of degrees? That is by the way. My main point is not the question of the number of university institutions but the number of our universities, and it is in that regard that I would like a statement of policy from the Minister. It seems to me that we should have greater clarity in the matter than we have today. A statement in regard to the possible increase in the number of universities in South Africa was made by the Secretary for Education, who is the head of the Education Department, in some evidence he gave before a select committee recently—

Thus the technical head of the Education Department has indicated that we should avoid a policy which would ultimately lead to the established of eight or nine universities in South Africa. We are very definitely following along the line of such a policy to-day, and that is the policy of the Minister of Education. When the point was raised in another connection, and when the Minister was asked to make a statement of policy on the question of the advisability of opening too wide the door that leads to the creation of new universities, the Minister shrugged his shoulders and said the question was determined in 1916 when each of these constituent colleges of the University of South Africa had held out to it the prospect of becoming a full university, and that we must not stand in their way.

Do you want me to tell the House what universities are to go?

Nothing of the kind. I said very clearly that I did not want any institution to go. I am not raising the question of the number of university institutions but the number of degree-giving institutions—in other words, the number of universities. I have pointed out that the technical head of the Minister’s department clearly foreshadows that the existence of eight or nine degree-giving institutions would be unfortunate.

Surely that depends on the state of their development.

There are ways and means of guiding development. In our legislation, certainly in the Acts of Parliament governing three of our universities there is suggested another and, to my mind, a better way. There is suggested at least one line of development which would lead to some of the existing university colleges being linked up with some of the universities. That is the line of development foreshadowed in our university legislation, but it is entirely at the discretion of the universities concerned. As long, however, as the Minister takes up the non possumus attitude based on the policy laid down in 1916 that each of these university colleges must be allowed to go ahead until it becomes an independent university, the other line of development will not be followed, and there can be only one result, namely the existence of eight or nine degree-giving institutions. What I am trying to suggest is the advisability of the Minister considering the question as a whole, and of facing the alternative—are we going to pursue a line of development which will give South Africa eight or nine degree-giving institutions or are we going to try to find some other and some better way? That is the main point I want to put before the Minister at this stage. There are one or two other points, to which I shall come later, but I would like to take this opportunity, while I am speaking now, of dealing with a comparatively minor point, although it is of considerable importance to the institutions concerned. I should like the Minister to tell us on what basis the grants to universities for 1930-’31 have been calculated. The regulations which, I believe, are still in force, provide for an increase up to a 5 per cent, maximum. In some cases the grant for 1930-’31 on these estimates is the same as that for 1929-’30, which would appear to suggest that the Minister has based his estimates on the amended regulations he has laid on the Table of the House, but which, I believe, are not yet in force. I would be glad to know if this is correct. The Minister has given notice in the Gazette of certain amendments in the regulations, which will have the effect of checking automatic increase of the grants. It would appear that, to some extent, the new regulations have been made the determining factor in these estimates. I should like to know, will this House have an opportunity during this session of debating this new proposal which has been put forward?

If figures are any indication, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the amount being spent on agricultural education. Out of a total sum for vocation training of £170,234, only £22,845 is being spent on the training of our future farmers, which seems to be out of all proportion to the importance in which farming is placed in this country. When I look at the report of the Department of Education for the year ending December, 1928, I find 152 pupils are mentioned as being trained in our agricultural schools, when we have 20,000 children attending our technical colleges and continuation classes. If this is a sample of agricultural education, as mentioned on page 53 of the report, I think it a very poor attempt. The report speaks of the newly-established schools at Brits, Augsburg and Oakdale, and it says they have many points in common, and the lack of suitable buildings is a drawback. It is so still. At Augsburg, the roof was lying on the ground, and at Oakdale the accommodation was as lacking at it was at Brits, and quite inadequate. Surely the sooner we try some better system, the better. The expense in connection with this particular education is fairly high; it works out that the annual gross cost per pupil is £150, and the net cost about £82. The report draws attention to the necessity for greater cooperation among the farmers themselves, but I think the Government could render assistance in this direction. What I feel is wrong with our agricultural education is that we have directed our attention too much to the poor boy and associated the whole of our agricultural education with indigency. Why not give the man who can afford to pay an opportunity of paying for the education of his son at these agricultural schools. The Tweespruit agricultural school in the Free State is an object-lesson to the country, since that school has come under the aegis of the Union Education Department, education is being extended to the sons of farmers who can afford to pay which is a step in the right direction. Agricultural education, because it is an expensive form of education, is being sadly neglected. After all, we are an agricultural country, and if we neglect our agricultural education, we are forcing boys more and more to come into the towns to seek employment. I would appeal to the Minister to consider the whole question of agricultural education, and develop the whole system commensurate with the needs of an agricultural country.

As we are discussing Union education we all feel that we ought to make the education of our students in South Africa as good as possible. I feel that we ought not to go too fast and too far with the number of universities which have been established in our country. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) spoke here of universities increasing in the country like locusts. We do not want that, because we want our higher education to develop in such a way that the degrees granted by our universities will signify something. We do not want universities who will grant degrees for the sake of popularity and who will produce graduates like a sausage machine, just for the sake of saying that they have sent so many M.A.’s and B A.’s into the world. We want men who have received a proper scientific education. We have here before us in the report of the Auditor-General the amount of the costs per student in the various institutions of our country. We see from that what the cost is in the University of the Witwatersrand, and it is the highest of any. In Capetown the cost is £101.53 a student; in Stellenbosch £88.12, and in the Witwatersrand University £121.47. At present the Witwatersrand is the most expensive. I should like to ask whether it is not possible to reduce it. What is the reason for the cost per student in Johannesburg being so high? In Stellenbosch it is £88.12, while in the Witwatersrand University it is 30 per cent. more. What is the reason?

They have not sufficient free endowment.

I thought there must be something behind it. We therefore find that the position is that they have too little free endowment. I therefore think that it is necessary to make the University of the Witwatersrand feel that it is necessary to have free endowment so that they will not have to expect everything from the State. We consider the matter here as taxpayers, and I think we must see to it that the cost per student is not driven up so high. The universities should also contribute funds. Every penny that is spent on education is of benefit to the State, but we must nevertheless bear in mind that our expenses should not be driven up too high.

First of all I should like to move an amendment of which notice was given by the hon. the Minister of Finance, in Vote 18, Union Education, sub-head “O.” I move—

†*I just want to answer a few questions. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) called my attention to the fact of the cost per student at the Witwatersrand University being so much higher than at the other institutions and he enquired whether it would not be possible to reduce the grants. I have already said that the reason is that the Witwatersrand University does not have sufficient free endowment. As I explained on a former occasion, the University of the Witwatersrand at its commencement did not possess sufficient building, and has subsequently to incur heavy expense in getting proper housing. As for reducing the grants, I want to point out that the Government grants are based on certain data, and are controlled by regulations. In accordance with those regulations, the University of the Witwatersrand is entitled to that subsidy.

†I wish to reply to the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller). The hon. member complains that for agricultural education we take from Parliament only a certain sum of money and that this is an insignificant sum compared with the expenditure for education generally under this head, university education and technical education. Now the conclusion to which he comes is that the Department is neglecting agricultural education. He points out that the number of students is only 152 compared with many thousands in the other institutions. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman whether that is a fair comparison; whether he does not realize that every educational institution is a gradual slow growth which must be cultivated, and whilst university education was begun in this country years ago and technical education six or seven years ago, agricultural education in so far as it existed at all—this particular type with which we have to deal under the estimates—was taken over by the Union Government only in 1926. How, under the circumstances, the hon. gentleman can expect that the money we expend on agricultural education could compare with that which we expend on university or technical education, I do not understand, and I do not think the criticism of the hon. gentleman is fair at all.

I said vocational education.

Vocational education was taken over by the Union Government in 1926 along with agricultural education. The hon. gentleman wants us to make provision not only for the poor child, but also for the child whose parents can pay. That has been done. I introduced a Bill in this House last year which was passed, by which it was made possible to charge fees at these institutions in order to admit children of parents who ought to pay, and we are doing that now.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has asked a few questions. The first one was whether the grants to university colleges are calculated on the old basis or the proposed new basis. They are calculated on the new basis, but the university institutions were told months ago—I think it was last September—that they must base their future requirements on the new basis. The ordinary provision is made for the running services of the universities which get all that they require for their services as they exist to-day, and provision has also been made on the estimates for new extensions which have already been approved by the Minister; but the estimates do not provide for any further extensions. The hon. member further asked me what was the Government’s policy as regards university extension. He pointed out that, as far as he could see, I was in favour of the establishment ultimately, of eight or nine universities. In the first place, I wish to emphasize once more that the present position in regard to the number of higher educational institutions is a legacy of the past. All these institutions, with the exception of the Witwatersrand University and the Potchefstroom University College, were established before Union, and at this stage it is impossible to do away with any of the existing colleges. The hon. member remarked that he did not expect me to say that we are going to do away with any of these institutions, and I am certainly not going to do so. He suggests that we should try to bring under one control some of the existing institutions, and to get a sort of combined institution consisting of two or three others. I wish to point out that something of that kind was thought of before the previous Government laid down a university policy. More particularly had they that in mind in regard to the Cape Town and Stellenbosch colleges, but it was found altogether impracticable. I think there was a similar idea in regard to the Johannesburg and Pretoria institutions. If it were found impossible to carry out that ideal in regard to these four institutions I have mentioned, surely it is much more difficult to carry it out in the case of other colleges scattered all over the country. The only possible combination would be the Wellington college with either the Stellenbosch or Cape Town university. Provision has been made for that in one of the university Acts, but where we have to do with autonomous institutions, the carrying out of a policy of that nature largely depends on the free will of such institutions. As far as I know no move has been made in that direction by the Wellington College. But there is something else, which was suggested by the Van der Horst commission which I thought was well worthy of consideration, and that is that some of the smaller colleges could possibly find their future in concentrating more on the training of teachers. Now I discussed that particular point, or I placed it for discussion, before the higher education conference which was held some time ago in Pretoria. Represented at that conference were the four provincial administrations, the Union Education Department, the provincial ducation departments, the teaching profession and all the universities and university colleges. I think it was possibly the most representative conference we have ever had in this country on higher education. That conference went very thoroughly into the whole question and came to the unanimous decision that it was advisable that, as far as possible, teachers should be trained not by the education departments but by the various universities, and the whole service of teacher training should be transferred to the Union Government. That resolution was placed also before the subsequent university conference that was held in Cape Town and was confirmed by them, and I may say that the smaller colleges have looked upon this proposal very favourably. Further, I may say in this connection that should this recommendation be carried out it will not mean any extra expenditure to the Union Government, because the provinces now receive subsidies in respect of the training of teachers, and if you look at the figures, you find that the Union Government actually provide more money to the provincial administrations for the training of teachers than they spend, the only exception being the Transvaal, which has spent a little more. This policy I am considering further, but seeing the matter falls under the provincial administrations at present, I cannot proceed further unless I get their willing co-operation. I propose to take steps to sound them on this question, and if I find a sufficient readiness on their part to fall into line and agree to this proposal I propose to ask the Cabinet and to ask Parliament to take over the service from the provinces. That is the policy I have in mind, and certainly it will not do away with the existing colleges, but it will to some extent alter their future and make them concentrate in a particular direction and have a very useful existence in the future. With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) with regard to certain grants to schools and his asking to what the great increase is due, the reply is, new time scales have been introduced in these institutions in consultation with and on the advice of the Union Department of Public Health.

I should like first of all to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) in regard to the cost to the state of the various universities, and the Minister’s reply to the hon. member. I was rather surprised that the hon. member raised it; I believe he is a member of the council of one of the university institutions, and as such he ought to know on what basis these grants are given. They are based on certain regulations approved of by this House. If he has not that knowledge, I am very sorry for him, and for the body of which he is a member. I was even more surprized at the Minister of Education, who, for once, departed from that fairness which he ordinarily shows to all the University institutions, in order to score what seemed like a debating point. He accepted the statement which had been made, or perhaps merely implied, by the hon. member for Wonderboom, who said or implied that the University of the Witwatersrand costs the state £121 per student per annum, and the University of Stellenbosch £88; and the Minister of Education accepted these figures. I was amazed. I cannot conceive how the Minister can possibly accept for a moment that there is a single university which costs the state £120 per student. Surely it ought to be the very A.B.C. of the Department of Education to know that such a position is impossible. What are the facts? The facts are that the University of the Witwatersrand cost the state £63.83 per student. The figures the hon. member for Wonderboom gave represent the cost to the State and to the institution jointly. The University of Stellenbosch cost the state £50.94 per student. The Minister will admit these figures put a very different construction on the statement made by the hon. member; but I want to go further; the Minister of Education was pleased to say, in an interjection he made, that the reason for this was because the University of the Witwatersrand started without an endowment. It is a rather interesting commentary on that fact that while 58 per cent, of the cost of the University of Stellenbosch comes from the state, only 52.5 per cent, of the cost of the University of the Witwatersrand comes from the state. If the hon. Minister had looked at the figures, he would not have made that interjection. The Minister went on to justify his interjection by trying to find some connection between endowment and buildings. He suggested quite rightly that the University of the Witwatersrand today gets a relatively large amount from the state because it went on fairly rapidly with its building programme, but surely the Minister knows that the University of Cape Town, the best endowed university in the country, is going to cost the state a great deal more in respect of its building programme. I can only say that I am not only very sorry but very much surprised that the hon. the Minister should have placed this House under a wrong impression in this regard. May I say one word more in order to explain what the real reason is for this difference in the actual cost to the state of these various institutions. The University of the Witwatersrand went ahead very fast with its building programme in the years after its creation. That is one reason. Another reason is that the University of the Witwatersrand has to provide two expensive highly specialized technical faculties, the faculties of medicine and engineering. The University of Stellenbosch has only one such faculty, the faculty of agriculture, and I believe I am correct in saying that that faculty is not provided for on the Education Vote. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to that particular point. May I pass on to the other points which have been raised? I should like to put a further question to the Minister in regard to the basis of the grants provided for on this year’s estimates. He has stated that the figures have been calculated on the basis of the proposed regulations. I should like to know when the House is going to be given an opportunity of discussing the proposed regulations, and whether such an opportunity will be afforded before the end of the Session. Secondly, I would like to know why certain institutions are receiving an increased grant, and others are not receiving an increased grant. It is true there is provision in the regulations for special grants, but I think this House should have some explanation on this point. We find that the University of Cape Town is getting an increase of something like £4,000 on last year’s general purposes grant, Stellenbosch is getting a small increase, the University of the Witwatersrand is not getting an increase, the Rhodes University College is not getting an increase, the Huguenot University College gets a trifling increase, the Natal University College gets a trifling increase, the Transvaal University College a comparatively small increase, the Grey University College gets no increase, and the Potchefstroom University College a small increase. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister on what basis these increases have been made in the case of certain institutions. I pass on to another point. I am grateful to the Minister for having said what he has said with regard to future policy, and I think most of us will endorse the proposed transfer of the training of secondary teachers to university institutions, but we must not forget this At the present moment the provincial administrations, I believe even the Transvaal included, are making a profit on the present basis of grants for normal college students, and they are not likely to surrender either their authority and their powers or the revenue that comes to them from this source, if they can retain it. [Time limit.]

I should like to say a few words with regard to training schools. I recently visited some of these agricultural training schools, and I was much impressed with what I saw. I congratulate the Minister on the improvement that has been made in recent years. The Education Department should, I think, take over all agricultural education. There is no doubt that as far as the agricultural colleges go they are in an unholy mess at the present time, and, unless reforms are introduced, these colleges in the near future are going to be empty. If these schools were under the Education Department, I feel absolutely certain that a great improvement would be brought about in them. When I visited the schools I was led to understand that all the work done there was done by the students, but I see an item of nearly £2,000 on the estimates for labour. What is that for? Is it for native labour, or for labour for the erection of buildings? I should be very sorry to see the principle of the boys doing all the work themselves abandoned, and I hope natives will not be introduced to do the work that the boys should do. The Weston School near Mooi River has proved even to old-established farmers how they can improve their stock, which is a great credit to the school. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not present, because I wish to say something with regard to some of the improvements he could introduce into his schools of agriculture by following the useful procedure adopted in these training schools. One of the things I am so pleased about with regard to these training schools is that it is now possible for farmers’ sons to be taken there. Previously, these schools were conducted as institutions for poor whites, where boys were admitted as a matter of charity. The tone of these schools to-day is quite as good as that of the larger schools of agriculture. Boys who are trained there to-day will not only turn out good farmers but will supply a real want in this country for capable farm overseers and foremen, of which many of us stand so much in need.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) said that he was so astonished at the Minister and me, but I think the House is astonished at the hon. member. We know that he is a juggler with figures. We saw that in the past when he was administrator, and he succeeded in showing a surplus although there actually was a deficit. That art stands him in good stead now. The hon. member was surprised at my ignorance. I just want to tell him that we are not all so clever as he is about everything. I, however, do know something of the regulations in connection with the grants received by universities and I see that the financial expert, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has not taken the figure of the auditor-general’s report which show the actual position; they show that every student of the Johannesburg University costs the state £63.83, and a Stellenbosch student £50.94. This once more shows what a great financial expert he is. I believe that he was the principal of the Witwatersrand University, and we really must admire his financial capacity, because he brought up the cost of his students to the Government up to £63.83. The best, however, is the cost of each student to the university itself. At the University of the Witwatersrand it is £57.64, and Stellenbosch £37.08. In that way I arrive at £121.47. I just took the total sum. We do not mind the Witwatersrand institution spending money on behalf of the students, but we want the expenses to be kept down as much as possible, we expect that especially from one who lays down the basis for the university. The hon. member, however, with his large view which reckons in millions cannot appreciate it. We feel that we must maintain the interest of the students, but at the same time look after the interests of the taxpayers. We feel that we must not only spend money, but must also endeavour to send men of knowledge and capacity into the country.

I think the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has answered himself, and I shall not pursue the question, but I would like to refer to the point raised by the Minister when he suggested the transfer of the training of teachers to the university colleges. In view of the attitude he has taken up towards the adoption of a policy of that nature which will lead to an increase in the number of the students of certain colleges and a resultant increase in their financial resources, he is going to expedite the growth of the number of universities in South Africa. This we should be reluctant to contemplate. If the Minister is going to expedite that contingency we should watch it very carefully indeed. I hope the Minister will watch that matter more carefully in future than he appears to have done in the past. The Minister should not shelter himself behind a clause in the 1916 Act as laying down policy for all time. I have raised this matter, because the increase in the number of degree-giving bodies in this country may have the effect of lowering the standard of the degrees they give. That was stressed by the Secretary for Education in his evidence before the select committee to which I have already referred. There are two further points which merit the Minister’s attention, each of which has its bearing on the question of maintaining the standard of the degrees of our universities. The first of those points is the question of external students. The present position is that under the legislation now in force the granting of external degrees is a matter for the University of South Africa alone. The Minister has voiced his opinion in regard to that contingency. I ask him to go carefully into the matter having regard to the question of the possible lowering of the standard of our degree-giving institutions, by securing joint action between the five universities in the matter of the control of those external degrees; by finding some machinery by which the other four universities will have some power in holding up the standard of those degrees. The other point is in regard to the question of the standard at which our students are entering the universities. In this matter I say frankly without hesitation that many people in our universities are beginning to be apprehensive of the future in this matter. They feel that the standard of the students coming up to the universities is academically going down. Moreover, the average age is going down. Unless we are willing to agree to the lowering of the standard of degrees, we shall have to face this matter. In regard to matriculation we have in this country for many years had an examination which we call the matriculation examination, which means a university entrance examination, but it came to be a school-leaving examination as well; and the trouble is that we are trying to combine two things in one examination which are incompatible. The result is a continual “pull devil, pull baker” between the schools and the universities, and in view of pressure from the schools, the standard, as far as choice of subjects is concerned, has sadly gone down. The Minister himself knows in his capacity as Minister of Public Health, how a certain professional body has taken up the question of the standard of admission of students to the universities and expressed dissatisfaction with the regulations of the matriculation examination as now approved. This is a serious matter and unless we separate these two ideas we are going to find a lowering of the standard of the work of our universities. The universities will have to give beginners classes in Latin and in mathematics. It seems to me that the only way out is by dropping this term “matriculation” altogether and by calling it what it is, a school-leaving examination. It can be improved but it is a good school-leaving examination. It is not a good university entrance examination. When we have done that, I think we shall have to face the necessity that students who wish to go to the universities should take one year’s extra course at a school after passing the school-leaving examination, and at the end of that one year, it would be necessary to provide a university entrance examination. The whole trouble arises from the attempt to bring these two ideas, which are really incompatible, together in the composition of the Matriculation Board which consists partly of school representatives and partly of university representatives. Unless those two ideas are divorced, you will have a dragging down of the university entrance examination and a steady lowering of university degrees.

In his reply in regard to the questions of the costs of trade schools, the hon. the Minister was not very convincing. I was referring to the large amount of the heavy variations. Although the number of pupils in the highest costing school is less than in others, this cannot account for a certain school costing twice as much as another school. Further, it happens to be in a fertile area where the growing of agricultural produce is possible. So some other reason must be found as being brought into a standard scale of diet cannot account for the difference. Large variations also occur in respect to the agricultural schools, but I do not wish to labour the point as I feel sure the Minister will investigate this matter. Now, in regard to hostels for juveniles. While the motive is a good one, may I ask whether full enquiries have been made as it is a new adventure for the Government. The reason I mention this is because an experiment has been undertaken in Port Elizabeth, where a fine hostel was erected for women from the country districts, and they get accommodation at varying rates dependent upon their wages. The restrictions are very nominal, but for some reason or other, they cannot get a sufficient number to fill it. In fact, it is only half full on many occasions. I was wondering whether the Minister has gone into this question, and what chance there is for future success.

I will first deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) in regard to the expenditure on trade schools. That must necessarily be a little high because the trade schools are comparatively small institutions and are scattered all over the country. These are to make provision for the country boy who does not propose, after he leaves a trade school, to go to a large urban or industrial centre and find work there. In fact, he must settle down in a small town or village and must work there on his own. Because the school is so small, necessarily the cost per head is high. So far as the vote of £5,000 for hostels is concerned, as the hon. gentleman has rightly described it, this is an experiment. It has been insisted upon in this House, and there has been a demand throughout the country that something should be done for the better housing, especially of boys and girls from the country districts, who go to the industrial centres and work in factories or offices and are not properly housed. As I have said, this is an experiment, and we will begin with the particular institution, the interests of which the hon. gentleman has so much at heart, that is the hostel at Port Elizabeth. That is one of the institutions that will benefit by this vote. A commission was appointed some time ago by the Department of Labour to go into this whole question. They brought up a report making certain recommendations, but the Government was not able to accept all those recommendations. We, however, varied their scheme in certain respects, and what we now propose doing is to begin in a few centres and assist such hostels which may be started by private initiation and not by the Government, by assisting them to pay interest on loans after they have got the capital required for the buildings; also to assist them to get proper equipment. For maintenance they must make some other provision. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has asked whether this provision of £2,000 for labour in connection with the agricultural school is not too high. I may give him the information that the boys in these agricultural schools are required to do themselves as much of the work as is possible. That is part of their training. In the case of new schools, especially, a good deal of preparatory work has to be done before the school is actually started. For that work and the development work of the particular farm on which the school is situated, a good deal of outside labour is required. This is provision for that. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has returned to some of the points he raised before. As to the passage of arms between the hon. member and the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen), I shall not go into that. All I can say is, after the criticism of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) upon the Bill which passed the House in connection with the Pretoria institution some time ago, that he must expect some leg-pulling. There has been a good deal of that in what has been said by hon. members on this side of the House. I may further say that I think he has omitted a very important item in his explanation as to the comparatively high cost of Government students in the Witwatersrand institution, that is the contribution on the part of the Government in respect of interest and redemption of loan.

I said that.

The hon. member says he said that. In any case, in connection with the University of Cape Town, it is just over £7,000, in connection with the University of Stellenbosch, it is £4,000; the Transvaal University, £2,250; and the University of the Witwatersrand, £15,700.

That is because they went ahead more rapidly.

That is because the Witwatersrand University was extremely fortunate in carrying out its building programme while the old regulations were in force. That is to say, the contribution of the Government was three to one for interest and redemption. Immediately they completed their building scheme, their regulations were suddenly changed, and the other universities, for instance, Stellenbosch and Cape Town, practically received nothing in respect of interest and redemption from the Government. So the contribution to the Witwatersrand is higher than to the Transvaal. In that respect that university occupies a very favourable position.

That is due to their own enterprise.

If the effect of the new policy should have the result of establishing eight or nine universities, the hon. member thinks that is very much to be regretted. But the very opposite may be the result. Some of these institutions, I will take the Huguenot College as an example, may concentrate, say, on the training of teachers. If they do that, it will not be a new service altogether, as far as they are concerned, but the existing training institution for teachers at Wellington would be transferred from the province to them, and the other higher educational work they are doing at present would disappear. The Huguenot College, without being eliminated as a higher educational institution, would simply be transferred into a training institution for teachers. That may also happen in connection with other institutions. In regard to external students, that question was adequately discussed when a Bill was before the House, so I do not intend entering into it again, but the subject will have my serious consideration in the future. At the time, I expressed my personal opinion that the existing arrangement was very unsatisfactory. The standard of the matriculation examination was discussed at a conference at Pretoria recently; the conference was a most representative one, and it came to a unanimous conclusion on the subject. The final decision, however, does not rest with the conference, or the provincial administration, or the Minister, but with the matriculation board, which is created under the University Act. However dissatisfied we may be with the standard laid down, as long as the law remains as it is, all we can say is that however much we may regret it, we can do nothing in regard to the matter. The best the Minister can do has been done.

I just want to bring one aspect of the matter to the Minister’s notice. At first I want to congratulate him on the new direction he has taken in connection with agricultural vocational schools. I greatly appreciate what is being done there. The Minister in that way is getting the less privileged class of the population the chance of being educated in agriculture, and of, later on, being placed where they ought to be, viz., as settlers on the irrigation works. The Minister appreciated that certain labour was required at those schools. The pupils do a great portion of the work themselves, but there are some short vacations and labour is necessary to do the work at such times. I suggest that Europeans, and not natives, should be used for that work. That will give an opportunity to those Europeans to be properly trained in effective farming methods. They will in that way be trained as efficient farm labourers, and the schools, therefore, train along with the pupils a restricted number of adults as well-to-do farming work on the right and most economical methods. There will have to be housing for those labourers. There will have to be a restricted number of houses for those less privileged persons who have to be trained as white labourers, and who will subsequently go out to work elsewhere, or as settlers. The Minister of Education is also the Minister of Public Health, and as such he is responsible for housing. If good houses are built he can at the same time make experiments in getting the right class of house from a health point of view which will be efficient on the farms. If he follows this policy, adult persons will be trained who will be an asset to the country. The native comes and goes, and he is not a permanent economic asset. I think that we shall get two advantages in one if he follows my suggestion.

What will be the position of the University of South Africa? Now that the Transvaal University College has been turned into the University of Pretoria the University of South Africa will have only a few colleges affiliated to it. Will the seat of the University of South Africa remain at Pretoria, or be removed to the place where the senior supporting college is located?

Which is that?

I am not going to say, although I have a very strong opinion. The country would like to know what the position will be.

With regard to the industrial schools, can the Minister give us any information as to their development, and what happens to the scholars after they leave these institutions? Can he also tell us why the expenditure on these schools has increased nearly 50 per cent, during the last six years, although the increase in the number of pupils has been only 30 per cent. In 1924-’25, the provisions for 1,200 pupils cost £13,000, but this year, although the number of pupils has increased by only 375, the vote for provisions has swollen to £26,300.

I should like to identify myself with the warning given by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) with regard to the danger in future of having a large number of degree-giving institutions in the Union. I was rather alarmed at the complacency with which apparently the Minister contemplated a large increase in the number of these degree-giving institutions. He seemed to rely on an interpretation of Clause 3 (4) of Act 12 of 1916, which seemed to be a farfetched one. The clause contains no promise, explicit or implicit, but states that the Act shall not be a bar in the way of a constituent college if a sufficiently satisfactory case is made being able to make claims for conversion into a university. I hope the Minister, before he allows any more of the constituent colleges to become universities, will require a very strong case indeed to be made out. Without more population, really more white population, than large cities such as Glasgow and other cities overseas, we cannot run to such a large proportion of universities to our population as the Minister seems to contemplate. There will be two very real dangers; the first being that the standard will be very seriously lowered owing to the inevitable competition which will take place for students from the very small supply owing to the small population, and an even more serious danger is that even if our standards are maintained, people outside—and it is of the greatest value to us that our degrees and standards should be regarded by outside people very highly indeed—will inevitably believe that we are lowering our standard to meet competition. I do think the Minister should give us some assurance to make it perfectly clear that he for one will not lend himself to or identify himself with any movement for any colleges to be created universities unless a very strong case indeed is made out for them.

I want to deal with another matter, and that is agricultural schools. I see in the estimates there is an increase in the expenditure for the coming year. When one looks at the previous year’s figures I notice in the last auditor-general’s report that at Weston Farm the annual gross cost was £153 per unit and the net cost £127. It seems a very long price for agricultural education. For a daily average of 39 pupils in one instution we provide £127 per annum for each pupil. This education is provided at the expense of the state. I notice in this year’s estimates the total amount is still further increased. Does the Minister of Education leave that matter in the hands of his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, or does he control that expenditure himself? I doubt very much whether the state is getting anything like value for this money. I notice that, whereas during the current year, there was a total staff of 22—principal, instructresses and instructors—during the coming year it is increased to 28. It seems a considerable teaching staff for 150 pupils. What does the Minister propose to do in the matter? There are two things, it appears, which are not allowed to be criticized here. One is expenditure on education, and the other is agriculture, and when the two come together there seems to be no limit to the extravagance which may be exercised.

Following on the point made by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I would like the Minister to tell us whether the figures he gives us on page 89 include such items as interest and redemption charges on capital expenditure and expenditure incurred by the Public Works Department in looking after the institutions concerned. I am rather inclined to think the figures do not include these items, and if that assumption of mine is correct, the position is even worse than that stated by the hon. member for Newlands; in other words, if the full statement were obtained the figures would be found to be even higher than they are in this particular schedule. It bears on another point which may with advantage be followed up, if one had the data to arrive at the necessary comparison. As far as I am able to judge from the figures available, the cost of these institutions, or some of them at least, has gone up since they passed from provincial to Union control. I think I am correct in that inference. I admit I have not got all the figures necessary to base a comparison upon, but there has been an increase in the cost in some of the institutions. Take Ficksburg. The average cost per pupil used to be £50. It has now gone to £104. In the case of Ladybrand there is a small saving to the benefit of the hon. Minister, but at Bethlehem the cost used to be £63 per pupil, and it has now gone up to £126 per pupil. There may be an explanation for all this. I doubt if we have here all the facts upon which to base a comparison, but the figures which are available are such as to suggest that we ought to be given by the Minister further information as to whether the cost has gone up or otherwise since these institutions have passed from provincial to Union control. I wish also to refer to the grants to the various technical colleges, and to draw attention to page 80 of the estimates. Most people, looking at that page for the first time, would be alarmed at the expenditure. We have £375,000 for grants to university colleges, and on top of that £226,000 for grants for technical colleges. When we go a little further we find that at least five of those technical colleges are in towns where university institutions already exist. I say that where we have a provision such as is disclosed on this page, it is time for the question of overlapping to be gone into. The van der Horst commission recommended that these technical colleges should not do post-matriculation work. Will the Minister inform the House whether there is still overlapping between technical colleges and university institutions? If there is, it should be very carefully watched. We know that those in charge of these technical colleges are only too anxious to advance their particular institutions, even along the lines of rivalry with the university institutions in the same towns. Might I suggest to the Minister that there is one aspect in regard to which a saving of expenditure might possibly be effected. I refer to the provision made in some of these technical colleges for what we used to call trades school courses. It is an old question as to the relative value of pre-apprenticeship training, and parallel to apprenticeship training. The balance of advantage lies with training parallel to apprenticeship. It has many advantages over the pre-apprenticseship training in the trades school. I think on this point the Minister might well investigate the question as to whether these rather costly institutions which provide pre-apprenticeship training are really necessary. I am glad that the Minister has provided for hostels on this vote, because such hostels will enable workers to be brought into the towns, and their existence ought to make it easier for the Minister to provide for the abolition of the trades school where pre-apprenticeship training is provided. There is one other point. Some five years ago, I think, the hon. the Minister took over from the various provinces the responsibility for agricultural training of a secondary type, and I would like to know what new institutions he has established providing training in agriculture for pupils of the post standard VI stage. As far as I can follow from these estimates very little has been done in this regard, and I would like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made in this respect.

First of all the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has asked as to whether anything has been done in connection with overlapping between university institutions and technical colleges. All I can say with regard to that is that as far as possible overlapping has been eliminated, but I am altogether powerless to deal with this matter unless I get powers from Parliament, and I ask for these powers to deal with these matters effectively in the Higher Education Bill which is on the order paper. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have complained that not enough money is being spent by the Government in connection with agriculture education. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) among others, complains that we are spending too much money.

Too much per pupil.

In any case I think it is quite safe to conclude that what the Government is doing is just the right thing. Let me explain. The hon. member has quoted more especially the Western Agricultural School in Natal. I may say that the figures in connection with that school are altogether exceptional, in this way that the school is at present in process of transformation — we want to improve it—and a good deal of work is being done there now which is really development of the farm. We want to create better conditions on that farm for agricultural education, and necessarily under these conditions the expenditure on that farm is very much higher than it otherwise would be. It is exceptional and temporary. That gives altogether a misleading impression as to the expenditure in connection with agricultural education. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has referred to industrial schools and asked the question as to whether there are sufficient openings for these pupils after they leave school. I may say that some of the schools experience a little difficulty in placing these boys, and for that reason I think we must be cautious in extending the system of industrial schools and starting new schools in the country. The sphere of employment of these boys after they have left the industrial schools is limited and the policy of the department in regard to these schools is a cautious one. He has also referred to the cost of these industrial schools and I may inform him that one of the items of increased expenditure, namely, the changing of the scales of diet, alone accounts for £17,000.

The increase is only £13,000.

There are savings set off against that amount. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has asked a question with regard to the University of South Africa. As the law stands at present, that is a matter for the university council, but the law has been altered to make it possible for the University of South Africa to change its seat and I hope it will change to Bloemfontein; I think that is the best centre.

I think the remark which the Minister has made indicates that he is biassed in favour of one centre. Would it not be advisable to give the council an opportunity to discuss the matter before giving them that broad hint?

It is a very wise one.

The obvious indication is that the Minister would give all his influence to that particular centre. Does he regard the question purely from a geographical point of view or from some other point of view?

I want to refer again to our agricultural schools and to ask the Minister whether at these schools he has an advisory board of practical farmers to assist in running them. When I visited similar institutions I found that at a purely Government institution, run by a principal and his staff, there is not the same interest shown in the welfare of the boys as where you have an advisory board of practical farmers. The advisory board takes a deep interest in the boys and if a boy of promise is leaving the word is passed round with a view to getting him employment. The object of these schools, I take it, is to turn out boys as farm managers and foremen, because you cannot start farming to-day without a large amount of capital. I therefore ask for information from the Minister whether in any of these agricultural schools he has such advisory boards of practical farmers.

Yes, it is the policy of the department to appoint advisory boards in connection with all these schools, but I differ from the view of the hon. member that only practical farmers should be appointed to these boards. We do appoint them, but I think that business talent is also required and we also need people who know something about education because, whilst these schools are agricultural schools, they are at the same time schools, and therefore we need farmers, business men, and educationalists.

I hope the Minister will make it clear to hon. members what the industrial schools are for. I gathered from the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) that it is to turn out farm managers. I thought we had agricultural colleges designed to that end. The Minister tells us that some schools have a difficulty in placing their students. I would like to know what happens to the expupils of these industrial schools who have been educated at such an expense to the State. In the school at Oakland, one pupil cost £434; another student cost £432. Surely that requires explanation.

These are new schools, and you have special expenditure in the beginning. The number of pupils is very small to begin with.

There are several schools which have been longer established where the cost per pupil is high. We find the average for all schools is £130 per annum. What sort of salaries will these pupils be expected to earn when they cost the State £130 a year to train? I am seeking information because my thoughts are very confused on this matter, more especially in view of the fact that we have all these agricultural schools at Potchefstroom and elsewhere which are turning out students. Are these men to be foremen or farm managers or handymen? If the latter, the expenditure seems rather excessive for the results achieved. No doubt the Minister will be able to clear this up.

I do not wish to press matters unduly, but one question which I raised has been overlooked by the Minister, doubtless by accident. I asked the Minister what extension has taken place and what extension is contemplated in regard to the provision of agricultural secondary education, a responsibility he took over from the provinces five years ago. We were then led to believe there would be considerable extension but as far as I can see, there has been very little extension. Therefore I ask the Minister what extension has taken place, and what extension is contemplated? May I repeat another question, as to whether the transfer from the provincial administration to Union has not resulted in an increase in unit cost. I came to a conclusion based on, admittedly, incomplete information in connection with Free State schools that the effect has been to increase the cost per pupil. I shall be glad if the Minister will correct or confirm the opinion which I based on that incomplete information.

I called the attention of the Minister to the fact that labour was from time to time required at the agricultural schools, and I asked him to consider if it would not be possible to use white persons, and to house them in model cottages. In that way they would be an asset to the State, and it would be in the interests of the country to give those people an opportunity to get training. I think this is very important, and that the Minister ought rather to follow a system which will provide an asset to the country, rather than appointing natives who go away from time to time and are not an asset to the country.

There is one question I should like to ask.

How many more?

I daresay I shall find a great many more. There are so many things that can be criticized in the Minister’s department that it is difficult to get them all in at once. I should like to refer to the grant to technical colleges, and ask: What is the basis upon which the grants are made? You will notice that the Government grants to technical colleges roughly run from about £10 to £14 per pupil. When you come to the Cape you find that the amount goes down to £7 16s. I should like to know the reason why the Cape Technical College has such a very small grant as compared with the others. Is it because it works its college efficiently and economically, because if that is the case it seems to me that the more extravagant one is in educational matters the bigger one’s grant is. It seems to me, on the face of it, that it is a very small grant, but probably the Minister has some explanation for it. Referring to our agricultural schools, the Minister has given explanations of the reasons for the high costs. Now let us take the case of the net cost of food per pupil. That has nothing to do, I take it, with the development of the institution. If you look at the net cost on page 89 you will find that at Tweespruit the net cost of food per pupil is £9 5s. If you go to Brits it is £16 15s. At Marlow, it is £19 per pupil. Is it the difference of the locality that increases the appetites of the pupils, or why is it that the cost is doubled?

The places have only just started.

Simply because the places have just started it does not increase the pupil’s appetite.

That is an unfair comparison. There are altogether exceptional circumstances.

Surely there should he some explanatory statement on page 89 of the estimates, because the whole thing is absolutely misleading. The hon. the Minister is, I take it, responsible for the statement which occurs on this page. He tells us that at Tweespruit the net cost of food is £9 5s. and at Marlow, it is £19 which is exactly double the amount. If it is so misleading as the Minister suggests here, why put it in at all?

Much could be said for leaving it out.

I agree that it is better to leave it out than to confuse the committee, for it is simply misleading.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education put and agreed to.

Vote, as amended, put and agreed to.

Vote 19, “Child Welfare,” £258,115, put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Public Service Commission,” £23,147,

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what is the policy of the Government with regard to the consistent increases in the number of the civil service. The hon. the Minister of Finance gave us an explanation when replying to an hon. member earlier on in the session. He agreed with us that in 1924-’25 the civil service proper consisted of 26,149 persons, and in 1930-’31, it is going to consist of 30,931 persons, considerably over 5,000, nearly 6,000, increase in six years. I think what the general public want to know is when do the Government consider that they will have sufficient staff to carry on the business of the country?

This afternoon suggestions came from the other side involving the appointment of 200 more.

I am not responsible for that suggestion. I am only responsible for what I say myself. The position is that the country is getting considerably exercised as to the consistent increase of 1,000 civil servants a year, that it requires this Government to carry on the affairs of the country with as compared with the previous Government. There has been a consistent increase of 1,000 a year in the civil service. There is an enormous army of extra civil servants to be kept on, and they are pensioned at an early age, which is one of the main causes why the pension fund is in such an insolvent state. It is simply because we are always increasing the number of our civil servants, when things are normally good, and when the pendulum swings the other way, we get rid of them in the most extravagant way we can, by pensioning them off, and putting them on pensions at ages 20 to 30 years below the normal age at which a civil servant expects to retire. I would suggest that this is not fair to the men in the civil service. It is not far to the man who takes up the civil service as a career to find that at the age of 45 or 50, his career is suddenly stopped and he has to started again more or less unprepared to undertake any other work. It is not fair to those men, end it is also unfair to the civil service in this respect that it trammels advancement of the civil servant himself. It is not to the advantage of the civil service, and it is definitely not to the advantage of the country. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might urge upon the Public Service Commission that the view of the country to-day is that we have quite enough civil servants to administer the country, and that this constant increase at the rate of 1,000 extra civil servants a year must come to an end. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has got to say about it.

Is the Minister altogether satisfied that the Public Service Commission with its inspectorate system is really carrying out in a satisfactory manner the functions and duties it was supposed to undertake? There is a very great deal of uneasiness in the public service with the manner in which the inspectorate and also, perhaps, the commissioners themselves are fulfilling certain of their functions. There is a general feeling that the inspectorate is not, perhaps, to use the Minister of Justice’s famous remark, sufficiently efficient in carrying out their inspections. In the old days, there were two or three highly trained inspecting magistrates who used to go round and exercise a very close supervision.

Magistrates are appointed now.

Magistrates were appointed on the permanent staff of the law department and were kept constantly in touch with the varying needs of the department, but now having been seconded to the Public Service Commission it is a question whether they are keeping in close touch with the requirements of the law department. Take the point raised the other day by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). On the recommendation of the Public Service Commission a welfare officer was appointed in January, 1929, but two months later the post was abolished. That does not seem to me to be altogether a sign of efficiency or an indication that adequate care and consideration have been given to the matter. In the Auditor-General’s report the question was raised of appointing a member of the Public Service Commission to the Diamond Control Board. If the Public Service Commission feel they can detach one of their number to fill such an important post, the question is, is the commission functioning properly. There are many things in the public service which are creating a certain amount of uneasiness. Will the Minister consider next session the appointment of a select committee to go into the Public Service Act and its administration, to see whether the Act is functioning properly, whether the Public Service Commission is functioning efficiently and whether some alterations could not be made which would bring about a greater degree of competence and tend to increased efficiency.

The question of appointments by the Public Service Commission is a matter which comes before the House in committee every year. I do not think that hon. members realize what the effect on the public service must be of all the complaints and alleged complaints they mention here. Even if the suspicion that exists is put in the nicest language it still amounts to this that the Opposition does not trust the Public Service Commission. The suspicion is that the Public Service Commission does not treat English-speaking persons justly and fairly. I need not refer to the questions which have been asked here in former years. This year once more certain questions have been asked by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and one has also been put by the hon. member for Lindley (Dr. Conradie) the position to-day is that when an appointment is made the Opposition at once enquire about the language or the name of the person who has been appointed, the result is that there is dissatisfaction in the public service, and a state of tension among the public. I think the Minister of the Interior ought to take this opportunity of making a full reply to all these complaints and insinuations which are from time to time made against the Public Service Commission. I do not think there is a single official or section of the public service which is so much respected as the Public Service Commission. It is repeatedly said here that the commission is partial. There are allegations of dissatisfaction in the public service in consequence of the appointments, and I hope the Minister, who is acquainted with matters, will use this opportunity of telling us whether the dissatisfaction exists, and whether there is any grounds for dissatisfaction, because the Public Service Commission take into consideration the descent, the extraction, or the language of a person, and only give the appointments to Afrikaans-speaking people. He must tell us whether there is any dissatisfaction in the public service as the result of these appointments. If we want an effective and capable public service, we must have a contented service. The constant reflection, and mischief making in this House will not improve that satisfaction. I only put this question in the interests of an orderly and satisfied public service, and not to stir up feeling. In so far as the Minister is able I hope he will do his best in removing the suspicion that exists.

I think that it is in the interests of the public service, and the whole country, that I should comply with the request which has been made by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), and that I should deal with the condition of the public service a little more fully, as from time to time all kinds of loose statements are made by hon. members opposite, not only in this House, but also on platforms in the country. I think it is necessary because the question of the public service, and of appointments by the Public Service Commission, affects the root of the relations between the two races of the country, and if facts are not stated to contradict this allegation from hon. members opposite, it means that South Africa cannot get rest, and that the two races will not be able to understand each other, or co-operate properly. I should like to discuss the points which are brought up from time to time. The first point I want to deal with is the statement which has now again been raised by two hon. members opposite that the present Public Service Commission is slavish towards the Government. According to their statements the Government gives certain instructions in order to carry out their racial policy, and the Public Service Commission is only too willing to obey. All that I can say in connection with that is that all that can be expected from hon. members opposite, is that they stand by the accusations which they make. But what do we find that the position was last year? They complained then that the Government had so often departed from the recommendations of that commission, and to-day they say that the commission does everything the Government wants. Those two statements conflict, the commission cannot constantly conflict with the Government, and at the same time slavishly follow it. The case of Gen. Maritz which has been referred to is another example. It is supposed to be a proof how slavishly the Government follows the commission. Gen. Maritz was appointed, and a few months later the post was abolished. I think every hon. member knows what the extraordinary circumstances of a temporary nature that prevailed in Namaqualand were, and I believe that no hon. member who uses his sound commonsense would make such an allegation. A great drought prevails in Namaqualand, and there was poverty on a large scale. The farmers had to be helped on to their feet again, but at the same time there was great dissatisfaction in Namaqualand about the state diggings because the people themselves wanted a large share of the treasures which Namaqualand provided. It was only a perfectly natural state of affairs. Great troubles threatened, and what could the Government do better than appoint as welfare officer the man who had the greatest influence and inspired the greatest confidence. He was better able than anyone else to advise the Government about what ought to be done. The Namaqualanders had the greatest confidence in Gen. Maritz, and I think that if the Government had appointed any other man we should have been guilty of an offence. The results in any case justified the appointment, and when the work was done, and the object attained, the post could be abolished. I think that if the Public Service Commission had not approved of that recommendation they would have neglected their duty.

Did he ever make a written report?

Yes, certainly. But there are other loose statements which have been made about the public service, e.g., that the whole public service is filled with dissatisfaction against the present Government. If that were true it would be best for us to look the facts in the face, but I think we find the best summary of those statements is in an article which was published and was written by a person under the nom de plume of Veritas. I will quote and deal with a few of the statements, because the allegations that are made are the same as the arguments which from him to time are used by hon. members here. The article reads—

That is allegation number one. The second is—

Then he goes further—

Hon. members will see that he always gets nearer to a definite point. That point is the accusation that the Government has appointed a large number of Afrikaans-speaking people to the public service. If hon. members will listen they will see that he always approaches closer to this point—

He further says—

He is already getting nearer to the point. He says, “just look at the names then you will see what the position is.” And then a last quotation—

Now we must investigate where the various officials that are appointed actually come from. That is the kind of thing that we find from time to time in the Opposition press, and which is constantly quoted here by hon. members. We must, and I want to, look the charges in the face. The first thing alleged here is that there is general dissatisfaction in the service, I think it was even stated to-night by an hon. member of the Opposition. The dissatisfaction, according to the extract which I have in my hand, arises through the Government following a definite racial policy, and because their object is to get their own political followers into the service. It is said that with a view to that they go so far as to unnecessarily extend the service and to appoint more officials than are actually justifiable, just to make room for their supporters. In order to employ their own supporters a large number of appointments are made from outside the service. I think that when we assumed office the position was that the previous Government had taken good care that supporters of this side were kept out of the service. Moreover, according to the statements there is dissatisfaction in the service because Afrikaans-speaking people are preferred to English-speaking people. Those are the accusations against the present Government. Regarding dissatisfaction in the service, I want to say that a certain measure of dissatisfaction will always exist, and for the reason that a section of the staff aims at things which are not obtainable under this Government, were not obtainable under the previous Government, and are not obtainable under any government. Think, e.g., of the Graham scale of salaries; it was a point of dissatisfaction under the previous Government, that the old scale was not re-introduced.

What did you promise?

It has already been said, and I repeat it that no promise was made. Then there is a section of the service who have already for years been working for the appointment of an appeal board, and for the advisory council to be turned into a Whitley council on which the Government would appoint half the members and have the control of appointments. The previous Government did not see their way to do this, although they had the opportunity when in 1923 they passed a new Public Service Act. The officials then put their wishes before the select committee, but I do not believe that one hon. member of the Opposition on the committee was in favour of the acceptance of the proposal. A certain amount of dissatisfaction will always exist in the service, but if hon. members say that the dissatisfaction in the service is greater than under the previous Government, I say it is a great misapprehension on their part. Dissatisfaction about appointments from outside existed just as much under the previous Government, as now, and I will give figures in this connection in a moment. Then it is argued that there was more confidence placed by the service in the Public Service Commission under the previous than under the present Government. This is once more a similar mistake. When the time of the previous Public Service Commission expired, and a new commission was appointed, the dissatisfaction on the part of the service at the appointment was so large that the advisory board which is a link between the service and the Public Service Commission ceased to function for a considerable time. That was the position, but in regard to the present Public Service Commission I can state here with the utmost satisfaction that there is a better understanding between the service and the Public Service Commission than between the service and the former Public Service Commission. Hon. members must not forget that this Government took a great step in connection with consultation between the commission and the service, which gave great satisfaction to the service. We were actually not able to agree to a Whitley council, which we considered a wrong principle, and which they also, I think, abandoned in England, but we met them to the extent of instituting a bi-lateral advisory board. In that way consultation in the real sense of the word arose between the Public Service Commission and the service. The Advisory Board consults about all sorts of things, and I want to give the names of the officials who have served on the Advisory Board on behalf of the Government. There are Mr. Myddleton, Secretary for Finance; Mr. Pring, Secretary for the Interior, and Messrs. Rous, Godbold, Thomas, etc., all very responsible officials. They are not subordinate officers, but some of the most responsible officers in the public service who have been suggested by the Public Service Commission to represent them and the Government on the bi-lateral advisory board that was created. That experiment had an excellent effect, and we have far less trouble in the public service than there ever was before, but let me say that no regulations which were made by the Government were made before being submitted to the advisory board of officials. The officials get the opportunity of discussing the regulations, and to advise the Government on them. They are mostly made with the full consent of the service. The Public Service Commission goes still further to obtain co-operation from the service. I mention this to show how the commission keeps in touch with the service as a whole. There is, as hon. members are aware, considerable difference between the grants in respect of cost of living. The officials say that the present system is unsatisfactory and unjust. When an official is transferred he often considers it as a degredation, although in reality it is a promotion for him. The advisory board have recommended that the officials themselves should enquire into it. The Public Service Commission approved of the recommendation, and the officials reported on lines which are now being considered by the commission. I understand that the report is a very thorough one, and that the Public Service Commission can to a great extent agree with it. Such a thing never took place under the previous administration. They never thought of it. This is what the present Public Service Commission is doing to get co-operation among the officials. Now I come to the other point mentioned here, viz., that the Government goes out of its way to create jobs for its supporters. I want to say in advance that I am very glad that we have recently had far less of the loose statements which were formerly made here at election time by leaders of the Opposition. They told the country that the present Government were discharging hundreds of officials simply because they were Saps. At the time I threw out the challenge to those members of the Opposition to quote a single case. I repeated the challenge, but they still failed to furnish a reply. I am glad that many of those wild and loose statements are no longer made to-day. I do not want to make counter-charges here. All I say is that there was a time during the government of the Opposition that they not only followed the rule of only appointing their political followers, but when they definitely laid it down as a rule that a Nationalist was not to be appointed, and that those who were already in the service should be got rid of, because the Nationalists were considered rebels, and it was dangerous to have rebels in the public service. This is what the present Opposition openly stated to the country. The present Government has never yet gone so far. I now come to the charges which are so often made by the Opposition, and which have again been heard during the present session; the first is that we are enlarging the public service to make more room for supporters of the Government. In this connection various figures have already been given by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, when he dealt with the matter, and spoke at length about the increase in the number of officials. But I would, nevertheless, like to make a comparison in the public service with the period he did not deal with. I am referring to the number of appointments which have been made by the Public Service Commission. There may be other appointments in which they were not concerned. The information which I am going to give to the committee I obtained by the Public Service Commission with reference to the appointments made by the commission. I take the position in the year 1919, and compare it with the extent of the service in the year 1924-’25. That gives us five years after the administration of the previous Government. I then compare that increase with the increase in the service between the years 1924-’25, and 1929-’30, a similar period under this Government. Hon. members must properly understand that there is something we must bear in mind in connection with this comparison; it is that the term of the present Government runs over a period of prosperity. The finances of the country were good, and there were surpluses. During the period of the previous Government there was depression when from the nature of things there ought to have been economy. The public service increased during the period under the present Government by 4,687, and under the previous Government by 3,239. During their period there was, therefore, not so much addition as during the present Government’s term, but he must not forget that to make up our number there were 2,210 new persons who were added to the public service because we required them as a result of the extension of the telephone service. The previous Government did not provide that extension. The present Government has, however, supplied it to the country. I can also mention the taking over of provincial services by the central Government such as, e.g., vocational education, and we must bear this in mind when we consider that the public service increased by 4,687 officials during the present Government, and by 3,239 during the five years of the previous Government. Then there is another thing to be mentioned; the previous Government reduced the public service by a large number during their period, because they abolished a large section of the defence force, the S.A. Mounted Rifles. It was a case of re organisation, and a large number of persons left the service. That reduces their number. We also reduced the defence force. Let me now just take away from their figures, and from ours that increase due to the re-organisation of the Defence Department, and we shall see that the increase during our five years of prosperity and surpluses was 5,606, during the same period that they were in office, when a depression prevailed, the public service increased by 5,808, in other words, they more quickly increased the public service in spite of the depression than has been done under the present Government. These are figures of the Public Service Commission which have been carefully checked, and are thus reliable. I now come to the question of the appointment of persons from outside the service, which was intended as the clearest proof how the present Government made room for its supporters. All will understand that we had to make certain appointments from outside the service, e.g., experts on agriculture and other matters. Many doctors are required in the health service who are not in the service. Then there are, e.g., cases like mental hospitals where we always have to make provision for the increase of 400 to 500 patients a year. Many more attendants are required for them, and they, of course, have to come from outside the service. I also want to mention here what I said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) viz., that no less than 78 appointments were required from outside the service for educational purposes. They were, of course, people who from the nature of things could not be found in the service. So there have been various questions asked by hon. members opposite, but after I had given the reply it apparently satisfied hon. members so little that we heard no more about it. The hon. member for Pretoria (East), inter alia, asked a question about the appointments from outside the service. He asked how many Afrikaans and English-speaking persons not in the service applied and how may appointments were made. We must assume that the hon. member of course means that the Afrikaans-speaking persons are pals of the present Government, and that English-speaking persons are pals of the other side. The total number of appointments for the period asked for was 581, and of that 281 were Afrikaans-speaking and 300 English-speaking. There we have the irrefutable proof that the whole insinuation and charge underlying the question was untrue. I took an extraordinary step in connection with the appointments from outside the service two years ago. It was constantly said that there was great dissatisfaction in the service about the appointment of persons from outside over the heads of suitable people in the service. I received a return from the Public Service Commission which gave the names of all persons appointed from outside the service from the time we came into office to that particular date. Subsequently I submitted the list to the Public Service Association, and asked them to what appointments on that list they objected. There were 110 names on the list, and they objected to ten persons. Of those ten six were English-speaking, and four had already previously been in the service of the State temporarily, and therefore they could already be regarded as belonging to the service. That is, therefore, the opinion of the officials themselves about the appointments which the Government made from outside the service. I am very glad that I took the step because this completely knocks the bottom out of that argument. Now I come to the appointment of Afrikaans-speaking officials in connection with the English-speaking officials in the service. In the first place, I will repeat the information which I gave with reference to a question by Mr. Strachan, who was then a member of the House. His question was that I should supply a return of the number of applications and appointments, and promotions for the two sections of the population from 1st July, 1924, when we came into office, until 30th September, 1927. The reply was that among the applicants there were 2,704 English-speaking, and 2,169 Afrikaans-speaking, but among those applicants there were 1,285 English-speaking and 563 Afrikaans-speaking women, and as they can only be appointed to a very restricted extent to the public service, they can for this purpose be eliminated. Then we find that there were 746 qualified English-speaking applicants and 1,117 Afrikaans-speaking, so that there were many more qualified Afrikaans-speaking persons who made application. I now come to the actual appointments made, and we find that 1,208 English-speaking, and 1,142 Afrikaans-speaking persons were appointed during that period. Where is the injustice to the English-speaking South African? They even enjoy a slight preference. As for promotion, the figures were: Dutch speaking, 478; English speaking, 1,124. The inference is that under the previous Government justice was not done to the Dutch-speaking officials in the service. Owing to very many more English-speaking persons being appointed under the previous Government it necessarily follows that there were more promotions of English-speaking than of Dutch-speaking persons. Now I come to further information, which I gave to the House in answer to the question of the hon. member for Pretoria (East). He was not satisfied with the information that I gave. He wanted to make a comparison between what the previous Public Service Commission had done, and the appointment under the new commission. He thought that the new commission had followed a different policy, and therefore wanted to know what was done during the period of the new Public Service Commission. The reply I gave him was that the number of applications by qualified persons was; English speaking 698, Dutch speaking 684. The appointments under the present Public Service Commission were; Dutch speaking 467, English speaking 530. As for promotions the numbers were: Dutch speaking 193, English speaking 396. Hon. members opposite, however, had yet another suspicion, and therefore the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) asked for further information. He wanted information in connection with the various departments in the service, and his idea was that the English-speaking people only got the subordinate appointments, but that the best posts were reserved for supporters of the present Government, or Dutch-speaking persons. The answer he got was that the number of applications from qualified persons for the highest grades of the service, administrative departments, and clerical departments, was 1,603 Dutch speaking, and 1,904 English speaking. The appointments in the highest sections were: Dutch speaking 915, English speaking 934. The women are not included in that, because then the comparison would be practically meaningless. Take the general section of the service, there were 7,210 qualified English-speaking applicants, and 11,685 Dutch-speaking, i.e., many more Dutch-speaking applicants. There were 1,783 English-speaking persons appointed, and 2,209 Dutch speaking. More Dutch-speaking people were appointed, but it is a fact that there were 4,000 more Dutch-speaking persons qualified who applied. As for promotion in the highest grades, there were 354 Dutch-speaking, and 883 English-speaking, while the promotions in the general sections were 275 Dutch-speaking, and 334 English-speaking. Can hon. members opposite complain about this? If there is a reason for complaint it is very small, and then it is on this side of the House. I want to give still more information and take the posts in the public service of £500 and more per annum since 1924. The number of Afrikaans-speaking people who have been appointed to them was 83, and the number of English-speaking 84. Can the scales be held more evenly? With reference to appointment to the public service from outside the service in posts of £700 per annum and more, we find that during the period of the present Government 231 Afrikaans-speaking persons were promoted, and 671 English-speaking, and 8 of other nationalities. What ground is there for the criticism of the Opposition; what ground for the suspicion? It may possibly be of interest to examine the appointments under the previous Government. I take the four years from 1920 to 1924 when 1,760 Afrikaans-speaking and 3,071 English-speaking persons were appointed to the public service, During the same period under the present Government 3,152 English-speaking, and 3,097 Afrikaans-speaking persons were appointed. Therefore, the proof is given on the one hand that the present Government has held the scales between the two races in the country evenly with respect to appointments to the public service. The principle of fifty fifty has been maintained. On the other hand proof has been given that the previous Government systematically followed a policy of excluding Afrikaans-speaking people from the public service. These figures have already been quoted by me before, but the question is why the Opposition have made no use of the information supplied to it, but continue these ungrounded charges. The reply is that the object of the Opposition is to gain advantage from poisoning the minds of a section of the population, and that without there being any ground for it. In regard to the appointment of Dutch-speaking persons, I want to say this, I consider it a duty of every Minister and every Government not to treat the rights of one section of the population like commercial articles, by which they can try to buy the goodwill of the other section of the population. It is disastrous to the Government of the country if we curtail the rights of one section of the population to buy the goodwill of the other section. I hope it will never be possible to say that the present Government has done so. There are certain members even on the opposite side of the House who think that English-speaking South Africans had a preference in the public service for years. That they consider a vested right which has developed, and if we now do justice to the other section of the population they consider it an attack on their rights. That is a wrong point of view, and in the interests of a united South Africa such an attitude is to be condemned.

For just about an hour we have listened to a carefully staged-managed speech from the Minister of the Interior in answer to questions carefully arranged for and put by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) to enable the Minister to give a wonderful exhibition of window-dressing. The Minister wound up with a string of solemn platitudes that not a soul in the country will disagree with. The only question is as to the question of their application on fact. The Minister has given us floods of figures, and made a series of wild assertions: all of which it is impossible to deal with at the moment with the time and information now at our disposal, but let me ask him whether he is prepared to have his wild assertions and floods of figures tested as to their real accuracy. Is he prepared to have the whole position as to the state of feeling about the Public Service Commission, the actions of the commission, and the conduct of the commission for the past five or six years submitted to inquiry by an impartial commission? I challenge him to have such an impartial inquiry. I ask the hon. Minister is he prepared to accept my challenge.

Do you dispute what he said?

I dispute three-quarters of what the Minister has said. Is the Minister prepared to have an impartial commission appointed for the purpose? I though he would not. Here we have in the middle of a quiet evening in committee, a carefully prepared budget speech on subjects which make it impossible for us to answer him because we are limited to ten minutes. This speech is made for the purpose of propaganda for the country, but it reveals one thing; that the Minister is extremely uneasy about the actual position in the public service; as to the cause of the discontent and uneasiness brought about by the swords and conduct of the Ministers themselves. Who first enunciated the policy of jobs for pals?

You did.

That reply shows that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) is a born humorist. Who first invented it and who adopted it virtually as a party cry? The Nationalist party. Who first created doubt in the minds of the public service in the Public Service Commission, but the Minister of Finance? A couple of sessions ago. His attention was drawn to the fact that the auditor-general had referred to the question of retirements of the members of the Public Service Commission in office when the present Government came into power, and the consequent increased costs due to pensions given on the premature retirement, and the Minister of Finance justified them on the grounds that the members of the Public Service Commission must be politically in sympathy with the Government of the day. I regarded till then at least the hon. the Minister of Finance with hope, but it came as a shock when the Minister in this connection one afternoon said, “I say we were justified in retiring those men because the members of the Public Service Commission should be in sympathy with the Government.” The Minister of Education long ago told us that other things being equal, Nationalists were going to be appointed or promoted in the service and the Minister for Agriculture went from platform to platform in the country laying down this same principle. Are you surprised that the public service took these two Ministers at their word? After all, I am sure these two Ministers do not think or allow anybody else to think they are the least important members of the Cabinet. In the opinion of the Minister of Finance the Public Service Commission are no longer to be impartial as it was intended they should be; no longer to be independent, as they ought, but in sympathy with the Government of the day. When you have people like the hon. Minister of the Interior and the hon. Minister of Agriculture telling people in the service and out of it, that people to be appointed are people who, other things being equal, are Nationalists, what are people in the service going to say or think? Who is going to judge what “other things being equal” are? The Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Agriculture? They show themselves very impartial people about these things. Let me assure the Minister of the Interior that in spite of his laboured explanations to-night that I fairly and honestly say that there is a great amount of uneasiness and discontent in the service. It is not created by poisoning the minds of the mass of the people in the service, it is created by—

By you. [Interruption.]

It is no good attempting to shout me down. It is created by the acts, and words and principles of Ministers. The people in the service have this feeling of uneasiness as a fact, and they are unhappy and discontented and indignant in regard to this sort of thing that has been done, because of the kind of appointments that have been made throughout the service. In order to show the value of the logic and the soundness of the Minister’s argument to-night he had the hardihood to defend the appointment of Maritz. If he had kept that case in the background there might have been more to be said for the Minister’s case. He had the hardihood to come into this House and justify the appointment on the ground that a great public calamity was averted by the appointment of Maritz. The Public Service Commission came within 12 or 24 hours without any pressure to the rapid decision quite independently that the Minister of Agriculture was right in holding that a welfare officer was essential in Namaqualand. So they made the appointment in one day. It was thought necessary for the salvation of the country to have him appointed. The Minister of the Interior has now had the hardihood to come here and defend the appointment. We know perfectly well that Maritz came here full of fire and indignation, breathing slaughter against the Government on account of the unfortunate lot of the people in Namaqualand, and he was placated with the gift of office. We have been lectured to-night by the Minister about bartering rights. If ever there was a case of bartering this case was. I say bluntly that Maritz was bought off with that office. I ask the Minister of the Interior whether he dares in truth and in fact to put any other gloss upon it than that. Talk about smousing. The Government bought up the opposition of the leader of the trouble in Namaqualand at that time.

I do not think I can allow the statement of the hon. member to go uncontradicted. The hon. member will find in Hansard what I said at that particular time. If the hon. member wants to tell this committee that the members of the Public Service Commission were to have the same political opinions as the Government then I repudiate and deny it. Hon. members who were members of the House at the time will remember what the point at issue was. At that time there was an appointment of the head of a department. The Government insisted that the incumbent of that office should be bilingual and the members of the Public Service Commission thought that that was not an essential qualification for the head of such an important department. We differed on an important point with the commission, and I stated frankly that I did not think that the members of the Public Service Commission who held that bilingualism in regard to such an important appointment was not essential, could not carry out the policy of the Government, and I stand by that to-night. I do not want to go back on it. The hon. member wants to make out that I said it was necessary that members of the Public Service Commission should be of the same political opinion as the Ministers, but that I repudiate.

As I am partly responsible for the explosion this evening, may I say a few words in reply to the Minister, who has adopted a very favourite war device of raising a fog screen. He was asked whether he was satisfied that the Public Service Commission was functioning properly, and then we listened for three-quarters of an hour to a tirade; the German hymn of hate was as milk and honey compared with the Minister’s speech. A protest should be made against a responsible Minister coming to the House with carefully prepared speeches intended for the political platform, and determined “to get it off his chest” whether any criticism is voiced from this side of the House or not. When we discussed the estimates, we have the right to expect the responsible Minister to meet criticism in a fair and impartial way, and not to rake into the past and scrape up all the mud of the last five years, to try to score a cheap party vantage.

You are ashamed of your past.

In one breath the Minister tries to assure the House that the Public Service Commission is an impartial body which will not be influenced by the Government, and then in the next breath, points out what has happened in Namaqualand in regard to the appointment’ of a welfare officer. Does not the latter fact show that the Government approached the commission to have the appointment made?

That is often done.

One moment the Minister says the Government has nothing to do with the actions of the commission, and the next moment he says that a certain appointment was made on the Government recommendation. It is always the same old story with the Government—go back 10 years and find a parallel if any question is raised by the Opposition. You can find men with English names who can hardly speak a word of English, yet they are included in the Minister’s list among English-speaking people who have received appointments. There has hardly been a single instance which we have criticized when an hon. member opposite has not raked up the old racial question. It is done all the way through, and it is time the very strongest protest was made against it; to-night I feel the House is suffering under the speech made by the Minister of the Interior.

I would ask the Minister to take the adjournment of the debate now. I ask the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I would like to say in regard to the statement the Minister has made to-night that it is impossible for us to meet the array of figures he has produced here. In the nature of things it is impossible. The Minister has been making full use of his holiday to work out these figures, and it is impossible for us at a moment’s notice to meet them. In a matter of this kind it is possible to make any use you like of figures, and I am afraid these figures are entirely unconvincing, and will not convince anyone. The Minister, in his carefully prepared statement, made it perfectly clear what his standpoint and that of the Government has been and is, and it is that in the appointments of the public service of this country, they carefully consider who is English-speaking and who is Afrikaans-speaking. The Minister sees the European population of this country divided into two camps— English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking—and he says he is determined to do justice as between those two, and to hold the scales evenly between them. I would submit that the whole position is wrong, and that we have not such a position in this country. The law does not require it. What it does require is that we shall deal with the public service on a footing of impartiality, recognize merit, and in appointments and promotion, be guided simply on principles of merit and impartiality. If you are guided by the consideration that for every English-speaking South African appointed an Afrikaans-speaking South African must be appointed, you may be doing a great disservice to the country by trying to uphold a semblance of equality and pretending to hold the scales even. You may have more Afrikaans-speaking applicants entitled to an appointment or to promotion than English-speaking, or vice versa You must get away from this mentality, which is the root of the evil, that we divide the people into two halves—English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking.

The question has been put.

No matter what question has been put, that standard is wrong. To my mind that standard is wrong. We should not ask whether a person is English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. I do not think the Minister is doing justice in that way. He revels in this mentality of a divided camp in South Africa of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, and trying to do justice as between the two. He has spoken of the root of the evil, but that is the root of the evil. It is not a question of English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, of English descent or Dutch descent. We are a united people, and our people should be treated on lines of impartiality and justice, and we should be blind to language and to race in our administration. No other principle should be adopted.

Why was this not done in the past?

So far as I am aware from time immemorial you have had questions of appointments to the service settled by examination. I remember when I was a youngster at college that a number of my fellow students were studying for the civil service examination, and it is a fact that for generations the people who went in for the civil service were not Dutch-speaking South Africans but were English-speaking South Africans. The result was that when Union came the public services of the four colonies Were almost entirely English-speaking, and very largely that state of affairs continued after Union. Very much larger numbers of English-speaking South Africans went into the public service, and the result is that for a large number of years, until quite recently, only English-speaking South Africans went into the public service. It is only in quite recent years that there has been a change.

1924.

I ask the hon. member not to talk nonsense, because I am dealing with the question quite seriously. For more than a generation the pressure into the public service was entirely from one section of the community. A change has now come. Of more recent years there has been a great change, until to-day I should say the tendency is rather the opposite. To-day there is more pressure I should say from the Afrikaans-speaking section to get into the service than from the English section.

made an interjection.

I did not interrupt the hon. the Minister when he was speaking. I gave him every chance to make his great effort, and to convince the country that he is doing justice to the service. I think it is an admitted fact that for a large number of years English-speaking South Africans have predominated in the service, but that is not due to partiality or favouritism on the part of past Governments. It is entirely due to an historical tendency in South Africa, which has completely passed away. The tendency is now the other way. To-day the balance.—[Time limit extended.] Well, I say a change has taken place recently, and it is quite possible that in years to come the position may be so far altered that you may find larger numbers of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans entering the service than English-speaking. It is possible that the tendency of the past may swing the other way, but I would say even if that were so do not let us worry our heads over that as long as we are satisfied that the service is being administered on lines of justice and impartiality; that those who control the civil service are race blind— language blind—and men are taken into the service on grounds of merit and promoted on grounds of merit, I would not worry about whether they are English-speaking or Afrikaansspeaking. I think that should be the ideal to which we should aspire in this country. I would ask the Minister to view things in that light. That is the contention of this side of the House; not to go in for these distinctions. The Minister said that during our administration this distinction was delberately drawn, but the only instance he could adduce was that Nationalists were penalized because they were told there should be no rebels in the service. That was quite right. Hon. members on the opposite benches will agree with me that if a man in the public service of this country goes into rebellion, he cannot continue in the service of the country; certainly not. And that is all that was said and done at the time. Quite a number of men in the public service of this country did go into rebellion and they lost their position in the service; but I am sure that there was never laid down a general standard to the effect that only South African party men should be appointed. I was responsible for the administration of that department for some years, and no such standard ever was laid down. The whole spirit of the administration of those days was not to import political questions into the appointments to the public service at all. No question was ever asked whether a man belonged to this party or that party. The Public Service Commission did not consist of party politicians. They were men who had been leaders in the public service themselves; had a great and honourable career behind them, and did not bother about these questions; whether a man was labour, unionist, nationalist or South African party. This change has come about more recently—in the last five or six years— the change of probing into these matters of race and politics. To enquire what the politics is, what the language is, what the racial descent is of a man to be appointed or promoted in the public service, to my mind is wrong. Nobody has the right to resent it if somebody of another race or speech is appointed or promoted over him. But he has the right to object that this is the case when the test is whether a person belongs to a different party or speaks a different language. If that is the test then there is no rule of justice, or equity, or impartiality. There is the open door for favouritism and all the consequences following in the wake of it. Let me say this to the Minister that he may think that there is no unusual dissatisfaction in the public service. He may think so. He may think that the sort of dissatisfaction which there is to-day is the same sort of thing that you had years ago, over the cost of living, and over allowances, and over methods of government control in regard to the public service. He may think that is the same thing to-day. Let me assure him that, if he thinks so, he is making a very grave mistake. I say deliberately that there is to-day a feeling in the public service of unsettlement and unrest, a feeling of resentment which I have never known before.

Why?

Why? Because of this matter which I have been discussing. The public service is under the impression to-day, and it will be even more under the impression to-morrow after the hon. Minister’s speech, that the test in this country is not ability, is not capacity to do your work, but it is language, it is race, it is Dutch-speaking, it is English-speaking and that sort of thing. You see, that is what makes people feel that in the public service of this country they do not get a fair chance, but that external tests which should never be applied, are being applied to-day, and the speech of the hon. Minister to-night is more likely to create a feeling of unrest and insecurity, which already exists in a great volume, rather than to allay it. I do not think that we should have any such test. We should not make up minds in this country, whoever is the Government, that we are not going to bother that we are holding the scales evenly between the various sections, because our people should not be divided into sections. We should put up standards of merit and impartiality. If that standard is applied, you will see satisfaction and a spirit of goodwill in the service such as there should exist and which will lead to the promotion of the public interest in this country.

I am very glad that this matter has been raised, and more glad that it has come up in the way it has through the Minister of the Interior. I was really surprised at the arguments of the hon. member for Standerton. I had hoped to get a little more clearly what his actual reason was for the wild statements he has been so guilty of recently, because if there is one who has been guilty of going about the country persuading the public service that it had a grievance against the Government, that it is being treated unequally, then it is my hon. friend, Gen. Smuts. Let us assume for a moment that he is right, and that dissatisfaction does exist in the service, what then is the reason for that dissatisfaction according to the leader of the Opposition? It amounts to this. He says that it appears clearly from what has been said here by the Minister of the Interior. The Minister emphasized that under the present Government the scales are more or less evenly held between the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking persons. But the hon. member for Standerton says that that is just what gives the public service a right of complaining. He says that we must be blind to race and language. The public service, therefore, complains that racial feeling exists, and, according to the hon. member, the service is angry because the Public Service Commission goes to work so unwisely as to dare to appoint half English-speaking people and half of the Duth race. What then do they want? Must all persons be of English descent? Take the language that is complained about; the complaint once more, according to the hon. member, is that the Public Service Commission, according to the Minister of the Interior was so wise, or unwise as pratically to appoint practically a half Dutch-speaking and half English-persons. Do they complain of inequality? Do they want all English-speaking, or all Dutch-speaking persons? I said that I was glad that this matter had been brought up because it shows how groundless the complaint is as also the reasons given by the hon. member for Standerton, and especially in his case because he is the principal sinner. There was no one who was so vociferous, and who so emphatically declared that the public service was seething with discontent, and rightly, according to him. As it appears now, he did this on no other grounds except that the Public Service Commission appointed as many persons of the one race, as of the other. We divided the appointments more or less equally between the two races. What then does the public service want? Do they want the English-speaking or the Dutch-speaking persons to be in the majority? Everybody sees at once how frivolous the whole thing is, and how nujust the action of the hon. member for Standerton is. He dares to say here that the basis on which the Public Service Commission goes to work is wrong; he says that we must simply be blind to race. I only wish that we had been blind to race in the country, then the Opposition would not have had so much to say, and we should, nevertheless, have been happier. The hon. member said, however, that the Public Service Commission must be blind to language, and this, although the law definitely lays down that appointments in the public service must actually be made according to the ability of the persons to be appointed, to speak both official languages of the country.

Certainly.

But then the commission cannot be blind to language. It was the complaint against the other commission that it was blind to language, and so blind that the whole country protested that the commission was blind to language. As the Minister of the Interior has shown, that commission was so blind that it practically only gave the appointments to one section, with the result that the public service is almost preponderatingly English. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Standerton can say that people must be blind to language, although the law says that they must bear it in mind. If they are blind to language then we shall much sooner hear a different story in the country than is now the case. They will hear what their predecessors heard. I say again that I am glad that the figures have been given again to-night, but I am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton says in such a childish manner—a thing I did not expect of him—that he doubts the figures given by the Minister, while the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) says that he doubts two-thirds of the figures. If we argue like that we cannot argue. There must be one of two things, the hon. member for Standerton and his followers must be serious and want to know the truth, and then they must be thankful to the Minister for the figures supplied to the House, or they are not serious. I think that the public will be thankful for the data, and this ought to be a warning to the Opposition not in future to go about making loose and irresponsible statements. They now know what the position is.

I merely return to the language question, and want to explain what I meant, because I do not want any misunderstanding to exist. When I say that the Public Service Commission ought to be blind with regard to language, as well as race, then I do not mean that they must not look to the language requirements. Of course not. I is expected of anyone who wants to enter of be promoted in the service that they should be bilingual according to law, but what the Minister is doing is to go further, and to classify the two sections of the people according to language in two separate lists.

Because your people say that we only appoint one section.

I start from the assumption that everyone coming into the service must be bi-lingual according to law, but I do not see why the Public Service Commission should keep lists of persons whose mother tongue is English, and of others whose mother tongue is Afrikaans. That was never done in my time, and I maintain that if we go on with that system, and divide the population of the country—however much it may be bi-lingual— into two classes according to their mother tongue we shall create a split in the white population which will be disastrous in the future. My aim is that the people shall be treated as one people

I hope that we shall arrive at that.

As long, however, as we divide the two sections in that way unity will not come about.

You must turn round and speak to your own people.

I hope that that barrier will disappear, because it will be disastrous to our country and nation and to proper administration.

I want to share the hope expressed by the leader of the Opposition that it may not be necessary in future to draw those lines. I think that if that is the result of the debate tonight everybody will be glad. I want, however, to point out to the hon. member how he came to make that division. It was caused by the leader of the Opposition himself. The hon. member for Standerton will remember two important speeches he made if I mention them. One speech was made during the 1924 election in the City Hall, Capetown. He solemnly warned English speaking South Africa that if the Nationalist party came into office, English speaking South Africans would have no chance in the public service.

Where was that?

In the City Hall, Capetown. That was the first speech, and the second was made not so long ago during the flag dispute in Durban. I arrived in Durban after him and tried to answer that speech. The hon. member stated on the public platform there that the sons of English-speaking people had no chance in the public service under the present Government. I know that such statements poison the minds of one section of the population against the other, and I therefore thought it necessary to get the figures from the Public Service Commission. The leader of the Opposition is therefore the cause of that dividing line having been drawn For that reason I gave the figures, not because I have given instructions to the Public Service Commission to make appointments on those lines. I just want to show that there was no antipathy at all on the part of the Public Service Commission against English speaking South Africans as stated by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other hon. members. The Public Service Commission have no instructions that when they appoint an English speaking person to-day they must also appoint an Afrikaans speaking one. Each case is merely considered on its merits.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 21, “Lands”, £233,908 put.

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 to-morrow.