I move—

I would like to say that I am not moving this because I intend to embarrass members in any way or to penalize them. We are all working hard, but we have always experienced, and I do not know to what extent this will happen again, that the suspension of this rule can be of great assistance in cases where somebody is delivering a speech or where there are hon. members who still wish to say something on the subject just before 11 o’clock. Instead of leaving a matter over until the next day, it can be disposed of. It is not my intention to impose further burdens on hon. members, but I do feel that this step may help towards the disposal of our work. I hope it will only be for a few nights.

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded the motion.

I am sorry the Prime Minister has decided to propose this motion asking us to sit all night.

I do not ask that.

No, but you hold the sword of Damocles over us.

No.

My hon. friend the Prime Minister must allow me to have some experience of the conduct of business in the House, and I do know this, that we never have a motion like this unless it is meant to be used. I ask the Prime Minister to refrain from proposing the motion for two reasons. One reason is that I cannot appreciate the necessity for the motion; I know what the Prime Minister has in his mind, that we should so feel our responsibilities towards hurrying business that we shall not make it necessary for the Government to ask the House to sit all night, whether the temptation is to finish on Wednesday or not. I cannot appreciate the necessity for that; there is no need for us to rush back home. After all, this is Parliament. Further, it is highly dangerous and not compatible with good work for us to sit day after day, morning, noon and night, with the further prospect of sitting all night. That does not make for good legislation or adequate examination of the business before the House. Another point is that the motion will have a very bad effect on the public outside, because they will ask themselves, why on earth is it necessary for Parliament to rush through business, especially business of such vital importance as that which we have before us during the present session. Circumstances have arisen during the last few days which make it imperative for us to give infinitely more thought to legislation than we appear to be doing. For instance, the very pregnant announcement by the Acting Minister for Finance, following the most pregnant and painful announcement by the Chamber of Mines; this matter requires calm, cool consideration by this legislative body, without it feeling that it has to rush to conclude the business. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the motion. I appeal to his good sense and his appreciation of the necessity of considering the best interests of the people. If we find it necessary to expound our views more fully than he thinks desirable, let us have our way, but do not let us rush in this fashion, rather let us sit another week.

I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to proceed with the Farmers’ Assignment Bill.

I do not propose to vote against the motion if it comes to a division, but I would like to support the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) in asking the Prime Minister to withdraw the motion, because I think the Prime Minister will agree that Parliament has been working at very high pressure for the last few days; and, if it is to fulfil its true function, it is impossible for a private member to carry on in this way. The function of a member of Parliament is not merely to be in the House and to take part in the discussions. There is a good deal of other work outside the Chamber that has to be done. Every member receives a great deal of correspondence every day, which has not only to be answered, but involves interviewing Ministers and heads of departments and receiving deputations. If we are to do justice to our constituents, we have to start at an exceedingly early hour, and, even then, many of us find it impossible to get through our work, especially when we sit here morning, noon and night. The result is that the tempers of members become frayed and they are apt to say things which they might not have said in their calmer moments. The Prime Minister is putting a strain on us which, in the circumstances, he is not really called upon to do. We in the Cape do not have the luxury and privilege of seeing Cabinet Ministers for a very long time during the year, and we wish to take every opportunity, when they are here, to have some form of personal contact with them. We want to take full advantage of having the Cabinet Ministers with us. I would emphasize what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has said. There has been a great deal of criticism from firm supporters of the Coalition with regard to the haste with which the business before Parliament is being dealt. There is a danger of Parliament being brought into disrepute. There was an explanation, or an alleged explanation, in the columns of “Die Burger” this morning as to why the Prime Minister is so anxious to speed up the business of the House. The explanation is that Parliament will be left without sufficient members to form a quorum, because members are hurrying back to their constituents. If that explanation is correct, it reflects a very sorry light on members of Parliament and on the discipline of Parliament.

I want to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his motion. We can work and we are willing to work even if we have to sit right through the night.

May I be allowed to say a few works. My hon. friend, the member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), has no cause to complain. This is really only a short session of Parliament to carry on our recent session and it is intended to pass the estimates and to deal with matters in connection with the budget. We concluded in March last at a time when the budget debate usually starts. This generally does not take up more than six weeks; we have now been in session for five weeks. Consequently I do not think that anyone has the right to say that there has been a great deal of undue hurry. The object of this motion is to see to it that we shall not hurry unduly. The only object is to enable us to do more work within a certain period of time. We find very often that if we can only go on for another five minutes a certain matter may be disposed of, but if a subject is allowed to stand over until the next day, members, who had never dreamt of saying anything, will get up and talk because they are refreshed, and then it means that instead of discussing a matter for five minutes, they would discuss it tor a couple of hours. That sort of thing is not only not in the interest of the House, but it is in the financial interest of the State that we should sit longer every day. It is not my intention to penalize members, and to make matters more difficult for anyone by our sitting longer. I only wish to avail myself of this motion in order to get more work done. If hon. members will look at the order paper they will see that only a few matters are left to be disposed of. There are a few votes left on the estimates and a few other matters. The complaint that we are already sitting morning, afternoon and night is no reason for saying that we cannot sit longer, as there are only a few days left. In reply to the question of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), I wish to say that we do not intend proceeding with the Farmers’ Assignment Bill for the simple reason that it has been found impossible so to draft that measure that it will not affect interests which definitely should not be affected. If a measure of that kind has to be passed, it will have to be dealt with from a totally different point of view.

Motion put and agreed to,

I move—

Mr. R. A. T. VAN DER MERWE seconded.

Agreed to.

Report to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

This is a Bill introduced to give effect to an undertaking given by the Minister of Finance in regard to a recent decision of the Cape Provincial Division on the question of the power of provincial councils to impose a tax upon income tax. The power of levying taxes on income tax by the provincial councils was made subject to the Act of 1925, which provides that such a tax cannot exceed 25 per cent. of the income tax. It is also laid down that the power to impose this taxation does not empower them to impose direct taxation in respect of the product of, or income of, profits derived from mining operations. The point is, that under a recent decision of the Cape Provincial Division it has been held that the provinces have only the power to levy this tax on supertax in respect of income which would fall within the definition of income in the Act of 1925. That definition of income, as hon. members know, excludes dividends, because they are not subject to the normal income tax. The tax is levied on the company, and the dividends derived by the taxpayer are not in his hands, being subject to the supertax. Owing to the particular wording of the definition, the court has held that the provincial council cannot vary its percentage on supertax in so far as that supertax is applicable to sources of income which are not subject to normal income tax. The provincial council, in levying this tax on income, should not be subject to that limitation, but should be able to levy on normal income tax, plus supertax. The point has also been raised that, due to the fact that the Act of 1921 debars provincial councils from levying taxation in respect of the profits of gold mines, that might be held to mean that they were not empowered to levy this particular form of income tax on dividends from mining companies. This Bill will make it clear that although a provincial council is still restricted from taxing the profits of mining companies, yet dividends of mining companies in the hands of provincial taxpayers will be subject to provincial taxation. The second clause provides that this amending Bill does not become operative except for this year.

Like many hon. members of this House, I do not understand this Bill. I have risen to deal with two points. One is that the House is not in the right frame of mind to consider matters which may have a very far-reaching effect upon the public interest. The other point is that this Bill affords me an opportunity—you will correct me if I am wrong—of bringing before the Minister of Railways, and perhaps one or two other Ministers who are interested in their departments of the public service, the parlous condition of a large number of our State employees with regard to the payment of the poll tax. At once you will say that this Bill does not deal with the poll tax; but it does deal with the provincial income tax, and our provincial poll tax includes mulcting certain sections of the populace in income tax as well.

I do not think the hon. member can discuss that under this Bill. He can deal with that under the Appropriation Bill.

Unless you rule me out of order, I should like to discuss it here, because I have weighty matters to deal with under the Appropriation Bill. I will bow to your decision, of course, but I would like the opportunity of putting before the Minister the desirability of the department receiving the tax from its ill-paid men, including artizans, in instalments. I have interviewed the receiver of revenue this morning, and we do see departmental and administrative difficulties in the revenue officer making collections himself. The Minister might instruct the accountant. I want to put the thought also in the minds of other Ministers who may have employees who are similarly placed.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses put and agreed to.

On the schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading to-morrow.

I hope that the committee will not accept the proposals contained in this section. I do not think it will be redound to the dignity or the credit of Parliament if we accept the proposals here made. Before I move an amendment, I should like j to give hon. members the history of this particular matter. In the South Africa Act the salary of members was laid down at £400 a year, and they were penalized £3 for every day absent, whatever the cause might be. That was found to be too drastic, and in 1916 we passed an Act which gave every member of Parliament 15 days’ grace; in other words, he was allowed to be away for 15 days in each session, and for each other day he was away on account of illness or absent on subpoena. In 1926 our salaries were raised to £700 a year, and the present Minister of Finance got Parliament to agree that the penalty for absence should be raised to £6; and the period was still 15 days. The present Minister of Lands uttered a protest and said that this was altogether out of the way and the period was too short. Last year he persuaded the Minister of Finance to reduce the penalty from £6 to £2 and to increase the permissible period of absence from 15 to 30 days. There was really no, or very little, discussion, and last year’s Act was only a temporary one for 12 months. Now that we have to decide the matter once and for all, I hope that hon. members will consider very carefully before they accept these proposals. What do they amount to? They say we may be absent for 30 days in a session without any excuse whatever, and if the period is over 30 days, you will forfeit only £2 a day. It will be obvious, if we take the average length of a session as 80 days, the utmost penalty an hon. member may suffer is £100 or in other words, he may draw from the State £600 a year and come one day, or not even come that one day. There is a disposition on the part of the outside public to say that members of Parliament are over-paid, with which I do not agree; but no action on the part of Parliament will be more calculated to increase that impression on the part of the public than to legislate in this way. Well now, surely the State pays us members of Parliament for being here to attend to our duties, and if we are absent, surely we should be prepared to forfeit a reasonable share of the emoluments, or allowance, or whatever you like to call it, that Parliament pays you. I am going to move that the position should be reverted to as it was in 1916 and onwards; the number of days permissible for hon. members to be absent to be 15 days and the penalty to be £3. Surely it is not too much to say, if an hon. member is absent on his own business for more than 15 days in a session, he shall thereafter forfeit £3 per sitting. I move, as an amendment—

I suggest that as a reasonable compromise, and consistent with the dignity of this House.

I agree with the object the hon. member has in view, but I approach it from a different angle, and I want a different set of circumstances and inducements to hon. members to keep their noses to the grindstone, as it were, and to inculcate the idea of public service rather than that of pressure. It is well-known in the House what my view all along has been. I do not believe you can make hon. members attend by appealing to their pockets. It is writing down our conception of our public duty very much indeed, and it sends cold water down my back. There are some things that affect our sense of good taste, and this is one of them. I do not want it to be said that, unless you come to Parliament to do your duty, you shall be fined.

That is what they do say.

I know you do, and that is what I am protesting against. I do not agree with the hon. member’s amendment; whether you make it £6, £3 or £10, the question is only one of degree. The principle is the same. I would rather delete the whole thing and allow hon. members to feel that, if they are answerable to anybody at all, they are answerable only to their constituents, and not to their fellow-members. What does the hon. gentleman accomplish even by this? Unless you carry this to its logical conclusion, and say hon. members shall attend for a certain number of hours per day; punch the clock; and prevent members from going out in the lobby—

And keep them awake.

My hon. friend emphasizes that important part of their duties. Unfortunately that has not been the case. Let us get down to concrete facts. It is well within your recollection, Mr. Chairman, certainly within mine, that members have come into this House at a quarter to six in the evening. They have made an attendance. Under my hon. friend’s amendment they will still be able to make an attendance under these circumstances. They can come in when the House opens at 2.15, draw the attention of the sergeant-at-arms that they are physically present, and then they can go out and disport themselves in the waves at Muizenberg. This is not the way to deal with it. Let us put our conception of duty on a much higher plane, and in the ultimate, if we have to be answerable to anyone, let us be answerable to our constituents. Let them be able to say, “We regard you as men of honour, as well as members of Parliament, and we expect you to do your duty because it is your conception of your duty.” I am opposing the hon. member’s amendment on the same grounds that I do not agree with this. I hope my hon. friend will not continue with his amendment, and I hope that this will only be temporary again this year, and that next year the Minister will make it his business to i come to this House and ask us to record ourselves as men of honour.

I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). This system of fining has become an absolute farce. Unless there were some system requiring members to attend a certain number of hours, it must remain pure farce. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said that by making the fines higher you would be ensuring attendance. You will not. You will merely ensure their putting their heads in at the door. There is nothing to compel a man to stay here. As far as I understand this alteration of the law, it is to carry out a promise made by the Minister of Finance to the present acting Minister of Justice. At the time the suggestion was made, the House generally agreed with it, and this is simply carrying out the promise. The proper people to deal with a member, if he is not doing his duty, are his constituents, and not Parliament. It is the country member particularly for whom this amendment is intended, and not the people who live in Cape Town, or within the precincts of Cape Town. I know that many members from the country sometimes do far more good by going amongst then constituents in critical times during the session, than by remaining here. Many of them do it because they get an urgent summons from a constituency, especially at critical times like the present, and they have to go away. In any case, I say leave it to the constituents. If a member of Parliament is not doing his duty, he will soon be dealt with at the next election. This farce of fining for absence has really become too great. I agree that it would be as well to do away with the whole system of fining altogether. The amount suggested here is quite adequate. An extension of the absent days is also necessary, particularly for up-country members. It must not be forgotten that a member of Parliament is put to an enormous amount of expense, and those who have to come here from up-country have nothing left of their parliamentary salary at the end of the year.

I only wish to say that I associate myself entirely with what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has said. The proposal which he made was a very good one, and I think hon. members should realize what the people outside are thinking about this matter. It is true that members of Parliament are in reality full-time officers of the State and also have to do a great deal of parliamentary work outside of Parliament. And in actual fact the public look at matters in that light, but it goes a bit too far to allow such a long period of leave during the session, and to reduce the fine to such a low level. To my mind it is not enough to keep a member, who is somewhat slack, on the right course. I would, therefore, prefer to vote for the amendment rather than for the proposal in the Bill.

I think the answer to my hon. friends is this, that we are not now attempting to remove the fines and penalties for non-attendance. If we were doing that, there might be something in what they said. What we are now attempting to do by this amendment is to reduce the fine for non-attendance from £6 to £2, and to increase the allowance of permissable absence from 15 days to 30 days. I do suggest that if we are to have any form of penalty for non-attendance, then it should be a reasonable penalty and not a farcical penalty, such as this. The House sits five days a week, and therefore 15 days’ permissible absence is equal to three weeks’ absence in a session of four or four-and-a-half months. Surely this House is entitled to say to members: “For three weeks you may be away, and nothing will happen to you, and if you are ill, or if your wife is ill, you may be away as long as you like”—

If your children are you cannot be away. That is ridiculous.

Yes, an amendment might be made to deal with that. The House can say to its members: “The State is paying you a salary of £700 a year, which is one of the highest salaries anywhere in the world.”

No.

There are only two countries which pay a higher salary, and surely the State is entitled to say: “We are paying you that salary, and we expect you to attend.” My hon. friends have said that it would be sufficient for a member to put his nose inside the House and have his attendance recorded. The point is this that if the member is in Cape Town, he will usually attend throughout the hours of a sitting. This is purely meant to deal with the case of people absent from the sittings of this House altogether. The framework of the Act of Union laid down this system of penalties. They said: “For every day you are absent, you will forfeit £3 of your salary.” The present suggestion is to allow 15 days, as has been done since 1916, and I suggest that is a fair thing to do, but to increase the number of days from 15 to 30, and to reduce the fine to £2 means that you might as well scrap the whole thing.

I think this House is getting too found of talking about itself. It astounds me, as it must astound people who come here with a certain amount of dignity, to see the way in which we talk about our salaries and things of that kind. It is most undignified. Seeing the Government has introduced this, let us accept it. If they want to be lenient, let them. If they want to be still more lenient, let them; but for us to be continually talking about ourselves, I think it is a pity.

I hope this will be a step towards doing away with fines altogether. So far as I know, there is no other legislative body in the British Commonwealth of Nations which has a system of fines, in any way resembling this. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is wrong in saying that ours is one of the most highly-paid legislative bodies. Certainly, members of Parliament in Canada and Australia receive a higher rate of remuneration. I understand that one of the underlying objects of this system of fines is that the Government may be assured of a quorum, especially towards the end of the session. The best judges of a member’s conduct are his constituents. I think it would be very desirable if at the end of each session each member should be credited, and the figures published, with the attendances he has made during the session.

Like a kindergarten school.

No, it is not only a kindergarten practice. It is done by most companies. They keep a record of and publish the attendances of directors at board meetings. I think it would be very desirable for constituents to have the means of knowing officially how many attendances their members had made. The whole arrangements at present are undignified. Members ought not to require to be kept up to a sense of their duty by a system of fines, but I am sure that by letting this go through:it will be a step in the direction of doing away with the system altogether. In the meantime, I think the days of exemption are too many, and a fine of £6 is too high.

I just want to say that so far as the Government is concerned, we have not the slightest interest in the matter. What we have before us is a request which has emanated from members themselves and I want to say at once that the decision on the matter is left entirely to the House. I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) for this reason: the amount of the allowance that is paid is high enough, as we saw during the past elections, to bring sufficient candidates into the field to see to it that if anyone does not do his duty, somebody else, who will do his duty, will take his place. The question whether a member is doing his duty or not is something which his voters must decide. It may be that the electors are of opinion that their representative is such a prominent person that they are satisfied if he is present in the House during one-fifth or one-tenth of the time of session, they consider that he is giving sufficient attention to their interests. Before to-day it has been found in the history of Parliament that there were members of whom their electors said that they did not care whether they were able to attend the session only for one or two months. The electors say that he is worth so much to them during the time that he is present and can be present, that they are prepared to send him to Parliament. There are members to-day, and there will be such members in future whom the State might pay to keep away. I cannot at the moment lay my finger on one of those members and it would be too unpleasant a task to do so. Electors to-day watch very carefully what their representatives are doing in Parliament, and that is a matter which we can safely leave in their hands. The Government has merely acted on the request of members themselves. It is in the interest of the Government to make the period of leave as short as possible so that members shall be in Parliament. Unfortunately the position is that the longer the period of leave is made, the greater the danger is that members will be more absent. I cannot help saying, however, that this is a matter which we can leave in the hands of members and in the end in the hands of their constituents.

I am sorry that I was not here when this debate commenced, but I am of opinion that the proposals that are made here are too liberal. If an hon. member can be absent for 30 days and the fine is only £2 a day, it means that he can remain away practically the whole of the session. The House really never sits longer than 100 days. A member can stay away for 30 days and for 70 days, he can be fined at the rate of £2 per day on a salary of £700. Such a member will then draw £560 without his ever attending Parliament. For that reason I consider that it is too liberal and I do not think that the electors will be prepared to allow this. I therefore move, as an amendment—

This means four weeks leave of absence. The House is in session for four months, and a member, therefore, has leave of absence for one-quarter of that time. I consider that the fine should be a high one. I am of opinion that it would be advisable if the Government were not to meet members any further than this.

I should like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). It does seem to me to require some courage for anyone to get up in this House to say “Your fine should be increased”. I am with the hon. member (Mr. le Roux) to the extent that the fine should be left where it is, namely, £6 per day. Only the hon. member wants to go further and give a longer period. Thirty days really mean six weeks and we have too many members going away already for a week at a time and not doing their work in this House.

Vote, vote.

I regret that hon. members think I am wasting the time of the House. I do not speak as often as most of them. Some hon. members rather want to vote at the end of the session—it is a pity that they do not want to vote a little more quickly at the beginning of the session when they talk too long. But, after all, our duty is to our constituents. Very few of our constituents ever find out how often their members are in the House. Still, I do not want to go as far as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), who wants to have a record kept. I do think that we should have a fine of at least £3 per day and that the maximum time to be allowed for absence without a fine should be fifteen days.

There seems to be a strong feeling throughout the committee that 30 days’ leave of absence is too long. Well, I do not want to insist on that. If we are going to drop the 30 days, I think we had better stick to the period now allowed which is 15. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) might drop the first part of his amendment and let the fine be £2. Do not let us haggle about these matters. If we are going to have a fine at all £2 should be sufficient. If the hon. member is prepared to drop the first part of his amendment, I am prepared to accept the other part.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has had the effect of reducing this debate to something in the nature of a public auction. One member says “let it be 10 days”, another says 15, another 30. This whole business is rather undignified. I do not think anyone would take advantage of the 30 days, because, after all, our constituents are looking at us; but let me put before the House the position of the hon. member who sits next to me. I am referring to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). It takes him five days to go home and five days to come back. It would mean that he would be able to have only five days at home without being fined. If we want to go into details, we should make the leave of absence start from the first day that a member can possibly reach his home. Thirty days is too much for Cape Town but not enough for other parts.

With the leave of the House, I should like to accept the Minister’s suggestion and to amend my amendment accordingly.

With leave of the Commiteee, first part of amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell withdrawn.

First part of amendment proposed by Mr. le Roux put and negatived.

May I ask whether it is correct that if those words are deleted we can insert “20 or 15 days”, while if we vote against the amendment, the position remains as it is now proposed, viz.,. 30 days?

Question put: That the words “and (b) by the substitution for the word ‘ fifteen ’ in the said sub-section of the word”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and the committee divided:

Ayes—27.

Alexander, M.

Bowen, R. W.

Brits, G. P.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

MacCallum, A. J.

Martins, P. v. d. M.

Nicholls. G. H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Robinson, C. P.

Rooth, E. A.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Shaw, F.

Steytler, L. J.

Terrebianche, P. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Visser, W. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Swart, C. R.

Noes—51.

Alberts. S. F.

Bain-Marais, C.

Baumann, E. P.

Bekker, S.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Bremer, K.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, P. P.

Du Toit. R. J.

Eaton, A. H. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Gerdener, H.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Gray, C. W.

Grobler, J. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Joubert, F. A.

Kayser, C. F.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kotzé, R. N.

Lawrence, H. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Naudé. J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Reitz, D.

Reynolds, L. F.

Roberts, F. J.

Scholtz, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Stuttaford, R.

Swanepoel, A. J.

Theron, P.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Question accordingly negatived and, second part of amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell being agreed to, second part of amendment proposed by Mr. le Roux dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I wish to raise again very shortly the question of the limitation in the maximum amount of the grant. I am sorry that the Minister, when he referred to this matter on a previous occasion, tried to throw the responsibility for the increase in the number of consumptives in Cape Town on to the shoulders of the Cape Town Municipality, because it had not proceeded more expeditiously with its housing schemes. Taking the housing scheme as a whole, Cape Town has done as well as any municipality in the Union, and it is continuing that good work. The question of municipal housing, however, has very little to do with the incidence of tuberculosis. In finding reasons for the proposed decrease in the amount of Government refunds or grants to local authorities, the Minister has initiated a retrograde policy, as far as public health is concerned. To limit the amount of expenditure in connection with these serious diseases is to do the State a very bad turn. Cape Town, during the past year, spent £44,544 on these public health services, and will lose under the Government’s proposal £9,713, as the Government now limits its refund to the sum of £10,000. In dealing with tuberculosis, Cape Town spends a considerable sum of money. Its city hospital for infectious diseases has 300 beds, half of which are used exclusively by tubercular patients. Cape Town also runs 3 venereal diseases clinics and the tuberculosis clinic. In one year in Cape Town there were 1,456 new cases of tuberculosis, and 797 deaths from this disease, giving a death rate of 2.98 per thousand, as against London’s rate of 1.03, and a general English death rate of 1.05. It is certainly a commentary on sunny South Africa that the death rate from tuberculosis is almost three times as high in the mother city as it is in London. Venereal disease shows the same alarming increase. Last year there were 3,423 new cases, and a rate for new cases of 12.8 per 1,000. Contrast that with Glasgow, 5 per 1,000; Hull, 4.2 per 1,000; Birmingham, 2.7 per 1,000; and Coventry, 2.6 per 1,000. When you compare those figures with the Cape Town figures of 12.8, it shows that the rate, as far as venereal disease is concerned, is far higher than that of the large industrial centres and of some of the large ports of England. It reveals a serious state of affairs, and instead of a cut in expenditure in regard to these diseases, there should be an increased Vote.

I wish to plead with the Minister to reconsider his decision with regard to this matter. One views with alarm the spread of tuberculosis in South Africa. Many years ago our figures for tuberculosis were quite low, but now we see the alarming incidence of this disease for Cape Town, and realise the danger to the rest of the Union. The figures for tuberculosis for Johannesburg are insignificant so far as Europeans are concerned, but unless steps are taken to minimize the disease in Cape Town, there is a danger of its spread to other parts of South Africa. With reference to the reduction in the amount of the grant, when the 40 per cent. of last year was decided upon it was understood that the reduction would be temporary, and now in a time of lesser financial stringency the municipalities are faced with the fresh position taken up by the Government of limitation of the subsidy to a certain maximum amount. The municipalities concerned have been taken unawares, and I suggest that the Minister withdraw the proposed limitation or at least defer it. The larger municipalities have embarked upon various enterprizes which cannot be carried out if the reduction now proposed is enforced and at the same time cannot be terminated. I think the limitation should be withdrawn, or notice of its enforcement in twelve month’s time should be given.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of hon. members and I move as an amendment—

Does that increase the amount?

I do not think the amendment increases the grant very much. I think the Minister should very favourably consider this amendment, as it is vitally necessary that work by local authorities on public health should be encouraged rather than be retarded.

I regret very much that it is quite impossible to accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. R. J. du Toit). For one thing it will have the effect of increasing the amount, and therefore I should think that the amendment would be out of order. Secondly, it seems rather to make a farce of the law, because the clause referred to here provides certain grants on a particular scale, and it seems rather ridiculous to say, on the top of that, that the total amount shall not exceed £1 or £2. You cannot impose one scale on the top of another scale, so that even if this amendment did not increase the amount, I should feel compelled to oppose it. I don’t think anything has been said which was not said during the second reading debate. The policy is not a retrogressive policy, as has been suggested, but a progressive policy. We shall have £11,500 available more than last year. It has been suggested that last year’s cut is temporary, but so is every other cut imposed on the various social services, and we have gone further in the matter of restoring the cuts of public health grants than in respect of any other cuts. Further, I would like to point out that we are not limiting the amount of expenditure on public health. Hon. members have suggested that we are stopping expenditure. We are limiting the State’s share, but we are not limiting the amount. The third point I want to emphasize is this, that to this proposal there is only one other alternative, and that is that we should impose a percentage cut on all local authorities, and we should have to impose a 25 per cent. cut on them.

I am surprised at the Minister. I take as the first exception his point of order.

There is no point of order, as I find that the amendment, while increasing the expenditure proposed under the Bill, does not increase existing expenditure.

I am opposed to the whole of this clause, and I am surprised at the Minister saying that this proposal does not mean a limitation in the expenditure on public health. Does he seriously consider, for one single moment, he is advancing a progressive policy for the prevention of infectious and contagious diseases, and that it does not mean a limitation of the venereal vote in a big city like Cape Town? Does he think this is progressive, as applying to the Municipality of Cape Town? Does he think it is a progressive step in the fight against the dreaded disease of tuberculosis? The Minister knows very well indeed that, as far as Johannesburg and Cape Town are concerned, it is a very retrogressive Step. He says he is going to spend £11,000 more: Of course he is. Where are municipal authorities going to get it from? From municipalities like Cape Town and Johannesburg. What will happen when these big institutions, designed in Cape Town to meet this dreaded scourge, lapse?

Why?

Because the local authority in Cape Town cannot afford to shoulder its local liability. The original Act of Union drew a distinction between national public health and local and provincial public health services, and laid down that there was to be national responsibility as regards certain infectious and epidemic diseases. But, under this Act, if plague were to break out in Cape Town, where would be the national share for the responsibility of combating this disease? It would be nothing; and they could say, “We expend £10,000 on this disease; there is your limit; and get on with it.” The country should know exactly what these proposals are. It will mean £8,000 from Cape Town’s pocket, and the balance from Johannesburg. The responsibility should be divided between the Union Government and local authorities, and this responsibility has been accepted. The Minister has no right to throw this responsibility on the local authorities. It is saving the smaller municipalities and rural areas something, but to what extent? I know there are some 400 local authorities in the Union of South Africa. I do not know how much the Minister is spending, but I do not think the Minister should save £100 here and there at the expense of the enormous burdens placed on the two largest cities in South Africa, which will have the effect, in Cape Town, at least, of crippling public health services. I propose to vote against this clause.

I can quite understand from what the Minister has said to-day that he has made up his mind on this question, but I do not think that he has fully appreciated the intensity of the objection entertained by the larger municipalities of the country to his proposals. I would like to ask him again to promise to go into the matter during the recess and to receive representations.

I am prepared to do so.

There is a danger that behind all this a feeling of resentment may grow at what is held to be an unwarrantable interference with the public health programme of the larger cities. I believe that when he sees the work that will be affected and cut down, perhaps finally closed up by reason of the policy he is adopting, he is likely to find ways and means of overcoming his difficulty in the matter arising from the view entertained by the Treasury as to the limits to be placed on subsidies.

May I give the hon. member my verbal assurance in confirmation of my nod, that I shall be perfectly happy again to receive any representations from the Municipality of Cape Town. They have already been to me twice but I am quite prepared to meet them again.

Anything the Minister does will not take effect until next year. I am sorry the Minister has taken up this determined attitude. The Minister says the alternative is to cut the smaller municipalities. I would be against that. I do not believe in a 40 per cent. cut for either the smaller municipalities or the larger ones. The anomaly so far as Cape Town is concerned, is that, although the 40 per cent. cut is restored, they will be worse off this year than if it had not been restored. They are worse off to the extent of £2,167. They would have been better off if the cut had not been restored. That is the lamentable position in which Cape Town is placed. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he does not stop the expenditure; he only stops the State contribution. Does he expect the larger municipalities to do the Government’s job? It is his job to look after the eradication of these diseases. If the Government gives the full grant we are pleading for, the Cape Town Municipality will have itself spent £25,581 for the year and they only ask the Government for the difference of £18,963, which make up the total expenditure of £44,544. They would still be spending more on the eradication of these diseases which threaten the national health, than the Government. The Government say they cannot afford more than £10,000. It is a most retrogressive step. I cannot see any reason for it except to save that amount of money. In a Budget running into millions, is it not lamentable that the Government should cavil at an amount of £8,963 for the eradication of these diseases? Any assurance the Minister can give will not affect the Cape Town Municipality this year at all; it will only take effect next year. I shall vote against this clause.

There is one question I want to ask the Minister. An amount of £72,000 is budgeted for in the present Estimates for refunds to local authorities. Last year the amount was £60,800. Can the Minister give me the figure for the year before that, namely, before the 40 per cent. cut was made?

I cannot give the precise figures in the form the hon. member desires. I gave figures during the second reading debate which I think will convey to him the kind of information he wants. The effect of the cut was a reduction on the previous year of something like £26,000 and we have now restored £11,500.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—42.

Alberts, S. F.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bekker, S.

Bergh, P. A.

Cilliers, A. A.

De Wet, J. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Du Toit, P. P.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Gerdener, H.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, J. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Martins, P. v. d. M.

Naudé, S. W.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Sauer, P. O.

Scholtz, J. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Swanepoel, A. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terrebianche, P. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Visser. W. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Malan, M. L.

Noes—22.

Alexander, M.

Baumann, E. P.

Blackwell, L.

Bouwer, G. S.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Byron, J. J.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Gray, C. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Joubert, F. A.

Kayser, C. F.

Kotzé, R. N.

Lawrence, H. G.

MacCallum, A. J.

Madeley, W. B.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shaw, F.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: Bremer, K.; McArthur, R. T.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I want to ask the Minister what is implied by the insertion of these words “on or” in sub-section (a).

The object is to allow the Act to apply to cases where the application was made on the 31st day of March. Certain persons were under the impression that they could have applied on the 31st day of March, although the Act says that they should apply before the 31st March.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I see by this clause that the Minister, in sub-section B, has the right, in the case of wool and mohair, to fix the subsidy at a sum not exceeding 1d. per lb., instead of on the value of the wool. I feel that that is a retrograde step, and I shall move the deletion of the clause. We have always prided ourselves on the quality of the wool that we have grown, and surely the Minister wants to encourage the farmer to grow a high quality of wool. The result of this clause as it stands will be that a bale of wool of locks and pieces weighing 600 lbs. will get a higher subsidy than a bale weighing 250 lbs., although, in the 600 lb, bale there may be a lot of dirt, and an absolute absence of quality, because the lighter the bale the higher the quality, whereas the heavier the bale the more it will contain ground and dirt. Under this arrangement a bale of wool weighed from 250 lbs. to 300 lbs., which is probably of a far better quality than a bale containing 600 lbs., would receive the same subsidy of 1d. per lb. This proposal of the Government will have a very retrograde effect on the production of good wool and I feel that this basis is entirely wrong to pay on the basis of weight instead of on the quality of the wool. There is a grave danger that thereby we will not encourage the farmer in the sorting and preparation of his wool clip. I move—

May I just make it clear that we have decided to fix the subsidy for all wool at 1d. per lb.; we have done so with the object especially of helping the poor people. They all get the same subsidy, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the poor class of people often produce an inferior quality wool and this equal treatment is to their advantage. The people who produce a superior quality wool get about 8d. per lb., so that they do not require the subsidy as much as the poor people, who should be given an opportunity of improving their sheep. I also wish to point out that this subsidy is merely temporary.

I do not want to oppose the Minister, but I think he is basing his argument on wrong premises. Naturally, if I for one moment thought the amendment was going to hurt the poor man, with whom I have the utmost sympathy, I would withdraw it immediately. But the poor man is producing just as good wool as the rich man. Under the Minister’s proposal we are going to pay 1d. a lb. for the export of South African muck.

And manure.

And manure. Because a man happens to be poor that is no reason why he should produce poor wool. However, the very last thing I would do is to injure the poor man, so I will withdraw the amendment, but I still feel that the Minister is wrong in paying subsidy of 1d. per lb. rather than on the value of our wool. It has taken very many years to build up the quality of our wool and the get-up thereof for our export and T just fear that the Minister’s action will have a very harmful effect on our export trade and will encourage sending out low quality wools.

The wool trade views with the very greatest concern this flat rate payment. It has taken South Africa many years to overcome the great prejudice that prevailed against our wool overseas. Through the efforts of our more progressive wool farmers that prejudice has now, to a large extent, been dissipated. This flat rate subsidy, however, of the Government is regarded as a backward step, because it is essential—if the reputation of our wool industry is to be maintained— that every encouragement should be given to those who produce wool of a class that we want. I would ask the Minister, although I understand he has said that this is done in order to help the poor man, and although I would be the last person in the world to do anything to prevent the poor man being considered, yet I would appeal to the Minister to see whether it is not possible, even though the percentage may be reduced, so to frame the subsidy that those who arc producing the wool which is doing the country good, and enhancing the reputation of the country’s products, may derive the maximum benefit in connection with the Act.

We do not desire to place any obstacles whatever in the way of the Minister, especially as it is the intention to help the poorer’ class of people. The Minister must bear in mind, however, that the farmers held over some inferior quality wool as it did not pay them last year and the year before to send that wool away. That wool will have to be sent away now. Nobody is opposed to the the poor being helped, but the Minister has to take account of human nature and this provision may expose us to a retrograde movement. As it is a temporary measure, I shall not, however, oppose it.

I wish to support the contention of the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller). Personally, I think this is a retrograde step. If we had based the subsidy on a percentage basis, it would certainly have been an encouragement in the direction of the proper sorting of wool. The present proposal discourages the proper sorting of wool. Although this is said to be a temporary Pleasure, it may do a lot of harm, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the basis of subsidy.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I wish to move the deletion of the whole of this clause. My reason for doing so is that the rights of the sources of revenue of the provinces are being curtailed. In the past it was the attitude of the Government that the provinces must keep their own affairs in order by means of the sources of revenue at their command. That was a sound policy, and I always supported the Government in that policy. When a province has certain sources of revenue at its disposal, it has to see to it that it comes out on those sources of revenue. By this clause, however, provincial sources of revenue are interfered with. In accordance with an arrangement that was entered into, the province is entitled to certain fines for contraventions of traffic regulations. Now it is laid down here that if a local body applies to the Government, such a local body will have the right to get the fines for contraventions of traffic regulations. We know that a provincial administration has the power of control over local bodies and municipalities, and the provincial administration consequently knows best what those bodies require. Consequently, it is no more than right that those rights of the provincial administration should be respected. So long as the provincial councils exist we should recognize those powers and rights. But now the Government comes forward with this Bill and says that local bodies shall have the right to apply for the fines; they make application over the head of the provincial administration, and they get the fines out of the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment to delete this clause. A commission has now been appointed to enquire into the financial relations between the Government and the provinces, and it will, therefore, not do any harm if we should put off this matter for a while until the commission has concluded its investigations. The commission may possibly recommend that sources of revenue shall be allotted which may meet the position of the provinces entirely. In the circumstances we may just as well delay the passing of this clause. If we pass it now it will mean that any small municipality will be able to approach the Government to allocate those fines to it over the head of the provincial administration and that the Government may allow this. Let us respect the right of the provincial administration, and then we may also expect that they will carry out their responsibilities more effectively. This step which is proposed here is a retrograde step so far as it affects the responsibility of the provinces. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept my amendment to leave this clause over for a bit. Last year a similar attempt was made to pass a measure of the same kind by means of the same sort of legislation as is now proposed. Mr. Pirow, who was then Minister of Justice, recognized the equity of the request of the provincial administration when he was approached on the matter, as I am doing now, and he left the matter as it was. He realized that he was interfering with the sources of revenue of the provincial administration. Now we have another Bill like that before us, and I am sorry that this should happen in the absence of that Minister. The Minister who has the matter in hand now was connected with provincial affairs for a long time as administrator, and I do not imagine that he will have any objection to the deletion of this clause.

I should like to explain to the committee that I had to-day a deputation from the Cape Provincial Council in regard to this matter, and from what they told me, and from what I understand from the departments concerned, there seems to have been a certain amount of misunderstanding, when the section of last year’s Act was passed, as to what the precise effect would be. The Minister of Justice, or the preceding Minister (now Minister of Railways), as hon. members will remember, stated last year that he was not prepared to allow the Union police force to be used for traffic control in municipalities, and he considered that this particular function should be discharged by the municipalities themselves, or those of them who considered that traffic control was necessary within their boundaries, and he intended accordingly to withdraw the police from performing these duties. He also intimated that, as a consideration for that, the municipalities would be allowed to, participate in the funds derived from breaches of traffic by-laws. Then, I understand, the provincial administration of the Cape protested against this arrangement as regards the disposal of the fines, and requested that they should not be deprived of their right to these fines, and an agreement was made between the Minister and the provincial authorities that their share of the fines in any year would not be less than what they had got the year before. That was the arrangement which was intended to be embodied in last years’s Financial Adjustments Bill, that is to say, the Provincial Council would have, so to speak, first dip into this pool of the proceeds of fines for breaches of traffic regulations, and they would get not less than they had the year before.

They are getting more than was actually in the pool.

That is the trouble. The position is that if that section is carried out, as was intended, the local authorities would get nothing at all. The whole amount would go to the Provincial Council, because the amount of the fines has not turned out to be according to expectations. I understand from the revenue officials that, as it stands now, they do not know how to apply the Act. One has to do, I will not call it an injustice, but one has to do harm to someone. I do not know whether to the provincial administration or the municipalities. The larger municipalities are actually providing traffic control, and it seems to me unreasonable that they should have been required to do that on the understanding that they would get at any rate a share of the fines, and that they should now be compelled to carry on the service without getting anything at all. We have to decide in favour of the one party or the other, and I think that that being so, our decision should be in favour of the municipal authorities. Now, the amount in question will be about £8,000 or £10,000 which will not press very seriously on the provincial councils’ finances. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. du Plessis) says that this will encourage small municipalities where there is no need for traffic control to encourage expenditure on traffic control, but the clause makes it clear that local authorities will only get such an amount from the pool as is stated in a certificate signed by the Commissioner of Police to have been beneficially expended. Any municipality which unnecessarily puts up traffic control in the hope of getting something will find itself disappointed. I regret that there was not some consultation with the provincial authorities, but I understand that this clause was introduced to carry out an undertaking by the Minister of Justice, and that the position has been explained to the provincial authorities. At any rate, I think we should do something for the municipal authorities. The provincial authorities will still get certain fines.

I want to ask what the position would be in a case where a municipality was doing the work and where the fines were very small, so small that they did not make up the amount of expenditure incurred? What would happen then?

I take it that in such a case the municipal authorities would very quickly pull up in regard to their expenditure.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I should like to have more particulars in connection with the writing off of £29,000.

The sum is arrived at as follows: amount expended from loan vote for purchase of implements, livestock, building material, etc., £27,364; maintenance allowance, £3,097. Against this we have: recoveries from sale of livestock, £20,915. Sale of implements and livestock when the scheme was closed down, £5,327. The sum of £26,639 deducted from the amount advanced of £56,000 leaves a balance of £29,361.

Before we pass this clause I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to get that amount refunded from these people. I wish to point out that in the past it was in conflict with the Government’s principles to allow any writing off when people were feeling the pinch. Last year, too, I made a request for the reduction in railway tariffs for the north-west, and the House felt that it could not be done. The responsible Minister was of opinion that it was desirable to wait until he was quite certain that the people would not be able to pay it back. This practically meant that he refused to write off, although those people were probably in a worse position than the tenant farmers. We find that the Government from time to time writes off amounts for farmers in the Transvaal, but when we, in the Cape, and especially in the north-western parts, ask for something to be written off, when people are in difficulties, we are told that it cannot be done. I consider it wrong on the part of the Government to allow amounts to be written down in one province and not in another province, particularly in the Cape.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) wishes to create the impression that it is only for the Transvaal that amounts are written off. May I be allowed to say that more has been done for his constituency than for most other constituencies in the country. If the hon. member were acquainted with circumstances in those other parts he would have no objections. I, who know the circumstances of the people there, am very grateful that the Government has written off.

This is quite a different position from that of farmers who have incurred obligations with the Railway Department. These men were placed on these farms, first of all, by the Labour Department. They were men who had nothing, and who were put on these farms on the chance of establishing themselves. Otherwise, they would have become poor whites. The farms were taken over from Labour Department by the Land Department, and they were liquidated. I fear it would be impossible to recover from these men, who are now scattered throughout the Union.

I understand that those people cannot be found. I want to point out to the Government that it must be careful as to the person to whom money is given. The hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) has thanked the Government, but I cannot understand why he should express his thanks on behalf of people who cannot be found. I hope the hon. member for Zwartruggens will be more careful in his statements.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

*Mr. GELDENHUYS; I am pleased that the Government in this case has made a concession to the farmers in compliance with my request of last session by raising the maximum of Land Bank loans beyond £2,000. I think that I am speaking on behalf of all the farmers when I say that we are very grateful for that. It will help the farmers a great deal. I am sorry for having to raise this question again, but, as I said before, it is wrong to my mind that where the Government has made the money available, and the taxpayer is consequently practically responsible for the capital, the Government cannot be held responsible.

The hon. member can only discuss the clause.

Yes, but I want to ask the Government to see to it that where loans are applied for, especially so far as the north-west is concerned, greater sympathy will be displayed in future, and that the major portion of the £4,000,000, that is now voted for the Land Bank, shall not go to the northern provinces.

The hon. member cannot pursue that point.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

This clause is related to the question of soil erosion, and the measures which the Government proposes taking in that connection. I should like the Minister to give us more information as to the rate of interest and other conditions, as they are of very great importance. I further should like to know whether that is the only step that the Government is going to take in connection with soil erosion, to place the onus on the owners of the land. If that is all, I am afraid it will not help a great deal as we find that the bondholder will have to give his consent. It could not be otherwise, as his security will be reduced. The farmer who is bonded will find it difficult to make use of this plan as the bondholder will not be keen on giving his consent. It must also be borne in mind that very few farmers will be able to undertake the expense and to incur debts. For that reason I should like to know what other provision the Government intends making.

It seems to me that if our desire is to help the farmers to combat soil erosion we should delete sub-clauses (a) and (b). I should like to know why the Minister makes advances subject to the Dipping Tanks (Advances) Act, 1911, and the Land Bank Acts Further Amendment Abt, 1923. The position is perfectly clear. First of all, if you ask the bondholder to consent to the advance he is not likely to do so, because by doing so he reduces his security by losing his preference. Secondly, if it comes under Clause 6 of the Land Bank Acts Further Amendment Act, it means definitely that his security is reduced, and that it takes second place to the advances made by the Land Bank for the purpose of stopping soil erosion. The Dipping Tanks Act has precisely the same effect. Then I want the House to consider the question whether what we are doing to-day is to the advantage of the farmer. It is going to stop a lender from advancing any money in future. You are offering a man money to stop soil erosion, and yet you say at the same time that unless the bondholder consents you will not give the money.

We say we will not make it preferent.

If he consents you are making it preferent to his earlier bond. The only thing I can say in regard to that is that the Government does not want to lend money to stop soil erosion. I want to know from the Minister whether he is really in earnest in claiming that he wishes to assist farmers in combating soil erosion? If you continue to make these debts preferent you will not get anybody to lend money. Already no man will lend money to citrus farmers. Only a member of a circle or union or whatever it is called, is able to market the crop, and the bondholder not being a member cannot sell. So that when he is forced to execute on his bond he is landed with an unsaleable crop. Then we have the Land Bank loans, which are always preferent. The Land Bank may give an advance, and to that extent your bond depreciates in value. The same with dipping tank, fencing and irrigation loans. It must not be forgotten that in all these Government loans there is a general clause which gives preference over all movables. No one but the Government can benefit by such a clause and this gives the bondholder a further set-back. If the Minister presses this sort of legislation further he will find that nobody will lend farmers any money. They are already becoming very shy. A man who lends money to farmers wants to have his capital safe; he does not look so much to the interest. That is why people prefer to lend their money to municipalities and other bodies though the interest is much smaller. I hope the Minister will explain very clearly that it is the intention to help these people in regard to soil erosion, and not expect every bondholder to shoulder the burden.

May I make it clear to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) that in practice we have never experienced any difficulty when loans are applied for for the fencing of farms or for the building of dipping tanks, we have never experienced any difficulty to get the consent of the owner or the bondholder as these matters constitute a permanent improvement of the farm. If a person has advanced money on a farm and soil erosion takes place, it means that the value of the farm is depreciated, and for that reason he gives his consent for the construction of the necessary dams, etc., rather than see that the farm in which he has invested capital should depreciate in value. In connection with the above loans, there has been no difficulty, and I am also convinced that there will be no difficulty in this instance. As regards interest, I want to say that that is fixed by the Land Bank; we hope that it will be as low as possible, particularly in view of the fact that the Land Bank sees an opportunity of getting the money cheaply. As regards further measures, if there is a great deal of unemployment in districts we shall give work on farms where the soil erosion is extensive, and in such cases the Government will pay 75 per cent. of the wages while the owner will pay 25 per cent.

I am afraid that if this clause is given effect to, it is certainly going to impair farm securities. You will find there will be a general clause in every bond.

This is a preferent bond.

I am not so sure. I am afraid that what the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) said is correct. There is a feeling of unrest amongst a certain section of bondholders.

I think that, with the best intentions on the part of the Government, this is really not going to be to the ultimate benefit of farmers. Already you have some of the lending institutions to-day which will not advance money on a farm, whatever the security is, unless it is a first mortgage clear of any indebtedness to the Land Bank. If you are going straight away with a scheme for big embankment across dongas, in most cases storm water comes along and the whole of your labour is gone. You are going to waste a considerable sum of money, even where the bondholders are in agreement, and where you are going to tie farmers up with a loan of a couple of hundred pounds. You are going to start works which may not be lasting. If you can only get a loan for a permanent improvement on your farm, how are you going to get a loan on something which may be washed away when the first storm comes along? Sluits can only be stopped by more constant work over a period. I am in agreement with what has just been said, and I agree with the Minister of Agriculture to give farmers advice in the right direction; but the work must be done by the farmer himself with his own labour, but do not load him up with more bonds, because it may not be lasting, and there will be no direct return.

May I say a few words on this matter in order to throw some light on the position? I think that our friends, the critics in the House, are not taking account of what has been said in Clause 17, which is of the greatest importance—

It is distinctly said there “on such conditions as it may deem fit” the board can advance a sum of money to an owner with the object of combating soil erosion. This means, as we have learnt before, and as has possibly not been sufficiently emphasized in the House, that the idea is that the Government definitely desires to help the farmer to place him in a position to prevent soil erosion and to restore him in such a way that the State will become a participant in the obligation of restoration and prevention of erosion. In other words, the State recognizes and wishes to recognize that erosion has already taken place on such a large scale that if it is not counteracted it will become so detrimental to the State that it is better for the State to interfere and share in the expenses. For that reason the State proposes placing money at the disposal of the Land Bank, out of which the Land Bank, for purposes of this nature and on certain conditions, can lend money to the farmers. The Land Bank can say to a farmer: “I am prepared to give you £250. In respect of that you will take the responsibility for half or three-quarters, and the State for the other half or one-quarter.” The Land Bank will do this after the Government has told it within which limits it can do so. This is something so favourable to the farmer that, so far as the farmer is concerned, he will be only too pleased to avail himself of this, owing to the fact, as I have said, that the State has as much interest in the matter as the farmer. And now our critics tell us that this is not right because such a loan cannot be placed to the responsibility of the bondholder. The position of the Government is that this is not a large sum of money for such a purpose if the work is carried out really economically as it should be done, and we also hold that the interest on the amount should not be too large. The bondholder will raise practically no objections but will, in almost every case, be prepared to say that, seeing that so much land has been lost by erosion, he need have no fear that the amount which is required to combat that evil will not later on be produced by the farm. I think that if we bear in mind what the Government intends doing, by rendering the money available, neither the landowner nor the bondholder will have any objection.

I quite appreciate what the Prime Minister says, and I see that from the Government’s point of view this is a very good provision. Sub-clause (2) says clearly, however, that the provisions of the Dipping Tanks (Advances) Act, 1911 (Act No. 20 of 1911) and of section (6) of the Land Bank Act Further Amendment Act, 1923, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to advances made under this section. While the Prime Minister admits that this clause gives a preference to the Land Bank, the Acting Minister of Finance suggested that no preference would be given. If the Government is really anxious to assist farmers in regard to combating soil erosion, they should let the Land Bank take the risk. By forcing the bondholder to take the risk, you are frightening him out of the market completely. These people are very frightened already in regard to farm property, and this, added to the conditions which already exist, is going to frighten them out of the market altogether. I know many institutions and individuals who will not lend money on farm property, and I do not blame them. You are frightening away capital altogether, and you are doing incalculable harm to these people. I would suggest that the Minister should reconsider the position.

It is very much a question as to whether bondholders are going to be satis fied with this or whether they are going to be scared. From my experience with the representatives of companies, I feel that they are going to be scared. If this goes through, the Government will be under the necessity of paying out very little indeed. Seeing that the combating of soil erosion is something which the Government has at heart, would it not be possible to allow the Land Bank where they approve of the security to take a second bond? There are many farmers who have a very small first bond, and who are progressive and would like to combat soil erosion. If the Land Bank considers the security is good enough, and such a man requires a few hundred pounds, give it to him on second bond, and then the Government would really be assisting that man, whereas at present they are not doing so. They are only assisting the man who has cast-iron security.

I am grateful for the information which the Prime Minister has given us. The Minister of Agriculture said that the loans would only be granted in certain definite cases, and I should like to know what the conditions will be in other cases, or whether the Government will contribute 25 per cent. in all instances. If that is so, as I understand from the Prime Minister’s statement, it will mean a great deal and we shall be very grateful. I wish to repeat what the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) has said, viz., that however good the intention may be, the bondholder will in most instances not agree. Where soil erosion is a matter of such great importance, not only for every farm, but for the surrounding areas as well, and for the whole country, I want to ask whether it is not possible for the Land Bank also in certain circumstances to grant loans for this purpose on second bonds, because there will be very few farmers who will be able to avail themselves of the facilities under this clause.

I have been listening with interest to hon. members who have spoken on this matter, and I consider that a farm on which soil erosion is being stopped is much better security than a farm where the erosion is bad. I think that as a bondholder I should be very much more afraid if I saw my security being washed away to the sea than if my bond were on a farm where the erosion was stopped.

If dams also fall under this—

No, they do not fall under this.

I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines). Surely it is in the interest of the bondholder that the land on which he holds a bond shall be protected against soil erosion. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) attacks this clause on two grounds. He says you are bringing in something which is useless because the bondholder will not agree, and then he says that it will destroy confidence in mortgage bonds. It cannot do that. It may result in the scheme being ineffective because the mortgagor may not agree. Then the hon. member argues that because the dipping act gives preference, therefore this Act, which does not give preference, will be to the detriment of the bondholders.

But it does give preference.

How can it do so? It may be ineffective because the bondholder may not agree, and then we shall have to take other steps, but there is no preference unless the bondholder agrees. It is in his own hands.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

Tn sub-section (1), I want to move an amendment. I want to move—

The managing director of the Land Bank is desirous that these words should be deleted so that the bank shall not be prohibited from putting this section into effect in the case of co-operative societies or in the case of an advance in the form of a cash credit account if they think it wise to do so.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I want to raise a question here on sub-section 3 of the clause where it arranges that any interest which has not been paid shall also be included by the Land Bank and shall receive preference, therefore, over and above any preceding bond. I want to warn the House that this is going to have serious effects. Already, you are going to have bonds called up which it was never anticipated would be called up. All this will be due to the regulations which have been put into effect and if this clause goes in, other bonds will be called up. You cannot agree to any amount which has not been paid being added to the principal and then lay it down that the Land Bank shall have preference. You are going to do away entirely with private enterprise in these matters. The Land Bank has already had to take over a number of their bonds and it may have to take over a great many more. The amounts of loans by the Land Bank have in many cases far exceeded loans made by private enterprize. I want to protest against the Government through the Land Bank creating a preference. The mortgagor will probably have an addition put on to his mortgage of varying amounts, but you are giving a preference to the Land Bank for an amount which they would in no cases have granted, but if they wish to grant this, it should be done in the nature of a second mortgage. If they want to give money away, let them; and I agree that the farmer under present conditions requires all the help that he can get, but I do not think that the Government should give that help at the expense of the private individual.

Advances under the Farmers’ Relief Act have nothing to do with the Land Bank. I want to point out that under the powers which the Land Bank already has it can execute a bond and give preference, so that this is not substantially adding to its powers.

They are increasing the amounts already due by the farmer and therefore you are giving a special preference to the Land Bank for an amount exceeding the value of that land. The Land Bank was supposed only to advance a certain percentage and now it is going to increase that at the expense of the mortgagor and you will find that this will mean that these advances will be called up.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and titles having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

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

There are clauses in this Bill which are very necessary, but I hope that the Minister will make an appeal, shall I say to his principal on whose behalf he is acting here, that he will make an appeal to the Minister of Finance and tell him that the time has arrived for the introduction of a Bill to consolidate all the Acts in connection with the Land Bank. It is argued that the man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client, but even if a person is a lawyer it is still difficult for him to know what the Land Bank Act really lays down. That Act was passed in 1912, and since that time it has been amended repeatedly. Amendments have been introduced in connection with loans, dipping tanks, fencing, and all kinds of things. The Land Bank Act is very important, and it has been amended from time to time in some very important respects in Bills of this kind which have practically nothing to do with the Land Bank. According to the title, this is a Bill for financial adjustments, in spite of which the measure contains many provisions relating to the Land Bank Act. I appeal to the Minister, and I hope he will make a note of the matter so that he may submit it to the Minister of Finance that the Land Bank Act, with its amendments, should be consolidated in one consolidating measure.

I agree that the laws relating to the Land Bank should now be consolidated in one measure. I should like to see that done in regard to other Acts of Parliament as well, so as to clean up our statute book.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I want to bring something to the notice of the Minister in connection with voting. The regulation was issued, I imagine it was in 1931, to the effect that if a voter resides in a constituency which is part of a certain municipality, or a division of a municipality, he cannot vote in another municipality or in another municipal division. I just want to mention an example. In my constituency we have the position that people living in Red-house had to pass the polling booth in Port Elizabeth in order to reach one polling booth outside a municipality as the polling booth of Port Elizabeth fell in a different municipality.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter as it is a matter requiring fresh legislation.

No.

That is laid down by law.

No, the law does not lay that down, it is a regulation. I can understand that such a regulation is required in urban constituencies, like Cape Town, where it would cause a great deal of difficulty if a voter in one municipal division should go to vote in a different municipal division. In the rural areas, however, it causes a great deal of inconvenience, because people from Redhouse, e.g., have to cover about 20 miles to get to another poll in the Willowmore division. I hope the Minister will see to it that this is altered.

The hon. member cannot discuss this any further.

With regard to the compilation of the rolls, the system now in vogue is first to have the list of European males in, say, polling district A, then the European males in polling district B, and then the European males in polling district C. Then the European females are treated on the same system. I suggest that in future the European males, European females, and coloured and natives should be completed in district A first, then treat the voters in other polling districts in the same way. This will make it very much easier for all concerned. I would like to point out that during the last election many people who were voting for the first time, particularly the women, thought they had voted when they had given their names to the Government canvasser compiling the new register. It caused great confusion, and I would like to know from the Minister whether this could not be obviated. Civil servants used to go round as canvassers in connection with the new rolls. They went around mostly in the afternoons or evenings, but found they could not do the work properly. The result was that in many cases we found say, the wife’s name on the list and the husband’s left off, and in other cases the wife’s name was left off and the husband’s was on the list. In other cases again the children’s names were on the list and the parents’ names left off. This happened in cases where persons had been living in the same houses for from ten to thirty years. This is due to faulty canvassing, and I ask the Minister to see that whole-time officers are appointed. In many of these divisions more than one polling booth should be established in a polling area, and I would like to ask the Minister to give attention to this. Will he also issue definite instructions, so that we may have some uniformity in the rulings of returning officers? In some divisions they pass voting papers which are marked in a certain way, whereas in other divisions such papers are refused. If a vote is wrongly rejected, an election petition is necessary in order to put the matter right, and this is an expensive process. If there were a uniform ruling people would understand the position. With regard to voting by post, I trust the Minister is not going to do away with it. The position is that while voting by post is very necessary the method might be changed. The Minister’s predecessor refused to allow commissioners of oaths to administer the oath, holding that only a J.P. should administer it. I suggest that the Minister should think over the matter during the recess.

I cannot allow any further discussion on that point.

I should like to say something in connection with the translation office. Of late we have been accustomed to get good translations; translations have improved considerably and we can congratulate the Government on this, but it was very disappointing a few days ago to get the memorandum in regard to the levy on the gold premium, the translation of which was distinctly bad and incorrect. I want to protest against such a translation, and shall give a few instances of the work. Take Clause 2 which reads—

Which is translated—

Has anybody ever heard of “purposes being carried out”? The words, “incidence of the tax,” are put in as “omvang van die belasting.” Then—

Which is translated as—

“Currency policy” is translated as “coinage system,” and the class of grade undergoes a reduction. I cannot believe that this was done by the translation office, but I shall quote another few examples—

Is translated as—

What sort of “privations” can be suffered by a mine? “Shaft sinking” is translated as “mynebutte.” Here are a few more examples—

Then the translator speaks of “extending the industry through her underground development.” Underground development! And there the industry suddenly becomes feminine. For the amount remaining he puts, “Die bedrag wat nagelaat word.” I only know of wills in which something is bequeathed. And listen to this sentence—

That is a translation of—

And so it goes on—

That is a translation of—

Then the English—

is translated as—

The words, “liability for the duty,” become “belasting-skuildigheid”. And what does the Minister think of the following little jewel of Afrikaans: “Sal profyte geneem word te bedoel”? I look upon this sort of thing as fool’s work. Here is another fine example—

This translated is—

The last example which I want to give is the following. The English text reads—

The translation of that is as follows—

I want to ask hon. members what a “monster-aanslag” is? I only know that the Chamber of Mines regards this as a monstrous tax. I would be able to give many more examples, but I think hon. members will agree that it is really a disgrace that a thing like this should be placed on the Table of the House. I cannot imagine that this translation was done in the translation office. Seeing that we pay for such an office I cannot conceive why a document of this kind, which is unintelligible and which is an insult to us, should be submitted to us. I hope that the Minister will make enquiries and see that this sort of thing does not happen again.

I want to refer to Vote H (1), Film Censorship Board. The child welfare societies of my constituency are very much exercised at some of the films being exhibited being very harmful to young South Africans; they appeal for a stricter censorship with regard to these films. No house to-day can draw a full house unless sex appeal appears in the pictures, and it even appears in Mickey Mouse pictures. The welfare societies recognize the educational value of the films, but they say there is too great a percentage of the films I have mentioned. There is another objectionable feature, and that is the posters that advertise these films; and that is so especially in Natal, where we have a big Indian and native population. I have myself seen a group of Indians and natives examining these posters, and the remarks passed by them go to show that they have a very poor opinion of European morality. I feel sure that this has only to be brought to the mind of the Minister and a stricter censorship will be applied. I cannot speak for other centres, but I think they are on all fours with Natal. Many of these films are very harmful and detrimental to youngsters. I heard a case where a girl of eight years tore up all her father’s letters and cheques as a result of going to the pictures. You find murderers featured as heroes. Those classes of pictures are certainly not elevating to the young people of South Africa.

If you will allow me, I want to support as strongly as I can the very eloquent plea of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) which he made a few minutes ago as to translations, and I do this because my attention has been drawn recently to the very rigorous tests which have been set in Afrikaans to members of the public service. I do feel, when this House wishes to set an example to the country in translations from one language to the other, it should at least set an example to the public servants. We know a large number of pre-Union public servants have great difficulty in mastering the Afrikaans language. I am not now going into the vexed question of bilingualism, but I want to give examples of some of the difficult questions which have been put to them, and from them draw a moral. Take for instance, a recent example— one of April, 1931, in a paper set by the Unie Onderwysdepartement to certain railway and harbour servants.

The hon. member is referring to the railway services?

No, sir, I am quoting from examination papers set to members of the service and I do, as the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) pointed out very rightly—

The hon. member is giving an example from the railway services.

May I not give it as symptomatic of the questions set generally? Here is one question—”Vertaal in Afrikaans (translate into Dutch). All is not gold that glitters”. That is very germane to a recent debate.

Is the hon. member complaining against the Union Department of Education?

Yes, this is an example of a question set in a paper by the Union Department of Education.

That should come under Union education.

Then I am sorry I cannot support the plea of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) because I am strongly in favour of the able remarks he made this afternoon. I do hope that the remarks which the Minister made in reply to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), on Saturday morning, will not be held by implication to mean that if a voter presents himself just before eight o’clock at the door of the polling booth, he is not going to be admitted. The Minister was very cautious. I want to give an example of what happened in my own constituency. At about seven-thirty p.m. 600 persons presented themselves and the returning officer at ten minutes to eight allowed all the voters who wished to record their votes to enter the hall. They all went in and when the doors were closed at eight o’clock there were 300 or 400 voters inside and they were allowed to vote. I hope that by implication the Minister is not going to lay down that that procedure will not be allowed in future. It seems to me that the returning officer acted within the four corners of the regulations. The remarks of the Minister might be interpreted as laying down that that procedure was incorrect and I would ask him to assure me that the action taken by the returning officer was perfectly correct. I do not wish him to be led to take another course in future as we know there are a large number of persons who because of their work, are unable to vote until the late hours of the evening. It is all very well to suggest that we should vote early. We have all asked them to vote early. I should not like it to be thought that the Minister by implication means that the voter who presents himself to vote at five minutes to eight could be turned away. In regard to the question of the new registration, I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl). The fact that this registration started during the course of the last election led to a great deal of confusion indeed. I think it would be advisable to keep elections and registrations completely separate in future. In regard to persons who go round registering voters, a great many complaints have been made by members of the unemployed that the work is given to civil servants. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but I should like to ask the Minister. I do suggest that if there is a registration to be made that work should be given to reliable persons out of employment rather than as an addition to persons already employed. I would like also to sunport what the hon. member for Sea Point has said in regard to having more than one polling booth. I do not know whether this is a question for the Delimitation Commission or whether it can be settled by departmental action. I am sorry to have to put forward the case of Salt River again, but there we have a register containing over 7,000 voters and we have only one polling booth, at least one for women and one for men. That led to a great deal of inconvenience and there was a large number of people who did not record their votes and there was a good deal of dissatisfaction caused. I have promised my supporters that I would draw the Minister’s attention to this matter. I do so in the hope that if Salt River is ever contested again we shall have at least two polling booths to give supporters of the National Government the opportunity for which they yearned a few weeks ago of recording their confidence in it. I should also like to ask what is the explanation of item 7, Archaeological investigations. This of course raises a host of possibilities. I have had sufficient of medieval conditons, I want progress and prosperity.

The Act of Union provides that a census shall be taken at periodical intervals. For financial reasons, on the last occasion a census was taken of only the European population. I would like to know whether, in view of proposed legislation, the Government intends taking a census of the native population in the near future. I need hardly impress upon the House in view of that legislation how very necessary it is that we should have the fullest possible data in connection with the native population. We wish particularly to know in connection with migration, how many have taken up residence in urban centres, and we also require information about infantile mortality in municipal locations and many other matters of a similar kind.

I want to add what little weight I possess to the arguments advanced in regard to more care being taken in the compilation of the voters’ roll. Incidentally, while my friends down here seem rather upset by the voters’ roll being compiled at the same time as an election is going on, we had a further complication in the Transvaal. We not only had these two events, but the Prime Minister in his wisdom, perhaps from ulterior motives, also ran the provincial election at the same time.

The Prime Minister had nothing to do with it.

My hon. friend can speak from a vast store of personal experience, and he knows that somehow or other the Administrator’s opinion in these matters always coincides with that of the Prime Minister.

It does not.

Well, my hon. friend was never the exception to the rule while he was Administrator. While we should have the utmost care taken by canvassers—and here I want to support the plea that decent unemployed people should be given the work—they should make quite sure that the persons they propose putting on the voters’ roll actually exist. If the hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Reitz) were here, he would be able to state at first hand what I can only state at second hand. He discovered in the course of his election campaign in Jeppe that there were no fewer than 600 people on the roll who never lived. They were never in existence. The explanation given of that was that the gentleman who was the opposing candidate was a remarkably fine organiser. It is just these fine organisers that our canvassers have to be careful about.

That is balanced by the people dead who voted.

No, they might vote on the same side and probably would. What I wanted to speak about is a matter of urgent and considerable importance regarding the question of unemployment. It has been just recently brought to my notice that the company who have charmed the theatre-goers of South Africa with their exposition of the “Desert Song,” now find themselves thrown on the streets. That is in the ordinary course of events when a theatre company’s business comes to a conclusion. I am assured that out of the 80 members of this company 75 are South Africans, and it is common cause that the season of “The Desert Song” has been remarkably successful. It wound up with a blaze of glory, with hundreds of people being turned away, and the business could probably have been carried on for another fortnight. This is a preamble to what I want to say. Now these people have been discharged. The five importations, the London stars, are about to be returned to their places of origin. A tour through the country had been announced to the company by the African Theatres, but the show was all of a sudden shut down, and the whole of the company is thrown on the streets. A new company, even to the supernumeraries I believe, is imported from Australia, and is to open its season in Durban to-day. I want to suggest to the Minister that this is a matter which wants careful enquiry, and possibly his interference, his friendly interference. If a word in the ear is likely to be productive of good, then I suggest to the Minister that that word in the ear should be spoken, failing which he might take more drastic measures. If nothing is done, we shall have those 75 people thrown on the streets. They have to find occupations at a time when there are no occupations, and the position will be further complicated very shortly, when the other season which is now being opened by the other company, is also closed, and when another number of people will be thrown on the streets. The position is pregnant with dangerous possibilities to our unemployed situation, and I suggest that the Minister should take some action, and should at any rate have a word with the management. Mr. Schlesinger is not here, but the Minister could have a word with his locum tenens. I suggest that it may be wise to put a stop to importations of this kind.

I should like to bring the question of the South African Art Gallery in Cape Town to the notice of the Minister. The public is greatly interested in this matter. Three years ago, immediately after the completion of the building, and when the collection of pictures had been transferred to the new building, provision was made for an amount of £500 per year. A commencement was made with the work, but the £500 was not regarded as being by any means sufficient to maintain the South African Art Gallery. It was merely intended as the amount that was required to open the institution for the first few months, and the intention was to make provision on the estimates for 1931 for the maintenance of the art gallery. Unfortunately, bad times arrived, and it was impossible for the Government that year and the next year to render available the necessary funds for the maintenance of the National Art Gallery. Tn spite of this, the trustees did all they possibly could to keep the place open. The first year there were 90,000 people who visited the place, and last year there were over 100,000. This is clear evidence of the fact that people from all over the country take an interest in our art gallery. It is a matter of great importance that our nation shall not be without inspiration and without taste for the educative value of the art gallery. The position now is, however, that the trustees, as a result of their efforts to keep the gallery open to the public, have landed themselves into debt and that debt at the moment amounts to more than £1,000. We could not get the sympathy of the Department of Finance. The department of the Minister of the Interior took an interest in the matter. I believe that it is the attitude of the Department of Finance that it is better to close the place and that an institution of that kind has not got the right to remain open in difficult times like the present. I wish to say, however, that the attitude of the Department of Finance that the place should be closed does not represent the feeling of the people, when we find that in one year over 100,000 people attended the place. The position is so critical that we are really faced with the question whether the place should be closed. We have done everything in our power, and for that reason I want to ask again whether the Minister cannot under one vote or another place some more money at the disposal of the art gallery. I want to point out that the Cape Town Corporation has not carried out its obligations in regard to this matter, and does not appreciate what the art gallery means to it. The Cape Town Corporation in this respect is on an equal footing with the Department of Finance. In other respects, as regards music, the Corporation of Cape Town has its duty, but we are told that it will do its duty in this respect if the Government will also do its duty. This building has cost between £50,000 and £60,000, and if the Government were to take it over it would cost a great deal more than £400 or £500 to keep it open. But the building does not stand under the control of the Government, it is under the control of step-parents. It is under the control of the trustees who, according to last year’s Act, have to manage the museum. The step-parents are left with the baby, and they have no food to give the baby. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to increase the amount somewhat that is wanted for the maintenance of that building.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has said in regard to the grant for the South African fine art gallery in Cape Town. It is very refreshing for Cape Peninsula people to find that up-country members are beginning to take an interest in our national institutions in Cape Town. I am glad that the hon. member has now come to reside in Cape Town. The total grants to museums, libraries, art galleries and kindred institutions amount to £31,476, out of which the South African fine art gallery in Cape Town receives only £450. It is impossible for those responsible for the gallery to do their duty with such a small amount. The steadily growing number of visitors to the gallery from all parts of the world shows that it is gaining in favour and supplying a long-left public want. If it is not possible to increase the grant this year, I trust that next year a more adequate amount will be placed on the estimates, to enable the trustees to carry out what is a national work, under less difficulties than it is doing at present.

The Minister had hardly taken office when the usual attempts were made by the Sons of England to induce him to make fresh arrangements in connection with the hoisting of the Union Flag and the Union Jack. The Minister acted very wisely by leaving the matter as it was, and I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying that what he has done has been watched attentively throughout the country, and that thousands of people in the country greatly appreciated his attitude.

In regard to married women in the public service—

This can be discussed in the next vote.

Before dealing with the subject mentioned by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), I would like to ask the Minister if he can see his way to do something for our National Botanical Gardens at Kirstenbosch, the amount for which is £2,260, an increase of £100 on last year’s grant. Those responsible for Kirstenbosch are doing a national work, and are deserving of more support than lias hitherto been given them. At a celebrated dinner at which the late Minister of the Interior and Professor Frobenius met, an arrangement was come to as regards to copies of bushmen paintings made by the professor. I should like to know when we are going to receive those copies. I feel that the Minister has taken the only line he could in regard to representations made to him with reference to the flying of the Union Jack. It is a delicate subject, but it is my duty as a representative of the Cape Peninsula to refer to it. During the recent general election, parliamentary candidates were asked to reply to a series of questions by the Empire Group. We were asked specifically whether we were prepared to get up in this House and propose, or vote for, a motion to the effect that the Union Jack should be flown wherever the national Union flag was flown. I think the answer I gave to those representations was symptomatic of all the other answers sent in. We took up the attitude that we stood by the Union Flag Act, and we were anxious to see it administered both in the letter and the spirit. The answers that some of us gave to the Empire Group resulted in the reception of many anonymous and sometimes insulting letters. The spirit which animates the House now is such that we can discuss these matters without any heat and in an atmosphere of calmness, sincerity and truth. I, for one, would like to see the Union Jack flown at a place like the Castle. I know that there are large numbers of persons in the Cape Peninsula to whom that would be a very magnificent gesture. I am not prepared, however, to ask the Minister to fly the Union Jack at other places where the Union flag flies, for if we wish to interpret the spirit of the Act, we have to consider the circumstances of every case. The path of the Minister has been made more difficult by the rash action of those who did not hesitate to jump in where angels fear to tread. I appeal to the hon. member for Humansdorp, and my other Nationalist friends, to support me in the answer I gave to the Empire Group. I said that if I were to make any representations in regard to the administration of the Flag Act, it would not be to the Minister alone, but it would be through the assistance of my Nationalist friends, and that I was not prepared to ask for anything which would not be acceptable to their feelings. I hope from the speeches of hon. members like the hon. member for Humansdorp, who knows that I speak in a spirit of broad South Africanism, that through this coalition we shall be enabled to see one another’s point of view far more clearly than we did six months ago. I hope in the early future a way will be paved for the Minister to raise the question without any fear of opposition, and that he will be able to tell us that he has given instructions for the Union Jack to be flown at the Castle, and perhaps certain other places where its presence will not hurt the feelings of those whom— shall I say—I may describe as Dutch-speaking South Africans.

This sounds like an election address.

I do not propose to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), for I have made my position clear in the correspondence which has been published in regard to the matter. I want to pass on to other questions. As to the Frobenius pictures, I am surprised that the hon. member for Salt River, who is so much attached to the institutions of Cape Town, has not discovered that for some time past, they have been in the Cape Town museum. As to the National Botanic Gardens at Kirstenbosch, the principle of giving it increased support has already been accepted, and the grant to that institution is being increased by £100 a year up to a maximum of £3,000. I hope the hon. member will appreciate that. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has raised the question of the recent introduction of a theatrical company into South Africa, and has suggested that I should have taken steps to get them out, or to return them to the country from which they came. If the hon. member will inform me what power I have to do so, I shall then be in a position to consider it. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has made suggestions with regard to a native census. I think the hon. member will agree with me that, for statistical reasons, it will not be desirable to hold a nonEuropean census now, in a different year from the European census, and I don’t think we can consider a non-European census until we make preparations for a European census in 1936. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has referred to archaeological research. Most hon. members have noticed that an extremely interesting archaeological site has been discovered in the valley of the Limpopo, by which discovery a very wide vista in archaeological research may have been opened up. Some extraordinarily interesting discoveries have been made, clearly linking up that site with other sites, mostly Rhodesian. It may be that in that site we are going to get an answer to one of the principal archaeological riddles in South Africa. The credit for finding the site belongs to the University of Pretoria. The University of Pretoria secured an option on the site, and the Government has now acquired it, and has also given the University of Pretoria the right for a period of five years to conduct investigations there. We have further undertaken to assist the University of Pretoria in carrying out this work. We are not proposing to meet the whole cost of the work, but we are looking to them to enlist the interest of the public, and to raise a portion of the cost themselves. I believe that the university will shortly be holding an exhibition in Pretoria, and subsequently in Johannesburg, of some of the finds that have been discovered. These finds appear to be of the very greatest scientific and historical importance, and these discoveries which have been made have already attracted a very considerable amount of attention overseas. They may play a very big part in bringing South Africa to the notice of the wider world outside. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) raised the question as to what is the position of those who clamour for admission to a polling booth when the time has arrived for closing the poll. I have read the regulation which deals with this matter. The regulation lays it down that everybody in the polling booth at that time must be allowed to vote, but there is apparently some doubt as to what the duty of the presiding officer is with regard to those who want to gain admission when the time for voting has expired. I will endeavour to get that matter cleared up, and, as far as the exigencies of space will allow, presiding officers will be expected to admit all voters who apply for admission to the polling booth before the closing of the poll. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has raised the question of film censors. This was discussed in the House, and the House decided that the best way of dealing with the matter was by the constitution of the Film Censorship Board. We shall always have those who think that the board is too lax, and we shall always have those who think that the board is too severe. At the present moment there is in existence at least one film society for the showing of films which have been banned by the board. I am not a film “fan,” but my own personal view is that the board is doing its work satisfactorily, and I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the board. I think that the board, which was appointed by my predecessor and is still virtually the same as the old Cape Board of Film Censors, is a board of experienced men and women, who can be trusted to do this work to the great satisfaction of moderate-minded people. The hon. member raised the question of film posters. Hitherto the posters of films produced in America were censored in the office of the Board of Censors in New York, but now they are examined by the Board of Censors in Cape Town, and I think that will be accepted as an improvement. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) raised a number of questions and some of the points raised by him are points which necessitate legislation. He raised the question of voting by post. That can only be dealt with by legislation. He also raised the question of having only one polling booth in a polling district. That can only be dealt with by legislation. The law lays it down clearly that there shall only be one polling booth in one polling district, and further than that we cannot go. On the general question of legislation affecting the existing law, dealing with these questions, the existing electoral law, it is only two years since we last had what might be called a clean-up of our electoral legislation. We dealt with what were held then to be all the outstanding points, and I am a little loth to hold out any hope of further electoral legislation at an early date. At the same time, I am quite willing to consider very fully any specific suggestion made to me in that connection. The hon. member made a small practical suggestion in regard to the form in which the voters’ roll should be published. I think his suggestion merits consideration, and I shall go into it. Then the question of canvassing has been raised. It was raised from more than one point of view. T think we can claim that the registration work has been done well, and in such a manner as not to give rise to complaint. There must always be a certain amount of complaint. There must always be a certain number of errors found. I suppose there always will be errors, but I think I can say that it is the aim of my department to restrict these errors and mistakes within the narrowest possible limits. In that connection the question has been raised as to the people who are employed for work of this kind. Now it has been our aim as far as possible, certainly in the urban centres, to appoint whole-time canvassers and not from the public service, and for the main part this work has been done by people who would otherwise not have had employment. At the same time, a case has come to my notice where public servants took leave to do work of this kind. To my mind this is wrong, and I gave instructions for this not to be done again. In the rural areas, we take the police. From the point of view of economy, it would be difficult for us to take a different line of action in this regard. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl), and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) raised the question of the overlapping of the question of registration and of the election. Of course, this is calculated to give rise to a certain amount of uncertainty, but from my department’s point there was no option. The registration was fixed by law, and there was over-lapping owing to the early election, which could not be avoided. The Department of the Interior is entitled to very great credit for the tremendous amount of extra work which it did in registration, the re-casting of the rolls and the general conduct of the election, and hon. members will see that the work has been done, not only expeditiously, but well.

†*The hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. Steyn) has raised the point which requires legislation. If he refers to Clause 44 of the Act together with the amendments that were passed in 1926 and 1931 he will see that the existing procedure is in accordance with the Act as it stands to-day. I have already said that I am not prepared to amend that Act within a short time, but I am always prepared to consider and to enquire into any proposal made in that direction. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) referred to a matter in connection with a translation of a certain document. I am pleased to say that neither myself nor my department, nor the translation office has to assume responsibility for the translation which he quoted here. I can therefore take part in the joke with him. I quite agree with the hon. member that a considerable improvement has been effected by the establishment of a translation office. But the translation office cannot check everything.

But how is it that such a translation can be placed before us?

That memorandum was drafted in Cape Town a few days before the budget speech; it was not translated in my department, but in the Department of Finance. As the hon. member will realize, it was impossible to send it up to the translation office in Pretoria.

Is not there a representative of the translation office here in Parliament?

No, the staff of that office is still very small. I imagine that it will be extended in the course of time and that we shall let them do more of departmental work. I hope hon. members will be satisfied with the improvements that have already been effected and with the assurance that we shall bring about even greater improvement. Then the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) discussed the question of the subsidy for the art gallery. I am pleased to hear what the hon. member has to say about the South African Art Gallery; he and his co-trustees have done very valuable work, although their work was done in difficult circumstances. I have already discussed the financial side of the matter with the hon. member and I cannot say any more than what I have said to him. This year it is practically impossible to render further assistance to the museum. I admit that the art gallery has become the victim of circumstances, viz., the financial depression of the past two years. The hon. member asks me now why I cannot take over an amount from another vote. This can only be done with the consent of Parliament in the case of a service under column 2, and that would be very difficult at this stage. Consequently I shall be unable to meet the hon. member during the current year, but I want to assure him and I repeat that I shall do my best to comply with his request in the estimates for the next year.

I want to raise only one point. The Minister got up before we could catch your eye, Mr. Chairman. The point is with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). We do not want again to open up this question, and it would be foolish to do so. It is not a question of opening up, but one of interpretation. As far as Cape Town is concerned, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is right. That flag is no longer flown at the Castle. We do not want to see the Flag Settlement Act altered, but sub-section 2 of section 7 of Act 40 of 1927 says “the Union Jack shall be flown with the National Flag from the Houses of Parliament and from, the principal Government buildings in the capitals of the Union.” The Castle is one of the oldest historical buildings in Cape Town. It is really the oldest, and is full of the most interesting associations of South African history; it is the headquarters of the Defence Department in Cape Town, and it is where the flag has been flown from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Is it not one of the “principal Government buildings”? We do not want to get away from the honourable settlement which was arrived at by both parties. The Minister can go into it without in any way interfering with that settlement. It is by some oversight, which I cannot understand, that one of the principal Government buildings in Cape Town has not the opportunity of flying the flag associated with it as was intended by section 7 of the Flag Act. I hope the Minister will go into this.

I am not very much impressed—perhaps I ought rather to say, I was painfully impressed, by the reception of the matter to which I drew the Minister’s attention. He is young in years; but neolithic in his outlook. There is something about finding “bones on the bank of a river”—very interesting no doubt. It may add to our store of knowledge of history, but after all, it is not so important as the matter I brought to his notice, namely, the actual increase in the number of unemployed in South Africa by a specific act on the part of African Theatres, and the probability of a further increase as the result of their other actions. That is a matter of painful interest to us, and a matter which the Minister should not have dismissed in that airy, breezy way of his—”if the hon. member can show what my power is, I should be glad to know.” Is that the way to deal with a matter of this moment? It contrasts most unfavourably with the attitude adopted by his predecessor in almost similar circumstances regarding the importation of some musicians to Cape Town. I stated it in the House, and the Minister at once asked me to place all the facts before him; he went into it, and we were successful in finding the necessary power for him to render that importation abortive. I advise the Minister that he has not got to take his duties so lighthearedly. He is not in charge of a class to-day, nor even a professor at a university. He has to deal with matters of hard practical effect upon the welfare of this country. I hope he will devote himself to it in the way we have the right to expect from a responsible Minister. There you have a whole cast thrown on the streets of South Africa by an unwarranted act that cannot bring justification for itself, and cannot be justified by the people who performed it. They threw a whole cast on the streets, in order to pave the way for an imported cast from somewhere else. I have yet to learn that it militates against my argument at all, that these happen to be theatrical people rather than someone wielding a pick and shovel. They have been contributing somewhat towards the gaiety of our nation, and making it possible for us to live happily in these strenuous times. There is no argument yet advanced to warrant the action taken by African Theatres on that occasion. I have the right to expect from a responsible Minister, such as I presume the Minister of the Interior claims to be, I have the right to expect that he would show some interest in the point I was bringing to his notice, or he might even have suggested that he would receive a deputation on the matter. The way he approached the question was: “This is something outside my province. Let it go. I am not going to consider it.” That was the impression made on my mind. I resent it. I protest against it, and I would suggest to the Minister that, in future, he looks upon these matters not quite so lightheartedly.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) made a speech this afternoon, and it is one which we cannot ignore altogether. He has put the Minister in an invidious position. We are not here to determine whether the Minister took up a right attitude, or a wrong one. When we find hon. members gloating over an interpretation of a question, that arouses feeling in various parts of the country. Such members must expect it to be resented by members coming from other parts of the country where different sentiments are held. We do not want the Minister congratulated upon the interpretation of a question in regard to which there are other points of view. We do not want to involve the Minister in this kind of thing. We do want hon. members to feel that we are desirous of developing a national consciousness that will be satisfactory to all of us, but we do not want statements of that kind made which cause us to feel that consideration is perhaps not being shown to those sentiments which we ourselves hold. When members speak, as the hon. member for Humansdorp spoke, then they can only expect other members to take up the question from another point of view. I am going to ask the Minister to deal with the question of interpretation when he has had time to consider it in all its bearings. It is a matter of sentiment, and it is one that we must face. The country is behind the Minister in his idea of South African nationality. I ask him to take the centre course between the extremists on both sides. There are many perfectly satisfied with the Minister’s interpretation. It is an interpretation connected with a specific case, but there are interpretations connected with a general case that will arise from time to time when we will expect the Minister to consider sentiment of all interested. We know that in the future, developments will perhaps take place, and it is not fitting that we should be silent when people Congratulate themselves on something satisfactory to them, but giving tremendous dissatisfaction in other parts of the country. If we are going to work for real unity, then mischievous statements such as made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) will retard that work.

I should like an explanation of the increase in the vote for the repatriation of Asiatics. I have raised this question because I feel it my duty to say to the Minister that a large section of the Asiatic community in the Cape looks with great favour upon his early acts of administration. There is one in particular for which Asiatics in the Cape, and in the whole of South Africa, are very grateful, and that is in connection with the recent arrival from India of a very high priest. Through the kind offices of the Minister, he was able to enter South Africa without certain usual restrictions. I want to offer my thanks to the Minister, because as the result of his action I have indirectly benefited. I had occasion to have certain correspondence with the Minister in regard to this matter, and the Minister most kindly saw the point of view of the Asiatic population, and as a result I have had a letter from one of the heads of that population, thanking me, and particularly thanking the Minister, for what he did. It refers to the arrival of this high personage, and concludes: “His Holiness will pray for your well-being in the future.” The Minister has a certain vicarious responsibility for that, and I want to thank him. I should like some information with regard to parliamentary elections.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is as heavily laden with questions as he is with prayers.

But to no effect.

With regard to his first question, I want to say that the additional provision made for parliamentary elections was in order to meet the cost of the recent parliamentary elections. In the second place I want to say that the additional provision for the repatriation of Asiatics is due to the fact that last year the cost of repatriating Natal Asiatics was met from the funds of the Indian Immigration Bureau. These funds are exhausted and we now have to revert to the position of two years ago and again vote money for the purpose. In reply to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) I wish to assure him that I shall be delighted to discuss the matter with him.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 34, “Public Service Commission”, £21,359,

I put a question to the Minister some time ago in regard to the publication of a public service list, and he gave me a detailed reply that the compilation of the list would entail a great deal of labour and expenditure. I would like to say that I put a similar question to his predecessor last session when the reply was that the list was not published on the ground of economy. Immediately after putting my question to the Minister I received about 20 letters and telegrams from various parts of the Union asking me that this matter should be pressed. Now this list was published for the last time in 1926—seven years ago, and nothing has been done since. I consider that every self-respecting country should have a list of its public servants. The usual practice ever since Union up till 1926 was to publish an annual list and here seven years have elapsed without our having a list of our public servants published. It is necessary to have this information for the public as well as for the public servants themselves, and the amount of removals, resignations, promotions, etc., should be notified from year to year. Our public service has increased from that date from 35,000 to about 40,000. I am sure that the reply given by the Minister was not his considered opinion and I would ask him to give the matter his further consideration.

I should like to put a question to the Minister with regard to the future of the Public Service Commission. I think the public service and the public generally are very anxious to know what is going to be done about the present commission. The present commission has undoubtedly served its purpose and I hope that the Minister when making the appointments will see to it that the commission is appointed in terms of the requirements of the Public Service Act, an independent commission free from ministerial and political influences. When the Act came into force, I think the public service and the public generally took quite a deal of interest in the appointment of the commission and expected a great deal from it, and they naturally are very much interested in the Minister’s intentions. I also want to ask the Minister a question about the method of entry into the service. There is a great deal of room for improvement in regard to the manner in which persons are admitted into the service, and I suggest that there might be some sort of public service examination, and then the Minister would be more likely to get an efficient personnel. At present the methods of recruiting are not satisfactory. I understand that in many cases entrants to the service are not admitted on an efficiency qualification, but probably on circumstances of necessity, and if the Minister is anxious to secure a satisfactory public service, I think that that matter might be enquired into. I also want to appeal to the Minister on behalf of the pre-Union officials—both men and women. Quite a number of men and women were appointed prior to Union and their rights and privileges were supposed to be secured to them, but their promotion in many cases does not take place for reasons that we are aware of. In many cases those officials are actually carrying out the duties of the position, hut they do not get promotion and they do not get the salary attaching to the position. I understand that in the Railway Department, the Minister of Railways is dealing with what he calls “hard cases”, and I want to appeal to the Minister to see whether something cannot be done to relieve these cases in the public service. There are not very many and the Minister might consider that there is one other matter which is agitating the public service and that is the question of the advisory council. In the public service they were looking for great things from the appointment of a public service advisory council, but this has not functioned as it was anticipated. Useful work has been done, but it has not come up to expectation. The last meeting of the joint council took place in 1931. A meeting took place a few months ago which the Minister attended and promised to give sympathetic consideration to various matters, and I hope that the Minister as an old public servant will interest himself in this matter. Then I want to refer to the question of women in the public service. There are quite a number of women in the public service who have made the service a career, who work on a certain scale of salary and are not getting the promotion which they deserve. Take the position of the ordinary second class woman public servant, and compare that with the position of a man public servant. The men go up from £140 to £360 in ten years without a barrier, but women finish up at £168 in ten years, and in many cases they cannot pass the barrier. The amount of money they get is totally inadequate for the work they do. They have discussed the matter with the public service association and the women have the full support of the men in their appeal for consideration.

Do you want equal pay for equal work?

Yes. The men are supporting the women in the contention that where they are rendering equal service they should receive equal pay for their work. They are not sponsoring the cause of girls who simply go in for the ordinary routine work, but they ask that the women who go in for the administrative work and who are making the service a life career, and who are doing efficient service should be placed on an equal basis with the men. The women also point out that in many cases the salaries paid are so low that after 20 years’ service the pension amounts to some thing like only £30 a year. I hope the Minister will give these matters his early and favourable consideration with a view to putting right what the women consider a very serious grievance and which have the full support of the Public Service Association.

Two hundred men were recently retrenched from the post office, and the Public Service Commission, in its report, claims that it has thereby effected a very great saving. But the commission has nothing in its report to justify what it has done in this matter. There can be no doubt that the commission has reduced the efficiency of the post office by these retrenchments, when we consider that the post office a week or two later had to obtain outside assistance to do the work hitherto performed by the retrenched officials. Those who know postal requirements say it is a brain wave to get rid of a few men in order to place a few more friends in the department. That is the position generally accepted in the service. It seems to me a very wrong thing to introduce men at a lower rate of pay who are not acquainted with the work. Men were brought in from the uniformed staff, from outside and inside the post office, in order to fill the gap created by these retrenchments. The new men were put on sorting duty, and it is possible that the regular duties will, as a result, be neglected. An hon. member has received the following telegram—

I have the case of a very capable man who has been retired on a pension of £4 10s. a month. He had done excellent work.

We cannot discuss that question now.

The Public Service Commission definitely reports on this case, and on the saving it has effected. However, I will wait until we reach the post office vote.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) has raised the question of the advisability of the re-issue of the public service list. I agree with him that it is desirable to have such a list, if you could find the money, but I must take the view that the list is rather in the nature of a luxury, and that this particular luxury is one that we have been compelled to dispense with in the last few difficult years. I do not think there are many people who are anxious to have a list, but I know that some boarding-house keepers, especially in Cape Town, like to have it so that they can adjust their charges accordingly.

And young ladies who like to see the salaries.

That is an aspect of the matter to which we do not need to pay any attention.

It is not an aspect which appeals to me.

I agree that there is a good deal to be said for the issue of the list, but in the position in which we have been during the last few years, both from the point of view of finances and shortness of staff, it has been impossible to prepare such a list. I am not satisfied that even now we have reached the stage when we can indulge in this particular luxury. With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Col. McArthur) as to postal re-organization—

Will the Minister’s reply preclude the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) from raising the question again?

Not the question of pensions.

It may be that the Deputy-Chairman’s decision will prevent the hon. member raising the whole question of retrenchment if the Minister pursues this particular point.

I will not pursue it. As the matter will be fully discussed on the postal vote, and I do not wish to impede the hon. member, I will leave over any remarks that may be necessary until then. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has raised various questions in regard to the public service and the Public Service Commission. First of all, with regard to the Public Service Advisory Council. I do not think it is altogether correct to say that there has been no meeting of that council for two years. There was a meeting in April of this year, and the previous regular meeting was in 1931. In the interval, however, there have been other meetings called for special purposes, but it must not be inferred that the advisory council has been entirely inoperative during that period. I am glad there has recently been a meeting of the council which lasted almost for a week.

With what result?

The various proposals of the advisory council are being considered by the Public Service Commission, and I hope I shall receive their views when I get back to Pretoria. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) raised the question of the conditions of employment of women. That matter was raised at the advisory council meeting. It was not decided by that council to press for equal pay for equal work at the present stage. It was decided by the Council to press for the opening to women of the higher grades of the public service, and, while I am not able to make any definite statement in that regard, I want to record a personal opinion that that is the direction in which we shall have to go. Then the hon. member raised the question of the future of the public service commission. I want to point out that the present members of the public service commission were appointed in 1931, for a period of five years. Unless there is any fortuitous vacancy in the personnel of the commission, the question of a change in the personnel does not arise. The question of an entrance examination for the civil service has been raised. Our entrance examination is, to all intents and purposes, the matriculation examination. In that connection the public service commission does have available more informtion than is indicated by the lists which appear in the press showing that certain candidates have passed in the first or second class.

Then the entrance to the service is competitive?

My friend will realize that there are certain other factors to be taken into account. Personally I think there is a great deal to be said for the question of having a special competitive examination, but I should not like to express a final opinion on that point. At the same time, I do not want my hon. friend to think that no account is taken of the actual work done by the candidates at the entrance examination. The detailed performances are taken account of. My hon. friend has raised the question of preUnion officials. I can assure him that the Government is desirous of going into the question of the positions of these pre-Union officials, but there are certain very definite limitations in dealing with this matter imposed by the Public-Service Act. The Act quite definitely indicates that while there is no restriction on the promo tion of pre-Union officials as such, the commission shall in commending any officer for a post in which the knowledge of both languages is necessary he satisfied that he possesses the language qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post, and that cannot be lost sight of.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 35, “Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-minded,” £528,291,

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the Valkenberg Hospital badly needs renovation, and that a large number of the buildings are out of date. Provision is made for 1,560 patients, and it is desirable that these patients should be properly provided for in the matter of accommodation as far as buildings are concerned. Such accommodation could be arranged by the transfer of some of the buildings of the Alexandra Institute to Valkenberg. I would like the Minister to consider the question of establishing a farm colony for the feeble-minded, which would provide for the education of these people. At present these people are purely a burden to the State. They are not in any way productive, whereas if there was a farm colony, they could learn certain trades, and under such a system as a farm colony it might be found possible for these feeble-minded people to become self-supporting. On the other hand, many of the mental cases represent people who have held good positions and who were formerly assets to the State. With treatment many of these people will again become useful citizens. There are, it is true, chronic mental cases for whom there is no cure, and the pathetic part of it is that the worst accommodation is given to these chronic cases. The exterior of their buildings is so bad that it is a perfect disgrace, and the relatives feel it keenly when they have to go and visit these patients. Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is desirable that certain medical men should be trained for the purpose of collaborating with the courts in regard to sex cases. As far as I can understand, the law does not provide for the consideration of these cases in the mental hospitals of the Union, but in America these people are given mental treatment and in this mnner they do not become criminals by being put into gaol and there associating with criminals.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the almost alarming lack of provision for the treatment of acute, early mental disease in the Union. Our mental hospitals really provide only for chronic and incurable cases. There is no provision for, the other type of disease, which lends itself to amelioration by special treatment. The type of case which I refer to can very often be prevented from reaching an advanced stage, and surely in this matter as in all others, prevention is better than cure. It is better in the interest of the patient, and in the interest of the State as well. General hospitals could deal with these early cases, but they do not do so. Isolated cases are received by general hospitals, but no provision is made by them for the systematic treatment of psychopathic patients. The general hospitals refuse to treat such cases on an organized scale, the principal reason being the question of cost. Failing action by the general hospitals, the Government must establish special homes for the treatment of such cases. There are two such homes in existence in connection with the Pretoria General Hospital, but they do not wholly fill the needs of the position. Any man or woman feeling himself or herself on the verge of a breakdown can go to these homes voluntarily, get suitable treatment by experts and every opportunity for recovery. The trouble is that the homes are associated with a mental hospital, known in common parlance as an asylum. A patient resents that, and as a consequence many persons fail to avail themselves of the opportunities offered. I suggest that if general hospitals cannot be persuaded to make the necessary provision, the Government will have to consider the establishment of other homes, similar to those in Pretoria, but not connected with a mental hospital. Real relief to the position would be afforded by removing mental hospitals from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Public Health and at the same time transferring all general hospitals from the province to the Union Public Health Department.

Although I have no mental patients in my constituency, I am very interested in those who work in mental hospitals, and if you look through the Votes you will find that in every hospital there is a type of worker called “artizans,” In Valkenberg there are 20. These people work year in and year out, and it is difficult work they do, but they never have leave. They fall under trade union rates, and are treated as trade union officials; but the tradesman, whether he is a builder or a painter, can get 14 days’ leave annually, generally at the beginning of the year. These “artizans,” to whom I have referred, are entitled to leave only on public holidays, and cannot always get away then. I think it would be a very good thing if the Minister could treat them as ordinary public servants. Although the cost of living has come down, these people get their stores, and have to pay the ordinary cost, plus 10 per cent., and £7 10s. for uniforms. They used to get three uniforms per year, but now they get two. Cannot the Minister see his way clear to have three uniforms a year issued, as in previous years?

I would like to remind the Minister that, a few years ago, I drew attention to the need for occupational treatment in mental hospitals. This played a very great part, especially in those cases to which the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Baumann) drew attention—cases that may at first be acute, and when recovering need occupational treatment. This treatment is rather modern. Three years ago I drew attention to it, because I felt it would play a very great part in the mental hospitals of the Union. It has since been developed, but in spite of the fact that some of these hospitals have gone in for a great deal of economy, and some have saved £1,000 a year, all they get for it is nothing, or very little praise. Where a hospital can show that it can economise, it should he given the opportunity of expanding the possibilities of treatment, especially for occupational treatment, which does require a certain amount of money. This is a matter of great importance. There has been an outcry for economy in these hospitals, and quite rightly, I think. A number have shown that you can save by occupational treatment, and I know a hospital where coloured women can repair clothes, which would otherwise have had to be discarded. That hospital has the very smallest and most inadequate facilities for occupational treatment. I do feel that we should not lag behind for years and years in this. Compared with the present, mental hospitals were very unpleasant places in many respects, as they were years ago, and they have been described by alienists as heaven compared with the old conditions. They are kept full by chronic patients, and even by mentally deficient people who are not considered the right class to be sent to a mentally deficients’ home. I feel it is very necessary that provision should be made for chronic cases separately, so that they do not fill up mental hospitals, and leave room for acute cases which can benefit by mental treatment. Valkenberg has 1,700 to 1,800 patients, and there is very much need for occupational and other treatment in cases which have become temporarily deranged, patients who can recover and become normal citizens. With regard to mentally deficient cases, they are not all suitable for institutional treatment. There are cases which can benefit a certain amount byeducation, and others by nursing; but can it be said that the Alexandra Hospital requires three trained medical men? Work of a different kind is necessary for mental deficients. They should do a type of work for which they really are capable. They are not capable of a great deal of mental development. They are not capable of being socialized by their mental training, but many are capable of being socialized by physical labour, by work on farms. Comparing the statistics from American homes of this kind, I would say that about half would do well on farm colonies which cost very much less than these institutions. I want to draw a distinction between institutional treatment and farm colony treatment in the hope that we shall see that we should, at any rate, have the farm colony system for a certain type of mental deficient and we should have institutions only for those too young for the farm colony system, and who are still capable of benefiting by the expensive institutional treatment. I just bring forward these few points to show we could save money that could be better used in other ways.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) for having raised these general points. Of course, the hon. member speaks with a technical knowledge which I do not possess. As yet I have not had the opportunity of visiting more than two of the institutions falling under my department. In the case of one of these, I was impressed by what is being done in the direction of the development of occupational treatment. I recognize that no doubt a great deal more could be done, but I am rather reluctant to express an opinion on the general questions the hon. member has raised until I have had a better opportunity of familiarising myself with the position. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. R. J. du Toit) raised the question of accommodation in connection with the Valkenberg hospital. I can only reply in general terms that we are reaching the stage, in fact, have already reached it, where we shall have definitely to consider the advisability of increasing the accommodation available in South Africa, as a whole. We have, for some considerable time, been marking time in this matter and I am afraid we cannot go on doing so much longer. Whether we shall actually extend the accommodation at Valkenberg is another matter. I think we shall probably have to make arrangements at other centres which would relieve the congestion at institutions which happen to be overcrowded. I do not think I can hold out much likelihood of our scrapping the Valkenberg building and moving over to Alexandra. In regard to the other point he raised, namely, that of co-operation between the mental hospitals, more especially Valkenberg, and the Department of Justice, in connection with sexual cases, I think I may tell him that only within the last few days an arrangement has been approved of whereby a member of the medical staff at Valkenberg is to attend the magistrate’s court in connection with cases of this kind and I think that will prove to be a very valuable and important step. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Baumann) has raised the question of the establishment of psychopathic wards at one or more of our general hospitals. I think I can recall having been associated with the hon. member a dozen years ago in attempting to get such a ward established at the Johannesburg hospital. At a very early stage in my official duties, I asked the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene once again to go into this matter and to report to me. After I have had his report, I shall go into the question further. I want to assure the hon. member that we do deal, at the present moment, with a considerable number of what one might call curable cases. We do, as a matter of fact, discharge 30 to 35 per cent. of the patients admitted to our mental institutions. Because of the terms of the present law, we do not get them in as early as we would like. If we did, we could regard a great many more as curable cases, but in the circumstances, I think we can be satisfied that the percentage of discharges is reasonably high. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Joubert) raised various minor points. On the question of the purchase by officials from hospital stores I would like to point out to him that there is no obligation on the officials to purchase from the stores. They can purchase outside if they want to. The ten per cent. charge to which he has referred is a charge which is naturally and rightly imposed to cover overhead costs. I do not think that there is any real grievance there. He also raised the question of the position of the artizan staff. I do not know if his statement amounts to this, that the artizans who have been paid at trade union rates are not getting the vacation privileges which artizans not in Government employ are getting. If it is a fact that artizans on our staff are less favourably treated than those employed outside the Government, I shall certainly be prepared to go into the matter, but I think on investigation it will be found that artizans at the mental hospitals are no worse off than those employed by private employers elsewhere.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 36, “Printing and Stationery”, £219,756,

I have been asked to enquire if the Government will reconsider the printing of the electoral rolls by photolitho process. The experience has been the reverse of favourable. The work turned out is not so satisfactory and I must point out that owing to the mechanization of the trade, a great deal of unemployment has taken place, and during the last 18 months something like £60,000 has been spent on relief by the employers and employees’ associations. There is another question. When the South African party Government went out of power, they had a Bill on the stocks for the establishment of a provident fund. I should like to ask the Minister if there is a possibility of this provident fund being started.

That cannot be discussed now.

In reply to the hon. member, although the question of the provident fund involves legislation, it is at the moment being considered. Whether it will be possible to give effect to the suggestion, until the whole question of pension facilities for officials in the general branch of the service has been gone into, is a matter upon which I would rather not express an opinion. With regard to the photo-litho process, while one regrets the reduced employment, it must be pointed out that it has also led to a saving of 66 and two-thirds per cent. in the cost.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 37, “Public Health,” £408,597,

I want to raise a matter of deep moment to my own constituency, and to the adjoining constituency of Bezuidenhout. I have already given the Minister an advance copy of the papers which I am now going to read. The matter which I wish to refer to deals with a menace to the public health and well-being of the good people of Kensington, caused by the Bruma sewerage scheme, and I would like to give the House briefly the history of that scheme, and explain to the House and the Minister how that nuisance has arisen, in the hope of an amelioration or relief being given to the people in Kensington who are suffering from this nuisance.

On what ground does the hon. member raise this?

On the question of public health, the question of policy.

I do not see how a question of policy can be raised on this vote.

I am dealing with it from the point of view that the Minister of Public Health should interfere in a matter which is a menace to the health of the people of Kensington.

On a point of order, I thought we could discuss questions of policy under the Minister’s portfolio.

In order to have full opportunity of ventilating this matter, I propose to ask yon to allow me to take advantage of the 30 minutes’ rule. Kensington, as you probably know, is by far the largest suburb of Johannesburg. The valuation of the land alone in Kensington is half a million, and the improvements, that is houses in Kensington, are valued at 2½ millions, so that a total value of the land and buildings in that township is nearly three millions, and it is by far and away the largest suburb of Johannesburg, probably the largest suburb of any town in South Africa, so much so that it now forms a constituency of its own. A portion of it falls under my friend, the hon. member for Be zuidenhout (Mr. Tothill). This Bruma sewer age scheme was initiated in 1928. A farm in the lower part of Bezuidenhout valley was bought by the municipality of Johannesburg for the purpose of being used as a sewerage scheme, and it would appear that the council had already committed itself to the purchase of that farm before taking the opinion of the people who live in the neighbourhood, as to whether they wanted that scheme there or not. As soon as the inhabitants heard that they were going to start this sewerage farm, they at once protested and finally two public meetings were held at which representatives of the town council attended, when they assured the ratepayers there that everything in the garden was lovely, and that no danger to public health, in fact, no nuisance of any sort, need be apprehended from the scheme. I first of all want to ask the Minister whether by that time any enquiry bad been made of the Public Health Department and whether any advice had been sought from them as to the advisability of establishing this farm right on the doorsteps of the people in the neighbourhood. You will be horrified to know that this farm exists within a few hundred yards of a fairly thickly-populated residential area. I do not want to go too much into details. As far back as April, 1931, the residents in the neighbourhood complained of an extremely offensive smell arising from these sewerage works, and a meeting took place in October, 1931, on the site of the works, when they met the assistant engineer and various assurances were given that within a week or two steps would be taken to abolish the nuisance. These assurances proved elusive, because the smell continued. Then various expedients were adopted by the council from time to time, and on each occasion an assurance was given that everything would be all right in the future. In spite of the expenditure of a large sum of money, far more than was originally anticipated, the smell has continued, if not as bad as ever, it certainly is a great nuisance and a danger to the health of the people in the vicinity. Finally a report was given by the city engineer last year in which various other remedies were suggested, and in the end it was agreed to refer the matter to the Public Health Department, with a view to the Public Health Department nominating an expert to go into this matter, and see what steps the department could suggest to abate this evil. That I think was nine months ago, and, as far back as December, the town council of Johannesburg passed this resolution—

The public health committee on that resolution said that they would try and get the necessary plant to purify those works. Then a recommendation was made to ask the secretary for public health of the Union to furnish the council with the name of an expert who could go into this scheme and decide whether anything could be done to remedy this. That happened in October of last year and I understand from my constituents that they are still waiting for that expert to be appointed and to commence his work. In the meantime the nuisance continues. Life in the neighbourhood is made insufferable, property has depreciated very much in value, and the health of the children who attend the school in the neighbourhood has suffered seriously from this evil. The persons concerned, and there is a large section in Kensington, have reached a stage almost of desperation. The scheme was started away in 1928. The smell has continued for the last two or almost three years, and although steps have been taken to abate it, and although the nuisance is not the aggravation it was at the beginning, yet there is no question that it is still there, intermittently, and constitutes not only a grave inconvenience, but a serious menace to the health of persons living in that neighbourhood. Primarily, I admit that this is a matter between the ratepayers of Kensington and the municipality of Johannesburg, but I will submit that it is not a matter in which the Department of Public Health can remain neutral. If it is satisfied that the nuisance does exist, if it is satisfied that the smell is in fact a danger to the health of a very large section of the voters of this country, then I do submit that the Department of Public Health should be able to intervene and to say to the council of Johannesburg, that either within a given period the nuisance must be abated, or the works must be stopped entirely. The Public Health Department should say that the nuisance should be abated to the satisfaction of their own public health officer, or these works must be closed and removed to a distance outside the municipal area where they will not constitute this grave menace. The Johannesburg municipality were warned before they started, that they were running a serious risk in constructing a sewage farm there. They were advised apparently by their own experts that there were no risks, and that the sewage could be treated so efficiently that no effluvia would result. Now, however, they have the evidence of their own noses that these assurances have not materialized, and the Minister knows that this has been a serious irritation, annoyance and grievance to a large body of inhabitants of the eastern portion of Johannesburg. My constituents hope that as a result of the representations made in this House, we may be able to enlist the active co-operation of the Public Health Department to drive the matter to a finality, and to compel the Johannesburg municipality to put things right, or to close the whole thing down altogether.

It will save time if I deal with this matter straight away. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has raised a question that undoubtedly has for a long time been a very burning one, perhaps a very odorous one. It became a somewhat important issue in the recent election at Kensington. I do not want to go into the matter from the point of view of the Johannesburg municipality: they no doubt have their own side of the case to put forward, but I wish to deal with the subject as it affects the Department of Public Health. I must suggest to the hon. member that my powers are not quite so wide as he appears to think they are. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) suggested this morning that I was responsible for all the infectious diseases of the Union, and I promptly disclaimed responsibility. I might remind the hon. member for Kensington what is precisely the position of myself and the Public Health Department under the law. The only power under which we can act is Clause 11 of the Public Health Act (No. 36 of 1919) which says—

1. (a) Whenever upon the report of the chief health officer it appears to the administrator that the public health in any locality is seriously endangered by the failure or refusal on the part of any local authority to exercise its powers or perform the duties devolving upon it under any law, having regard to its special circumstances and resources, or to take all lawful and necessary steps to obtain powers to deal by bye-law or regulation with the danger, the administrator may, after causing an enquiry to be held (at which the local authority shall have an opportunity of being heard), call upon the local authority by written notice forthwith to exercise effectually any such powers or to perform properly any such duties; and if the local authority fails to comply with such written notice, the administrator may exercise such powers or perform such duties, and may authorize any person to take all necessary steps for that purpose in the same manner as if he were the local authority.

My department, therefore, only comes into the matter in so far as by implication it would be the duty of the chief medical officer to submit a report that the public health is seriously endangered. However unpleasant the circumstances may be to Kensington, the chief health officer is not satisfied—and I think he is correct—that he can truly say that the public health in that locality is seriously endangered. As far as my department is concerned, the hon. member will have to accept my assurance that nothing in the line of taking direct action can be contemplated at present. I think I ought to go back a little bit further in regard to the connection of the Public Health Department i with this matter now before the House. The hon. member asked whether the advice of the Public Health Department was ever sought in the initial stages of this particular matter. Well, the advice of the Public Health Department was not sought by the Johannesburg council, but it was sought by the administrator. When the scheme was submitted to the administrator for approval some little time ago, it was referred by him to the Union Health Department for advice, and the Public Health Department, in consultation with the drainage engineer of the Public Works Department, gave the advice that the scheme, if approved, would be a nuisance.

Have you got the date of that?

No, but it would be quite easy to find that. The administrator, in accordance with what usually happens in these cases, referred the matter to the Public Health Department for expert advice, and the expert advice was that the scheme would be a nuisance. The main reason that was given for the statement was that this scheme was too near an inhabited area. The administrator then, quite correctly, referred it back to the city council of Johannesburg. Thereupon, the council again approached the administrator to sanction the scheme. It submitted very strong reports from the city medical officer of health and the city engineer to the effect that they were satisfied that no nuisance would be created. The matter was put again to the chief health officer of the Union, and the late Dr. Mitchell, having consulted the administrator, again stated that he was not prepared to give approval to the scheme, but, as the council’s officers were prepared to take full responsibility, he was not prepared to advise the administrator to reject it. The only other period at which the Public Health Department was directly drawn into this difficult matter was when the council requested the chief health officer to nominate an expert to advise the council. The chief health officer felt that he was not able to suggest anybody in South Africa who could advise the council, as an expert, with more knowledge of these matters than was possessed by the officials of the city council of Johannesburg. He advised the city council accordingly, and I understand that the city council decided not to appoint such an expert. That is the position. As far as the Public Health Department is concerned, we can only say that we shall continue to keep in touch with the matter, and to advise when we are called upon to do so. We are all hopeful that the various experiments to eliminate the nuisance wil be a success. As I have said, the department will keep in touch with the matter, but we can only take such initiative as the hon. member desires, if the chief health officer is satisfied that the health of the public is seriously endangered. I think [ should point out to the hon. member that people who feel themselves to be aggrieved have got redress under the Public Health Act. Under section 128, any three persons who allege that a nuisance exists may notify the local authority, and if the local authority fails within a reasonable time to cause the nuisance to be removed, such persons may serve the notice provided for in the Act, and thereupon proceedings will be taken.

Civil or criminal?

Civil. I think if these people felt so strongly about the matter in the suburb of Kensington, which is so large and wealthy, they could afford to do so.

I did not say wealthy.

The hon. member indicated that there was a certain amount of wealth there. I simply want to draw his attention to the fact that the law does provide a remedy, but at the present stage it must be initiated by persons who are directly concerned.

I wish to thank the Minister for the grant (£3,000) which he has given to the Natal provincial administration, and I hope he will not think, because I am asking for more, that I am not grateful for what has been given. But I want to point out to the Minister and to hon. members that the work which is being done in Natal for the eradication of maleria is costing a great deal of money, and that the whole of that cost is being borne by local ratepayers, small health boards, etc. The amount is assuming large proportions, and the amount which is voted will not meet requirements either this year or next year. Does the Minister realize that, as far as the sugar industry alone is concerned, they spent very nearly £13,000 last year, and that the total amount expended by local taxpayers, irrespective of the larger boroughs such as Durban and Pietermaritzburg, cost Natal from £15,000 to £20,000. I do feel—and I have ex pressed this opinion before in this House—that malaria should not be looked upon purely from the provincial point of view. It is being tackled by the people on the spot, but unless it is tackled nationally, it may become a national menace. I hope in future the Minister will give to the province of Natal—which has borne the main brunt of this disease—more financial assistance. Another point I want to bring to the attention of the Minister is the amount which has to be met by the province for eradicating the disease in the native areas. I believe the £3,000 given to the provincial administration is for this purpose. I asked a question in the House a few days ago regarding the credit balances held by the Native Trusts in Natal. These balances amount very nearly to £38,000, and I submit that as regards these Native Trusts, if the Minister will meet his colleague the Minister of Native Affairs, he could very easily use some of that money for looking after the natives in the reserves. The provincial administration has during the past four years spent nearly £24,000, and the liability last year was £11,000. Most of this has been spent in the native areas, and I do feel that with this balance they should pay their contribution towards eradication. There is a point in the last annual report of the Department of Public Health to which I should like to refer. On page 30 there is this statement—

You cannot differentiate in this matter as between black and white. If the white people on the coast of Natal have to pay for eradication, let the natives, through their trusts, also pay their share. Those who come from malaria-infested parts are very grateful indeed for the way in which the Government has tackled this question. We have received helpful advice, and there has been excellent work between the department and the local boards, but unless the people realize that they are not going to be called upon for ever to pay for this eradication, unless they feel that the Government is going to help financially, they will lose the enthusiasm they have at present. As far as the Natal coast is concerned, we have the position entirely in hand, but unless that interest and enthusiasm can be maintained, the position may get out of hand. I hope when the department next produces a report on the malaria position, it will not, as it did last year, single out one town and place it in an invidious position. Last year in the report certain villages were praised, and others were condemned. If there is either praise or condemnation it should be given in a private manner. These small places in my constituency are dependent as health resorts upon visitors to a great extent, and it would have been much better if the department had simply warned them that they were not doing sufficient, rather than have the matter placed on record in a blue book. I hope the Minister will realize that the expense of eradication must be borne by the Government in conjunction with local bodies, and that the whole cost must not be allowed to rest upon the people of the coast.

I have been asked to direct the Minister’s attention to the sale of poisons that is going on in South Africa. Almost any general dealer in this country can sell the most potent poisons. I am aware of the fact that there has been a considerable tightening-up of matters through magistrates being more careful in granting licences, but that hardly meets the case. I also know that there is certain difficulty in connection with the agricultural community, because farmers must use poisons for veterinary purposes, but in many cases these poisons get into the hands of irresponsible people who fail to keep them under lock and key, with the result that they become a danger to the community. The whole sale of poisons should be limited to chemists, if it is possible to do so. I would ask the Minister to look into this question and I think that if something could be done in the way that I have indicated, it would be most beneficial to the country as a whole.

I want to say a fewwords on the malaria position as it affects the Natal coast. I believe that the Minister of Public Health a few years ago said that malaria was the worst scourge that we had in South Africa. I agree with that. I believe that the House hardly realizes the very heavy mortality which takes place along the Natal coast and other parts where malaria is endemic every year. I was looking at “Hansard” for 1929 and I noticed that the Minister said in that year there were 3,000 native deaths on the Natal coast. Eighteen months ago it was said that the epidemic then raging had caused 20,000 or 30,000 deaths. We know of many cases in the native reserves where children have been wandering about the hillsides looking for food while their parents were lying dead from malaria in their huts, unknown to their neighbours. Very little relief is available to these people. This great scourge has been going on from year to year and until a very few years ago, and has attracted very little attention from the Public Health Department. Very little was done in a national way to deal with it. Then the Provincial Council of Natal took a hand and established the health boards —no doubt under the inspiration of the Minister of Public Health; but nevertheless the matter was taken up by the provincial council after the failure of the Union to deal with it. So far as the Public Health Department was concerned, malaria was neglected. These committees, which have recently been appointed all along the coast, have done extraordinarily good service and great enthusiasm has been created among the local inhabitants in the coping with malaria. But I agree with what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Reynolds) said; it is impossible for these local communities to bear the whole of the cost for the extermination of a disease like malaria. Land owners are taxed to the extent of one penny or twopence per acre by the health committees which provide inspectors to go round to see that proper anti-larva measures are carried out. Now we learn that while these anti-larva measures are carried out for the destruction of one type of mosquito—the costalis —there is another type—the funestus—which it is impossible to destroy by these anti-larva measures, since they breed in swamps. Dr. Fourie has arrived at the conclusion that these anti-larva measures, in dealing with funestus, are of very little use.

No, no.

I understand that they are effective as far as the costalis is concerned, but not for funestus, which breeds in the swamps, and that it is impossible to treat that type by anti-larva measures except by the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., until 8.5 p.m

When the House adjourned, I was referring to malaria on the Natal coast. I had pointed out that the local boards had proved very efficient and effective. They had been under the guidance, very largely, of Dr. Fourie, who won the approval of everybody with whom he came in contact and had done extraordinarily good work. I regret very much to learn that it is the Government’s intention to remove Dr. Fourie, and I have received numerous requests from these local boards that the Government should reconsider its decision. These local boards feel that Dr. Fourie is very well qualified for the task and that it would be disastrous to malaria control if he were removed. The hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Mr. Reynolds) spoke this afternoon about the burden of taxation placed on the landowners all along the coast, and expressed the opinion that the eradication of the malaria pest is a national work and should be subsidized to some extent from the national exchequer. Other diseases are not left to the local taxpayers to stamp out, and if the Government places the burden of dealing with the malaria problem purely on local landowners, many people who will benefit from the operation of these local boards will escape scot-free The Government should subsidize these local bodies. I now come to the rather alarming discovery that there exist along the Natal coast two types of mosquito which carry malaria, the costalis and the funestus. At any rate Professor Swellengrebel thought that the costalis mosquito alone would be found on the Natal coast. Quite recently the funestus has been discovered in Natal; it breeds in the swamps, unlike the anopholes costalis, which breeds in puddles and shallow pools and can easily be dealt with. If the presence of the funestus is proved then some much more extensive operations will be necessary to cope with them than the farmers can undertake. Some years ago I suggested to the Minister of Public Health that we should adopt the recommendation of the League of Nations on this matter which was that it was necessary in all countries to establish local research stations, where the incidence of local malaria could be studied. I urged that on the Government, but it has not been carried out. I think it is absolutely essential that a local research station should be established somewhere along the Natal coast, preferably in Zululand. I understand that the Government are advancing £22,500 to local authorities under sections 47 and 48 of Act 36 of 1919, under Vote 02, in respect of “other infectious diseases”. I do not know how much of that money is being used for the purpose of subsidizing the malaria campaign, but it seems to me that under that Vote something should be done to further the campaign which is now in operation. I do feel that the Minister will have to see to it that these local committees are created to combat malaria over the whole area. At the present moment there are islands where no committees exist. Particularly is that the case in the native reserve referred to by my hon. friend the member for Natal Coast (Mr. Reynolds). But in Zululand also there are areas, Ntombanana, for instance, and, further north, Hluhluwe, where no local committees exist. [Time limit.]

I desire to bring a matter in connection with district surgeons to the notice of the Minister. I would prefer to call it “district nurses”, but then you would call me to order, as this is a matter which falls under the provincial administration. Fortunately I am able to quote here what the Minister himself stated in connection with district nurses. I hope that he remembers that quotation. He stated that district nurses should fall under the Department of Public Health. I wish to say that it is my contention that district nursing, as it is carried out today, especially in the large divisions and extensive areas, is ineffective. Take, e.g., my own constituency, Potgietersrust; we have a district surgeon there who has to cover a very large area. Once a fortnight he covers a long distance on a hurried visit and the consequence is that the work cannot be effectively performed. The people who live on the borders, who suffer serious privations and are far away from district surgeons, must be considered by us. One district surgeon is unable to render good service. It often happens that he gets an urgent call to an unnecessary case, but he has to cover a large area to get to that case at great expense to the State. Then there are serious cases which he cannot reach in time. My contention is that we should rather have district nurses for such cases, nurses who can carry on the nursing work in a regular manner. In that way we would secure very much better service than by having a district surgeon who can only visit people once a fortnight. Let the Minister tackle this matter in all seriousness and not throw the responsibility on the shoulders of local authorities.

The hon. member must not go too far and discuss the matter in detail.

I have said what I wanted to say on this matter and I hope that the Government will take it into serious consideration. Then there is an item on the estimates which refers to my district, viz., “The leper asylum at Bochem”. We have an establishment there which deserves the praise and the gratitude of the people. On those outposts we have a lady, Miss Frantz, who does most excellent work, not merely in regard to leprosy in those areas, but also in regard to venereal diseases which prevail there. I regard that institution as a sort of bufferinstitution to stop the spread of those diseases to the south. Those diseases are caught up there and are cured. I see now that the Government has seen fit to reduce this vote by £300. I cannot see the need for that being done. It may be argued that the number of patients has decreased, but in view of the good work that has been done there, I do not think it was necessary to cut down this vote. By the good work that is done there the spread of the disease to the south is prevented. This is a very serious question on the borders, because we draw our labour and our female servants from those areas. The native women come out of the kraals into the homes of the farmers and they are infected with the disease and the result is that the children of the farmers are running the risk of being infected. Miss Frantz, however, stops this, and now the department comes and says that the allowance is to be reduced. The Minister is sympathetically disposed towards the institution and I hope that he will change his decision and that the department will once again take the matter into consideration.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he has under review any scheme for extending medical and nursing services in the rural areas, because it does seem to me that there is a very serious need for these services. There is, of course, a system of district surgeons. These officers are stationed at certain places, but I understand that they very rarely are able to get into the less populated areas, largely because of the difficulty of transport, and also because the distances are very great. They are only consultative really as far as the rural areas are concerned. No trained nursing facilities are supplied either in these rural areas. It is not necessary for me to remind hon. members of the necessity in sickness, especially in child birth, of nursing assistance, which the people find it extremely difficult to obtain. I do think that provision for such services is long overdue. If there were nurses attached to these district surgeons, it would be part of their duty to organize classes for the home training of women in isolated areas. I ask the Minister to consider these matters and not only as far as European women are concerned, because I think the position is really serious in native areas. I would ask the Minister whether he has any intention and can see his way to establish some native corps, of female and male natives, to go out amongst their own people. The training would be one of about three years, and on simple lines. Is there any chance of that, because it does seem to me that in certain areas the position is becoming distinctly dangerous, as far as tuberculosis is concerned, and many other matters of that kind. It is quite clear that native health reacts on that of our European population. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to that, because I do think it ought to be taken in hand.

I do not wish to dilate at any great length on the inadequacy of the staff of the Public Health Department, which I hope may soon be remedied. We do not grudge the money spent on the Agricultural and Veterinary Departments, but we do ask something for our human beings as well. I wish to ask the Minister whether ho has in mind an increase in the staff of the Public Health Department either immediately or at an early date. I refer especially to the appointment of a woman medical officer, whose main work would be the organization of maternal services, particularly in rural areas. The principal function of such an officer would be educative. At present it is useless to contemplate an elaborate nursing scheme for the rural areas because the women are not educated to the need of trained services and prefer the services of unskilled people, and in consequence the death rate in our country districts is too high. The actual figures of maternal mortality are not higher in general than those in Europe and elsewhere, but the invalidity that results from parturition is incalculable; where every mother’s life is so important, all possible steps should be taken to mitigate those dangers. This medical officer would require a small staff of nursing assistants, three or four to begin with, whom she would generally supervise, and her own duties would be confined mainly to the towns, and to ante-natal work for the preservation of the health and lives of mothers. Only if education has proceeded up to a certain point could we think seriously of a scheme such as was adumbrated by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz). A good deal of spade work has to be done first. May I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to give me definite information on this point. He has made a general statement on the subject, but rather evaded the particular issue. I ask him further whether he will terminate the anomalous system of divided control between the Union and the provinces with regard to hospitals, a system which represents a waste of time and money. It seems to us doctors unreasonable that this system should be allowed to continue. There may be difficulties in the way, of which we do not know, but on the face of it there seems no reason why these institutions should not all be co-ordinated under Union.

I think I may start with the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down. Personally T realize very fully the evils of divided controls which exist to-day, as the hon. member has pointed out, we have. There is a division of the responsibility for hospital administration, between the Union and the provinces, and that has led to a certain amount of overlapping and, possibly, of inefficiency; at the same time, I have to point out to him that we stand to-day committed to a policy of maintaining the status of the provinces, and in view of that policy I cannot hold out any hope to him of any early steps being taken for divesting the provinces of their responsibility for hospital administration. As the hon. member is aware the whole question of the relations between the Union and the provinces, and coupled therewith, possible further powers to the provinces, will be dealt with by a commision during the recess, and some of the points the hon. member has raised may come within the notice of that commission. Nothing will, however, come from that commission, I think, in the way of centralizing public health services. Then he has raised the question of the inadequacy of the staff in the Public Health Department. I think we may say we are acutely conscious of that, and, as the hon. member knows, we are at present exceedingly short-handed as far as the medical staff is concerned, and the officials still available are carrying on their work with considerable difficulty, thereby earning the appreciation of us all. I am glad the hon. member has raised the question of the possibility of the appointment of an additional health officer, and I want to assure him that, to my mind, that is the most urgent new expansion there is from the point of view of the Department of Public Health. I cannot say when it will be possible to advance in the direction of further expansion. The hon. member has spoken more particularly on the question of maternal morbidity. I think he was referring to maternal mortality. The maternal mortality figures are unknown and, probably, much higher, I think, than anybody realizes; certainly much higher than we know. Such a medical officer may do a great deal in the way of educative work in rural districts, and that educative work has to come before we can launch on any ambitious scheme such as the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) has referred to. The experience of such a system as the King Edward Order of Trained Nurses shows that we cannot yet have such nurses on an extensive scale in rural districts. I personally hold most strongly that what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Baumann) has indicated, should be the first step. With regard to the other points raised by the hon. member for Parktown—a corps of trained natives, men and women, to deal with public health matters as affecting the natives—there we are up against the difficulty that this is the kind of thing which would have to be done out of the proceeds of the native development fund. Unfortunately the native development fund has not been as elastic as was originally anticipated, but there again I am hopeful that one of the results of the provincial committee’s work will be to place that fund on a sound footing, and then perhaps it will be possible to advance along the lines the hon. member had in mind. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) has raised an important question in regard to the sale of poisons. That to-day is governed by chapter V of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and in terms of the provisions of the law it would not be possible to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member that we should confine the sale of poisons to chemists. We have no power under the law to impose such a restriction. It is laid down that poison required for agricultural or horticultural purposes or for animals or exclusively for the destruction of vermin, insects, plants, etc., or for veterinary purposes, or for the cleansing of clothes, may be sold by a general dealer under certificate granted by a magistrate. It is laid down further that a magistrate may not grant such a certificate unless he is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest so to do. I am inclined to agree that sometimes such certificates have been granted where they should not have been granted and there has been a certain amount of laxity of control. In several recent cases the department has found it necessary to draw the attention of magistrates to the need for restricting the issue of certificates in areas adequately served by chemists. I am considering the question of issuing a general circular to all magistrates with a view to tightening up the present procedure. Further than that I cannot go without an amendment of the present law. Then it remains for me to say a few words about malaria. I regard the malaria problem as our major public health problem at the present moment. I think hon. members from Natal will welcome the statement that in the next weekly bulletin of the Department of Public Health the declaration will be made that the danger of contracting malaria in Natal and Zululand is now practically nil. We have had on the whole a good season. Of course, to some extent that is the result of natural physical conditions, but even so, I think we can congratulate ourselves on the amount of success which has been obtained by various anti-malaria measures, which have been adopted. May I say that I am hoping a little later in the year, during the recess, to be able to spend a few days in Natal with a view to investigating some malaria questions on the spot. I shall be glad there to form my own impressions at first hand. In the meantime, I feel I must reply to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Reynolds) and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). Perhaps before I do that, with reference to my remarks about the relative success of our anti-malaria measures, I should say a word of appreciation where I think it is due. I think we owe and Natal owes a great deal to men like Dr. Park Ross and Dr. Fourie. I am glad the hon. member for Zululand has expressed what I know to be the feeling of appreciation which prevails in Natal for the work of Dr. Fourie. I know also that Natal is very anxious to retain his services, and I can assure the hon. member that we would not be promoting and transferring him were it not that the staff position at our head office makes it essential to move him to Pretoria. Administrative exigencies leave us with no alternative, but I think he will find that Dr. Fourie’s successor, Dr. Cluver, will give no less satisfaction. I also want to express appreciation of the work of the Native Affairs Department in co-operating with us, and we can also congratulate ourselves on the fact that at the Pongola irrigation works there has been almost complete freedom from an epidemic of malaria. Then of course I do not want to fail in expressing appreciation of the work done by the local malaria committees. Of course we are only at the beginning of this business, but the achievement that has been attained is very largely to the credit of the local bodies. But for the existence of these bodies we could not have dealt with the problem so effectively. At the same time I must correct a wrong impression, which has possibly been left by the hon. member for Natal Coast. He has suggested that the whole cost of this work done in Natal is being borne by the local committees and by the province. That is certainly not correct.

All the work of inspection.

Yes, that is correct, but they are being supervized by the Department of Public Health. At the present moment the department is incurring an expenditure in Natal in respect of supervision at the rate of £5,209 a year. In addition to that we have provided this year for a grant of £3,000 to the Natal Provincial Council. I do not want hon. members to have the impression which may have been conveyed by the hon. member’s remarks that the Union Government is paying nothing in regard to malaria, but is leaving the whole burden to be borne by the local authorities. What the hon. member apparently had in mind is that the local bodies should receive direct assistance from the Union Government. Under our present law as it stands to-day, that could only be done if we were prepared to regard malaria as a formidable infectious disease under the Public Health Act. I do not see how on medical grounds that could possibly be done. From the point of view of its incidence, malaria is a local disease. Its means of prevention are within the reach of all. You do not quarantine patients; you do not treat them in the same way as you treat sufferers from formidable infectious diseases in respect of which we pay subsidy, and therefore I cannot hold out any hope of our being able in terms of the present law to pay subsidies direct to the various committees. Then I will come to the other aspect of the matter, and that is the work which is being done by the province, or rather at the expense of the province, in respect of the areas outside the areas of the local authorities and malaria committees. For that area, the province is regarded as the local authority and it is from the province that the Government recovers the expenditure. The province has been called upon to foot a bill of £500 during the past year. It proved to be a great deal heavier than was anticipated even a few months ago because of the fact that last year’s epidemic was considerably worse than anyone had anticipated. That expenditure is incurred partly in native reserves where local committees have not been established, and where they hardly could be established, and partly in European areas in what may be called the inland parts of Natal. The Government has now accepted the principle of assisting the province in regard to their expenditure with special reference to what is being done in the native areas. The hon. member for Natal Coast has suggested that the native trust fund should be called upon to foot the bill, and he mentioned that they have a balance of £38,000. But that is a capital balance, and surely it would not be sound finance for us to exhaust that balance in this way? As a matter of fact, in addition to the £3,000 which the Government has promised, the Native Affairs Department has come forward and has undertaken to put up an additional amount of £1,000 for expendture under this head, and that I think is as much as we can expect from the Native Trust Fund, and possibly a little bit more than we could expect. The position is then that the Union Department of Public Health is giving the province £3,000, and in addition, the Native Trust Fund is putting up £1,000, £700 of which goes to the Natal province, and £300 is spent directly. Of the provincial expenditure of £11,500 therefore £3,700 is to be refunded so that the provincial expenditure will be £7,800. I now come to what I think I should say in regard to the future.

What is that money to be spent on?

That is money which is paid back to the province. The province is called upon to pay for all expenditure in connection with areas not under local authorities, but in respect, more especially, of native reserves, we have taken the view that we should attempt, as far as we can, to assist the province in respect of expenditure, and with that in view this amount of £3,700 has been found. If we assume that this year the province will again spend £11,500, and it is possible that, owing to more favourable conditions, it may be a little less this year, it will get £3,700 of that back, partly from my department, and partly from the Natal Native Trust Fund. Now with regard to the future. The Government feels that we have only just commenced this campaign. We have done good work, and I think that we can congratulate ourselves on the work that has been done, but we feel that we have to extend the work done. We have to extend our activities, and we feel that we have in the future to be prepared for a possible onslaught more severe than we had this year, and with that end in view, and more especially with the end in view of rendering more adequate supervision of the work in the native reserves and the European areas not served by local authorities, we have already taken steps to secure authority for an increase of our staff. The Cabinet has agreed that we should increase our staff as from the commencement of the summer of this year. It is proposed this year to incur an additional expenditure of £2,500 on supervision, so that the expenditure of the Public Health Department this year on malaria will in all be £10,700; that is to say, the expenditure of the Public Health Department on malaria in Natal, because we also incur expenditure on malaria in the Transvaal. The expenditure on malaria in Natal will be £10,700, of which £5,200 will be for our existing staff, £3,000 grant to the Natal province, and £2,500 for the new staff to be appointed. In addition, the Natal Native Trust Fund will be spending £1,000. Then I want to say that our programme contemplates further extension of our activities in the future. We recognize that we shall almost certainly have to increase our assistance to the Natal province, and I am anticipating that on next year’s estimates further provision will be made. Next year we shall also have to make further provision for the increased activities of our supervising staff. Hon. members for Natal constituencies will appreciate, therefore, that, as far as my department is concerned, it is showing adequate appreciation of the responsibility placed upon it in dealing with this matter, and that we are bearing our share of responsibility in the combating of this very various scourge. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) raised two further questions, in regard to which I think I should say a word. The one was a question of research activity. He spoke of the importance of having local research facilities in connection with malaria. As the hon. member knows, we have at present a malaria-control station in the Transvaal at Tzaneen, and in connection therewith there is the malaria research station of the South African Institute of Medical Research. It is our intention next year to move that experimental station from Tzaneen, where it has done excellent work, to Natal. I think that will meet the point which the hon. member contemplated in that regard. The other point which the hon. member raised in connection with malaria was in his statement in regard to the potential danger of the mosquito as a carrier of malaria on the Natal coast. As he said correctly, following on the Swellengrebel Report, our activities have hitherto been confined to the combating of the costalis as a carrier, by means of species sanitation. The costalis is a puddle-breeder, and it is possible to deal with it by dealing with puddles. Recently, a good deal of attention has been drawn to an address given by Dr. Fourie before the Public Health Officials’ Association, in which he referred to certain recent discoveries where some evidence had been found of the existence of a swamp-bred anopheles funestus in native huts.

At Umfolosi?

Yes. And apparently there has been some apprehension expressed that this has knocked the bottom out of our whole malaria control scheme in Natal. There has been a tendency, I think, to exaggerate the significance of Dr. Fourie’s statement. It has not yet been established that the mosquitoes found are in fact of the funestus type. Even if it should be established the prevailing medical opinion is that probably what we have to deal with here is more in the nature of a curiosity, and I can possibly best answer what the hon. member said this afternoon by repeating what Dr. Fourie said at the conclusion of the discussion on his report. This was at the conclusion of the health officials’ congress on about the 7th June—

That is Dr. Fourie’s own opinion, and in view of that I am not at present disposed to put quite as serious a construction on Dr. Fourie’s original remarks as the hon. member did.

I am afraid I cannot accept that statement. I have had a letter, an extract from which I will read as follows—

That information comes from a very good source which I must accept, and I believe it is true that we are faced with a much more serious malarial campaign than we had counted on. With regard to the question of cost, these local committees do not exterminate the mosquito larvae themselves. Each of these committees receive over £1,000 a year from the local landowners, and they pay inspectors to see that the farmers do the job. Every farmer has to spend a considerable amount in oil and apparatus, and in paying a staff of labourers. On a large farm which gives a very small return, this necessitates a heavy expenditure. I think the Government should pay a subsidy for the inspection of that work. At any rate there should be some Government control.

We have that control.

But you don’t pay towards the work of inspection.

No.

That is essential if the inspectors are to be properly controlled.

Will the Minister’s department see that the sale of poisons in urban areas is confined entirely to chemists and druggists or doctors? At present poisons are being sold by general dealers, and we know the danger of that. I would like an assurance that this matter will be tightened up, and that only in country districts should general dealers be allowed to sell poison and then only for agricultural purposes.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the amount set down for district surgeons. I see that £88,900 has been set down this year, which is £2,200 more than it was last year. We have no objections to this amount of £88,900, but our objection is that the poor people, to our mind, do not get value for the money. The great difficulty in the rural areas is that the district surgeons are often too far away to be able to reach the people. I wish to point out to the Minister that we often have districts in which there are three or four villages and one main village. The district surgeon in such a case lives in the principal village and it is impossible for him to do all the work for the poor people in the district. There are other medical men in the other villages too, but they get no allowance whatever for the work which they do for the poor. The district surgeon is not merely paid a good allowance, he also gets an allowance of £50 for medicines. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to reduce these allowances for district surgeons somewhat, and to give them to the medical men in the other villages. This would be of great assistance to the poor people in the far distant parts. At the moment medical expenses are so high in many cases people are unable to send for the doctor. I can assure hon. members that the expenses in the rural areas are higher than the costs of professional services in the town. I know that we are unable on this vote to make proposals which will have the effect of increasing expenditure, but I do want to suggest that the Minister should consider giving a small allowance to doctors in the dorps so that the poor people can also receive help.

As the only medical man at present in the House, I cannot sit still and not protest against the suggestion that district surgeons’ salaries should be reduced.

It is not proposed to transfer the control of mental hospitals to the Department of Public Health. I am afraid I cannot give any more assurances than I have already given with regard to the sale of poisons. We shall consider issuing a circular to magistrates with a view to the tghtening-up of the regulations. At the present moment I think that is as far as I can go.

†*The hon. member for Hopetown (Mr. Theron) and the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) have discussed the question of medical assistance in far distant parts of the countryside. Generally, the district surgeon has to try to keep in touch with the magistrate, and for that reason it is often difficult to appoint a district surgeon in every small village. It gives rise to all kinds of administrative difficulties if we appoint a district surgeon in a dorp where there is no magistrate. As regards the question put by the hon. member for Potgietersrust, I want to say that I appreciate the difficulty which exists in the far distant parts of the Transvaal and the Cape Province. A better provision has been made, especially in recent years, by district surgeons travelling about. In that respect we have an amount of £2,400 on the estimates. I feel, however, that the matter is by no means satisfactory yet. Of course, we were tied down last year by lack of funds, but I assure the hon. member that the matter has my attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 38, “Union Education,” £773,870,

We have lately been faced with unemployment and with the poor white question. It is my contention that education is the Achilles heel of our people, the spot where we are injured, as the result of which the poor whitism is created. The problem is greatly attributable to the fact that our education is ineffective.

The hon. member cannot discuss the general education system at this stage.

You curtail us on every point, and we have to discuss matters of this kind. It is a matter of great importance.

Only within the rules of the committee.

In my constituency there is a school with 600 children under provincial administration. Six or ten children pass their matric. The rest reach standard 6, and then disappear from the stage. Some time we find them in front or at the back of a donkey wagon, or nowhere at all.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter.

I now come to the point. I wish to plead for an industrial agricultural school for the northern parts.

That vote has been disposed of.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 39, “Child Welfare,” £221,223,

I want to point out the severe cutting down of the amounts that are voted for child welfare. The South African Council for Child Welfare have drawn attention to the serious results which have followed the curtailment of the Government grant for this particular purpose, and the reduction on the estimates now makes the grant still less. In 1931 the amount voted was £145,338. In the following year, 1931-’32, it went down to £136,902. On the present estimates, there is a further drop to £124,000. This is a very considerable drop. The total has been brought down from £145,000 to £124,000.

Where do you discover the drop this year?

In the grants under the Children’s Protection Acts.

There is no drop. It is the same as last year.

Yes, I see what the Minister means. There is no drop for 1933-’34. I was referring to the drop in the years 1931-’32 and 1932-’33. I thank the Minister for pointing that out to me. I am dealing really with 1931-’32. The effect of the drop from 1930-’31 to 1931-’32 was that the children attended to diminished in number by 986. The national council point out that it is very easy to make these reductions, but the only result is that they have to drop a certain amount of work on behalf of the children. They have to leave children in surroundings absolutely unsuitable, because they have not the money to take them out of them. The societies have tried to raise as much money as they can, but they cannot cope with the situation. They can only deal with a few of the children, because they have not the money to cope with more. I would point out that in connection with mothers’ pensions, 248 cases came before them, and they only advocated 139. They go into these cases very carefully, and after advocating 139, only 37 were granted. The other applications made under the Acts have been carefully investigated. I do hope that the Minister will battle for more money for this very necessary voie. I know from what he did, and what he used to say, when he was a private member, that he cannot contemplate with any satisfaction the cutting down of a vote like this vote for child welfare. I know it is not cut further this year, but you have got to take it as it was in 1931 to get the normal expenditure. I hope that he will exert the necessary pressure on the Minister of Finance, so that, when next year’s estimates come to be framed, there will be a more adequate figure put down to meet this service.

I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) has said, because from this point of view I do not think it is really saving money to cut down grants of this kind. It is only saving up trouble, and it is going to cost us more in the long run. It is perfectly true that many children running about in the streets ought to be brought into some institution and they may, if some such provision is not made for them, perhaps get into the criminal classes. The depression has not only been responsible for the grants being cut down, but also for assistance from voluntary sources having been reduced. If you ask for a donation from people, they say the Government has taken the burden on its shoulders; it is harder to get assistance from the public since the Children’s Protection Act has come into force. We have reached the border line, below which it is dangerous to go. I know the difficulties with which the Minister has to contend financially, but I do ask him to consider a larger grant next year. I believe that spending the money now may save us a good deal of money later on.

I have no doubt that several hon. members would like to associate themselves with what has been said, but I think it would best help matters if I made my statement right away. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) need not have any fear as to my desire to have all the money possible available for this particular vote. I think, however, we can take some credit to ourselves as a nation for the progress made. In 1914-T5 we spent only £3,000 under this head, and in 1922-’23 £72,000. Even to-day we spend £120,000, after the reductions, and I think we can look back with some satisfaction on what has been done during the past eighteen to twenty years with regard to our child welfare activities. The main point I want to make, however, is that the provision made this year is better than it appears to be. While last year the main vote under this head was £124,000, treasury pressure proved so strong that during the course of the year the amount actually spent was only £110,000. I can assure the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) that we are going to do our best to spend the whole £124,000 this year, which will mean an increased expenditure this year over last year of about 12 per cent., which is a definite indication that we are on the upgrade again, as far as this particular service is concerned. As hon. members know, we have already restored the 5 per cent. reduction in the mothers’ pensions grants and the 10 per cent. reduction in the grants for committed children. We are also relaying the restrictions on the acceptance of committed orders for grant purposes. I hope hon. members will accept that as an earnest of better things to come.

I am afraid that the Minister of Child Welfare (Mr. Hofmeyr) easily satisfies the Minister of Public Health that he was wrong in the past and that his predecessor was right. The comparative statement is very interesting indeed. It is not a question of what we spent down in the ages, or whether we have spent the whole amount last year and we shall spend this amount this year. True, the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) quite rightly drew attention to the diminution of the amount since 1921. The point is, is this £124,000 sufficient to meet the requirements of child welfare in this country? I make bold to assert that it is by no means anywhere near an adequate amount to meet their requirements. I always believe in making comparisons, and I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that during the past week we have debated for hours on end whether we shall give the Chamber of Mines £14,000,000 or £10,000,000 of extra profits to which they are not entitled. Remember this tremendous sum. Now we are considering whether the starving kids shall continue to starve any longer, and whether £124,000 is enough to meet their requirements. I want to contrast the attitude of the Government towards feeding the children with almost their profligacy in their grants in aid towards higher education. I am not suggesting that we are paying too much towards higher education; in fact, we should provide it for all whose brain capacity is able to receive it. A sum of £313,000 in these estimates is the grant in aid to university training—that of a comparatively small number of people—and £124,000 or roughly one-third, for the feeding of our starving children. The comparative contrast is not complete even now. In our comparison between the year 1921 and to-day, and the diminution of the amount, you have to take into account that we have never known in South Africa such tremendous distress as there is amongst this very section of the people who may benefit, or may not, from this expenditure. Take my own little town of Benoni, where representations have been made to me that their funds are in such a depleted state that they cannot buy milk for children who so badly require it. I have had one case brought to my notice, a case which can be multiplied, where a poor unfortunate widow with seven children has to exist on less than £4 a month. Either our children are worth saving from the feeding point of view, quite apart from the moral or any other aspect of the question, or not. If they are worth saving in dozens and twenties, they are worth saving in the mass. We have not attained our object properly unless we feed every child that requires feeding. I am not content with the Minister’s endeavour to get the Minister of Finance to increase the amount next year. I want the Minister to promise the committee that he will insist on supplementary estimates being introduced to allow for the increased amount of money necessary to feed properly all our starving children in South Africa. Otherwise it is not a bit of good doing it. What does it matter if you save 9 per cent. and allow the other 91 per cent. to die. Do the job properly or do not do it at all. I would rather see them all starve than some starve and others be fed and in a bad fashion indeed. I want to urge the desirability of examining this position properly, so that our children are fed and the necessary money is found. Ask the Chamber of Mines to forego say another £200,000 in order that we may feed the children rather than overload the already well-filled pockets of members of the Chamber of Mines.

The interim reply of the Minister was so sympathetic that I do not wish to indulge in any pinpricks. This is a subject, however, of which I can speak with considerable personal experience. The reduction of maintenance grants last year carried with it the most painful results. I am perfectly certain that no reduction would have been made if the authorities could have foreseen some of these results. Women have turned to immoral lives to secure food for their children, and for the children themselves the results have been disastrous, many having become delinquents. They have been allowed to roam the streets and then been committed under the Hostels and Reformatories Act. That is a case of “penny wise and pound foolish,” for whilst the cost of a maintenance grant is £2 per month, the cost of keeping it in a reformatory is £7 10s. per month. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and hope and pray that supplementary estimates will be framed which will allow of an immediate increase in the amount of the grants. May I, on behalf of child welfare workers generally, express warm gratitude to the acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Duncan). South Africa leads among the nations who appreciate the value and the necessity of child welfare work and we owe this very largely to the unceasing labours of the Minister for many years.

I want to support what has been said by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). It seems to me it becomes abundantly clear that hon. members have to get up and emphasize again and again that there are poor people in this country. I get extraordinarily angry when I see the apathy shown by those in authority towards those really in need. I want to compare the estimate which has been provided in regard to child welfare for instance, and the estimate for agriculture. For the maintenance of children the amount is exactly the same as it was last year, but if I turn to number 87 I find that for stock diseases the Government has seen fit out of the kindness of its heart to increase the sum by £20,000. Our children who are living under slum conditions, needing assistance, have not a single penny more spent on them. When we come to grants for orphanages under Vote 39 we find an actual decrease of £100. Under salaries and wages and allowances for the veterinary department I see there has been an increase of £21,543. These things make me very angry indeed because there seems to be one law for cattle, one law for farmers and one for those in authority, but those who are in need get no consideration at all from this House or the Government. As long as this continues I shall get up and protest against the action of any Government, coalition or not, if it neglects the needs of the very poor. I shall ask the Minister of the Interior to come down, not merely to my constituency, but to any of the constituencies where you have an industrial or semi-industrial population, where you have instances of unfortunate families with six or seven, sometimes as many as twelve children, living in one or two rooms. I know of three families, twenty-one all told, living in two rooms in Observatory. I feel very strongly on this point. I feel there should be more consideration for our young South Africans who are to form the population for the future. Unless we are prepared to give the same consideration to the future generation of South Africa as we give to the cattle of South Africa, we are not going to get any further in the history of the world It seems to me that the Government, or previous Governments, have not summed up this matter in its true perspective. I am not blaming the Minister personally, but when I compare these figures, I get very angry indeed.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 40, “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, £2,917,090,

There are several points which we wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, especially as we have a new Minister now. Personally, I only wish to touch on a few points. Other hon. members will probably bring other subjects to the notice of the Minister. In the first place, I wish to refer to postal rates. From a business point of view the present position is very undesirable. In the large towns where everybody would like to see the penny rate returned, young men are at the moment employed to deliver letters. I next wish to bring the question of farm telephones to the Minister’s notice. The department is, at the moment, suffering great losses owing to the fact that subscribers are giving up their telephones because they cannot afford the rates. I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake as his predecessor, to place everybody at the same rate. We must attempt to extend farm telephones on the basis of farm service. That is to say, that the Minister must get his own engineers to make the surveys, and to supply the material, but that the farmer must erect the line with farm labour. He will then find that he can erect farm telephones at a price which people can afford. There is another point which I wish to put before him, and that is that he should not allow the postmasters to be used by the Department of Labour as registration officials for unemployed. Let the Department of Labour do that itself, because at the moment the unemployed come day and night to ask whether there is work for them, which takes up a great deal of the time of the postmaster. I feel that this is extra work which the postmaster and his staff are doing, while we can use them better for the work for which they are intended.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the financial success of his department, but on second thoughts I think I had better reserve these congratulations in view of the avaricious tendencies of the Treasury. I shall congratulate the Minister if he can prevent the Treasury from putting this money to revenue and if he can reduce to the public the cost of the services which his department is rendering. If he can manage to do that he will deserve the congratulations of the country. I wish to refer again to this question of the retrenchment of over 200 postal officials and I suggest that there is no necessity for this retrenchment. If there was any need for retrenchment to take place, it should have been done gradually and in a way to create the least possible hardship. I have a telegram to-day from the Posts and Telegraph Association executive in Johannesburg as follows—

I had one case brought before me of a very efficient officer who had 14 years’ service in the Post and Telegraph Department. He was fully bilingual and he was retired on a pension of £4 10s. That man had a mother and two sisters to keep. In those circumstances the position has become cruel. Apparently somebody has had a brainwave that clerical men should be retired in order to get less qualified men to undertake the duties of postal assistants. It is easy to undertake retrenchment in that way, but it does not make for efficiency in the department. You get men put into positions, of fully qualified men when those men have never had any experience of anything but sorting work. The new men will certainly never be thoroughly qualified. This is the sort of economy we hear about. We have had this reorganization in the post office for several years. One year we have men retrenched and next year they are brought back. Recently it was decided that we could do without the services of the postmasters in a number of towns. Those postmasters went off and their duties had to be undertaken by surveyors. Now a surveyor cannot possibly undertake the duties of a postmaster. That was very soon found out and the old position was reverted to. The men came back, but they came back under the guise of local controllers. To suggest those designations is merely mystifying the public. The plain, straightforward way should have been to admit the error and the postmasters should have been reinstated. We had a case a few years ago when it was decided that large amounts had to be saved on the engineering staff, and 18 assistant engineers were going to be put off. Of course, a saving of that nature could not be made without sacrificing the efficiency of the department, and it did not take place. It seems to me with all these changes that take place every year, that it is a sort of game of snakes and ladders that is being played in the post office, only the snakes seem to predominate. I am quite sure that the reorganization that is contemplated for this year will be found unworkable again, and that the old positions will be restored. I want the Minister to enquire into matters and see if the hardships which have been imposed cannot be put right and if the young and efficient men cannot be taken back into the service. Now there is another point. The Minister informed the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that all the friction in the department had been removed. I want to tell the Minister that there is more friction in the department to-day than there has ever been in the history of the department, and it goes right to the very top. That friction is caused partly by the public service commission, which goes behind the heads of the Department of Posts and encourages heads to go behind senior officers and that sort of thing is creating a lot of bad feeling. The next point I want to make is in connection with the wireless subsidy that is paid. This subsidy is made by means of a reduction on the terminal rates. A licence has now been issued to the wireless company under the regulations of the Radio Act, but everyone who has made a study of the position will know that the Radio Act was never intended to apply to international communications. The Act for international communications is Act 11 of 1923 and under that Act a temporary licence was issued to that company and I would ask anyone who reads that Act and who reads the conditions in regard to the inland rates to say whether it is possible to charge the rate of 1d. per word—I challenge anybody to say that that rate can possibly be legally applied. The position is that many of these messages which come from overseas contain anything from three to six words. They cannot pay. We find that it costs 3d. to pay for the delivery of a telegram in Johannesburg alone. A wireless message from overseas may contain only four words, which means that the Union Telegraph Department gets only 4d. for wiring the message inland and delivering it. How can that possibly pay the costs of the Union’s operating expenses? The position is that the local public are being taxed to finance a company, seven-eighths of the capital of which is held overseas. The British post office takes as its terminal charge the ordinary English tariff. That obviously is the only fair way. The Minister has stated that the terminal rates paid by the wireless company pay the department for the work it does. If that is so, the public in South Africa are being grossly overcharged by the Union Telegraph Department. Act No. 11 of 1923 states that wireless telephony is specially reserved to the Government. I presume that the present arrangement is a “tentative” one that will endure indefinitely. A wireless station suitable for all our purposes could be established at Johannesburg, much to the advantage of the public and the department, and the former would not then be penalized by having to pay trunk rates from Durban or Johannesburg to Cape Town. If the Minister realized what an advantage that would be, he would at once take in hand the construction of such a station. There is another point I wish to refer to; the reduction in status of post office employees, particularly in Natal, on account of their lack of knowledge of the second official language. Many of these officials are pre-Union men, and they claim that they should not be forced to pass this language test. Some of them, however, have made the effort, and have failed. They complain that other men, junior to them, have been brought into Natal from other provinces, and put over their heads, although these men were equally ignorant of the second official language. Is the Minister going to carry out the promise made by General Smuts in the Durban Town Hall that this position would be alleviated? With regard to the grading of telephone and telegraph electricians, these men have been put in the general division, which adversely affects them as regards leave and so on. They are very definitely of a superior class they are much superior, educationally and technically, to post office and telegraph assistants who receive special grading. Many of these electricians are certificated. The Minister should consider their position, and those with ten years’ service should be placed in the lower technical division. I also wish to call attention to the case of an assistant engineer who has recently been degraded. He was promoted under a specific scheme from plant inspector to assistant engineer. I was a member of a committee, established by the public service commission some years ago, which determined the question of the re-grading of the engineering branch. The committee was presided over by a public service officer, and one of the members of the committee is now a public service commissioner, so the commission should know all about it. We had a grade of plant inspectors and assistant engineers. That was irregular, as compared with other departments, and it was decided that the two branches should be merged. The plant inspectors did not have the technical knowledge that was specified, but the official to whom I refer was recommended for promotion. That recommendation was accepted by the head of the department, and agreed to by the public service commission. After spending three or four years in this capacity, and personally supervising expenditure to the amount of £70,000, he was reported to be unfitted educationally for the job, although his educational limitations were well-known to the authorities before he received the appointment, and so he was degraded. I think this is disgraceful, and his case should be reviewed. He has no information as to what the specific objection to him is; he is spoken of very highly by the engineers, and is regarded as one of the finest construction men we have. Nevertheless, he has been thrown aside and can get no redress. There is another case of a man I know very well. A few years ago he was promoted to the position of postmaster of Aliwal North. He is most highly qualified, an excellent operator, and thoroughly acquainted with his work. The only objection made to him is that he is not sufficiently qualified in Afrikaans. All the same he does speak Afrikaans, and evidently he perfectly satisfied the public of Aliwal North, for petitions for his retention there were sent to the department from the local chamber of commerce, farmers’ association, and publicity association. If these people were so very satisfied with him, there could not have been very much wrong with his linguistic attainments. Evidently, his only fault was that he had pressed a little too far for promotion, juniors having been promoted over his head; advantage was taken of a reduction of the staff to throw him out of the service some years before his proper time. The whole position is unsatisfactory, and I cannot fully explain the hardships that these men have been called upon to endure. Their cases should be reviewed, and an endeavour should be made to put the matter right. I hope the Minister, as soon as he gets a little leisure, will see to it that these things do not happen again in the future.

I wanted to refer to the retrenchment of 209 men from the Postal and Telegraph Department under the Public Services Vote because in a report on the subject the commission state that this is one of the things that has been done to effect economy. What I particularly wish to know is the method of selection adopted in the elimination of these men, because the method seems mysterious. Those chiefly concerned apparently know very little indeed about it. In the great bulk of the 209 cases there is no question of disciplinary action, or anything of that sort. There is no question of any inefficiency; on the contrary, the majority of these men were highly efficient and highly trained operators. All of a sudden, without any knowledge that anything of the sort might happen, they received notice of the termination of their services. I suggest that it is utterly impossible to hope for any proper efficiency, or any real morale in the service, if that sort of thing can happen, because men have no security at all if after long years of faithful service their services can be terminated at a month’s notice. In some cases these men had served fifteen years. How can such action as this possibly make for that esprit de corps which is absolutely essential to efficiency. I have a letter from a man who served fifteen years in the department, and who is an expert telegraphist. He is one of those who; without any previous warning was thrown out at a month’s notice, and he received the princely pension of £2 11s. 7d. per month. He is a married man with two children. What he writes to me is this—

This is a matter upon which I desire information. I wished to raise this question on the public service vote, because it appears to me that there must be something radically wrong with a system under which this sort of thing can happen. I suggest that something should be done for these men who were so cavalierly treated. If it is not possible to reinstate them in their old grade, surely it must be possible to find work for them somehow, because, as a result of this retrenchment things have been cut to the bone, and other men have had to be taken on since to fill up the gaps. These men had no blemishes at all in their record of service and yet were summarily dismissed and thrown on to the street. I submit that these 209 cases merit the very serious consideration of the Minister.

I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to the necessity for the extension of telephone lines in the northwestern parts. From time to time I have pleaded the rights of those parts for extension of the telephone lines, and promises were made by the Minister’s predecessor that he would see to it that those parts would be helped. Seeing that other parts already enjoyed those privileges, it is no more that right that they should be done. The Postmaster-General, too, has promised me that he will give his special attention to the needs of those parts, but I am sorry to say that so far those promises have not been fulfilled. Very little has been done, and yet I consider that those far-flung districts where the people live such long distances away from each other, have a right to telephone connection. To prove how those people are being treated I wish to give one instance in respect of which pleas have been put up to the Minister for several years, even by my predecessor who represented certain parts which are now represented by me. It is a distance of only 24 miles, but it is a line which the people in those areas have specially asked for. It is a line from Abraham’s Dam to Bakkerskop in district of Hay. It is only a small distance, and we have often been promised that those telephone lines would be erected, but so far that promise has not yet been fulfilled. I hope that the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will give his special attention to the matter because, as I have said, it is a distance of only 24 miles, but it is of great importance to the people in that area. Another reason why that line is necessary is that there is a big school and hostel to which people send their children. It often happens that farmers have to get into touch with their children, or a child gets ill, and then it becomes necessary to drive miles and miles to acquaint the parents. I consider that those people are entitled to enjoy the privileges of telephonic communication, just the same as people in other parts of the country. Then there is another connection which is urgently wanted. That is a line of about seven miles from Koegas to Nieuwe Rust. That line, too, has been asked for for quite a number of years by means of petition and otherwise. I would like to see, therefore, that the Minister shall give his special attention to that case. Then there is another question in respect of which I hope that the Minister will meet the farmers. It is in connection with the rates for farmers’ telephones. The rate is very high at the moment. It is also in the interest of the department itself that the tariff should be reduced. The fees, too, are very high in certain instances. I hope that the Minister will see to it, if he wants to help people, that the rates shall be reduced. We have to look at the matter from the point of view of the development of the country, and for that reason we should not so much insist on a line paying or not. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter, as well as to the two cases which I have mentioned. Then there is the question of pupils in the post offices in the smaller dorps. When applications are made we find that the Postmaster-General refuses to appoint pupils in those villages. It will not cost the State a great deal to appoint the young men who have just left school in the post offices in the dorps. It will give them an opportunity of being trained, and they are also required, in those post offices. In my constituency there are a large number of post offices where only one person is employed. In the one case it is a man, and in another case, possibly a woman. The public suffer in consequence. If the man or the woman gets a telegram which is important, he or she finds it impossible sometimes to close the post office in order to go and deliver the telegram. I hope that the department will, in future, follow a different policy and will see to it that the public are not treated in that manner in the small villages. As those places are far away from the large towns such as Cape Town and Johannesburg, it appears as if the department does not give that attention to those people which should be given to them. I hope, therefore, that the department will, in future, treat the public in those small villages better than it has done in the past.

I hope the Minister was not unduly alarmed when the House rose en masse just now. I saw that once before, when the late Sir Jacobus Graaff was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I think it necessary to raise only one matter on this vote, in view of the association’s recognition by the Government and the fact that most difficulties are now dealt with in consultation and by co-operation, although at one time, before that, I found it necessary to raise a good many. I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Col. McArthur), and the cases he referred to are very hard indeed. The Postmaster-General was not in South Africa at the time, and the present Minister had nothing to do with it. When this bolt came from the blue—the retrenchment of these men—there was very great alarm among them. I sent a telegram to the Minister in December to the effect that I was informed many men were willing to retire voluntarily, and I asked the Minister to withdraw this compulsory retirement. There was a particularly hard case of a man getting a pension of less than £3 a month. I asked the Minister if he could not find positions in the service for those displaced. I got the usual telegram that the matter was receiving attention, and unfortunately later on I was informed that nothing could be done and that everybody’s case had been considered. I received letters from all over the Cape Province, from Port Elizabeth, Prieska, Parow and various other places. The cases they put before me struck me as being extremely hard. What I complain of is that this policy was announced in September, 1931, and then the assurance was given in an official memorandum that this policy did not mean a single one of the established assistants in sorting offices or any other sections of i the department would be discharged from the service, but it would come about gradually and would have no detrimental effect upon the staff at all. This was the solemn assurance given, and when this bolt from the blue came the men were flabbergasted. That was the promise made, and the fulfilment was that 209 men had to go. The reasons given by the acting Postmaster-General were that the chief objects were improvements in organization and im proved pay for postmen in the larger centres. To bring about that result, you were dismissing 209 trained men. When I look up the scales on which they begin, it looks like an Irishman’s rise. They get more in the end, but the Government gets more in the beginning. To say you are going to scrap 209 of your best trained men to give positions to young men, is something I fail to understand, ahd tnis caused a great deal of ill-feeling. One man, who was summarily discharged, had a family of eight, six of whom were at school. There are 52 Union officers among these men who will have nothing done for them in the way of a substantial pension. They are all inadequately placed, and do not know what to do. The association for whom I am speaking asked for a reconsideration of their cases and for an ex gratia payment. On the 18th May, the acting Postmaster-General wrote that the best way to deal with the matter was for the officers to petition Parliament in the ordinary way; but they will not be able to do that until next year, and here they are stranded and destitute. The reason given for their discharge is absolutely ludicrous. If the Minister possibly could, T hope he will consider the plea of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo), who has a good inside knowledge of postal matters. I urge him to see whether it is not possible to re-employ and re-absorb these men who have been discharged. It is a calamity that this ever took place and I hope it is not too late for the Government to do something to temper the wind to these shorn lambs.

One finds it very difficult to follow the strange inconsistency of the Government. Here you have one department—the Department of Labour—rambling round the country, interviewing private employers, urging upon them the desirability of employing men and women in order to relieve the unemployment position in South Africa. At the same time, you find the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs deliberately increasing the number of unemployed, setting a pernicious example to these very private employers by discharging men and women from a great department of State. I know of no more wanton act than that perpetrated by the post office in the introduction of automatic telephones. It will be argued as was often argued, that this does not mean the actual throwing of the girls on to the streets, but it closes up an avenue of employment without any corresponding advantage to the public. If there is any corresponding advantage. I would like to hear it. Does it lie in more rapid communication by the telephoner with the telephone, because I find it very difficult to believe that. You will find that an infinitely longer time is taken up in dialing the blessed thing. Oh, yes, I tested it out. My hon. friend is speaking from experience at Port Elizabeth where you had an out-of-date manual machine and any change was welcome. In a test at Cape Town, conducted without the operators’ knowledge at all, the average time for direct service was three seconds. Supposing it to be 10, 15 or 20 seconds, is that a sufficient advantage as compared with the fact of hundreds of girls being deprived of the opportunity of earning a living? Does it lie in cheaper telephones? Nowhere in the world where they have been introduced have they got them cheaper, and South Africa is no exception to the rule. Resulting, T suppose, from the general autocracy of the Government we have had a revised scale of payments. I do not know whether it is operating at Cape Town, but it certainly is in other parts of the country. By this, you pay so much down for installation, and then you have the message rate of three half-pence. It is no cheaper; in point of fact it is dearer. Take my own case. The new rate has been imposed upon me. Before, I was paying £13 5s. for my private telephone. I was paying an excess amount because I happened to be a mile or two outside the arbitrary radius. No extra maintenance cost, no extra operating cost. I am now paying £3 12s. 6d. I am not going to pay it after the end of this month. That only shows you what a penny wise and pound foolish game it is, because lots of people will abandon their telephones and others who might be expected to take telephones will not do so. Can you understand my astonishment when, desiring to be placed on a farmers’ line—because that was all I required I found that autocratically without reference to the public at all, the department have raised the minimum rate for farmers’ lines. In my district the rate was £4 to each person. When I applied to the department I was calmly informed that the minimum rate had been raised to £7. All these things, to my mind, show ineptitudes in control, and a complete lack of appreciation of the requirements of the country from the telephonic point of view. Apart from the overloading of an already overloaded employment market, is the question of sweated labour. My friend instanced the degradation of certain classes of postmen down in some cases to £6. That is rampant through the department, not that particular rate, but the principle upon which that rate has been founded, namely, to economize, in other words “sweat your servants, get them as cheaply as you possibly can, regardless of what sort of home life these poor unfortunates have to endure”. In addition to that is this shortage of personnel. I am informed that postmen have to run about at midnight at Rondebosch, where this dastardly outrage occurred recently. They collect from the pillar boxes, they are in charge of valuable mail matter, if the man has a puncture he has to mend it himself, he has no help or support, and if he is attacked, he has no help or support. This does not redound to the credit of a huge department of State like the post office. I know the Minister himself is not responsible for it, but I am looking to him with his well-known sympathy for humanity to stop this terrible rake’s progress and start a reactionary movement upwards I hope my hon. friend will see that he is properly staffed and that he will employ all these 209 men for whose discharge there is no justification, and will see that his personnel is sufficient for effi cient work, and will pay these servants so as to hold the department and himself as ar example to the private employers, who are being urged to employ our unemployed. I urge that upon the Minister, and I hope my appeal will not fall upon deaf ears.

In the first place, I want to give my support to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) said in connection with the wages of the staff. Then there is one point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, namely, the question of Afrikaans at the Cape Town broadcasting station. I want to say that I represent a large number of Afrikaans-speaking voters, and requests have repeatedly been made to me to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. It is stated that too many Afrikaans records, which are not even of a high standard, are broadcast, while Afrikaans speeches are rarely broadcast. I am convinced that there is no lack of interesting Afrikaans-speaking people who would be willing to broadcast. For instance, I can say that there are many people in the House of Assembly who would be willing to broadcast, and it would be interesting to the children to listen to what members of Parliament have to say over the wireless. As we are getting a new station, I hope that we shall have a better balanced programme. We are proud of our Cape Town station, and we want the best of everything to be broadcast. For that reason I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the matter, and will do his best to improve the present system.

I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister two points. There is one item of £104,000 for “unestablished postmasters” and sub-postmasters on the vote. This point has been raised very often in the House and outside as well. Most of these people are reaching the age limit now, and they very soon have to go on pension. It is very hard for them to find themselves as postmasters doing work of responsibility but when they come to a pensionable age, they have to go out and they have nothing left to live on. This is a decided hardship, and I think one should give careful consideration to this idea of having people on your unestablished list. If people after having served the State for a number of years leave the service, when they reach the age limit, and when they are not paid a pension, it means that we are creating a class which is entirely dependent on the State. They cannot find any work at that age, and something will certainly have to be done to meet them. Then there is another point which I want to raise, in connection with the speech made by the Minister of Railways, when he was talking about “pre-Union officials”. When we are talking about pre-Union officials we are dealing with a class which is rapidly dying out. Most of these men now are reaching the stage when they only have three or four years to go before they leave the service. Most of these men owing to the conditions under which they have had to labour have found promotion to be very slow. Now that we have the spirit of coalition about, I want to make an appeal to the Minister, and I want to bring to the notice of the House what the Minister of Railways said. He said—

Everyone of us knows perfectly that bilingualism is an established fact. But everyone in the country must realize that to learn a new language generally takes a generation, but when the second generation comes along, I am per fectly certain that in all our public bodies, in all our social and communal life, we shall find that bilingualism will be an established fact. At the same time it is a hardship on these preUnion servants, on those men who will now be leaving the service, who will be finishing their life’s work, that, as a result of the conditions of their service, they will not be able to draw such pensions as will enable them to do what they would like to do for their children and their families. Most of these men are in a position to-day that they have to make provision for their children. If they could be given some promotion now in the last few years of their service, it would enable them to get better pensions, and they would be in a better position to look after their families, and I hope if there are any men in the service who have fulfilled the language requirements of the de partment, that their position will be carefully considered when promotion is due to them. We must look after these men and treat them sym pathetically. I know the Minister and the Government are sympathetic and while the coalition spirit is prevalent, the question should be tackled and the men looked after in the proper spirit.

Hon. members have mentioned various matters, but the one I think I ought to deal with first is the question of the retrenchment of 209 officials by the Public Service Commission. There are over 9,000 employees in the department; the commission instituted an enquiry and 209 officials were ordered to be retrenched. These people have my sympathy. I have personally enquired into many cases, and the information given to the House by hon. members who have spoken, corroborate my own investigations; men almost in the prime of life have been retired for reasons given in the Public Service Commission’s report. The question of what is to be done will have to be dealt with hereafter, and individuals should petition Parliament for relief. I recognize the hardships that have been inflicted on these people, but only 209 have been retrenched out of a total of 9.000. I do not think one can altogether object to the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. I deeply regret that I cannot say that penny postage will be restored. With regard to farm telephones, we have many thousands of miles of these telephones and if the hon. membet for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) will explain exactly what his trouble is I will go into it. Owing to the depression, the farm telephone system has suffered considerably. Many people who entered into contracts for the use of these telephones allowed their contracts to lapse. The charges were reduced to £7 per annum but even then some farmers declared that the charge was too high. The postal service is a business proposition, but we realize the importance of giving outlying districts communication with the rest of the world. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Col. McArthur) dealt with the wireless subsidy. I am not in a position to reply to the points he raised, but I will certainly go into it and get the information.

It is action, not information, that we want.

I shall take what action may be necessary in that regard. I have got into touch with many members of the department to find out what the real position is. I intend to continue my investigations so as to be in a position to deal with grievances that exist. Cases have been referred to where it is alleged that officials have suffered hardships in connection with bilingual requirements. Of course, it must be recognized that bilingualism is required, but the question raised in connection with the cases referred to is a matter that I am personally investigating.

I do not think the Minister has justified the increase in telephone charges. He has given the stock answer that Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs have given, with the possible exception of myself, when I was in office; but there has been a long line of Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs who have used almost those identical words uttered by the Minister: “You must never forget that the post office is a business concern.” I want you to justify the rise in the price of telephones. All business concerns give their customers, as far as they possibly can, the advantage of improvements or cheapness. They do not increase their charges while they are getting a profit; at least, they don’t where there is competition. If there is any department under the Minister that returns a handsome profit on the old rates, it is the telephones. Your telephones pay your deficits made on the telegraphs, and I may say, incidentally, they go a long way to swelling that large amount of profit which accrues to the general revenue, and which my hon. friend insists should go to cheapen services to the public. The telephones pay more handsomely than any other part of the Minister’s department. There is no justification for the increase in rates, rather is there a justification for a decrease, and it would be well for the Minister to enquire whether it is not desirable to decrease the charges for telephones rather than increase them.

I did not purposely omit replying to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), and I will do so now. I may tell him that since the tariff has been increased, in Johannesburg 5,000 additional subscribers have come on to the list.

It is very nice to have the Minister’s sympathy with regard to these 209 cases, but we expected that. The Minister says that 209 are not many to be put off out of 9,000 odd, but it would have been better, if he had picked out 209 volunteers, instead of picking out efficient men and pushing them off in the way he did. I am afraid the Minister’s argument is not a very good one, although I appreciate his sympathy. He says the Public Service Commission has sent these men off for the reasons stated. Unfortunately, there are no reasons stated. We want to know how they justify their action. Investigation has shown that they have taken away men who were very badly needed, and substituted poorly paid men. Within a week of this retrenchment the Minister’s department was squealing for help for almost every town in the Union. We want to know by whom these retrenchments were recommended, and for what purpose. The information we have is that the whole thing was done to save money by substituting an inferior type of labour for these efficient men.

I am not in a position to give further information than that contained in the commission’s report. This was done by the last Government, and according to the reports many good men were subject to retrenchment. With regard to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and what he said about broadcasting in Afrikaans, I have already answered that question, when I replied to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). New arrangements are being made in regard to broadcasting, and it is hoped there will be a big improvement.

I do not think the Minister has dealt with the point why these men were retired. The paragraphs he read did not refer to the 209 officials. The 209 officials are referred to in paragraph 7 (c) and no single reason was given why these men were retired.

I think, in connection with that matter, every hon. member has had some experience that in every large centre men were affected. I can definitely say that some of those affected deserved what they got. In the case of one I interested myself in, he was re-instated.

You do not understand anything at all about it.

What I do understand is that in every big business or service there is a spring cleaning from time to time. What a man must not do is to use information they got inside—

I did not. The position has not been explained at all.

The hon. member is trying to worm out of the Minister a statement, the information he is already in possession of. From the source the hon. member got the information that they were scraping round for men he can also get the information why they replaced these men. I think cricket should at least be played. Under the circumstances, the hon. member can get the information. No information is withheld if we can use it judiciously. If that information is of a nature that it should be treated as confidential we do not have it withheld from us.

I do not think the hon. member understands the position. My point is simply that the Public Service Commission has made no explanation at all. One other point is this, in connection with the assistant engineer who has been degraded. I am particularly interested because that man was promoted in special circumstances when, to my own knowledge, and that of the Public Service Commission, he had not the qualifications attached to the office. To turn upon him now and say he has not got the qualifications is a hardship and definitely going back on the recommendations agreed upon.

If the hon. member will give me particulars of the case, I will deal with it personally, I cannot do any more.

I want to know whether the department would be prepared to vary its policy in regard to juniors. No juniors are taken on in the country districts. | It simply means that if a junior is taken on in a large centre, he cannot afford to accept the position. I think it is unfair not to give the juniors in country districts the same facilities as the children in big centres are allowed. Therefore, I sincerely trust that the postal department will alter its policy in that respect.

The only places where learners can be taken on are the big centres where they can be taught. It is useless to talk about training boys in the local post office, where a boy would end his days in a blind alley occupation. It is only in the big centres that they can get that training, and the question of getting boys from the country has to be gone into.

Are you prepared to i give a subsidy or an allowance to give them the same facilities?

I cannot say what will be done. I understood the position before, and it has my sympathy.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 41, “Public Works,” £828,638,

It has been intimated that there will be a considerable amount of public works undertaken. Contracts were given out in the past by the department in certain districts, and the contractor would take all his skilled men from his own area. I think it necessary that every Government contract should contain the clause that the contractor shall be obliged to take as many skilled men as possible from the area where the work is being executed, instead of bringing in men from outside.

I want to support the request of the last speaker. The Minister, during the recess, might prepare some comprehensive programme of public works. There is a good deal of unemployment in the building trade and buildings could be constructed very reasonable just now. While the justice vote was under consideration, I asked for information as to when the new magistrate’s courts would be constructed at Pretoria. A new building is urgently required there and if possible I would like that to be included in the new programme.

I should like the Minister to make a full statement in regard to the public works which the Government proposes to undertake in the interests of unemployment. The hour is late but we are quite prepared to remain later, especially as the 11 o’clock rule has been suspended. There is a duty on every section of the community to do all it can in connection with unemployment. There is a duty on the Government, on the divisional councils, on the provincial councils and on the municipalities. The Public Works Department especially can do a great deal. The report of the committee on unemployment which was published last year went very fully into the question of what the department could do. It is somewhat of a vexed question whether the department can push forward works which in the ordinary course of events would not be given effect to this year. I want to learn from the Minister what his department intends doing. I heard recently that during the course of last year a number of technical experts in connection with the building trade had been imported from Australia to Durban. If that is so. I should like to know what the Government intends doing in future in regard to this menace to our local market. Is the Minister able to give us any idea as to when the works at Groote Schuur will be put into operation, and what numbers of Europeans and non-Europeans will be employed and whether any restrictions have been put in the contract with regard to the importation of native labour, and whether any carpenters have been imported from up-country for this work? The Minister "knows that a large number of unemployed have been waiting for the start of this work at Groote Schuur. One has heard rather alarming rumours about the manner in which the contractors propose setting about the work. Those rumours may be groundless but we should like to have a statement from the Minister. Then I want to know what steps the Minister intends to take in regard to pushing forward schemes of construction, not merely in the Cape Peninsula, but in the country as well. We should like to have some comprehensive idea as to the steps the department is taking. I want to ask the Minister if he will give consideration to the request of some of the cleaners in some of the local departments for the special grant of boots and shoes. There are Europeans doing work as cleaners in some of the departments and they are in need of assistance of that sort, and I hope the Minister will be able to do something in this matter. Then a large number of cleaners are engaged during the session of Parliament but owing to the great hurry of getting through the work of the session, those men, who in the ordinary course of events might have expected employment for six weeks or more, will be thrown out of employment again very shortly.

These men are employed by Parliament.

The Minister of Public Works has already made attempts to absorb men temporarily employed about the House, and I ask him to give his attention to the matter. It may be possible for him to absorb some, or all, of them in his department; despite the speed with which the work of Parliament is proceeding, I hope the matter will not be allowed to slip from his memory before he dashes back to the north.

I am sorry to speak at this late hour, but I wish to refer to a matter of great importance to my constituency, and one which is also of national importance. I wish to refer to the class of stone used in the construction of our public buildings. I hope the Minister will read a very interesting report on “The Building Stones of South Africa,” by Mr. Wybergh, of the geological division of the Department of Mines and Industries.

Not Marble Hall?

This report states—

When the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was Minister of Public Works, he visited my constituency, and examined our local stone, and it was with his kind assistance that Ladybrand stone was included in the specifications for public buildings. Let me take a concrete case to lend force to my argument. I will take the recent contract for the new post office at Johannesburg. The Lewis Construction Company tendered to erect the new post office at Johannesburg for £181,990, the same price being quoted whether the stone was Flatpan stone or Ladybrand stone. In the report which I have already mentioned, an exhaustive examination was made of the relative durability of the two classes of stone. The expert reports that he examined many samples of Flatpan stone used in the Union buildings and other buildings, and found it in many cases most unsatisfactory. Let me quote from the report, page 43—

I quote again—

I could quote large numbers of extracts to prove this. A very exhaustive enquiry has been made into the Ladybrand stone, and the report is extremely favourable. The general conclusion is—

Mention is made of stone in a dwelling house at Ladybrand, a house built in 1875, and it is still in excellent condition. The stone has also been most satisfactory and durable in the Dutch Reformed Church at Ladybrand built in 1889, the public school built in 1905, and in the Durban Technical School. In the classification in the expert’s report, Flatpan stone is classed IV—V, and Ladybrand stone II— III. In the tender I have referred to the department can get Ladybrand stone at the same price as the other. I plead with the Minister in this particular case of the Johannesburg post office, to use this good Ladybrand stone instead of the bad stone. It may be thought that I am merely trying to work the parish pump, but that is not the whole case. Of course, I am pleading for my constituency and for the unemployed there, as the stone industry in Ladybrand is a big one; but it is a matter of national importance to have good stone in our buildings, that we should use stone that will wear well, so that these buildings may be constructed not only for our life time but for posterity. I could show that reports have been received from all parts of the country showing what excellent stone Ladybrand stone is. I think this report should be sufficient for the Minister, and I hope he will take this into very serious consideration and help us with this Johannesburg post office contract. If it is found impossible to use Ladybrand stone exclusively, I would urge the Minister to see that a good proportion shall be used. I am relying on the good services of the Minister and his department in this matter.

I hope the hour is not going to deter the Minister from replying. I am prepared to go on for three hours, if necessary, and if the Government is prepared to make Parliament a farce, we are also prepared to do so. May I remind the Minister that the Prussian Minister of Commerce in 1904 issued a circular from which I will quote an extract.

The question of public works is now under consideration.

This is a circular, to which I am referring, which was issued by the Prussian Minister. It is a question of public works, which is germane to this debate. I ask the Minister what his policy is regarding public works.

I was ready to reply.

Tn that case, I will withdraw, and allow the Minister to do so.

With regard to what was said by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), there is a stipulation in the agreement that contractors have to pay certain rates of pay. As hon. members know, a big contract has been given in Johannesburg, and the rates of pay are prescribed, including those for white labour. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has evidently anticipated, and I refer him to the vote of £522,500 for public works, which is the programme the Government will undertake up to 31st March next, and other works are in course of preparation. When the estimates are prepared for next year, I hope the vote will be increased. The staff of the Public Works Department are fully employed preparing plans and specifications. I do not know whether the hon. member wants the details now. I am prepared to deal with it vote by vote and to give him full information. There are works in Pietermaritzburg, Pretoria and Johannesburg which are of urgent necessity.

Arc they going on with it?

I cannot give any undertaking that that will be done, but they are works of urgent necessity. The other point the hon. member referred to is the importation of artizans. I may say that we do not know of any artizans imported from Australia or elsewhere. As far as Groote Schuur is concerned, I presume the hon. member is referring to the hospital. The department has been supervising the work on behalf of the provincial administration. A Durban contractor has got the work and he will carry it out. I presume he will employ local people, but provided he pays the legal rates of pay it is in his own hands whom he will employ.

You mean to say you will not lay that down.

No, you can stipulate rates of pay, but you cannot dictate to him whom he is to employ.

You do it with unskilled labour to some extent.

Yes, to some extent. I will do what I possibly can in the matter raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart).

Vote put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Acting 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.