I have now had an opportunity of considering the arguments adduced by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) and the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), in connection with the point of order raised on Wednesday last as to whether in view of the provisions of Clause 8 of the National Education Council Bill and the provisions of Section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, it was competent for this House to consider and pass the National Education Council Bill, in the absence of a petition from the provincial councils of the Republic requesting such legislation.

Earlier during the present Session, the hon. member for Germiston (District) raised a similar point of order in connection with the Group Areas Amendment Bill and I then ruled that it was competent for this House to proceed with that legislation. Subsequently, the same point of order was also raised in the honourable the Senate, and Mr. President ruled that the point of order was not well founded.

Clause 8 of the National Education Council Bill provides that no proposed legislation relating to the education of White persons shall be introduced in the Senate or the House of Assembly or in a provincial council except after prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister or Administrator and after the Minister has obtained the views of the National Education Council thereon.

The hon. members for Germiston (District) and Durban (Musgrave) have both submitted that Parliament, in imposing this condition on provincial councils, is derogating from the powers which are at present enjoyed by provincial councils and that this is in conflict with the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 114 of the Constitution, which provides that Parliament shall not “abolish any provincial council or abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under Section 84, except by petition to Parliament by the provincial council concerned”

Attention was also directed to Section 59 of the Constitution, which provides that:

1. (1) Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic and shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic.
2. (2) No court of law shall be competent to inquire into or to pronounce upon the validity of any Act passed by Parliament other than an Act which repeals or amends or purports to repeal or amend the provisions of Section 108 or 118,

but both the hon. members for Germiston (District) and Durban (Musgrave) contended that as long as Section 114 (b), to which I have already referred, remained on the Statute Book, it was the bounden duty of Parliament to act in accordance with that section. They further contended that acting in this manner would not be a derogation from the sovereignty of Parliament.

I want to point out, however, that I consider the solution to the point at issue to be found in Section 84 of the Constitution, which provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, a provincial council may make ordinances in relation to inter alia “education, other than higher education and Bantu education, until Parliament otherwise provides”. This section clearly does not confer the exclusive right upon provincial councils to pass ordinances in regard to educational matters—a fact which was admitted by the hon. member for Germiston (District). Nor does it in my view debar Parliament, in the exercise of its sovereign legislative powers, from passing legislation on such matters if it deems it expedient in the public interest to do so. In the light of this specific provision in the Constitution and the views I have expressed, it is unnecessary for me to decide whether Clause 8 of the Bill now before the House does in fact abridge the powers of provincial councils.

For these reasons I consider that it is competent for this House to proceed with the National Education Council Bill and I rule accordingly.

On Wednesday I referred to this Bill as being an happy Bill, and some hon. members on the other side took exception to that phrase. I do not know why, because this Bill is the inevitable consequence of our leaving the Commonwealth, and therefore the only people who could feel happy about the necessity for introducing a Bill of this kind could be those people who wanted to leave the Common wealth. And who wanted to leave the Common wealth? The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he did not; the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly said that he did not. Only last week in addressing a distinguished gathering of diplomats he was reported as having again said, quite clearly, that South Africa was forced out of the Commonwealth. He is reported to have said—

In this statement which the hon. the Minister made on Wednesday he used language which I think bears that out. He said that this Bill represented part of the task of reconstructing our future relations with the United Kingdom. He said that his Government and he had sought to preserve as much of our past relations unchanged as the constitutional position would permit. One may observe, Sir, that it takes a Bill like this to make people realize and to bring home to them how closely linked those relations were and how little it is possible to save in the reconstruction work which the Minister is undertaking. This is not the relevant occasion to try to enumerate just what both sides have lost as the result of these developments, but the list is already a formidable one and it is still growing, and some day a full statement will have to be made. The Minister went on to say that it was his desire …

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) would keep quiet, Sir. I can never hear what he says. One just gets up to make a speech and then he makes an unintelligible remark and wobbles like an overripe jelly, from which one concludes that he thinks he has made a witty remark. I am trying to make a serious statement on behalf of this side of the House on a very important question. The hon. the Minister said that it was his desire—and when I say “his”, of course, I speak of his Government—to maintain the traditional bonds of friendship between this country and the United Kingdom, ties of friendship which have been cemented by Commonwealth membership and which have been torn out and removed. They say that adversity makes strange bed-fellows, but I think it is quite clear that on this occasion the Minister, like myself, feels that this is an unhappy Bill to have to introduce, and on that point I think we are in agreement. Sir, the basic fact that we have to consider is this, that henceforth South African citizens are aliens in the eyes of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth, and that British and Commonwealth citizens are aliens in the eyes of the Republic. But I think—again I think the Minister will agree with me—that while that is a basic fact which has to be grasped by everybody, I think it is true to say that neither side is really anxious to regard each other as aliens or strangers in the strict sense of the word. I am not trying, Sir, to initiate a wide and long debate on this question. All I want to do is to make clear the attitude of this side of the House. Our attitude is quite simple. While we condemn and deplore as strongly as ever the events which have led to our leaving the Commonwealth, we are faced with the stark fact, the ineluctable fact that owing to the policies and the actions of the Government, the ties of kinship which have made us welcome and which have ensured us rights and privileges in so many parts of the world, have been broken, and that legally and constitutionally we are aliens where we used to be kinsmen and that our former Commonwealth partners will in future come to our shores as strangers and as foreigners. Faced with this fact, it is obvious that legislation is necessary. In that sense there is no new principles involved in this Bill. One might refer to it, really, as containing one long series of consequential amendments resulting from the fact that our membership of the Commonwealth has been so rudely terminated. Our task to-day is to see how the Government is setting about the task of reconstruction, as the Minister called it. It is the task of saving, one might say, something from the wreck, because if we are going to reconstruct, it means that we shall have to rebuild something which has been torn down.

A large part of this Bill is concerned with the removal of all verbal and legal signs of Commonwealth membership, and of our relationship with Britain. Another large section of the Bill deals with the Merchant Shipping Act and the substitution of the phrases “treaty countries” and “treaty ships” for “Commonwealth countries” and “Commonwealth ships”. At the moment there are no treaty countries—in other words, this Commonwealth Shipping Act was an essential part of the whole shipping world as far as we were concerned …

It is not a Commonwealth Shipping Act but a Merchant Shipping Act.

I do not think the hon. Minister of Transport could have listened to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs who made it quite clear that our Merchant Shipping Act was based on the Commonwealth Shipping Agreement of 1931.

Part of it.

But the most important part of it. Now that the Commonwealth side of it has been removed, that part of the Act becomes a dead letter, or at least until such time as there are treaty countries and treaty ships to take the place of Commonwealth countries and Commonwealth ships. This is an important question and one should, therefore, like to know what is being done about it. It is of importance to the future of our young and growing merchant service and also to the future of our young men who wish to adopt the sea as a career and who cannot all find that career at the present time in our own comparatively small service.

Mr. Speaker, knowing the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and knowing our history, I think he must be permitted to call this an “unhappy Bill”. I think it augurs well for South Africa that the hon. member could make the speech he has in fact made, and for that reason I only want to come back to a few of the points he has made.

The hon. member has said that this is “an unhappy Bill” because the people who wished to leave the Commonwealth are delighted by it. I think that it is necessary once again to put the matter in its correct perspective, by emphasizing that the policy of this Government and the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister last year in London was to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. That is generally accepted. For three days with the patience of Job he made every effort to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth on an honourable basis. The hon. member was therefore not doing right when he tried to create the impression that there is gratification amongst those who wanted South Africa out of the Commonwealth. As matters are to-day, it is a good thing that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth but it was never the policy or the desire that we should leave the Commonwealth as it was. As the Commonwealth has developed since then, however, and in the form it has taken to-day, it is best for South Africa to be out of it. This present position also represents the only reason why South Africa is out of the Commonwealth. Although I do not begrudge the hon. member his attitude, namely that this Bill is “an unhappy Bill”, I cannot agree with him that this is in fact the position. This Bill once again offers us the opportunity to emphasize the independence of the Republic for the benefit of anyone who wants to take note of it. It also offers us the opportunity to ask every citizen of this country to give South Africa his undivided allegiance. The Bill is also a very clear indication of the very good relations and cooperation existing between Britain and South Africa.

I want to emphasize once again that this Bill is not the result of a policy of this Government that we should leave the Commonwealth, but the result of a change in the Commonwealth. I do not want to overlook the fact that the hon. member and others on his side of the House still wish to retain a dual allegiance. Nor do I want to be unfeeling towards that sentiment. It would moreover be out of place to use this opportunity to start a fight or to begrudge them that attitude. It would not be in the interests of the unity which we are building up. Nor would it be in the interests of the good relations which we have with Britain. Allow me to point out in this regard that no one can regard this legislation as an unfriendly act by South Africa towards Britain or by Britain towards South Africa. On the contrary, it creates the basis for good relations between two equal states. The atmosphere in which these discussions took place and the way in which the matter was handled in the House of Commons testifies to a very good spirit. It is also our desire to express our appreciation and praise to the Department of Foreign Affairs and others who undertook the negotiations.

I want to deal for a moment with the provision in this Bill which provides for a single loyalty and allegiance and together with that, the abandoning of loyalty and allegiance to another country. Perhaps the hon. member for Constantia and others do not welcome this and perhaps this is why he regards this Bill as an “unhappy” Bill. But allow me also to tell him in this regard that in this matter he represents a very small group in South Africa, a group which is becoming smaller by the day, and this is to the benefit of South Africa. Actually the attitude that one can have a dual allegiance belongs to the past. I therefore think that I can maintain that this attitude will become African a sooner than we want to realize. Seeing that that is the position, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member, but I welcome the fact that in reasonably moderate language he has welcomed this position, the position which I know is painful to him.

The Argus of 1 June said—

We should like to do so, but on the other hand we would be failing in our duty if we did not make it quite clear that although there are people who feel in this way, we cannot make concessions to their feelings. This is because of the necessity to do those things which will make South Africa strong and to build up our nation. And there are a few things which these people can do to help achieve this ideal.

The hon. member for Constantia told the Sunday Times the following—

This submission must be refuted. The fact that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth and the fact that this Bill is now being introduced, have absolutely nothing to do with the allegation of the hon. member to the effect that South Africa is becoming isolated because to become an independent nation does not mean that one has become isolated. As a matter of fact the relationship existing between South Africa to-day and foreign countries is even better than at any time in the past. I even want to submit that as a result of our leaving the Commonwealth we are extending our international circle of friends. We can make this submission on the basis of the attitude which other countries have adopted towards the Commonwealth. For this reason the hon. member and the Sunday Times are quite incorrect in maintaining that this step signifies isolation.

As far as I am concerned, this Bill is another great step towards the furthering of national unity in South Africa. In South Africa we have had various types of loyalty, and I say without fear of contradiction that the removal of all these types of dual loyalty will promote greater national unity. The oath of allegiance to the Republic of South Africa embodied in this Bill seems to me to represent the removal of the last of these forms of dual allegiance. For this reason we welcome it, particularly because it places the seal on what took place on 31 May last year in Pretoria. We are all aware of the atmosphere prevailing in South Africa to-day, namely a South African and purely national atmosphere such as we have never known before. The diplomats in our country will testify to this particularly. It is a privilege to speak to them to-day and to hear the proof which they submit regarding the growing national unity in our country. Just think of the speech by the Prime Minister on the occasion of the function in honour of the 1820 settlers and the visit by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Durban a little while ago. The circumstances surrounding these two occasions all augur well for South Africa. The celebration of Republic Day last year was not a political occasion, but all sections of our population participated. These are things which testify to such definite signs of national unity that this is a factor which must be taken into account.

The Cape Times has also written a leading article on this matter. We all know what the attitude of this newspaper is, but what it says in this leading article is, to me, a sign of the times, and testifies to the change which is taking place in South Africa. In this article the Cape Times wrote the following with reference to the death of Mr. Arthur Barlow—

Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing out that, while there may be people who do not feel happy about this change, who do not feel happy about the abolition of a dual allegiance, this is a step which is essential for South Africa in order to round off the establishment of the Republic.

I now just want to deal with another point. I think it raises the status of South Africa abroad as well; it strengthens the position of the Republic. Allow me to give hon. members an excellent example of this strengthened position, as far as loyalty towards the Republic and undiluted South Africanism are concerned. I have here a letter which I received from a friend of mine. We were at university together, and he is someone who, at that time, had the same ideas as the hon. members for Constantia and Wynberg (Mr. Russell). Today he is in Durban. The fact that he has written this letter to me is so much a sign of the times in which we are living. I do not want to mention his name—

It is not true that there are only a few like that. There are many such people.

That is good.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point I want to make. There are many of these people who feel like this. We do not want to have an argument on this point. I felt that I should just make these few points quite clear. Now there are one or two other matters which I want to mention. I have seen a report in the Sunday Tribune of Durban, and it creates the impression that this is a political matter. The Sunday Tribune said the following—

Now it is creating the impression that there are 400,000 people to-day who have the franchise but who may lose it. Mr. Chairman, allow me to say quite clearly, because I think this is something we must accept, and I shall be glad if the hon. Minister will make it quite clear to South Africa, that only a person who has an undivided allegiance to South Africa can share in the political activities of this country. On’y such a person will be able to vote when there is an election. I think that this is the implication of this whole matter.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly with these few words, so that we will have this legislation, not because we have left the Commonwealth per se, but because we have left a Commonwealth which has the character it has to-day. And then, secondly, because it will give us the opportunity to place the final seal on the Republic and to remove any vestige of dual allegiance once and for all from South Africa. It is a good thing for us as a Republic, and I believe that, with this legislation, we may be taking the last step towards making the Republic of South Africa one of the strong nations of the world. We may only be 3,000,000 Whites in South Africa, but I believe that, with the developments which we are seeing in South Africa to-day, with the contribution which this legislation will also make in this regard, although we are only 3,000,000 Whites in South Africa, anyone who thinks of touching South Africa and the Republic will not be faced with 3,000,000 Whites, but will be faced with the equivalent and the strength of perhaps 30,000,000 Whites.

My regrets are largely those of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and it is not, therefore, necessary for me to delay the House very long in passing the second reading of this Bill. I feel that this is riot the opportunity for making political speeches. Just as Mr. Thomas, in introducing the third reading of the South Africa Bill in the British House of Commons, said this—

Well, Sir, I would say that with the necessary changes having been made, that is precisely the attitude with which we should be considering the Bill which is before the House today. I am not going to cross swords with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) in regard to what he said about dual loyalty, although I should like to comment on one thing which he said on this question of the reasons for our being out of the Commonwealth. He ascribes that to the changed nature of the Commonwealth itself and I hold the view, and have always held it, that we are out of the Commonwealth largely because our racial policies in this country are out of step with the rest of the Western world. But this is not the occasion for political speeches of this kind, and therefore I do not intend to carry on along that line.

I think there are certain clauses which will have to be discussed in some detail when we take the Committee Stage of this Bill. The particular clause which worries me is Clause 24. In terms of that clause the hon. the Minister may deprive persons of South African citizenship who have performed some “voluntary act” which in his opinion indicates that such citizen has made use of his citizenship or nationality of that other country. I think the hon. the Minister should explain to the House what he means or what he is likely to mean by this “voluntary act”. If, for instance, a South African citizen who, by virtue of British law is still entitled to enter Britain by virtue of a father of such a person having been born in Britain or he himself having been born in Britain (although he is a South African citizen), claims to enter through the “British subjects” gate at a customs house in Britain rather than through the “Aliens” gate, will that be a voluntary act which will deprive him of his South African citizenship?

Shall we leave that over for the Committee Stage?

Yes, Sir. I want to make it clear that I am not opposing the second reading of this Bill. I realize that this is a procedural necessity to bring the South African position in line with what has been done in Britain but I have certain reservations which I intend raising at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that this is not an occasion for making, what she termed, political speeches. I also agree with both her and the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) that a more appropriate occasion for dealing with the points which he raised would be the Committee Stage. My colleague, the hon. Minister of the Interior, who is responsible for a number of these amendments, agrees that that would be the occasion for raising those matters.

Mr. Speaker, I agreed that this is not an occasion for political speeches. I must confess to a measure of disappointment at the approach of the hon. member for Constantia. What we had this morning was in fact a rehash of some of the arguments which were used before the referendum took place. I was under the impression—and I think many others were—that whatever the views of the hon. member and of others might have been about the establishment of the Republic, they by now would have accepted that position, as indeed a large number of English-speaking South Africans who also felt the way the hon. member for Constantia did, are accepting the position.

I think you misunderstood him.

That position will have to be accepted.

What did I say to indicate that I did not accept the position?

The hon. member very grudgingly afterwards said that he accepted the position but he did so with many reservations.

What reservations?

For instance, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a statement—I made a note of it—to the effect that only people who could feel happy about this Bill were those who wished to leave the Commonwealth. That was a case where there was a political implication. He also emphasized repeatedly that the effect of this Bill would be to break the ties with the Commonwealth. That is a natural consequence of South Africa first having become a Republic and secondly having withdrawn from the Commonwealth. [Interjections.] Let me come to that point at once, because I think that is a point which should be put straight. When the Commonwealth Conference was discussed in this House, after the Prime Minister had given an exhaustive statement regarding the happenings at London, we had the suggestion that South Africa had—in fact it was stated very strongly—in some way or other manoeuvred to leave the Commonwealth; that we had gone to London with the intention of leaving the Commonwealth. That is not so. I gave the full facts at the time. I quoted what had been said by several of the Prime Ministers from which it was perfectly clear that they did not wish us to remain in the Commonwealth. I state again what I stated at the Union Day gathering when the diplomats came to pay their respects and to which the hon. member referred, namely that South Africa was forced to leave the Commonwealth. It is too bad, Sir, that the hon. member and others refuse to accept that. After all, Sir, I was present. I was present right through those discussions.

I did not query that statement.

No, the hon. member did not query that statement, but he referred to what I had said at a recent gathering of diplomats. This reference was such that one could only come to the conclusion that South Africa had of its own free will left the Commonwealth, which is not the case.

You are spoiling what might have been a decent occasion.

Only recently one of the Ministers of Nigeria said in their official news publication—

Those were the facts. I think it would help all of us if we could realize, if we could accept, that South Africa did not voluntarily leave the Commonwealth; that the Prime Minister did everything possible in his power—to which I can testify—to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. He had no option but to withdraw the application. That is the actual position.

I would remind the hon. Minister that we are dealing with the Bill.

I am dealing with the Bill. I am dealing with the statement made by … [Interjections.] The suggestion was that we had voluntarily left the Commonwealth. What did the hon. member mean by the statement that only people who wished to leave the Commonwealth could be happy about this Bill? He kept on saying that he was unhappy about this Bill. So are we; we are not happy about it, but this Bill is a necessity. It is a natural and logical result of what happened at London. Not what happened at the referendum but what happened at London. I want to ask what is the good of repeating at this stage, ad nauseam, how unhappy we are?

Who is repeating?

The hon. member said it was an unhappy Bill to have to introduce. The basic fact was, as he called it, that South Africans would now be aliens in Commonwealth countries. That is so; that is a natural effect. Let us rather try to reconcile ourselves with that position. Let us rather try to accept the Republic in the sense which, I believe, will lead to a greater measure of unity between the two White sections of our population. It is already having that effect. I fully realize that there will be the older people who do feel unhappy about it, but I am confident that in the next generation, the generation now growing up, there will be an acceptance of the new constitutional position and that that will lead to a greater measure of unity.

The whole tenor of the hon. member’s speech was a reiteration of “it takes a Bill like this to show how strong the links were with the Commonwealth”. This Bill is a logical consequence of our departure from the Commonwealth. The hon. member also suggested—I hope I am wrong in that interpretation—that I was not quite sincere when I said that it was our real and keen desire to maintain the traditional bonds of friendship with the United Kingdom and those Commonwealth countries with whom we have always been friends.

What are you talking about?

When I made that statement I was perfectly sincere. We do wish not only to maintain the traditional relationships but to extend them further.

I did not suggest that you were not sincere.

The hon. member asked about the discussions with other members of the Commonwealth. The position is that certain discussions have taken place, and other discussions are still taking place; discussions with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Federation of Rhodesia, Nyasaland and also the High Commission Territories, to which the hon. member referred. Discussions are taking place in regard to matters of common concern. Hon. members must realize that there is a difference between our previous relationship with the United Kingdom and our relationship with the other Commonwealth countries. Those relationships were never identical. The fact that we were a member of the Commonwealth rather inclined to obscure the fact that there were matters in regard to which we did not see eye to eye with some Commonwealth countries. But that did not in any way affect our friendly relations. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that the discussions with representatives of the United Kingdom which have been proceeding since the end of last year, have been conducted in a very amicable spirit.

Many of the matters in this Bill are the result not of agreement with the British authorities, because those were matters which we could decide for ourselves. There were other matters in respect of which the British representatives expressed their understanding, matters in respect of an arrangement was arrived at although not a formal agreement.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to a discussion in the British House of Commons. Sir, except of course for the Socialist Opposition and one or two others, as far as the Government was concerned, there was a spirit of maintaining and extending friendly relations. There was no spirit of hostility. That was particularly the case in connection with the discussions in the House of Lords. I say, therefore, Sir, that it is no good at this stage having a rehash of the doubts and fears that were expressed in the past. Let us rather go forward in a spirit of co-operation with Britain and members of the Commonwealth in respect of all matters of common concern. Let me assure hon. members that that cooperation does exist. After all, such matters are handled by my office and there is a spirit of co-operation between us and the British Government. Some of them are of a secret nature which I obviously cannot divulge. We wish to extend it and I believe that the best way of extending it is to accept the position as it is to-day.

With regard to the High Commission Territories, these discussions are still proceeding. I have noted what the hon. member has said and those points will be borne in mind. Those matters are still being dealt with although no agreement has been reached as yet.

When we come to the Committee Stage hon. members will have full opportunity of dealing with the various clauses of the Bill which will be dealt with particularly by my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, as so many of them affect his Department. I hope, Sir, that we will go forward in the spirit that we now have the Republic, that we must make it succeed, that we must, as is stated in this Bill, have an undivided loyalty to the Republic.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Health Vote is one of the most important Votes. I should like to deal with the “first interim report of the committee of inquiry into the financial relations between the Central Government and the province The committee did a fine job of work. It dealt with the relations between the Central Government, the provinces and the local authorities. I read from the report—

The committee was appointed in August 1956 and presented its report on 1 September 1959. When you examine the legislation which has been passed in the interim, you find that very little has been done to implement this very important report. I think, Sir, we are inclined to disregard the position as far as “health control” between the Central Government and the provinces is concerned. I do not think we realize that the country is growing daily and that our health services require reviewing. I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister should implement this report before it becomes out of date. To a certain extent it has already become out of date because the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister that the Transkeian Territories would take over the administration of their own health services was not dealt with by this committee. This is unfortunate, but that fact should make us realize how quickly a report becomes out of date. As far as the provinces and the Health Department are concerned, you find that the provinces are responsible for curative diseases, but not for infectious diseases. The anomalous position is created from time to time when a patient who is admitted to a provincial hospital develops an infectious disease, and you visualize the amount of paper work which is involved in having that particular patient transferred to an infectious diseases hospital under separate control.

In this report they make provision for transferring the infectious diseases hospital section from the local authorities to the provinces. In not implementing this report, or portions of it, you find that this matter is left high and dry.

One of the most important items requiring attention in our country to-day, where people are inclined to live very much longer than in the past, is the question of the aged. If it had not been for interested bodies, they would be having a very bad time. There also is the question of the chronic infirm. You find that these people are housed in the most unsatisfactory conditions. Had the Government got down to this problem, we would, perhaps, have had a very much more satisfactory position than we have at the present moment.

I should like to refer to the position of the Minister of Health in relation to the other Departments which are very, very closely allied to him. I think it is all wrong that we should have a Minister of Health responsible for health only, and not responsible for social welfare, because those of us who have experience of hospital administration know that the patient who is admitted to the hospital and is then discharged, and is not in a condition to work, becomes a social welfare problem. If these two departments were closer allied than at the present moment, we would get very much further in our treatment and after-care. You find, in general, that hospitals have their social workers. The Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town deals with no less than 200 social workers from various agencies. It is very necessary to have a closer tie-up between social welfare and health. We have a new name for the Minister of Housing, but there again it should be tied up with the Minister of Health, because, if you have decent housing, it is a type of preventive medicine; it results in less sickness and disease.

Coming back to the social welfare side, and talking about alcoholics, the Provincial Administration of the Cape started a hospital for the treatment of alcoholics, and the records of the Minister’s Department will show that they are having very satisfactory results. But it is no good taking these people into a hospital and, after clinical treatment, discharging them on to the street. Instead, they should be given the complete curative treatment, through the clinic, nursed back to health and then given sheltered employment. To-day these people go to the hospital for alcoholics and, when they are discharged, it is only by the grace of private persons and charity that they can keep their heads above water. Once again I should like to make a plea that there should be a reallocation of these various departments, and that the Minister of Health should also be the Minister of Social Welfare, and possibly of Housing. I think they are so closely allied that they should be under one head. I might also suggest to the Minister, where he has quite a number of departments under him, that this becomes the responsibility of one Minister.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to continue, but he is really touching on a matter which falls under the Prime Minister’s Vote, the rearrangement of departments.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to item “L” on page 204 where he makes provision for extra-statutory expenditure in connection with the treatment of certain former Bantu mine labourers who are suffering from tuberculosis. The question I want to put to the Minister arises because under Section 41 and 42 of the Pneumoconiosis Act these Bantu are handed over to the Department of Health for treatment to see whether they cannot once again enjoy a measure of health. I am raising this matter because I want to know whether the Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Health, has any control over the origin of this tuberculosis which he must treat after they have worked in the mines. There is no indication that the Minister has any control over the origin of the tuberculosis in the mines, but when they are sick they are handed over to the Minister of Health for treatment and under Section 42 they are in turn handed over to the Minister of Bantu Administration, and after a certain time that Minister in turn hands them over to the Department of Justice. This is a long series of authorities who are saddled with these people who contract tuberculosis in the mines. The Minister is the person who is responsible for restoring these people to health. I need surely not advocate that it is far better to prevent these people contracting tuberculosis or pneumoconiosis. In other words, I think the Minister should have a say where the disease originates, and institute preventative measures. If ever there was a case where prevention is better than cure, it is as far as pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis are concerned. I want to ask whether the Minister is satisfied that he has sufficient control over the origin of the tuberculosis in the mines? When one examines the small amount for which provision is made here, it is negligible; it is only R2,000, but when one looks at page 16 of the pneumoconiosis report which appeared on 31 March 1961 one finds Table 9. Then one finds that during two years, namely 1960 and 1961, the numbers of Bantu who worked on the mines and contracted pneumoconiosis plus tuberculosis are given. During 1959 the figure was 1,459, and during 1960 it was 1,492. For the two years the total was therefore 2,951. But the frightening figures are to be found in the case of tuberculosis alone which are given in the same table. In 1959-60 the figure was 4,323 and in 1960-61 it was 4,881. The conclusion to be drawn from these figures is that during those two years there were 12,255 sufferers from tuberculosis. The largest figure is found in the case of tuberculosis alone without pneumoconiosis. Perhaps hon. members will say that this is not yet so bad, but we must remember that these people before they entered the mines, were healthy. They were examined and certified as being healthy and they became ill in the mines. The inferences to be drawn from these figures are very serious. I think we cannot over-emphasize that the Minister of Health should not only have the treatment under his control but that the health measures aimed at preventing the contracting of that disease should also be under his control. Despite the great pessimism which is sometimes revealed here, there are a few milestones in the history of the Department of Health of which we can all be very proud. Reference made last night to the way in which polio has been defeated in South Africa, and this is due to research which the medical men of South Africa have undertaken. But one of the greatest triumphs of the medical men was when they controlled malaria, something which has been a model for the whole world. Since South Africa has got malaria under control, the population of Africa has increased over the last 20 years in an unprecedented way because malaria was the greatest killer. Because we have such great confidence in the Department of Health, because they have already made such great progress towards defeating diseases with which the world is struggling, I think we should give them carte blanche in the case of tuberculosis. It is pointless combating tuberculosis in other respects; the mines are a very great contributor in this regard. We must remember that after these people are dismissed they are not isolated. These 12,000 can infect other people. It is because I see the position in this light and have so much confidence in the ability of our medical men that I think the Minister of Health should have full control over this aspect because this is a great source of tuberculosis. It is only by taking effective steps to prevent the disease that we shall better be able to combat the disease, rather than doing what we are doing now, namely merely handing the people over to the Department of Health once they have contracted the disease and then passing them in turn like a football to one Department or another. I urge that the Minister of Health should also have control over the prevention of tuberculosis in the mines.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter of great importance to the people who are represented in these benches. Some 16 years ago, at the time when my wife happened to be secretary of the Cape Mental Health Society, I learnt with a shock that there is no institution in the whole of our country for feeble-minded or mentally defective Coloured children. Sir, it is impossible to give the House any statistics, because it is impossible to obtain such statistics, because as the result of the fact that there are no such institutions, and guardians and parents of such children are aware of it, these cases are not reported. I am not quite certain of the following fact, because of the lack of statistics, but there must be truth in the presumption on the part of some experts that these cases of cerebral palsy, spastics and mentally defective or retarded children-a high percentage of them is caused by brain injury which may be due to prenatal or post-natal circumstances, or to bad maternity facilities, which is prevalent in the rural areas as far as the Coloureds are concerned. That is due to the poverty and the poor facilities with which the Coloured people in general have to cope, in comparison with the Whites, but the percentage of such cases amongst the Coloureds is even higher than it is amongst the Whites. There is also the fact that the larger families of the Coloureds push up this percentage even further. But the fact is that to this day there is no institution at all, apart from two small homes run by the Cape Mental Health Society, the Garden and Torrence Homes, catering for 60 high-grade mental defectives only. This organization, which is a voluntary one, and which has only the salaries of its qualified social workers subsidized, earns the gratitude of the Coloured people and of society in general for what they have done over the years in regard to this matter. But even in the case of these 60 high-grade mental defectives—they can only accept 60 under present circumstances—the question arises what happens to these children after they leave those institutions. In the first place, we have the one category which might be susceptible to training and who might be employed in useful work after they leave there, such as labourers or in work not demanding a very high standard. There are some of them who have nowhere to go to, with the result that they go on to the streets and become a burden on society. Over the years 1,112 cases of mentally retarded or defectives have been reported to the society in Cape Town. This represents only Cape Town and the immediate surrounding areas. We do not know what the position is in the rest of the country. Over the last eight months 110 cases of mental defectives between the ages of one and 20 years have been put on the waiting-list of this society. These are current cases only, who desperately require institutionalization either because they are completely helpless, extremely hyper-active and restless or aggressive and cannot be coped with at home at all. The fact remains that these patients who require immediate attention are kept at home, and names are being added to this list continually and there are just no institutions for them to go to. I want to plead on behalf of the people whom I represent that something should be done as soon as possible in regard to this matter. Many of these cases would be susceptible to training and could be made useful citizens, as is being done with cases of the same degree of mental defectiveness amongst Whites. We feel that what is urgently needed are institutions falling into the following categories and here I do not want to address a sermon to the Minister’s advisers, and I do not want to make the case that separate institutions should be established for the various categories. But the position at the moment is that the low-grade mental defectives of all ages who are so helpless, restless or aggressive that it is practically impossible for them to be cared for within the family, have to be kept in the family, and they completely disrupt normal family life. Every one of the 110 patients on the waiting-list falls into this category, and there are definitely more. Many of these cases are not on record. There are many more. We do not know how many because of the lack of statistics and the fact that guardians and parents of such children know that they cannot apply to any institution for assistance. Therefore there are no records. The only record that it might be possible to obtain is where such cases are subsidized in the form of a grant to the parents or guardians looking after them. Then there are the higher-grade teen-age and older mental defectives, who through inadequate social adjustment come into constant conflict with the law. They cannot learn through punishment and the only solution is custodial care in an institution. For these there is no hope at present. We feel that there should be day centres for the higher-grade mentally defective children who can be coped with at home but require occupation and elementary training for part of the day. These children cannot be accepted in ordinary nursery or primary schools, just as in the case of such White children, because they cannot benefit from ordinary instruction and are a disruptive element in an ordinary school. They cannot keep pace with the rest of the class in which they are put and so they have to be put into special classes and there they feel at a loss and become retarded more and more, and they realize that they are making no progress and that has a further detrimental effect on them. As I mentioned before, there are these two small homes with 60 occupants, but in pursuance of what they are doing there should be sheltered employment and occupation centres for the higher-grade mental defective adults who cannot compete in the open labour market but could be productively employed under sheltered conditions. Occupation is essential to their personal wellbeing and would lessen the amount of vagrancy and conflict with the law which occurs through their inadequate social adjustment and being unoccupied and unsupervised during the day. At present, in the Cape, for such cases there is only one solution, and that is that if he commits some offence or other which the normal person would not commit, or might commit once but is then deterred by the punishment—there is only one solution, and that is that such cases are reported to the police and they are locked up and come before court and the magistrates sometimes know that they are sentencing a person who is not responsible, but there is nothing else they can do with them. They are not in such a stage that they can be certified and sent to a mental institution, and there is no other way open than to punish them and sentence them to gaol where they come into contact with habitual criminals, and are made use of to further the ends of such people when they come out of prison. I feel that special attention should be paid to sub-normal and border-line mentally defective children who can benefit from school instruction, but not at the pace set in ordinary classes. Grave behaviour problems result from emotional conflicts caused by trying to maintain the pace of the normal class. It is people in this category for whom something can be done if the case is handled correctly, but the progress and possible usefulness of such a person are being hampered by the fact that he has enough intelligence to realize that he is not a useful member of society, because he cannot keep pace with others of the same age group in the same class at school with him. Before my time expires, I wish to say that in the case of such mentally defective children who are in charge of some guardian or foster parent, the allowance paid is at the rate of 25 cents a day, which over a period of a month is only about 50 cents more than in the case of a normal child. It is obvious that in such cases more medical and personal attention are needed, and more money is needed, and I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to this matter.

Order! I feel that the matter referred to by the hon. member could more appropriately have been raised under Vote No. 36, Hospitals and Institutions, but as Votes 35 and 36 are very closely related, I am prepared to allow discussion on both Votes.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to the mentally deficient and handicapped children who have always been somewhat neglected in our country. To make the position clear I want to say in advance that all children with an I.Q. of less than 80 are regarded as mentally deficient. Those who fall in the group of plus 50 to plus 80 are regarded as educable and they are the responsibility of the administrations. I just want to say that we can only congratulate the administrations on the progress which has been made with the education of these children. They are in special classes and to-day are even in special schools and are being taught by specially trained teachers. To-day we have the opportunity of making these people useful citizens. But the group who have an I.Q. of less than 50 are regarded as uneducable and they of course are the responsibility of the Department of Health. They in turn fall into two sub-groups. The one with an I.Q. of less than plus 20 are commonly called idiots. All they need is physical care, and for this purpose we have institutions such as Alexandra in the Cape. There is also one in Natal and one in the Transvaal. The only objection to these institutions is that usually they are crowded and too big and I feel that we must have institutions that are more evenly distributed across the country so that through having small institutions we can maintain greater contact with the parents.

The other group, falling between plus 20 and plus 50, are the group about which I actually want to say something. They are also regarded as uneducable and are commonly described as imbeciles, but they are only uneducable in the sense that they cannot derive much benefit from the normal education offered in the ordinary schools. They are educable in the sense that they can look after themselves physically and can submit to discipline and that one can even teach them to do useful work. It is the confusion we have between training and education. These people are educable in the sense I have mentioned, but do not derive any benefit from ordinary education. For this type, who fall between plus 20 and plus 50, we have the so-called day work centres in the large cities, which have been established by associations for handicapped children, particularly on the initiative of the parents. They also fall under the control of the National Council for Mental Health. They are really day schools. By these means we can relieve the parents of part of their responsibilities during the day and in the evening the children go home again. Then there are also a few residential centres under the control of private organizations where a number of these children are cared for. Boarding is provided and the children live more or less permanently there. By these two methods approximately 500 to 600 children have been placed under proper care. This represents approximately one-quarter, it is estimated, of the large number of children who need this type of care. We do not know exactly how many of these children there are in the country, but if we accept the findings of other countries, there are approximately three children of this type in every thousand. Then there must be between 2,000 and 3,000 in South Africa who need care. I just want to indicate briefly what can possibly be done; I think there should be an extension of this system of day centres to all the bigger towns and cities which do not have it. There must be boarding institutions at these centres so that children from the platteland can enjoy this care and accommodation, for children who would normally be neglected if they do not receive proper care. Then we can support the residential institutions which have been established by private undertakings. There is for example an institution such as the Rudolph Steiner school which has found that if one takes such a child away from the urban environment to the platteland and one establishes a colony there for such children, they are then under proper care, and away from the dangers of ordinary life, and the children can be cared for. What happens later is that these children go home, often to a home which cannot receive nor look after him, and for this reason it is so essential that one should think along these lines. Whatever we may think of the idea underlying the Rudolph Steiner schools and the philosophy which is basic to them, anyone who has visited these institutions is immediately struck by the fact that the children are well mannered and that they are above all happy. And that is all we are striving for, namely to make these people happy. This is a matter which I feel the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health can iron out between them. Actually the best of these children, the more intelligent ones, should not fall under the Minister of Health, but in fact under the Minister of Education. I should like to see consideration being given in the near future to this matter which I have already discussed on many occasions with the hon. the Minister of Health.

Perhaps I should just reply at this stage to a few of the points made by hon. members. I want to start with the last two speakers who have dealt with the position of the feeble-minded in South Africa. If there is something which we all feel, it is of course the unfortunate position of the poor children who are feeble-minded and who for all these years have, when the position is viewed superficially, perhaps not been given their rightful due by the State. But there is a reason for this, namely that the parents hitherto have always regarded it as their duty to care for this type of child. It was extremely difficult for a mother to give up a child which was feeble-minded because she as a Christian being considered that she had an obligation to such a child. This struck me so forcibly in a recent case which I myself dealt with. I was approached and asked to help find accommodation for a certain child. The clergymen, the teachers and the whole local community made representations on behalf of the child. I succeeded in finding a place for her in one of the institutions, but to my surprise, after the child has hardly been a few days in the institution, they received letters from the mother in which she criticized myself and the State for daring to take her child from her—and this notwithstanding the fact that she herself had agreed and that she herself was persuaded by the community to give up the child. I am mentioning this to show why the State hitherto has not made the necessary progress in this field. In recent years, however, a new approach has gained ground amongst many parents because gradually parents have come to realize, particularly as a result of the education of the public by the mental health associations and associations which are interested in these children, that it is after all in the best interests of such a child itself and in the best interests of the community that these children should not stay at home. Gradually the mothers and the parents of South Africa have started to realize that it is essential that they should hand over their children to institutions where the State can make far better provision for them together with their friends with whom they can be happy. The best solution, the ideal solution, would of course be that we should have such an institution in practically every place where there are such children, but in practice this is simply not possible. At the moment all the parents in South Africa are in addition not prepared to give up these children. In other words, when we come to the assistance of such children, we must take practical action and we must establish institutions at certain places, or where we already have institutions we must try to extend those institutions. The State at the moment has three such institutions which provide for feeble-minded children, inter alia Alexandra here in the Cape, Witrand in the Transvaal and Umgeni Waterfalls in Natal. But the unfortunate position is that in recent times these institutions have become so overcrowded that it is practically impossible to accept any more children. But we immediately took steps to meet this problem. I just want to tell hon. members what developments are taking place at the moment. As a result of the new steps which we have taken to deal with mental diseases, accommodation has become available in certain of our mental institutions. At the same time one of our new big and outstanding mental hospitals has just been taken into use, namely the Stikland Mental Hospital. In this hospital patients are now being accepted from elsewhere in South Africa, persons who are not from the local area itself. But I just want to give the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) this interesting piece of news: To-day, on this very day, no less than 100 patients are being transferred from Alexandra to Stikland which will create accommodation for another 100 patients in Alexandra. We appreciate the tremendous need amongst the Coloureds to which the hon. member for Outeniqua has referred. Amongst the Coloureds there are a very large number of feeble-minded persons, and we have therefore made plans to provide accommodation for Coloured feeble-minded persons in Alexandra as well. In other words, it will now be possible to accept a large number of Coloured feeble-minded persons in Alexandra. But we have also gone further. As a result of the success which we have had with the combating of tuberculosis amongst Whites, we have succeeded in reducing the incidence of tuberculosis amongst Whites in the Western Cape to such an extent that Westlake Hospital to a large extent is empty. We are now drawing up plans to remove from Westlake Hospital all the tuberculosis sufferers who can be treated in other hospitals and we then intend accommodating feeble-minded persons and particularly Coloured feeble-minded persons in Westlake. At the same time we appreciate that elsewhere in South Africa additional accommodation is required for feeble-minded Whites, and to meet this position we are at present negotiating with the Municipality of Bloemfontein with a view to taking over the Tempe Hospital and to changing it into an institution for feeble-minded White children. I hope that by these means we shall be able to make far more rapid progress towards solving this problem.

Perhaps I should first deal with one or two other points raised this morning. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has asked that the Department of Health should play a bigger part in the combating of tuberculosis on the mines. I do not want to discuss at this stage all the problems involved in this matter. But one of the most important methods of combating tuberculosis is to determine its origin. If we can trace tuberculosis to its origin and we can destroy that origin, we can take effective action. This is one of the secrets why tuberculosis has been eradicated in Holland for example. But as far as the detection of tuberculosis in the mines is concerned, the Department of Health in effect has very little say.

That is precisely my point; I want you to have it.

We do not have it. In the first place we have to detect it in the Native when he is accepted as a

miner. We know that many Natives in the past have unfortunately been taken into service while they have in fact been suffering from tuberculosis and in the nature of things it inevitably spread tremendously. We have no control over the admission of workers to the mines. But there is a second source, namely: When these miners work underground—the House will forgive me if I mention this—they often spit where they are working. The passages are continually being washed and by these means the germs enter the water with which other floors are also washed. In other words, if precautionary measures are not taken, those germs can be spread throughout the mine, with the result that the White miners and other miners contract tuberculosis even more quickly. I do not say that this is the position but I say that it is a possible source, and as long as these sources are not combated under the supervision of the Department of Health, we can of course not play a part in protecting the miners against this disease.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has urged the reorganization of the Department, but as the Chairman has indicated, that does not really fall under this Vote; it falls under the Vote of the Prime Minister. I just want to refer the hon. member to a principle. Every Department has many branches. The Department of Health has its health aspect but it also has its financial aspect. Allow me to mention the aspect of mentally ill persons who commit offences. Because they have committed offences, they are really criminals, but they are also mentally ill. One can so easily say that a Department should be placed under another Ministry so that all the functions of the same nature fall under the same control, but this would mean that all departments would have to be under one Minister. Departments are allotted to Ministers to a large extent on an arbitrary basis. But matters that are common to the departments are after all taken into account. Allow me to give the House an example. Until last year housing fell under the Department of Health because, as the hon. member has correctly said, housing contributes to the health of a people. Consequently, while there was a big shortage of housing for Whites, housing was included. But then we had this other development in South Africa: provision had to be made on a large scale for Coloured housing—not only Coloured housing but Coloured residential areas.

I do not think the hon. the Minister should cover such a wide field.

May I just round off this point: For this reason it has now been transferred to Coloured Affairs.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has said that he is surprised at the money being spent on leprosy at Westfort, Pretoria, if I understood the hon. member correctly.

I merely asked for information.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that the amount for which provision is made on the Estimates this year is considerably less than last year. It is often asked why it is still necessary to maintain a leprosy institution in Pretoria. I have discussed the matter thoroughly with my advisory committees, and we have reached the conclusion that for the training of our young doctors it is absolutely essential; in other words it is essential to have leprosy patients in Pretoria where there is a hospital at which students from Pretoria and Witwatersrand can see patients suffering from leprosy, so that when they encounter such cases in the community it will be easier for them to diagnose such cases. It is for this reason that we still retain a leprosy institution in Pretoria, even though most of the patients are Bantu.

I want to thank the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) very sincerely for the kind words he has addressed to me in connection with the combating of polio, but I think the credit should go to others. I am grateful for the fact that he has referred to certain institutions and on behalf of the House and also the Government I should just like to convey our thanks to all the persons who have helped in combating polio over the past two years. The combating of polio, as the hon. member has said, has really been very successful. It has not been successful merely because we have eradicated the disease and the terrible consequences of the disease; not only because we have spared people suffering, people who might have been handicapped for the rest of their lives by the mutilation caused by polio, but also because of the financial savings which it has brought for South Africa. Perhaps I should just point out to hon. members what this campaign has meant to South Africa in terms of money. In 1957 there were 2,442 cases of polio which cost the country approximately R l,890,000. In 1958 there were 675 cases which cost the country R477,000. In 1959 there were 726 cases which cost approximately R480,000. In 1960 there were 1,054 cases and the estimated cost was R717,000. During the years I have mentioned the average expenditure caused by polio was approximately R1,000,000 per annum. As a result of the polio campaign there have only been 23 cases this year and they were all persons who had not gone through the full immunization course. In other words, if those persons had only taken the trouble to have the full course of injections, there would not have been one single case of polio in South Africa. In other words, hon. members can see the tremendous saving which this fight against polio has brought South Africa. The success achieved is due to the efforts of a whole series of organizations. It is not merely due to one person or a few persons only. I should like in the first place to convey our thanks to the Planning Council of the Department of Health with its capable chairman, Professor Snyman, who has played a leading role in the combating of polio. But I also want to mention particularly the Polio Research Institute which provided us with the vaccine when it was not yet available elsewhere in the world, a polio institute which has helped us in a wonderful way in this whole campaign and which, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has said, has devised special thermos flasks which could not be bought anywhere else in the world so that in this warm climate of South Africa the polio vaccine could be effectively stored under the conditions under which it had to be used. I also want to mention the name of Dr. James Gear who was in charge of that institute and who was responsible for many of these developments. I also want to mention the virological committee which had to advise the State. But I also want to thank the head of our Department who played a very important role in furthering this matter. He was the link; he was the man who brought together all the organizations and all the leading persons who assisted in this matter and who continually provided them with advice and inspiration. I also want to thank all the officers of our Departments, but particularly Dr. Willem Smit, one of the heads of our Department who dealt particularly with the administration of this campaign. Then there is a whole list of persons. It is too long for all the names to be mentioned. I shall only mention the organizations which have participated in this campaign merely to show the House what the extent of this campaign was. The whole Department with all its regional organizations throughout South Africa; other State departments; all the municipalities; all the divisional councils and, all the provincial councils and schools. All these organizations and many others as well were concerned in ensuring that the children of South Africa and the young people of South Africa were immunized as far as possible. In particular I want to thank our Airways, the Railways and the Government Garage for the conveyance of this vaccine under circumstances which often were very difficult. I must also mention the Red Cross Association, St. John’s, the Noodhulpliga, the agricultural unions and the public all of whom helped to inoculate the young people of South Africa. And finally I must also thank the Blood Transfusion Services, the creameries, the abattoirs and private medical practitioners for making their refrigeration facilities available to us. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that all these persons and organizations deserve our sincere thanks.

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) has raised a very important matter, namely the question of the compulsory immunization of the population against certain diseases. He has not mentioned all the diseases but I want to mention a few of the most important against which we should like to immunize the population. The diseases he has mentioned are in the first place diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus. But I want to go still further. We dare not stop there. We must extend this immunization at least to polio and tuberculosis. But I want hon. members to appreciate what problems are involved, and the first is this: In the case of diphtheria alone four injections are necessary, and in the case of polio three. In other words, if we want to combat these diseases, there will have to be ten injections for each person. Some of the injections can be done together but not all of them. Every person will have to be inoculated on at least four or five occasions against these diseases. But there is a further problem, namely that when a person is inoculated against certain diseases, it can have serious consequences if he is perhaps already immune or if he has already reacted positively. In other words, in the case of certain of these diseases, such as for example diphtheria and tuberculosis, when B.C.G. is used as a vaccine, one must first ensure that the person concerned either does not react positively or is not already immune. This test usually takes three to four days. In other words, if we want to introduce compulsory immunization, we are faced with this problem that all the persons to be inoculated will first have to undergo the test and in the base of the Bantu such an arrangement will practically be impossible. It may be that when we have developed a different vaccine which we can use with safety in the case of both susceptible and immune persons, the position will be different. I want to refer hon. members to what has happened in the case of tuberculosis. When the old vaccine was being used, it was necessary first to test a person, but now there is a new vaccine which we hope can be used without prior tests. Our Department is busy on this, and particularly our leading expert in this field, Dr. Dorman. He has already been engaged for a considerable time on experiments with the new vaccine.

But there is a second problem. The moment we make immunization compulsory, it means that a person who does not have himself inoculated must be punished. In other words, we are faced with the fact that we shall have to prosecute such a person but we cannot do so if we cannot prove that he has not been inoculated. If we can devise a method whereby one can see by a simple mark on a man’s arm whether he has been inoculated for each of these diseases, we may finally have found the solution, particularly as far as the Bantu are concerned. Dr. Dorman has an interesting theory. There is a new method of inoculation with an instrument which consists of a number of needles by means of which the vaccine is injected through a person’s skin, but at the same time the needles leave small tattoo marks. If the tattoo marks have different numbers or letters, it is possible that we shall be able to have a permanent mark in the case of each inoculation and in this way we shall be able to check whether a person has been inoculated or not. This is only an idea which has been mentioned and unless some such step is possible, it would be impossible to try to introduce compulsory immunization in South Africa in the case of the Bantu people. Nevertheless, I want to thank the hon. member very much for having raised the matter which is of the utmost importance to all of us.

The hon. member for Geduld had advocated the provision of increased facilities for Bantu mental patients in South Africa. You know, Mr. Chairman, our main mental hospitals in South Africa are already overcrowded as far as Bantu patients are concerned. In recent times we have come to realize that it will be better to accommodate Bantu mental patients in their own areas. We have come to realize that when there is a large group of Zulus for example, it is undesirable to spread them across the whole of South Africa. It is more humane and also more economic to accommodate such people in an institution in Zululand. For this reason we asked the Department of Housing which at that time fell under the Department of Health to undertake an investigation into the various places in South Africa where such institutions could be established. I should like to thank the Secretary for Housing, Mr. van der Walt, especially for the excellent piece of work which he and his committee have performed because they have submitted a very well drawn-up report in which they indicate all the various places in South Africa where such hospitals can be established. They have even calculated the cost and have had plans drawn up for the buildings which may be erected. We are going further into this matter, and I want to assure the hon. member that if it is at all possible we shall establish such institutions in the forseeable future. These are the questions which I want to answer at this stage.

After I had spoken last night, the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) replied and he disagreed with the authorities I have quoted with regard to the causes of lung cancer, and he considered that diesel fumes were the main cause. That is precisely what happened in Great Britain, 10 years ago when efforts were made in the House of Commons to get some action taken in the matter of lung cancer. As soon as authoritative statements were made, others, some of whom claiming to be authorities, and others simply sneaking on their own, came out with other views, apparently contradictory, and so the public became confused. It is just because there are so many contradictory statements bandied around through the Press and in other ways in South Africa that I requested the hon. the Minister to have a thorough investigation made into this matter. The hon. the Minister has not replied yet to that point and I hope he will do so later. I also asked him to have published separate figures in respect of each year for cancer of other parts of the body and cancer separately of the respiratory system, so that it will be possible for the public, the medical profession and others in South Africa to form a better opinion as to what is happening in South Africa. I quoted some figures last night, and I think I may just shortly repeat them, as to-day other hon. members are present and I gave the figures from the latest report of the Department of Health in regard to cancer in South Africa. The figure in 1956 was 4,045 deaths, whilst in 1948, the number was 3,088, showing an increase in the number of deaths by nearly one-third in a matter of eight years, whereas the recent report of the Royal College of Physicians shows that in Great Britain in recent years as far as cancer of the other parts of the body is concerned, there has been a slight decrease, whereas those from lung cancer have gone ahead by leaps and bounds from 2,510 in 1926 to 25,000 deaths (the last figure available). Therefore there was a tenfold increase in that period, and those increases were in respect of lung cancer. That is why I feel it is so essential that these figures in South Africa should be analysed.

With regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Geduld that diesel fumes are a more important cause of lung cancer, I should like to quote further from the report now received in South Africa of the Royal College of Physicians. This is what they state on page 20—

In the book they quote 216 different authorities, including the British Ministry of Health, the British Medical Research Council, the National Cancer Institute of Canada; the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health; the United States Study Group of Smoking and Health; the United States Public Health Service, and the World Health Organization. They state, however, that other causes had been put forward and they spent several pages in this book dealing with the various other causes. Now, surely, such an important body would not come to those conclusions without examining all the other possible causes. I want to quote from page 23—

Then they go on—

The conclusion they arrive at is this—

The matter that was brought up by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is most important and he has reiterated to some extent, what we on this side of the House have previously asked for. We feel that if the hon. the Minister is going to do anything to control the spread of tuberculosis and if he is really earnest in his efforts to find the source, and stop the spread of tuberculosis, I think he must, in conjunction with the Minister of Mines, make up his mind who is going to control the pneumoconiosis and silicosis diseases that affect people working on the mines. It is quite apparent, to all of us who know anything about the matter, that one of the great sources of the spread of tuberculosis is due primarily to Natives who have been working on the mines. I would like to support what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has said, and I hope that in due course we will have some opportunity of discussing this matter more fully and in detail so that we can make recommendations to the Minister to see whether or not the health services as now provided for in relation to pneumoconiosis and silicosis and allied dust diseases on the mines, cannot, to some extent, be taken over by the Minister of Health.

I want to deal now with a matter which I understand is at present in the hands of the Minister. About 18 months ago, the hon. the Minister appointed a commission to investigate the high cost of medicine and medical services. I think it will be called the Snyman Commission. We hoped that the report of the commission would have been given to the Minister as soon as it was completed. We hoped that there would be no delay in ascertaining the causes of the high cost of medicine and medical services. We hoped that no sooner had the Minister received the report, than he would table it in this House. However if my information is correct, this matter has been in the hands of the Minister for some time. My information may be incorrect, but in any case what I do want to say to the Minister is this, that if he has got a report and if he had an opportunity to study the report, he should come to this House before the end of the Session and tell us what the Snyman Commission has found. It is no good us having to wait for years after a report like this has been finalized and then to decide what we are going to do in the matter. This is a matter of urgency. It affects not only the population of this country as such, but it affects the medical services that are required for the treatment of disease and it also affects the medical aid societies particularly. I would urge the hon. the Minister strongly to give to this House those findings which he has available. If he has not had the report, he should make it his business to get the report finalized soon, because what use is it to us if we get a report relating to last year and only have it presented to this House next year? It will only mean that the report will be outdated and valueless. I will ask him please to do what he can in this matter and not wait but to start immediately to implement those recommendations which can be implemented immediately. He should see to it that these costs are brought down to reasonable level as soon as possible. I have found during the past few months that there is no ceiling to the rising costs. Costs in hospitals have gone up tremendously; the costs in nursing homes for patients have gone up tremendously. Recently in the Cape the hospital services that are provided for those people who cannot afford private treatment have also gone up. The Minister if he has this report has got no business to retain the information unduly.

The second point I want to deal with is the shortage of medical personnel in our country to-day. I raised this matter some time ago, and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) took part in the debate. He tried to illustrate that there was not a real shortage, that the position was really that too many doctors flock to the large towns and left the platteland denuded of medical services. However, I am telling the Minister now that unless he faces the position fairly and squarely, there is going to arise a state of affairs in the near future as far the health services of this country are concerned, which will be disastrous. I find that the universities that are able to provide a medical course have restricted the entrance of students in the first year. They pick what they consider are the best students. They have to be in the main students who have got a first class matriculation pass, and the rest of the students can only come in if vacancies exist. Now firstly, I feel that it is difficult to assess a man’s ability to be a doctor on his matriculation pass. We have far too many youngsters who are excluded from the university who have not reached a first-class matric. If you go back, you will find that many people who have made a success in the medical history of this country, have not been in the first-class matriculation category. I plead that those people be given an opportunity to enter the universities. But how are we going to do it if there is not sufficient room for these people? The existing universities have got to be expanded to accommodate those people who want to become doctors. Secondly, it is my contention that there is room in this country for another medical school, and whether that medical school is going to be in Bloemfontein or in East London or whether it is going to be in Port Elizabeth …

Order! The hon. member is now wandering too far away from the Vote. He is now discussing education.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I cannot divorce the shortage of medical personnel from the training at the universities, and I therefore ask that the hon. the Minister should give serious attention to this matter. I ask the Minister firstly to investigate the possibility of opening the doors of our existing universities to more medical students so that we will be able to produce more doctors in this country and secondly, to investigate the position of building a further medical school in a university town. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is high time that he took advice from me and open up the Barangwanath Hospital for non-White students. They should be trained to become doctors there. If he does not do that he will be unable to provide a sufficient and an efficient medical service to the Bantustans which the policy of this Government envisages for the future. Where is the hon. the Minister going to find personnel to provide the necessary medical services to the non-White countries that are going to arise around our own White South Africa? I do not know. [Time limit.]

I should just like to ask your permission to submit three matters relating to mental hospitals to the hon. the Minister. The first relates to the position of male nurses. I should like to refer particularly to those nurses who have more than 15 years service. Appointments of nurses to the post of charge nurse take place according to seniority. There are not sufficient charge nurse posts so that male nurses who already have a long period of service and have rendered very good service during that period can be given promotion as charge nurse. I personally know of nurses who have given from 15 to 23 years good and faithful service and who cannot be given promotion because there are so many of them and, because, as I have said, the promotion to charge nurse posts takes place according to seniority. It is the position that these people regularly act as charge nurses. They act as charge nurses on at least two days or two nights per week in the section of the hospital where they are. One feels that to these people who have had such a long period of service and given such good service and who have to assume so much responsibility, a concession should if possible be made. I want to ask whether special attention cannot be given to their position. I can perhaps make three submissions for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. The first which I should like to make is that more charge nurse posts should be created so that people, after let us say 15 years’ good service as nurses, will normally come into consideration for an appointment as charge nurse. In the second place, if that cannot be done, can a post of acting charge nurse not be created so that these people who act from time to time as charge nurses can be appointed in that category. And if this also cannot be done, can consideration not be given to compensating them for the work which they do as charge nurses, when they have whole hospitals or parts of hospitals under their supervision for a day or a night. I shall appreciate it particularly if the hon. the Minister will give this matter his very serious consideration.

The second matter which I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister is whether he cannot consider laying down that appointments to mental hospitals, that is to say those in the lower grade, should not be made exclusively by the administrator or the head of the hospital, but that they will only make the necessary recommendations in order of merit, and that the hon. the Minister or an official whom he might appoint will then make those appointments himself.

The third matter which I should like to submit to him is whether he will not have an investigation instituted into the rentals for their homes paid by the people who are employed at the Komani Hospital in Queens town. It is my impression that their rentals have recently been increased unreasonably and also that this has been done arbitrarily. This is causing dissatisfaction amongst the staff and I shall welcome it greatly if the matter can be investigated and if it can be investigated by a departmental committee.

I should like to deal with a question of malnutrition in general and kwashiorkor in particular. While I appreciate that the treatment of disease and sickness falls mainly within the purview of the provinces, I submit that the matter of malnutrition is something which is of vital interest to the country as a whole and to the Department of Health. I feel that in our country we are fortunate in that we have the remedy to this scourge in our own hands. It is merely a question of direction, co-ordination and distribution. I should like to refer briefly to the annual report of the Secretary of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for 1960-1. On page 1 it is said—

On the second page of the same report they say this—

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, the report does mention that the matter is receiving expert attention in regard to the matter of surpluses. They refer to the question of local consumption and surpluses and they say this—

I submit that this is not only a problem affecting the urban Bantu population, it affects the poorer people in the European, Coloured and Indian communities as well. On that basis alone it seems most essential that representatives of the Department of Health should play an important part in this coordinating committee with a view to making sure that the surpluses are used to good effect as far as malnutrition is concerned. When one goes on to consider the various surpluses this report is very enlightening. We find, for example, that on 16 May 1961 there were 100,000 bags of dried beans still on hand. On page 14 they refer to the Cape Town milk scheme, which is a local scheme dealing with a purely local area, but the final remark is also of significance—

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to establish his point. He must now return to health services.

May I just refer to the question of the egg surplus too, Mr. Chairman? This seems to have caused a certain amount of trouble as far as the disposal overseas is concerned by virtue of the unfavourable market overseas. I was very surprised to see in yesterday’s newspaper that we were trying to sell eggs overseas. I believe a member of the Egg Board is going overseas to sell these eggs because they have a good market, because they have strong shells. I should like to suggest that these eggs could be used in South Africa to build a nation of strong people to exploit all the resources with which this country is so well endowed. In the same newspaper one reads “18,000 non-White children in Durban nearly half of them under the age of three, are in serious need of proper food”. If we take the matter a little bit further, Sir, there is the question of bananas. This has been dealt with already but I would like to point out that, from a medical point of view, Gelfand in his book “The Sick African” recommends bananas in the diet of children who are being treated for kwashiorkor. Referring particularly to kwashiorkor, one finds from figures that last year in Durban 1,137 children were admitted to King Edward VIII hospital suffering from kwashiorkor, 364 died. The cost is estimated by one source as R90 to treat each child. So, on the basis of simple arithmetic it means that last year the province had to spend at least R102,000 odd in the treatment of kwashiorkor. Later figures indicate that this cost is rising, because now it is estimated that it cost R3.45 per day, and the course of treatment to cure a child of kwashiorkor is now R103. Statements have been made in which, I think, the position is underestimated, when it is said that 1c per day per child will prevent kwashiorkor. I do believe that the money that would be required to be spent on the prevention of kwashiorkor, bears no relation to the amount that is required to treat these poor sufferers of this dreaded disease. I realize, Sir, that there are many volunteer organizations who are playing a major part in dealing with this problem, but I submit that it is beyond their capacity to coordinate matters of food surpluses and to arrange for the distribution of surpluses in the various parts of the country where they are needed.

Mr. Chairman, if we were engaged in a shooting war we would soon find ways and means to distribute large quantities of food to large numbers of people in very inaccessible spots if it became necessary. I submit that we are engaged in a cold war, a cold, protracted war against starvation and malnutrition and the forces at our disposal should be used to combat this very serious menace.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the fact that during these last years the hon. the Minister has seen fit to follow the advice given by this side of the House to put forward amendments to the Mental Disorders Act of 1916, as amended in 1944 with the two amendments which were put forward last year, 1961.I would like to quote from the speech made in 1959 concerning the Mental Disorders Act by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). On 3 June 1959 the hon. member for Durban (Central) made this point (Hansard Vol. 101 col. 7256)—

This is important—

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this admission of patients to mental hospitals to-day. The position is that those patients who wish to be admitted to a mental hospital have to go through a great deal of formality. Our present Mental Disorders Act, I feel, does not go far enough in this way. Further amendments are necessary. I feel this is very important because of the new Act which has recently been passed overseas; both in Britain and in the U.S.A. they have recently introduced new mental health Acts. The new British Act has revolutionized in its way the whole concept of mental health. Because there are now less formalities for the patient to be admitted into a mental hospital. The stigma of admission which remains in our Act is what I should like the Minister to consider very seriously and to adjust it more in line with the admission of the ordinary patient. I feel that there are three types of patients. There is the certified patient, the voluntary patient and the temporary patient. In the British Mental Disorders Act they have retained one or two categories for a small percentage of the cases, but the vast majority of mental cases do not require to go through very complicated formalities before they are admitted.

Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member is asking for new legislation.

I have been aware of that. The hon. member is actually advocating legislation. She must confine herself to the Vote.

May I then continue by recommending to the Minister that he should consider this point.

I should like to recommend the extension of such services as that provided at Tara Hospital. This is the one hospital of its type in South Africa and it deals with non-certifiable mental cases. I should like the hon. Minister to consider subsidization of further hospitals along the lines of Tara Hospital.

I should like to proceed to another matter to which I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to attend. That is the question of child nutrition and, with it, school feeding. I am aware of it that the Minister has introduced a pilot scheme of skimmed milk which is being distributed to children over the provinces. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider extending this scheme to cover primary school children in the four provinces of South Africa; not just a pilot scheme but a scheme of giving school feeding in the way of one cup of skimmed milk per child.

School feeding is a provincial matter.

Sir, with due respect, I raised this matter under the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Education and he referred it back to the Department of Health because he said at the time—it was some weeks ago—that the Department of Health was dealing with this pilot scheme of skimmed milk. The provinces themselves to whom I have referred it, have referred it back to the Central Government. I abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to know where it should be raised.

I will check to see whether there is a grant-in-aid.

Sir, I wish to support what the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) has just said about kwashiorkor and malnutrition. In case of all races there is a need for school feeding. Dr. S. K. Mitchell, who is the Medical Officer of Health, in the Cape Province, has said this of school feeding—

I should like to say that the encouraging glimmer of hope that we do have in this respect, is this pilot scheme of the distribution of skimmed milk which the hon. Minister of Health is introducing at this moment. I wish to recommend to him that this scheme should be extended to cover school children all over South Africa.

That is purely a provincial matter.

Mr. Chairman, we now see that agriculture has almost been dragged in, and seeing that the distribution of milk has been discussed, I should like to say something in that regard.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the health aspect.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall come to that. Throughout the world it is admitted that milk is the best balanced food in the world. This is the position to such an extent in America that they ensured that milk is provided in all schools and big hospitals because they regard it as the best food. Milk must, of course, be properly distributed so that it can reach those who need it, but we do not want to harm our agricultural industry by so doing and make the milk industry pay for it.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

I only want to discuss the distribution of milk from the point of view of the good foodstuff which it is.

The hon. member cannot discuss the distribution of milk on this Vote.

I wanted to do so from the health point of view.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the announcement to the effect that 100 patients are to be removed from the Alexandra Institution here in the Cape to Stikland and that 100 Coloured patients will be admitted to fill those vacancies. While we appreciate this, Sir, I should like to point out that over the years the position has become very serious indeed. As I mentioned earlier, 110 cases have been reported at one voluntary organization over the past eight months, cases which are of the utmost urgency. Over the years the mental suffering to which parents who were in the unfortunate position of having such children, have been subjected, has been tremendous. They could not do anything with the children but keep them at home. Many cases have been recorded where the mothers had to chain the child to a solid object in the home while they had to go and work to earn the bread for the family. Those children have often been locked up in closets or cupboards. The matter is very urgent, Sir, and while the Department is doing something about it, I want to make a special plea to the Minister that an endeavour should be made to cope with the situation as it presents itself at the moment. This position to which I refer is only in respect of Cape Town and its immediate environments. We know nothing about the rest of the country because no records are available.

There is one further matter I should like to raise with the Minister. I have had some correspondence with his Department in this regard before. Representations have been made to me from time to time in regard to mental hospitals in my constituency. As far as the Coloured people are concerned there is a mental hospital at Port Alfred and one at Fort Beaufort. I am not quite sure whether one should call them mental hospitals or mental institutions; I think in most cases they are both. I will come back to that point. The position is this, Sir, that no difference is made between the Coloured and African patients at those institutions both as far as their housing and their treatment are concerned. In raising this matter, I do not want it to be construed as racialism. Unfortunately we have the situation in South Africa that your social status is largely dependent on the colour of your skin or your race. It might be argued that a mental patient in such an institution or hospital would have no regard to where he or she was, but you have to consider the relatives and the next-of-kin. They take an interest in that patient. I know of a case where it took the family months before they succeeded in getting the mother removed to Valkenburg so that she could be housed with patients of her own race. I know of another very pathetic case. The hospital superintendent himself brought it to my notice. It is the case of a Coloured school teacher who became a psychotic. On appearance she would have been judged to be White and she was housed in an institution where she was together with the most primitive Africans from the Transkei. They spoke a different language, had different customs, different habits and even eating different food. The staff consisted of Africans and this Coloured school teacher had to be treated and attended by them.

It is perfectly obvious that with the development which is taking place in regard to the future independence of the Transkei etc., that the position in regard to these institutions which I have in my constituency would change in the future. When this change is effected I think something should be borne in mind, something which has been the experience over the years in regard to all mental institutions. As we know we have a place called Valkenburg here in Cape Town. Over the years a stigma has become attached to the very name. We say in Afrikaans “hy meet Valkenburg toe gaan”, inferring that he is mad. This is very wrong, Sir, because there are so many different types of mental patients. You get the neurotic type and even the acute psychotic type for whom there is a hope of recovery. They may go to such an institution with the hope of recovering and many of them actually recover completely, and return to society, but a certain amount of stigma attaches to them as though they were chronic psychotics who never recover. In other words, Sir, what I have in mind is this that if there is to be reorganization in future this aspect should be borne in mind. If a person is a chronic psychotic, or if his age is such that there is no hope of his ever recovering, he should be sent to an infirmary or an institution specially maintained for that type of person. But the person who suffers a temporary illness such as the neurotic, neuro-psychotic or even the acute psychotic, where there is hope that he will recover, should go to a general hospital. I think that principle should be observed right through as far as mental patients are concerned, particularly in the case of the Coloured people.

When my time expired just now, I was dealing with grants to foster parents of Coloured mentally retarded children …

The hon. member is out of order. He cannot raise the matter here.

Sir, with due respect, I have made inquiries and I am informed that that does not fall under Social Welfare; that all matters appertaining to Coloured pensions and grants have been transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs, but that this is a Health grant. I am speaking subject to correction, Mr. Chairman, but that is my information.

There is no provision for it in the Estimates. Can the hon. member show me where provision is made for it?

No, Sir, I have not gone into that; I have only made inquiries. However, in that case I will leave it and raise in under Coloured Affairs if that is your ruling.

One of the first matters raised here has been that of kwashiorkor. The hon. members for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) and Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) have raised it. I want to remind them that kwashiorkor is caused by a protein deficiency. In other words, it would be pointless to provide poor people with food of any kind, because it will not cure them, but only food which is rich in protein. The only surplus food which we have with a high protein content is milk, but this certainly does not apply to bananas. The hon. member has referred to what a certain expert has said about the provision of bananas to people who are suffering from a protein deficiency, but this is not in line with the experience and knowledge of medical science. The provision of food to a child suffering from kwashiorkor will not be of any avail unless it has a high protein content. I agree with the hon. member that kwashiorkor is widespread in South Africa. It is calculated in the vicinity of Cape Town that there are no less than 22,000 children suffering from kwashiorkor, but I want hon. members to consider the causes. We must remember the simple fact that kwashiorkor can be prevented by the provision of a negligible amount of milk powder or milk. One only needs to give a child 2d. worth of milk powder per day, and he will never suffer from kwashiorkor. Why has kwashiorkor become such a big problem in recent years? It was not such a big problem in previous years. One of the reasons is that the mortality rate has dropped so considerably as a result of the combating of diseases such as malaria and fever in South Africa and Africa. Previously the mortality rate amongst young children was so high that parents could bring up their children within the means of their disposal, but to-day it is no longer possible. Consequently, one of the primary problems in Africa to-day is the fact that there are not planned families. In the cases of the Whites one does not find kwashiorkor on a large scale, but amongst the Bantu and the Coloureds it is a serious problem. But do not think that this is only the position in South Africa. A little while ago one of the executive council members in Basutoland referred to what a tremendous problem it is in that country. One of the first problems is to teach the non-Whites to have less children. [Interjections.] It is pointless to say that the non-Whites are so terribly poor. It only costs 1s. 3d. per week to keep a child healthy but if one has six or seven children that is quite a big amount. In other words, unless one is prepared to teach the non-Whites that it is in their own interests to plan their families, one will never find a solution for this problem.

A further question which has arisen is how we are to reach the child who needs the milk? I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) this. If she sees the problem in this way, then it is pointless saying that we must give those children food. If one gives food, one does not give it to the children but to their parents and then it goes to the husband and never reaches the child. In other words, that is no solution. This is the problem with which we have always been faced. I should like to give the head of the Cape Town Municipal Health Service and the chief medical officer of the Divisional Council credit for starting to seek a solution and for showing us the way. They developed a system in Cape Town whereby they have made it possible for the powder to reach the child and not the parent, and have achieved tremendous success. Last year I informed the House that the Government had set aside a certain amount for launching a pilot scheme, i.e. two schemes in Cape Town, one in Pretoria and one in Natal, to see whether we could not devise a scheme whereby the protein can reach the child. I want to thank most sincerely the officers of the Department and of the municipalities who were engaged on this scheme for showing that we can eventually develop a scheme which will in fact be effective. But hon. members will realize that if in the vicinity of Cape Town alone there are 22,000 children suffering from kwashiorkor, what the extent is of kwashiorkor throughout South Africa amongst the Bantu and the Coloureds? It is taking on tremendous proportions. It is making it simply impossible for any Government to take action aimed at feeding every child in every family. We must therefore find another solution, and it has been found. The solution is to bring the parents back gradually once again to the realization of the value of milk. The schemes which we have undertaken in the Cape, Pretoria and Durban have had the wonderful result that the parents who originally could obtain cheap milk as a result of the Government’s subsidy, have come so much under the realization of the value of milk and milk powder that in the course of time they have started buying that milk themselves. Here in the Cape, within a comparatively short period, 75 per cent of the parents who originally obtained subsidized milk, have started buying it with their own money. We have therefore had an interesting experience, namely that we have not only saved the child, but that we have also taught the parents to keep their children healthy. If this is the effect of the schemes which we have undertaken, we can educate our non-White people by means of a comparatively small expenditure to appreciate the value of milk. The Government has now agreed that we can extend these schemes and has made R20,000 available for the next year. We shall therefore be able to assist a larger proportion of our non-Whites. I hope that we shall be able to solve the problem of kwashiorkor in this way.

Has the Government considered the possibility of fortifying mealie-meal with powdered milk?

I would like to remind the hon. member that it is due to a protein deficiency. There is no sense in fortifying mealie-meal, because mealie-meal has very little protein, and it seems to be of very little use to fortify mealie-meal because the parents will still eat it first. In other words, by subsidizing mealie-meal, we will be subsidizing the parents again, and we are trying to reach the child, because it is the child who suffers from the deficiency.

It is not only the child.

Grown-ups get quite sufficient proteins from other sources. The people who really suffer are the children.

You are quite wrong there.

Then I beg to differ from the hon. member.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department has any information or has conducted any experiments with a new type of protein food being manufactured on a fairly large scale by a Durban manufacturer, and which has been very favourably reported on by Prof. Steyn?

Are you trying to advertise in the House?

No, we have not carried out any experiments in that regard. We are dealing with the children because kwashiorkor is due to malnutrition in children, with all due respect to the hon. member for Houghton. Children between the ages two and-a-half and six who suffer from it. The question of fortified mealie-meal for the use of adults is a matter which is being investigated by the C.S.I.R. but at the moment we are dealing with the children.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has raised one or two matters. The one is the fact that there should be fewer formalities when mental patients are being admitted to hospital, and at the same time that there should be more institutions such a Tara. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has also raised an important point, namely the stigma which attaches to our large mental hospitals because they are regarded as madhouses—not because the treatment is bad, because it is excellent. Perhaps I should explain to hon. members what the latest developments are. The position is that it is very essential that the person be treated timeously. The obvious solution is that one should make it possible for such a person for example, to undergo an hour’s treatment from time to time and then to return to his work. That is the ideal solution. It is pointless our having large institutions such as Weskoppies. At every large hospital we have to make those facilities available so that the person who has had a light attack can go there and be quickly healed. We are faced with the disturbing fact that under the tension of modern life more and more persons are evincing mental deviations. In recent years we have been taking active steps to meet this problem. We are engaged on negotiations with the provincial authorities which control the large hospitals to help us and allow every large hospital to have a section where our psychiatrists can help people—in other words, a type of out-patients’ section. We have already had negotiations with Pretoria hospital and we already have a large number of beds available there. This section is run by the staff of Weskoppies. They are also negotiating with the other provincial authorities and I hope that with the co-operation we are enjoying we shall be able to solve this problem. At the same time everywhere in our large cities, under the leadership of the National Council for Mental Health, clinics have been set up where members of the staff of that council meet patients. We are therefore, already making it far easier for such people to enter hospitals. We have not yet been able to abolish all the formalities in regard to admission, but the large institutions are to an ever-increasing extent becoming places for the treatment of chronic case or persons who have to be there for long periods. For this reason it is essential that certain formalities should be observed. I therefore hope that with this integration of the ordinary hospitals with our mental services, and also with the integration of the staff of the ordinary hospitals with those of our mental hospitals, we will gradually remove the stigma. The House will remember that hitherto there has been another problem as regards our mental institutions because in the past they were regarded as prisons because in actual fact they were prisons. Poor people for whom there was no remedy and who were a danger to the community were simply locked up. That is why they gained the name of “madhouses” or “prisons” although the treatment provided was excellent. But in the course of time we have found that the medical profession has come to regard these as institutions apart. We gradually found that fewer and fewer medical men wanted to study psychiatry so as to make their services available to the large mental institutions so that we were forced to move in a new direction. We therefore had to try to bridge this gap between the mental institution and the other hospitals, and we are doing so in various ways. We are doing so for example by making it easier for young doctors to take psychiatry as one of their subjects. But we are also creating a large number of posts in our mental institutions for young doctors who wish to specialize and we are even changing the titles of the doctors in our mental institutions so that they correspond with the titles used in ordinary hospitals. It is strange, but the fact that in the case of a mental institution one refers to the head as the “physician superintendent”, whereas an ordinary hospital has a “superintendent”, makes the young doctors think that it is not a hospital. For this reason we are changing all these titles so that they correspond to those of an ordinary hospital. It may seem strange to hon. members, but in our entire mental service to-day we only have 11 specialist psychiatrists. We must now take every possible step to ensure that we increase their number. We have succeeded in having a psychiatry course introduced at the University of Pretoria. Because we are breaking down this stigma, this wall, eight students are already taking the course. At the University of the Witwatersrand through our endeavours a diploma for psychiatric medicine has been introduced and there are already seven candidates who are receiving their practical training at Tara and partly at Weskoppies. Then the S.A. College of Physicians is offering an examination in psychiatry for persons who are not studying at those universities and we already have two candidates who are studying for that examination and two from Valkenburg. We have created ten posts of clinical assistant, three at Valkenburg, three at Sterkfontein, and four at Weskoppies. and all these posts have already been filled. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that at the moment we only have 11 psychiatrists, we have approximately 29 persons who at the present time are undergoing training. This will to a large extent help in overcoming the problem which the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) raised when he discussed the shortage of trained medical men. We must face the fact that the estimate of the National Bureau for Educational Research is probably correct, namely that by the year 1965 there will be a shortage of approximately 2,000 doctors. We must not forget that to-day we already have a shortage of doctors in practically every field. We have a shortage in the Provincial hospitals, in State hospitals, in the Provincial Administrations and in my Department. I agree that we must take steps to ensure that this shortage is met. We have already done so in recent years by improving salaries. This has had results. May I just remind the hon. member for Rosettenville of the facts. In 1958 we recruited three additional doctors to our Department. In 1959 there were nine; in 1960 there were 13; and I think we must ascribe this partly to the fact that the salaries have been increased. But we have not relied on that exclusively. We have had to take further steps. In 1960 we obtained permission from the Government to create ten medical bursaries of R600 per annum, and we have granted these bursaries to selected students in their fifth and sixth years, with great success. In 1960 we granted ten bursaries; in 1961, 14 and in 1962, 15—a total of 39. Every one of these students is obliged to remain in the service of the State for a few years. I do not want to say that these students will remain in the public service all their lives, but I have sufficient confidence in them to believe that they will remain in our service for a number of years. I feel that once these students appreciate the value of the service they render their country and their people in the Department, many of them will remain there.

I should now like to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Queens town (Mr. Loots). In the first place he has discussed the question of male nurses. The position which the hon. member has described is quite correct. There is a large number of male nurses who simply feel that they cannot make any headway. But we have now created a number of posts of charge nurses. One unfortunately finds that so many of the male nurses fail to apply to become nurse-in-charge. The result is that by so doing they lose promotion. Many male nurses are only too inclined to remain in a specific place rather than apply for promotion elsewhere, and in that way they lose promotion. We felt that we should also improve their position by other means and that it might improve the position considerably if we introduced a merit system so that in future every man will not be automatically promoted but only if he really shows that he is outstanding at his work. The man who does best is the man who will get promotion. I hope therefore that this will also bring about greater satisfaction amongst the staff. But there is another approach to the problem, and that is that many male nurses are perhaps doing therapeutic work, many of them are people who do supervisory work and these people feel that the description “male nurse” is not the appropriate designation. The Department is also giving serious consideration to this matter.

The hon. member has referred to the rentals. I want to assure him that I shall go into that matter immediately.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has raised the problem of rabies. I think we can accept that rabies is endemic to South Africa, but that it is perhaps a new type of rabies which we have encountered in recent years, first in the Northern Transvaal and later in Zululand. When it broke out in 1955 in the Northern Transvaal all the dogs in that area were immunized by the Veterinary Services Division, but in 1961 this new type of rabies also made its appearance in Northern Zululand. The hon. member for Durban (Central) has made the accusation that we failed to create a neutral zone in Zululand in which all dogs could be immunized to prevent the spread of this disease. The indications, however, are that the disease spread in a different way; that it spread as a result of the fact that dogs which might have been the carriers of the virus were transported over long distances by their owners.

It was not carried by means of bananas.

I have never heard that the virus is endemic to a banana. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has also criticized the Department for not having used the new “duck egg embryo vaccine” sooner. There are actually two types of vaccine which are generally used. Hitherto there has been the old type, the semple type of vaccine. That type was used in the past but it is not always free of danger. It happens in very rare cases that it can nave serious consequences for the person who is inoculated with that vaccine. A new vaccine has now been developed in America, namely the “duck egg embryo vaccine”. This vaccine has only recently been made available. A year before the outbreak in southern Natal our Department was in touch with Geneva and with the manufacturers of it, but it could not be provided at that time. It was only during the outbreak in Natal that it was possible to obtain that vaccine. When we take the facts into account, therefore, we cannot accuse the Department of having been negligent. I think the Department has done its utmost to be at the spearhead of developments.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? If what the hon. the Minister says about the “duck egg embryo vaccine” is correct, how is that other countries used it four or five years before we did and that six months ago we were not able to use it?

I shall be glad if the hon. member can tell me which countries; then I shall be able to go into the matter.

I mentioned the countries in my speech: Israel and Malaya.

I am afraid that I cannot answer the question at the moment; I shall have to go into the matter.

I am under the impression I have answered all questions, but if I have forgotten anything, I shall be grateful if hon. members will just remind me.

Will the Minister please answer my question regarding the rapid increase in lung cancer in South Africa.

The hon. member has raised the question of lung cancer as a result of smoking. Unfortunately I only received the report of the Royal College of Physicians ten days ago. I have not yet had time to study them. I think this is such an important matter that the hon. member will not expect of me that I should say anything about that matter at this stage. I should like to make a study of it and if necessary I shall take action. The hon. member can rest assured that I shall give serious attention to the matter.

May I just ask whether the statistics issued by the Department of Health cannot be analysed under these two heads.

I can just tell the hon. member that the available statistics are issued by the Census Bureau and that those statistics are in fact analysed.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to the matter which I have raised regarding Coloured patients in mental hospitals.

I can only promise in this instance that I shall go into this matter. In the nature of things it is extremely difficult when one has one or two Coloured patients in a mental institution to ensure that they are nursed by Coloureds. But I shall give attention to what the hon. member has said, and if there are sufficient such patients and we have Coloured nurses and Coloured patients, then we shall of course try to do that as far as possible.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Health: Hospitals and Institutions”, R12,040,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (Administration)”, R1,550,000.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour. Sir, over a number of years now we have been warning various Ministers of Agriculture and the Ministers of Agricultural Economics and Marketing about the surpluses that are building up against the farmers in South Africa. These surpluses are creating difficulties that are going to have serious repercussions upon the farmers of the country. The Minister is faced with the position to-day that he has to go overseas to find markets for these products, in competition with similar products produced possibly at a lower cost of production and possibly even subsidized. But there is worse competition than that, and that is that many of those products that have been dumped on those markets are sold on a long-term credit basis. Sir, there is one thing that is worrying us on this side of the House, and we think it most important. We feel that the Minister is taking the line of least resistance in dealing with this matter. He is reducing the prices to the consumer, regardless of the rising cost of production that we have throughout the country, and this will solve none of our problems. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a number of these factors in the hope that he will take some notice of them. In the first place interest rates have been raised from five to seven per cent. We have the iniquitous rate that has to be paid if it is a Land Bank bond, a rate which, when it carries insurance, is equal to approximately 10 per cent. These rising costs are referred to in the Minister’s own report of 1961. Taking the figure of 100 as the basis for 1938, we find that the price of implements has soared to 307, spare parts to 310, implements and spare parts to 308, trucks to 410, tractors to 268, and so we go on. Over the last eight years prices have risen in the order in which I have given them; implements by 36 points, spare parts 26, implements and spare parts 32, and trucks 72, while in the case of building material there has been a rise of 188. But even over the last year you still have an increase over and above that of five points in many of those essential items for production. Added to these you have repairs. I do not think the hon. the Minister needs to be reminded of what it costs to take any farm implement to a garage or a blacksmith to-day. Your labour charges have gone up 400 per cent and there are still demands for further increases. Then you have taxation and rates, and may I remind the Minister of what is taking place in the rural areas. Where you have had revaluation of farms, the valuations in many instances have been doubled and quadrupled. Does the hon. the Minister realize what that means to the farmer. Those divisional council rates on capital are mounting up against production costs. Over and above that we have rail age which is still mounting. Railage has increased six times over and above what it was. May I quote the figures. Let us take wool alone on which the rail age was 43 cents; to-day it is R2.72. Then there are the other costs of production in connection with that commodity which have risen from R2.08 to R9.52. Sir, these are all recent increases. There are also the distribution costs which are mounting up against the farmer, and in the face of that the Minister still risks the reduction of prices. We have with us all the time—and I need hardly mention it again but I think I should—the hail, the floods and the droughts that take their toll of stock. Is it any wonder that we have a depopulation of the platteland under those circumstances? Is it any wonder that agriculture has become an unpopular source of investment with investors.

I sincerely hope that the hon. member who made that interjection does not agree with the reply that came from the Minister two or three years ago when we referred this very matter to him and when he said that he could do nothing about it unless he had control of land prices, control of production and control of distribution. Sir, the hon. the Minister and any decent Government in this country can settle this matter without those fascist ideas. Sir, the question of quotas was referred to in the last Vote that we dealt with a few minutes ago. The position is that if sugar quotas can be applied successfully to deal with over-production and surpluses of sugar, surely quotas could be introduced in the case of other products. Sir, the small man is one of the biggest producers in this country of many of the surplus commodities. Those men are gradually being eliminated by the land grabbers. What does the hon. the Minister intend to do about this, because those men have to be protected?

He is not going to do anything.

Sir, the Mealie Board has issued a report that is extremely interesting. It refers to the production costs in certain parts of the country, and I want to repeat them to the hon. the Minister because they reflect a shameful state of affairs, in the face of the fact that the Minister has now reduced the price to the producer. In the Transvaal High-veld the overall average cost of production is 271½ cents; the price to the producer is 276 cents, leaving him a margin of cents per bag. Sir, what farmer can live on that? In discussing it generally I was told that there was an aftermath. Well, I am sorry for the farmer who has to depend on an aftermath mealie shucks for any profit plus 4½ cents per bag of maize. There are other areas which are more favourably placed—the Western Transvaal for instance where they have a margin of 80 cents. How can these men compete with the men producing that commodity in the Transvaal Highveld? Is the Minister doing anything about a change over from the product that is being produced there?

Are you prepared to pay more for your maize as a consumer?

May I remind the Minister that on the very figures that he has in this report there is a margin of R1.20 between 276 cents and the delivered price to the consumer, in other words a margin of R1.20. Does he think that that is a fair margin between producer and distributor?

Where does it go to?

I would like to know where it goes to?

You should know by this time.

Surely that is a margin that needs investigation. The poor unfortunate producer gets 4½ cents. Who gets the R1.20? Is the Minister satisfied about it? Sir, the Government asked us to improve our methods of farming and to mechanize. Well, we have responded and responded wonderfully; we have employed those improved methods of farming and we have mechanized, and this is the result. While these items which are essential for production are continually increasing in price, I take umbrage at the fact that the Minister employs the line of least resistance by saying, “I am going to reduce prices”. How they do it I do not know because they either have to go out of business or continue to mine their soil. The Minister knows full well that if we put our shoulders to the wheel to investigate this problem or surpluses, we might create some machinery whereby we could absorb the greater part of these surpluses, for better use in our own country. But he knows full well that they cannot be absorbed without the capacity on the part of the consumer to pay for them. That is the reply to the hon. member’s question. We have a rapidly increasing population in South Africa and it is up to us to see that the present population gets some improvement in emoluments so that it can at least absorb some of the surpluses. But above all other things we are losing thousands of head of stock that might reasonably be saved from the ravages of droughts and disease.

The Minister is bringing about precisely the same position in the dairy industry through the reduction in the price of butter fats. Herds have been built up on the present prices, and when you get a reduction in prices the herds must inevitably suffer. Those herds cannot be maintained at that standard when you have continual reductions, and I have no doubt, in view of what is stated in this report, that there may be further reduction. I note with interest in this report that the Minister talks in terms of the quality of our butter. I am extremely pleased to realize that he has at least come to the conclusion that the quality of our butter is an important issue in this whole matter. Sir, I have a little pamphlet here which was distributed by the Minister of Information, and this is what he said—

The present Minister, like his predecessors, has made the farmers pay for the holding of those stocks until such time as he has satisfied himself that the country’s requirements can be met.

Are you referring to butter?

I am talking about butter now.

Last year your criticized the importation of butter.

What I did was to criticize the hon. the Minister and his policy towards the people who were producing inferior butter.

No.

Well, the Minister is perfectly at liberty to read my speech. If I criticized it and we had butter in the country to distribute, I would remind the Minister that the year before that the Minister’s counterpart in the other Department told me that he had had to import butter because he required butter to send to Rhodesia to full fil their order. That is what happened. The Minister knows that the quality of our butter is due to malpractices. Furthermore, he knows full well that it is due to the fact that we had to store that butter for lengthy periods of time to satisfy his requirements. However, let me go on quoting from this pamphlet—

I think my hon. Leader, some six or seven years ago, dispelled that by pointing out to this House that we were then faced with enormous surpluses and that they were likely to increase, so they can hardly be called sporadic surpluses in 1962. Sir, this is a Government document, and it goes on to say—

Where did it come from?—

The hon. the Minister knows that we are capable of absorbing all the butter manufactured in South Africa but we prefer to send it out of the country because we have not the capacity to absorb it. Sir, it is time the hon. the Minister settled down to the fact that we have got to do something about it.

What would you suggest?

I have asked the hon. the Minister over a period of time to investigate the extent to which local authorities have increased the cost to the producer. I want to give the Minister some of his items: Increased costs at the abattoir, levies, health regulations that are making demands upon the producer for greater contributions. I have already referred to the one factor, the question of rail age. All these factors add to the cost of production. Last year—and I am sorry to mention this again but the Minister has done nothing about it—last year I drew his attention to the fact that the overall cost at an abattoir 55 miles from the rail head from which stock was trucked amounted to 12½ to 15 per cent of the farmer’s overall charges. Does the Minister realize what that means. What farmer can afford R150 out of every cheque of R1,000 for stock that he sends down to the abattoir?

They must have been in pretty poor condition.

Yes, I think they looked something like that hon. member. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that that hon. gentleman has no right to make remarks of that kind. Let me go on quoting—

Mr. Chairman, may I deal with those individually, because that in fact is a deception. It is perfectly correct to suggest that it is, say R3.14 per 100 lbs., but no farmer sends 100 lbs. of beef down to the market. He sends a 500 or 600 lbs. beast down to the market, and the basis of R3.14 per 100 lbs. means that he loses R18.84 per beast or R180 per truckload. Sir, that is happening daily. In 1960-61 it was reduced to R11.04 per beast or, in other words, R110 per truck load of stock. What those people who are further away from rail heads have to put up with, I would not know. That is the true position. I want to impress upon the hon. the Minister that it is essential that that price margin be reduced. But in any case it will be seen from these records that the most they get for that is in round figures R12, or R10 now per 100 lbs. and that in round figures is 1s. per lb., and I would like to see the housewife who pays anything under 2s. per lb. for the beef she buys and if she wants the best, she has to pay more. I would ask the hon. the Minister what producer can stand for that; fluctuations of up to R180 per truckload cannot be stood by any farmer. What farmer can face a glutted market one day and a starved market the next day? In the one instance an increase of R180! It is unrealistic and unreasonable of the hon. the Minister to expect that from the farmers. That is being done while it is costing the meat producers of South Africa R2,000,000 to have so called stability in marketing. The control market system is costing us R2,000,000, Sir. I remember the days when we had ordinary auctions, and I can assure the hon. the Minister that the farmer at least had the right to take his oxen home if there was a variation in price of something like £9 per head. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: What has been achieved by placing meat on the hook? Sir, he has had these fluctuations which have brought about this unstability. Those are undeniable facts; Disastrous fluctuations! What is he going to achieve by removing permits? He has certainly removed a little bit of rascality, but if he thinks he can get any steady flow to markets without working out some scheme whereby that stock can be brought in as required, then the whole issue must become a failure. I ask the hon. the Minister: Is it any wonder that the producers find themselves in difficulties? The hon. the Minister must know of all these abuses, otherwise he has not been attending to his job. And you will find them in respect of almost every control board system we have in this country. He knows the abuses and he knows the shortcomings. It is impossible for the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to that position and set up some machinery as a result of which he can get more prompt action to try and stop this state of affairs? I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the farmers of South Africa can no longer stand it. As far as I am concerned, I have got to the stage where it just reminds me of the doctor who stood by and waited for his patient to die so that he could hold a post mortem. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: Farming is getting into a worse state to-day than it has been for many years as a result of surpluses, as a result of reduced prices and as a result of increased costs of production.

I want to come to this question of drought relief. There are certain parts of the country when districts are declared drought stricken, where certain farmers are entitled to relief while others are completely precluded. I would ask the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to that also. Should a dividing fence decide whether a farmer on the one side farming on exactly the same lines as a farmer on the other side of the fence is treated differently?

He can apply to the Railways?

But the Railways cannot give him relief because the Minister says it cannot be done. Where it is in an urban area, it cannot be done.

Farming in an urban area?

Of course there are farmers in urban areas. May I give the hon. member an example? I can mention the case to him of a common age of 46,000 morgen. What happens there? They are farming there. Originally that land was given to them as farms. Why cannot they receive the same benefits? And I go further: That makes it impossible for the neighbours to get that relief. I admit that that became a racket and I think the Minister should counteract that position, but what about the other cases?

There is another item. “Cubes” are regarded as a processed food. Now under drought conditions to-day, the farmer is using cubes very extensively to save his stock. Why can he not get those cubes in a concentrated form under drought-stricken regulations as other foods?

Ask the Railways.

The hon. member is merely displaying his ignorance, because the hon. Minister in April this year decided that he was going to get rid of this whole thing, and he has handed it over to his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. So the hon. member should keep quiet.

I want to refer very briefly to the question of quality. It is referred to extensively in the hon. the Minister’s report. If we want to get markets overseas for the surpluses, we have got to see to it that we are to put better mealies into the bags, better oats into the bags, better butter into wrappers, if we want to capture any markets overseas. Because if we are going on, as we have done in the past, to export products that are far below the standard quality, we can never expect to capture those markets, let alone hold them. I want to issue a warning to the hon. the Minister. The position as far as the destruction of good wholesome food is concerned, is having a nasty impact upon the minds of all people, let alone on that section of the community that can ill-afford to pay for them. The destruction of such food its going on continuously, and yet there are many people in South Africa who are living below the bread line who could well use that food. Even the export of foodstuffs at very reduced prices is having an impact on the minds of the people, who if they could get them at the export price, would willingly buy them.

It is a question of quotas, not the destruction of food.

Well, fine, may I put it this way, if certain of those quotas that are destroyed instead of being distributed to those people who can ill-afford to pay for them, were supplied to those people, would it not be better that way? We on this side of the House have a decided objection to the deliberate destruction of food that might be distributed, and we refuse to countenance any idea of will full destruction. Those people would never buy and could never buy those foodstuffs in any case, so you are not going to influence the market.

A moment ago you pleaded for quotas.

The hon. Minister apparently did not understand me. I want to tell the hon. the Minister what I mean by quotas. Supposing a man is producing 30,000 bags of maize. Give him a quota of 25,000. Let him produce his 30,000, but devote 5,000 of that to the production of some other commodity. Surely that is sane and sensible.

And milk the same?

Certainly, he would have lots of means to use the milk, for pigs, etc. The Minister has got to apply his mind to this, otherwise the impact will displace that Government at no far distant date. [Time limit.]

The hon. member has spoken in very general terms, but he has made one or two points of which one can take note. But seeing that he has spoken about the great difficulties the farmers are experiencing, I find it very strange that he was completely destroying the Magna Charta of the farmers. Our country has always been prepared to introduce orderly marketing, and the former Marketing Council was established to exercise control over our products. But the hon. member is already talking about export products which we should sell in our country at a lower price. I wonder how on earth we shall ever achieve stabilization and how the farmers will be able to exist under such a scheme. We are sorry the price of mealies is not higher, but under the hon. member’s scheme the price would fall still lower. Then I want to tell the hon. member he should not speak so lightly of the quality of our export mealies. I think we are producing a very good quality mealie in South Africa and I do not know of any case where there have been complaints about the mealies which have been exported. But export is absolutely essential for the farmer in South Africa. The Marketing Act was introduced to give us systems in terms of which we could control our domestic marketing. Under the National Party Government matters have developed to such a stage that to-day we have surpluses. If the hon. member had suggested a new scheme aimed at dealing with the export surpluses he would really have been doing something of value for the agricultural industry. But he has now asked that the export surpluses which are sold abroad at a lower price, should be kept in our country. If the farmer must pay for the prices which are received abroad for those mealies, the mealies would be still more expensive for the farmers to use as fodder than is the position to-day. That argument is obsolete.

We then turn to dairy products. We have our boards under the Marketing Act. Organized agriculture is absolutely in favour of the Marketing Act being upheld. That is why we have our various boards which must distribute or export every product in the country. With a view to development, and seeing that we now have surpluses, we may have to make amendments to the Marketing Act. There are certain improvements which can in fact be effected. But when we speak in such general terms, we must please not allow one thing, namely this venerable old Marketing Act which has kept our farmers on their farms, to be destroyed. The whole idea of the Marketing Act was to change the old emergency regulation system of the United Party. In the days when they fixed the price as they liked, and after the war when mealies rose in price, and they made a profit, they paid the profits which they made into the Treasury. At that time it was the National Party which built up the Stabilization Fund of the mealie farmers. It was Minister Havenga who said that this money belonged to the farmers and that his emergency regulation should be withdrawn and the farmers with the assistance of the Marketing Act should see to it that their house was put into order. The principle of building up a stabilization fund was then accepted and it has worked very well. But as a result of improved farming methods the yield per morgen has increased and we now have surpluses, and now at lease we have something on which to work. What else could the Minister do except to accept the advice of his Marketing Council? There is the cost of production plus a living wage, which can be used to determine a sound basis. How can one single hon. member criticize the Minister seeing that we have this machinery? But where we can help is to place our exports on a sound basis. We can say that we should have a larger Stabilization Fund as regards the export of mealies. Let the farmers then contribute in order to strengthen the Stabilization Fund. The Stabilization Fund is still strong enough to carry the mealie farmers at the moment. But let us do something of a practical nature in this direction, and seeing that the Government is supporting industrial development, I want to say that it should also to a certain extent stimulate the export of surpluses. But I want to say that if we are going to restrict the mealie farmer and say that he should not produce more, then we are only going to have chaos and the small farmers will disappear completely. But what we can in fact do is to make other arrangements for example as regards the railways, which will stabilize to a greater extent the cost of transport to the various harbours, something which will help the farmers. I feel that we can do something along those lines. But to place restrictions on production in South Africa to-day and to say: “You can produce so many mealies and your neighbour can produce so many”, will result in the worst possible chaos. The system we have has always yielded good results hitherto.

As far as meat is concerned, to-day we have a surplus of meat for the first time. We must now consider how we can dispose of this surplus. I think we have already made very great progress. The Minister has appointed a commission. The Minister appreciates, just as all of us do, the difficulties of transporting stock to the cities. We all realize that to-day there is over-production at one moment and the next moment there is under-production. Foot and mouth disease unexpectedly breaks out or there is some other setback. As far as that is concerned improvements are perhaps possible. Practical steps can for example be taken to provide improved slaughter facilities and improved refrigeration facilities. The Government is busy with that. The Meat Board is considering the problem. If the facilities are available to dispose of the surplus meat, we shall have greater stability. We shall have to have the co-operation of the businessmen. When we want to market, we have to compete with big businessmen. I do not want to mention names, but hon. members must please not think that these people are all exploiters. They must also make a living. But when the farmer and these big businessmen can co-operate, as regards exports as well, then we shall be able to make progress. I am convinced that the Minister will be quite prepared to extend the facilities in this regard. If we can form a utility company to dispose of our surplus meat, then our main problems as far as the meat farmers are concerned will be solved.

It is easy to talk isn’t it?

The hon. member makes many interjections but I want to tell him that he is still a youngster here and that he has very little understanding of politics. He may know something about wool but he must watch out because we shall still tell him something about wool! But I just want to say that if someone has been an Ossewa Brandwag general, it still does not mean that he can hold his place here. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has now told us about the Marketing Act, but he has forgotten that we are the people who are responsible for the Marketing Act. The hon. member has referred to costs of production plus a reasonable living wage. But he must just tell us how, if the costs of production of mealies are always rising and all costs of production are rising all the time, while the prices paid to the farmer are falling, what is to become of the living wage? The hon. member was still saying in February this year that the farmers were doing badly. That is so. The position of the farmer is becoming worse by the day. His position is becoming worse all the time. Just read the report of the Land Bank. In 1956 loans totalling R8,500,000 were granted, in 1957 the amount was R9,000,000, in 1958 it was R10,500,000, but in 1959 the loans rose to R63,000,000 and in 1960 to R53,000,000. In 1961, the figure was R13,000,000.

But you know after all that a special scheme was introduced.

It is quite correct that the policy of the Land Bank has changed slightly, but it has paid the debts incurred by the farmers and that is why the amount increased so much. The scheme was then stopped and the result was that the amount dropped again. But just notice the arrear payments on individual loans expressed as a percentage of the total loans. From 1939 to 1960 it was never more than 2 per cent but in 1960 it rose to 3.4 per cent. The farmers are no longer in a position to pay. There is surely no one who doubts that the farmers’ position to-day is not good.

The farmers are bankrupt?

Some are going bankrupt and some will still go bankrupt under this Government. The costs of production are rising. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has mentioned the rise in the price of fuel and other items, but the product prices are falling as a result of surpluses and so on. Improved methods are being used. We have answered the call of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the farmers have produced more, but the result has been that the prices have fallen.

Higher production per morgen.

Yes, that is true, but at the same time this causes increased surpluses which in turn brings down the prices. Let us take the meat position. The Minister recently said in Bloemfontein that the surplus was the biggest problem facing the meat industry today.

I did not say that.

I accept that, but that is what is said here. “Surpluses are the biggest problem facing the meat industry in South Africa, Mr. D. C. H. Uys told the Free State Agricultural Union.” In any case I do not know why he did not say that because the meat surplus is going to become a big problem.

The Farmers Weekly says I said that but I never did.

I accept that, but what the hon. the Minister did say was that he had long known that we would have a surplus of meat. But the other Minister of Agriculture said in the Other Place last year that we were going to have a shortage.

When?

I think he said by 1970. That is just around the corner. And Dr. van Wyk has said that we must have 58 per cent more beef and 51 per cent more mutton in 1975 and our farmers started producing more. But on the other hand this Minister says that he has known for a long time that we were going to have a surplus. If he knew that, then steps should long ago have been taken to dispose of that surplus.

What steps?

Export is one step.

At any price?

If one exports, then there is not a surplus. The hon. member asks “how”. The Government is exporting beef at a remunerative price.

Then what is your difficulty?

The Government should have prepared itself before the difficulty arose. And as far as mutton is concerned, we should have carried out all the necessary experiments in order to export the right type of mutton. What did we do? According to Mr. Coetzee, the manager of the Meat Board, a consignment of 2,000 carcases, as I read recently in the Farmers Weekly, was sent and the carcases were of poor quality, a quality which our people do not want to eat, a quality which the butcher does not want to buy.

Nonsense!

This is meat which has been bought in by the Meat Board, and which the butchers would not buy.

What must we do with it?

We should not export it. We should rather sell it at a lower price in the compounds of Johannesburg. We can only build up an export market if we export quality meat. The Farmers Weekly says that the Minister has stated he does not believe in the permit system, nor does he believe in the quota system. The quota system was recently introduced in order to prevent the piling up of slaughter stock at the markets. The quota system had to be implemented by the market agents. I want to say frankly that I think the Government has shifted its responsibility to the market agent because it knows it will be unpopular amongst the farmers. We cannot have the permit system, we cannot have the quota system. Then we are only left with the conditions which we had until recently, where the markets were overstocked so that stock had to wait 10 to 12 days before they could be slaughtered. That is the alternative. In brief, Mr. Chairman, the Government does not have a policy in this regard.

What is your policy?

The policy of this side will be to take precautionary measures and to ensure that we have the necessary export markets.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about tobacco. The small farmers are being forced off the farms because they cannot afford these prices. The tobacco market is shrinking. Less tobacco is being sold than previously. According to the Magaliesberg Tobacco Society, the decrease has been plus minus 3½ per cent in the case of light tobacco, and in the case of dark tobacco plus minus 9 per cent. That, Mr. Chairman, is due to the high price of tobacco. It is due to the excise duties which this Government has imposed on tobacco. If it makes tobacco cheaper, more will be sold. [Time limit.]

I do not blame the United Party for criticizing the National Party Government. It is apparently their duty to criticize. However, the problem which faces the National Party is precisely the opposite from the one which faced the United Party. Under the policy which the United Party followed during the years that they were in power we were always faced with shortages. On the other hand, because of the policy which the National Party has been following all these years, that label has been changed. The National Party has encouraged and assisted the farmers to such an extent that they are to-day faced with surpluses. That shortsighted policy of the United Party of simply reducing the prices when there was an overproduction of mealies, of reducing the price when there was an over-production of meat—although there was never a surplus of meat during their régime but a continual shortage—that policy of theirs of regulating prices according to the production, discouraged the farmers and hampered the development of the country.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Con-nan) makes a very big mistake in regard to the Marketing Act. It is not the United Party which sits on those benches to-day which introduced the Marketing Act, but the United Party under the leadership of the late General Hertzog, of which I was also a member. I was present at that time and let me add this that the opposition to the Marketing Act came from members of the United Party who until recently still sat on that side. The National Party of that time did not sound one discordant note, although they were in the Opposition at that time. The only discordant note which was struck right up to the bitter end, came from United Party members who until recently sat on the Opposition benches.

I do not deny that the farmers are faced with difficulties. But their difficulty is just the opposite, namely that they are faced with surpluses whereas there were shortages in the past. But it is not correct to say, as the hon. member for Gardens said, that they were in an extremely difficult position. Here I have the latest figures in regard to the repayment of loans advanced by the Farmers Assistance Board, and I can also refer to the Land Bank. An amount of R92,000,000 was advanced and of that R71,000,000 has already been recovered. An amount of R2,700,000 has been written off and in that amount is included a write-off of over 6 per cent in respect of the demobilization scheme which was embarked upon by that fund at the time. Actually the amount which has been written off is only 2.9 per cent. The amount outstanding to-day is R28,000,000. The scheme which was embarked upon last year was also surprisingly successful and large amounts are being repaid. I take off my hat to the farming community for what they have achieved over the years.

The problem which has arisen is this that because of the nature of the assistance and guidance which the farmers have been receiving from the Agricultural Department a position has developed where there is overproduction and that they are faced with surpluses to-day where there were shortages in the past. They have been producing the necessary food for the country to such an extent that there are tremendous surpluses today. I want to give mealies as an example. Ten years ago the crop amounted to between

20,000,000 and 30,000,000 bags and it was impossible for anybody to foretell that in the past few years the crop would amount to between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 bags. Let me say this at once that the person who says that all the farmers will go insolvent on account of their mealie crops—here I refer to the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren)—is wrong in saying that. He spoke about the Western Transvaal and he referred to the average yield and to the average costs. But let me tell him that the latest figures prove that in many cases those yields have been very much higher. Although a greater number of morgen of land are being ploughed the increase in the mealie production is due to the increase yield per morgen. As soon as the farmer pushes up his yield to 20 bags per morgen his costs drop. As the Western Transvaal have been pushing up their average to almost 16 bags, their costs have dropped to plus minus 15s. or 16s. per bag. That shows what development has taken place and that is due to the efforts of the farmer but it is also due to the assistance and guidance which have come from the Department of Technical Services—the supply of hybrid seed, better seed and better equipment. In addition to that we have to admit that the farmers themselves have played a most important role. In general they have mechanized, only a very small number have not done so.

I do not know where the hon. member got his figures from in regard to tobacco. The latest figures which I have show that the production was 49,000,000 lbs. in 1948. There has been a decline in the production but the consumption amounts to 50,000,000 lbs. In the case of every product in this country both production and consumption have increased tremendously, with this qualification that the increase in production has been greater than the increase in the consumption. There is an in balance in that the consumption of the various commodities has not kept pace with the development of the farmer. This is a period which will have to be bridged. The question is how long will the farmer be able to continue on the basis on which he has developed over the past years, whether he will be able to keep up the pace and whether the development of the country will be able to keep pace. In that process we need all the assistance which the farming community can give, because they have attained wonderful achievements.

It is true that we are faced with tremendous surpluses. The hon. member for Gardens referred to a consignment of meat. Why did he not refer to the other consignments of meat?

I did refer to them.

That was an experimental consignment which was sent. That proves that we have fallen behind in this development but not in the sense in which the United Party fell behind and totally neglected to assist the farmers of the country to develop. That is the reason why the party opposite have no representatives from the platteland. I think the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is the only member who represents a platteland constituency. The others have to move to the cities from the platteland in order to get a constituency. That is because they have completely lost the confidence of the farming community. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Christiana has referred to the consumption of tobacco. I said that there had been a decline. I read that in the circular letter of the Magalies Co-operative Tobacco Society of October 1961. Under the heading “Decline in Consumption” we find the following—

I can only say that one of the reasons is the increase in the excise duty. That is the reason why the consumption remains low, with the result that there are more and more surpluses.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member will have an opportunity of making a speech. Allow me to use the ten minutes which I have. The hon. member for Christiana also spoke about the shortages during the régime of the United Party. He was, of course, referring to the meat shortages during the war period [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon. members to give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

We had those shortages because there was a terrific increase in the consumption during the war. During the régime of the National Party there was also difficulty in regard to meat. In 1932 we sold meat at 3d. and 4d. per lb. I sold it for that. The hon. member for Christiana also pointed out the way in which the farmers have been producing lately because of the guidance given by the Department of Technical Services. I say the farmers have produced well; they have done their duty and have done their share in producing as they should have produced. Their production has been better because their methods have improved. That is why they were able to reduce their production costs in some instances. But at the same time other costs have risen, as was mentioned by the hon. member for King William’s Town and I do not wish to repeat that—fertilizer, machinery, fuel, everything has gone up. Consequently production costs are higher to-day than in the past. I do not want to enlarge on the subject of mealies; the hon. member for King William’s Town has already done so. The Free State Agricultural unions met recently at Bethlehem where the Free State mealie farmers expressed their dissatisfaction with the position. If the hon. member opposite is right when he says that prices are good and that they have not declined, then the farmers are not honest whep tfcey tell the Minister that they cannot make ends meet and I think they are honest people like we are. The wheat farmers are dissatisfied to-day because their prices have been reduced. The poultry farmers are in a difficult position; the pineapple industry, and the dairy industry are all in a difficult position. But I do not want to enlarge upon that at the moment.

What solution does the Minister offer to all these problems? The farmer must adapt himself to the changed circumstances! Production costs are rising; prices are dropping; it means in other words that the farmer must adapt his way of life to the profit he makes. If his profits drop he must adapt himself to that, and if eventually he makes no profit he must also adapt himself to that position. One of his main arguments is that the farmers have paid too much for their farms. There are farmers who have paid too much for their farms but how many farmers have purchased farms recently and paid too much? Many who purchased farms had the money to pay cash; not all of them have mortgages on their farms. Generally speaking the farmer is not over-capitalized because fie paid too much for his farm. In any case, taking the present production costs into account, what is an economic price for land to-day? Let me give an example. I want to take a farm of 13,000 morgen as an example. This farm can carry 3,000 sheep. If those sheep yield an average wool production of 10 lbs. which comes to R3 per sheep, his revenue is R9,000 from his wool. If he sells 600 sheep at R6, he gets R3,600. His gross income, therefore, is R12,600. The figure of R600 is somewhat on the low side, but I have not made provision for the sheep which die. If you add those it will be right. What is his expenditure? interest on the capital invested in the stock, namely on R20,000, will be R1,400. Interest on the capital invested in machinery, light lorries, will be R400; depreciation R1,200. Six labourers R1,400; shearing money R150; wool packs R250; extra labour at shearing time R120; transport during the year R200; dipping material, vaccine etc., R200; fuel, tyres, etc., R800; taxes R400; repairs, erosion work, etc., R400; that gives you a total of R6,920. I think that the farmer is entitled to R4,000 for his own living, because the living expenses of a farmer is much higher than that of anybody else in that the schooling of his children cost him very much more. It costs him a great deal of money to keep four children at school. That means that his expenditure, including his living costs, amount to R10,920. In other words, he is left with R1,680. If I work it out further and I take that farm at R2 per morgen, I arrive at a figure of R1,820, so that there is a loss of R140. In that case what can be regarded as an economic land value? I just want to point out that the Minister cannot tell us that the difficulty is due to the fact that the farmers pay too much for their farms. I notice that the president of the Eastern Province Agricultural Union has said that they reckon that a farmer received 2.09 per cent interest on his capital, which is more or less what I said. That is the return which the farmer gets on his capital to-day. In other words, he simply cannot make a living.

I think this Government wants to get rid of the surpluses and the way in which it wants to dispose of those surpluses is to push a number of farmers out of the agricultural industry so that the surpluses will be reduced in that way. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has painted such a sombre picture that he has practically moved us to tears; and we have now had the same story from the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). We readily admit that some of the farmers are having a very difficult time. But to come with these stories and to generalize and to allege that the entire farming community is going under, surely is not true.

But we are not saying that.

But the hon. member for Gardens said in his previous speech that the farmer was going under. Those were his words. When you say that it can only mean one thing and that is that the entire farming community is going under. I say that is not true. The majority of our farmers are prosperous and their position is sound. The difficulties which are experienced in the farming industry are very diverse. I admit that farming in South Africa is not child’s play. Our climate is very inconstant and the person who undertakes farming must be prepared to run great risks. You cannot get away from the fact that very great risks attach to farming in South Africa as a result of our changeable climate and uncertain rainfall. That is one of the main reasons for our farmers’ difficulties.

The risk factor must be taken into account.

The Government does take it into account. That is why it is so sympathetic towards the farmer and that is why so many various forms of assistance are available to the farmer. A tremendous amount is being done to assist the farming community. If a section of the farming industry experiences difficulty assistance is rendered to it. No government in this country has given so much assistance to the farmers as the present Government. The hon. member for Gardens says that the farmer who farms on a small scale is going under. Some of them are quite prosperous. It depends on what they farm with. We admit that a farmer who only produces maize, for example, and who produces, say, 1,000 bags of maize per year, will not prosper, and even if his prices were doubled he would still not be able to make a decent living. You cannot turn an economic farming unit into an economic unit by increasing the price. The hon. member ought to know and understand that. Hon. members make the statement that the producers’ prices are continually declining and that production costs are rising. The price of our products has risen to a certain height and recently there has been a tendency for those prices to drop. That is true. The price of production incentives is rising and has risen. But hon. members should not generalize; they should produce figures. The hon. member opposite referred to the same book which I have here, namely the latest monthly bulletin for April, 1962. Hon. members are inclined to quote a few figures in order to try to prove a statement. I too can mention a few figures. Let us take production incentives in the first place. Here we have the index for cultivation implements namely 307; harvesting implement 378; others 233—an average of 307. These are the latest figures, namely for October, 1961. Then we come to spare parts, 314; implements and spare parts 309; lorries 408; tractors 272. All these are non-consumable goods. If you look well after a tractor and an implement you can use it for ten years and longer and it will still give you good service. [Interjections.] I am a farmer and I know. You can come to my farm, Sir, and I will show you a few tractors which are older than ten years and they are still rendering good service because I have looked after them. These are non-consumable goods but goods which you can use for many years if you look well after them. I now come to the consumable goods: fertilizer 259; fuel, which is one of the most important production incentives, 195.

My book gives 204.

On page 114 my book shows the figure of 195. Dipping material, which is one of the consumable goods, 192. Let us now deal with the prices of the products: Winter grain (December, 1961, which is the latest figure they give here) 390; other grain 290; average 305. Wool and mohair 216. The average in respect of stock breeding products is 410. Dairy products 264. This is after there has been a decline. Slaughter stock 392. The combined index figure in respect of stock breeding and agriculture is 349. When you calculate the average, Sir, you will find that the increase in the price of the products has been greater than the increase in the price of production incentives. Hon. members do the senseless thing of giving one set of figures and generalizing. That type of argument holds no water. You have to keep count of the facts.

The hon. member for Gardens went on to say that their party was responsible for the introduction of the Marketing Act. I give him a credit for the fact that the United Party was responsible for the introduction of the Marketing Act but they had the full support and whole-hearted co-operation of the then Opposition, the National Party. The trouble is, however, that the hon. members who introduced that Act, do not know it. The Marketing Act is an enabling Act to start off with, tions are nor accept them. That is the trouble, hon. member for Gardens this: When a maize board is appointed is it the Minister who appoints it.

He does not know.

I am asking the hon. member: Who appoints such a board?

The Church Council!

Do you see, Mr. Chairman, those people are not prepared to accept responsibility.

Who fixes the price?

I am coming to that. It does not seem as though the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows either. They do not know the law and that is the reason why they talk such a lot of nonsense. The Marketing Act is an enabling Act and the initiative for the appointment of any board has to come from the producers and not from the Minister. The producers ask for a board. [Interjections.] Hon. members talk about matters that they know nothing about, and in respect of which they neither want to realize what the implications are nor accept them. That is the trouble. [Time limit.]

The hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him. I know that he spoke about the Marketing Act. The commodity I want to talk about is luckily outside that Act. It was big enough to have its own Act. Earlier on the Minister introduced an amendment to the Wool Commission Act and I raised certain matters at that stage and quite correctly you, Sir, ruled me out of order. It therefore becomes necessary for me again to discuss the matter. I want to deal in particular with the Wool Stabilization Fund, because that amendment caused an increase in the levy from ½d. to ½c. This side of the House raised no objection to that increase. We all realize very well that the farming community as a whole supported it. Now, it might be said that in view of the fact that the farmers fully supported it, possibly I should not discuss it, but I think this is the right place where we should bring to the notice of the Minister and the House the position as we view it from the business angle. I want to make it clear that I am dealing only with the stabilization fund and not with the wool levy. This is the fund which supports the Commission when it finds it necessary to support the market to maintain the price. This fund, I understood from the Minister’s Department, has risen to the very satisfactory sum of R21,000,000. I believe that now that the sales have closed at the end of June, that amount will be substantially higher. I feel that all of us on both sides of the House can compliment the founders of this scheme, which resulted in the Wool Commission, which stuck so ardently to its undertakings whereby the fund has now been raised to more than 20 per cent of what the average wool clip of South Africa would realize. I base that on the figure of about 1,000,000 bales which I think would bring in R100,000,000 per annum. The only intention of the founders of the scheme was to build up a reserve which could carry it over those periods when conditions overseas made prices low, it might be through there being a consumers’ market or for political or financial reasons, or due to conditions in a consumer country where they could not absorb the the quantity of wool we may put on to the market. Prices on the overseas market made the Commission decide that it was time that they should operate to carry the farmer over that period. We have already had the opportunity of actually testing out the working of that particular scheme. We have, as you know, over a particular period, including the year 1958-59, purchased 152,000 bales against overseas competition to maintain the floor price. Of that, 101,000 bales were actually sold in the same season, at a profit which shows that the Commission’s functions were correctly performed, whereas the balance of 51,000 bales was held over and judiciously disposed of in the year 1959-60 and realized a substantial profit. Again I think we should have it on record that in 1960-61 87,000 bales were purchased, of which some 85,000 bales were unfortunately pushed on to the market during the last five weeks of the season. Here I must say that one has to accept that anyone can make a mistake and the Commission probably erred somewhat in misjudging the trend of the market. But nevertheless I want to say in support of the Commission that they did not have to sell that wool because of financial pressure, because they had enough finances. Having given those figures, I want to come back to my argument and explain that finance has never been a problem, even in that period, and I am now thinking of a period when the Commission had millions of rand less, but they were still able to finance their purchases. I want to say, further, that even if the position arose where practically the whole clip would have to be purchased, what the producers have in the reserve account to-day is sufficient for that, assisted by banks and financial institutions, to buy up the whole clip. I think the Minister will remember that he himself said that if the Commission at any time required finance, the Government would stand by it. I think one should enlarge upon that position and stress this aspect, that when the scheme was founded the intention was to protect the market against fluctuation to which our wool market is somewhat prone. Any upset overseas, any political or financial upset, can create the position which would necessitate the Commission coming into the market to buy up a certain quantity of wool. In the present year we have had a fairly good year. The market has been good and the Commission was not called upon to operate to any great extent. But I would like the House to take into consideration this particular aspect where to-day the farmers have established a fund which is now well over into R21,000,000, but we are still calling upon them, unless the Minister takes it into this own hands to suspend his levy and allow the producers to retain an amount of R1,500,000, which of course is the annual contribution based on 1,000,000 bales of wool. [Interjections.] We have heard it from both sides of the House that the farmers are facing difficulties. I can give a long list of figures to establish that, from the time I was in the wool trade. But here we have established a fund which is really beyond what the producers originally set out to establish. I have heard it myself from leaders of the National Wool Growers’ Association … [Time limit.]

I wish to direct a few words to the hon. the Minister in connection with the granting of wine quotas for farmers. Act No. 47 of 1957 gives every imaginable power to the K.W.V. The quotas were determined on the basis of the 1956 crop but farmers were also given the opportunity of taking 1957 as the basis. The preliminary quotas were made known in 1960 and farmers were given the opportunity of lodging objections within a year and if necessary even to demand a court of review. When the preliminary quotas were made known, 4,000 of the 4,500 wine farmers objected, but the K.W.V. satisfied most of them. There are a number of farmers in my constituency who are very dissatisfied and I do believe they have a right to be dissatisfied. This applies in particular to those who farm on a small scale. As happens in these cases, particularly as far as the farmers are concerned, a number of farmers who were dissatisfied did not apply for a court of review within the required 12 months. The hon. the Minister knows that I forwarded the petition of 35 farmers to him at the time and I have another long letter here which has been jointly signed by a number of farmers in which they say this—

Apart from those 35 who sent a petition to the Minister, there were farmers whose appeals were one day too late. They had been posted but were not delivered on time; and they were a day late. The Minister will know that he himself agreed to it that those appeals should be heard but the K.W.V. refused. The court which hears the appeals consists of a representative of the K.W.V., one farmers’ representative, and the chairman who is appointed by the Minister. As you have heard, Sir, a farmer has to deposit R100 and he may forfeit that if his appeal is not successful. In addition to that he has to get his own legal representative and pay him for representing him at court. Most of the farmers who farm on a small scale did not appeal because these costs discouraged them. Apart from that, as far as I know not a single farmer who has appeared before this court has won his appeal. I want to state to-day that the reason why the farmers in my constituency are dissatisfied is because of the fact that the representative of the K.W.V. on that court is also the chairman of the quota committee which determines those quotas. He is really the person who is being charged before the court which has to sit in judgment. I have on occasions attended the sittings of that court and I must admit that I was bitterly disappointed. The experience of some of the farmers who appeared before the court—I have letters here, but I have not the time to read them—and who said that their quotas were too small, was that the court decided that their quotas were not too small. Some of those farmers have now delivered their crops and those crops are in excess of the quota allocation. And do you know what is happening, Sir? The K.W.V. is confiscating that part of the crop which is in excess of the quota allocation and the farmer receives nothing for it. I have one case of a young farmer who bought a farm a couple of years ago. I assisted him in obtaining a considerable loan from the Land Bank on the strength of his vineyards and the preliminary quota which was allocated to him. One or other mistake was made—I cannot go into that now—and his crops have been confiscated during the past two years and that young farmer is faced with bankruptcy. He also appeared before the court and submitted his case. The fact of the matter is that there is a shortage of liquor. Another fact is that many farmers have a quota far in excess of their crops. I know of one farmer—I prefer not to mention his name—who has a quota of 1,000 tons. In 1956 he pressed 550 tons. Last year he only pressed 650 tons. He ordered an additional 40,000 vines this year but his quota remains 1,000 tons. Then I have the case of a farmer whose quota is only 80 tons and he presses 85 tons. He lost his case at court but he cannot get his money in respect of those five tons. The K.W.V. has confiscated it. I think there is only one possible way of solving this problem and that is what I want to ask the Minister, namely to appoint a commission to inquire into this question of the quota system in the wine industry. If there has to be a quota system—and it seems to me as if there has to be one in the wine industry—I think it should at least be equitably divided among the wine farmers; the small farmers in particular should get their fair share, because the small farmer can only make his living from the soil. The position is this that the farmer who was given a large quota can cause land prices to rise, although he does not produce so much. That is why I am asking the Minister to consider the question of appointing a commission of inquiry.

I want to mention one other case where a grave monopoly existed in the Divisional Council of the Cape. There was no right of appeal to anyone—not to the court nor to the Administrator and there were abuses. In 1956 the Cape Ordinance was changed so as to allow for an appeal to the Administrator and I remained a member of the Provincial Council for a few years after that and I never again heard of any complaints after that Ordinance was changed allowing for an appeal to the Administrator. I seriously request the Minister to appoint a commission in respect of this matter. [Time limit.]

I rise to protest against the reduction in the price of wheat, but before I do so I just want to reply to one remark made by the hon. member for Cradock. He said that there were so few farmers on this side of the House that they could not protect the interests of the farmers. I want to ask him to look at this side of the House. Of the 11 front-benchers, six are farmers. On the other side only three are of the 11 front benchers are farmers. [Interjections.] Now, I am certain that the wheat farmers would be prepared to make sacrifices if it meant that the cost of living as a whole for the people of South Africa would be reduced. But I would like to ask the Minister by how much the price of bread will be reduced to the consumer if the farmer has to reduce the price of his wheat by 12 cents a bag. He should tell us this when he replies. During and after the war the wheat farmers made very great sacrifices to keep the people supplied with bread at a low price. In those days the fixed price for wheat was something like 37s. 6d. a bag and it went up to about 45s. At that time wheat imported from Canada and Australia cost £3 a bag, and when I was in the Cabinet we were offered wheat from the Argentine at £5 a bag and we refused to take it. Those countries could produce wheat at a very much cheaper price than South Africa, but the farmers here pulled in their belts and were prepared to supply the people with bread at a very cheap rate.

Why did the United Party pay the farmers so little then?

Why cannot the hon. member keep quiet while I am talking? I saw in the newspaper that one of the reasons for reducing the price was that the yield had gone up from 7 to 9 bags per morgen, or to put it another way, from 12½ to 15 bags from 1 bag to 20 bags from 1 bag. But 30 years ago the wheat farmers’ usual practice was to sow wheat, then oats, and then let the land lie fallow. In other words, he had four cash crops in six years. Now, to prevent the impoverishment of the soil and other modern farming methods, the farmer sows wheat and then oats and then he puts down a grass ley or dry-land lucerne, which stands for about six years. In other words, he now has wheat, oats, and six years of grass or lucerne. In other words, he gets two cash crops in eight years. Of course the yield will be very much higher per morgen, or per bag. [Interjection.] When one is trying to talk about a serious thing like the price of wheat, one gets nothing but flippant remarks from the other side, which claims it supports the farmers’ interests. Now, this is the position. Of course the yield is higher when land has rested for six years, besides having had a dry land lucerne ley which improves the fertility of the soil. But the fact is that instead of getting a return from his ground of four cash crops every six years, he now gets two cash crops in eight years.

But what about the wool you produce?

Meanwhile he is paying interest on that land. But my hon. friend asks what about the wool. Of course there is the credit side of getting the benefit of the grazing for your sheep, but when the farmer used to sow wheat and then oats and then let the land lie fallow, we had the “stoppellande” and on the fallow land grass grew and that also provided grazing for the sheep, and that was free, whereas when he put down grass leys or lucerne it is very expensive. That is the position. Now I want to get on with what I wanted to say. It was said by one hon. member opposite that the cost of production has been reduced. That might be all very well for some people in theory, who have never grown wheat in their lives, and who go only by statistics, but as Mr. Merriman said, you can prove anything with statistics. In practice, it is not so, and every practical farmer will tell you it is wrong. Every implement, as the hon. member for King William’s Town has pointed out, has risen in price from 10 per cent to 12 per cent almost per year. Everything else has gone up. The first B4 caterpillar tractor which I put my name down for was to be delivered at a price of £900, but when it was delivered it cost £1,200. To-day for the same implement you pay almost £4,000 and every other implement has also gone up in price. Wages have risen, and the price of spares, and particularly of fertilizer, and the cost of repairs, because to-day the machines are so complicated that no farmer can do the ordinary jet-timing of a diesel engine; he has to get in a mechanic to do it, and that is very expensive indeed. Fuel and lubricants have gone up in price. How can it be suggested that the cost of production has gone down? I expect the Minister will raise the argument: Yes, but you do not have the same number of operations to go through; you no longer cut with the self-binder, and you do not have to cart away the sheaves. That is true, but whereas a self-binder costs a few hundred, a combine costs you £4,000. And harvesting cannot be done in one operation. There was a time when we tried to restrict it only to combining, but due to the damage done by wind, practically every farmer first cuts down his crop with “windrows” and then picks it up with a self-propelled combine, which means two operations. This adds quality to the cost. We are told that we do not have to use bags any more; we can take the wheat straight to the elevators. That is true, but the price of the bag is deducted from the fixed price of the wheat if it is not in bags. The point is this. How is it that 20 years ago nearly 80 per cent of the wheat grown in the South-Western Districts was produced by “bysaaiers”, and how many of them are there to-day? There are only a few, because the cost of production is so high that they have gone out of business. And look at the risk that the wheat farmer runs. To put in the crops on a medium-sized farm probably costs R24,000, and then if the farmer has a drought or bad run as happens over and over again, much, if not the entire crop is a failure with the result that that farmer is set back for the next ten or 15 years, and it may even bankrupt him. [Time limit.]