I move—

This Bill has been introduced to give effect to the taxation proposals which were passed by this House after consideration of the proposals in Committee of Ways and Means. This is one of the Budget proposals and it applies to the law on death duties. Our system of death duties is twofold. We have an estate duty which produces the major portion of the death duties and we also have succession duties. This Bill only applies to the estate duty. As a result of the resolution which was passed it is necessary to substitute the schedule to the existing Act by a new schedule which will give effect to the amendment approved of by the House, contained in the resolution that was agreed to. Hon. members will have the proposed new schedule before them. I want to indicate what the existing schedule contains. May I first just say that in terms of the Act of 1934 there was an exemption in respect of this tax up to £15,000. On an estate worth £15,000 no tax was payable. After that, when the estate exceeded £15,000, there was a reduction in the rebate of £1 for every £1 of such increase. That is to say, an estate of £30,000 or more was liable to tax on the full amount of the value of the estate. The schedule provides the scale of taxation on the taxable amount laid down as I have indicated. Under the existing schedule one half per cent. is payable on the first £2,000 of the taxable amount, then 1 per cent. on the succeeding £1,000, after that 2 per cent. on a taxable amount of £4,500; after that 3 per cent. on the succeeding £4,500, and then the increase is 1 per cent. in respect of every succeeding £5,000, until one eventually comes to the figure of 17 per cent. on everything over and above £75,000, and there is no increase over and above that 17 per cent. Hon. members will notice from the figures I have mentioned that the progress of the scale is very irregular at the bottom of the scale. The resolution passed by the House has a twofold object. In the first place it complies with the intention to make the scale somewhat more regular, as will appear from the schedule now before the House. Secondly, it was our object to increase the maximum scale. At the moment the maximum scale is 17 per cent. on everything above £75,000. As will be seen from the Bill now before the House it is proposed now to make the maximum 25 per cent., and that is achieved when the value of an estate is £90,000 or more. Consequently, there is an increase in the amount payable on the larger estates. There is no change in respect of estates up to £15,000, and as a result of the adjustment in the progress of the scale there will only be minor changes in medium sized estates, but the principal alteration is in the change at the top of the scale, where there will now be an increase of 50 per cent.

Why do you not raise the tax as the estate becomes larger?

That perhaps is something which we may consider in future. The Bill is in terms of the resolution passed by the House. I therefore move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In regard to this matter I want to draw attention to the distinction which the Minister now makes between the smaller estates and the larger estates. If one compares the tax on the old scale with that on the new scale, it is noticeable that the increase in the scale of taxation on smaller estates will now be heavier as compared with the scale of taxation on larger estates. To give an instance: On an estate of £7,100 two per cent. was paid on the old scale.

On the taxable amount.

Yes, I mean on the taxable amount, but on the new scale, the tax on a taxable amount of £7,100 will be no less than 6 per cent., an increase of 300 per cent. When we come to the taxable amount of £8,500 we find that the old duty was 3 per cent. and the new duty is 7 per cent. If we come to £15,500 we find that the old tax was 5 per cent. and the new one 10 per cent.—exactly double what it was. While on an amount of £7,100 the increase is 300 per cent., the increase on £15,000 is only 100 per cent. If we take a still larger estate of, say, £26,000, or rather let me say a taxable amount of £26,000, the estate duty in the past was 7 per cent. on the amount, while it will now be 12 per cent., an increase of less than 100 per cent. On a taxable amount of £100,000 the old duty was 17 per cent. and now it will be 25 per cent., an increase of less than 50 per cent. One has to raise serious objections to what the Minister is doing now. The higher the taxable amount the smaller the increase as compared with what it used to be. That is not fair. Why this distinction? The tax comes very heavy on the smaller taxable amounts, very much heavier than on the larger estates. Take an estate of £30,000, for instance. According to what the Minister of Finance has said, that estate is not subject to any abatement. The abatement falls away there. In the case of such an estate the old duty was 8 per cent., whereas it now is 13 per cent. In other words, an increase of 62 per cent. In the case of an estate of £75,000, however, where there is no abatement either, the tax is raised from 16 per cent. to 21 per cent.; in other words the increase is only 32 per cent. It is definitely unfair. Now I want to touch on another point. Why does the Minister stop at £90,000? There are quite a number of estates in the country—not too many— but still quite a number which are much larger than £90,000. There are estates of £200,000 or £250,000 and even of £500,000, and I want to know why the Minister stops at £90,000. In the case of an estate of £30,000 the duty has been raised by 62 per cent., but in the case of an estate of £90,000 it is 25 per cent.—the increase is round about 30 per cent. Why such a tremendous increase in the case of an estate of £30,000 while on the large estates there is a comparatively small increase? The Minister should rectify this point and he should see to it that the duty, so far as the increase is concerned, does not stop at estates of £90,000. A person with an estate of £1,000,000 pays only 25 per cent. This is in conflict with the Minister’s whole scheme. The Minister makes too big a distinction between estates and I want to suggest that he should rectify this position. My objection therefore amounts to this: that the Minister penalises the small estates too severely, and that so far as the large amounts are concerned he simply does not penalise the large estates as compared with estates below £90,000. I hope the Minister will realise the justice of these objections.

I regret very much that the Minister has not made it more expensive to die. Heaven knows, he has made it very difficult to live.

Will it help very much to make the cost of dying more expensive?

I am sorry that he has made such a timid approach to this question of death duties. I feel that the basic exemption of £15,000 is far too high. I think that it would be a fair thing if he imposed his estate duties on estates, say, of over £2,000. Last year I drew the Minister’s attention to similar duties in New Zealand and Australia. I do not want to cite, to any great extent, the examples of other countries. I am not a very great believer in drawing comparisons with other countries, particularly New Zealand, Australia and Canada, as is always being done when we discuss taxation. There appears to be a tendency to say we are well off in comparison with other countries. In this instance however where we are seeking additional revenue for war purposes, it may be advisable just to point out that in these two countries, namely New Zealand and Australia which are also at war, they actually reduced their basic exemption on estate duties from £1,000 to £200. In other words, in these countries all estates over £200 pay estate duties. I am pleased of course that the Minister has increased the incidence slightly in regard to estate duty, but I am bitterly disappointed that he has left succession duties alone. In most other countries succession duty delivers a very large revenue. In New Zealand, for instance, where the succession and estate duties are combined the scale goes up as high as 50 per cent. In addition to that, there is a duty called a legacy or gift duty which operates if a testator disposes of his estate before he dies by way of gift, donation or pre-legacy and the recipient is taxed. That tax is graduated on a scale commencing from 3 per cent. and going up to 12 per cent. I suggest to the Minister that this is a duty which he may very well consider. I agree with the hon. member who spoke last in making the point that there is no reason why the 25 per cent. duty should stop at £90,000. Why not go on with the graduated scale until you reach say 50 per cent? In Great Britain, for instance, the scale extends up to 50 per cent. When they get an estate in Great Britain of £2,000,000, £1,000,000 goes to the Government. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider first of all reducing the basic exemption from £15,000 to say £2,000, and secondly, that he should not stop at £90,000 but that he should go steeping the scale. The bigger the estate the larger the slice the Government should take out of it. I suggest that is a fair thing. There is no reason why a person who has done nothing to amass a fortune should get off with a 25 per cent. tax; and I submit to the Minister that it would be a good thing if these duties were steeped, because we know as a matter of fact that South Africa is a very happy huntingground where fortunes can be made. I am sure that after this war you will have big estates particularly from war profiteers, and there seems to be no reason why the State should not take some of these illgotten gains. I think it is common knowledge that many people have come to the Union of South Africa in order to evade estate duties in other countries. I think that is notorious, and, as I said last year, although South Africa may be a very hard country to live in, what with our over-government and overtaxation in certain respects, it is certainly a very easy country to die in. Advantage is taken of that by persons who come to this country from elsewhere to evade taxation. I suggest again to the Minister that he has a field of taxation here ready to his hand which will deliver the goods to revenue. Then I would like to make a further suggestion to the Minister. That he should consider making a law whereby it will be compulsory for estates of say over £10,000 to be reported in our Press, so that the public will have a fair idea what money if left by certain individuals, and to what extent the State is benefiting. I put that forth as a suggestion. In Britain as far as I know big estates are all reported in the newspapers, and I suggest that if an estate is of value of say £10,000, or even £5,000, the particulars of that estate should be published in our Press.

That is a subject that does not fall under this Bill.

I realise that Mr. Speaker but I only put it forth as a suggestion, seeing that we are dealing with estate duties.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has explained the position that the tendency of the duty is to render those people who have small estates liable to a much higher increase than what the large estates are subject to. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) said that he was disappointed. I am not at all disappointed; I have long since passed that stage. One can only be disappointed if one expects something better, and I no longer expect anything from this Government. I am glad, however, that the hon. member for Brakpan is also disappointed now. It means that he still has illusions about the Government opposite, and that he hopes the Government will some day impose a just tax on the people who possess great wealth. I have no such illusions, and I say here that the country should realise that the present Government has not the slightest intention of making the people with large estates, the millionaires, pay heavy taxes. If the Government has any conception of what is going to happen after the war, and of what the people, what the ordinary man in the street, expects of the Government, it should know that it must not come here with legislation of this kind, but the Minister should rather frame his Bill in such a manner that these very large estates will be made to disappear completely in the long run; in other words, if a person has an estate of more than £1,500,000 the duty should not be 50 per cent. on the additional amount, but he should be made to pay the duty, and everything over and above that amount should simply be made to disappear and go to the State. We have this position today, that estates over £75,000 pay a duty of only 25 per cent., and that percentage never increases. That certainly is not what we want this Government to do. It is an indication of what the country can expect from this Government in days to come. The Government has the support of the Socialists and of the Labour Party, people who should be interested in just and fair taxation, and who should make their voices heard on this matter, but they sit there merely for the purpose of the war, to support the Government in connection with the war. Surely, when we are dealing with a matter like this, they should make their voices heard, and they should tell the country that they are not satisfied with the position. There is no need for a Government defeat on this matter, but let them at least tell us that they do not agree with what is proposed here, and that they agree that the position is one which the world can no longer put up with. But, as I have already said, we cannot expect this reactionary Government to bring about any improvement in the future in this particular regard. The small estates have to pay about 100 per cent. more than they had to do in the past. Now, the hon. member for Brakpan says that we should tax even an estate of £2,000, but how can we tax estates of less than £15,000 if we are not prepared to put a higher tax on those enormously big estates? The position today is that if an estate is worth £10,000,000, the State only gets a couple of million out of it. There we have a good reason for the Minister not being able to touch estates of less than £15,000, because the small estates pay their share to the State, a share which is out of all proportion to what the big estates pay. The hon. member has shown what the Government can do in regard to the smaller estates, but I want to tell him that the Government should give its attention to these very large estates; I am afraid, however, that so far as those are concerned, we can never expect the Government to do anything. I say that the Government has the opportunity here to show that it realises the seriousness of the world position, that it realises that a complete change has come about in the outlook of the world. The world today realises that sacrifices have to be made. What sacrifice is there if a person who has £10,000,000 gives up a few millions to the State? There is no sacrifice in that. There is no question of any sacrifice, and yet the Government is not prepared to go as far as that, although even the ordinary man in the street can see what is going on in the world today. The Minister should see that the whole of the existing system is wrong, a system which allows this enormous wealth to remain in the hands of a few individuals. I cannot say that I am disappointed, because the Government is only doing what we expected it to do, and we can do no more than wait for the day when the rebellion among members opposite will become so serious that more voices will be raised to protest against the sort of thing which is allowed to continue today, the sort of thing which allows enormous wealth to remain in the hands of a few individuals. We dare not allow that system to continue any longer. We know that the Minister of Finance is not going to change his proposals, but perhaps in the course of the year, before he has to introduce his next Budget, he may come to realise that the world expects something entirely different from the Government, something entirely different from what it is doing now.

I represent a constituency that is not greatly concerned with the higher amounts which will become dutiable under the Minister’s Bill, but since the range of the applicability of this duty has been extended, I want to put to the Minister a difficulty that prevails in regard to estates that fall to be administered. Where the breadwinner has died, the estate is locked up for a certain period until all dues payable to the Government have been met, and in the case of farmers where the value of the estate may be within the range contemplated by this Bill, the immediate consequence is that the administration of the estate leaves the survivor with scarcely any ready money with which to carry on the affairs of the estate. The estate suffers very considerably through circumstances of that kind, and it has been discussed from time to time at farmers’ meetings that some sort of relief should be granted so that the affairs of the estate can be carried on without the hindrance that arises from all assets being locked up for a definite period. I hope that in the extension of any duties, these points will be borne in mind; and although it seems fashionable to be flippant about the high cost of dying— a practice I deprecate—there is the serious position to be considered of those who survive, and I hope the Minister will realise that this is a real difficulty which applies to the simple man or woman who has to carry on the estate after the breadwinner has died.

At first glance the scales of taxation which are laid down here may appear to be very innocent. I have only got up to emphasise again that it appears to me that our estate duty system and our income tax system in this country are such that they affect the farming community particularly, more severely than the other sections of the community. The assets of the farming community are mostly locked up in livestock and in fixed property. When a farmer dies and he leaves his land to his son who fortunately or unfortunately has chosen farming as his career, we find that it is that section of the community in particular which is severely affected by this estate duty as proposed in the Bill now before the House. It is a fact that a young farmer cannot make a decent living out of farming, unless he has £5,000 or £6,000 capital to begin with. That capital is not in hard cash. No, it is represented by fixed property. Now, it often happens that at the very time when that young farmer has to make a sound beginning he has to start by bonding his property in order to comply with the demands of the State in regard to estate duty and death duty. The Minister should consider the question of having two scales, one scale for the agricultural industry, so far as estate duty is concerned, and also a scale in regard to income tax for the agricultural community, entirely apart from the other activities in this country. It happens only too often that the experts of the Minister of Finance, who have to advise him when it comes to taxes of this kind, are not sufficiently well informed about the difficulties of the farming industry. I should like to go into this a little more fully with the Minister, and if I make a comparison I am not doing so with the object of being offensive, or with the object of belittling anyone. Take the case of a man who goes to study at the university and becomes a minister of religion. I was a member of a Committee before which evidence was given that it cost a parson a few thousand pounds to complete his studies, and after that he could make a start with a Bible which cost 7s. 6d. and a few theological commentaries. No large amount of capital is needed for that. The young barrister can start with a few law books in a rented room. The doctor who has finished his studies can hire a room and can also hire the necessary instruments; but the young farmer who has been trained and who wants to go in for farming himself requires at the very least £4,000 or £5,000 capital to be able to make anything like a decent living. A large proportion of that capital is locked up in immovable property, and if the State puts on taxes of this kind it definitely places restrictions, it kneehalters the young farmer at the very time when he is making a start in his career. Before the Minister of Agriculture held his present Portfolio he made a strong plea in this House in favour of the agricultural industry being exempted from the payment of income tax. I did not entirely agree with him, but there is very definitely a good case in favour of separate scales for income tax and estate duty in such cases where the assets are largely locked up in fixed property.

I am going to raise rather an unpopular cry. I know that many members of this House are rather in favour of high death duties. The bulk of us do not expect any inheritance to come our way. Many of us have not got money to leave to others, and therefore we are not interested in this particular Act, and we also feel that whatever taxation is raised in the circumstances, it does not matter to us. That is one point of view, and then there is the point of view of the man who has got great possessions. Very often those people who have great possessions have descended from families that have had great possessions over a long time; they have acquired the knowledge which is necessary to retain that money over a long period of time. They have largely inherited the gift of keeping money. A very wise man once told me that in his lifetime he had seen many people make fortunes, and he had come to the conclusion that it was comparatively easy to make money, but extremely difficult to keep it. He said he had not yet met a man who had made and retained a lot of money who was not a wise man. You find very often in these fortunes that their administration requires a special sort of brain which does not come to everybody, and many of those people that you may despise have got great administrative powers, which are not given to everyone. Then, again, the man who is wealthy works with his money in all sorts of ways. He does not sit on it like a lot of stones. He does not bury his talents. He employs those talents, and unless he does so he is no good; and there is hardly a rich man who does not employ his talents, and very often to the good of the country. Then, sir, that man, just as the lawyer or the doctor, who is trained to certain things, has certain tools which represent his money; so, too, the wealthy man has money which represents his tools. On his ability to use those tools at his command, depends the measure of his success. If you deprive the doctor or the lawyer of those tools he cannot carry on. If you deprive the wealthy man of his money, you are depriving the country of someone who is of great benefit to the country, and you are pushing him somewhere where he will not be able to pull his weight to the same extent he would have been able to do if you had allowed him to use the tools at his command. I know of a case where a certain man succeeded to an estate which could not be sold, as it was entailed. The person concerned had to borrow very largely, indeed, in order to pay the estate duties. This man had to borrow large amounts, so much so that what with the insurance on his life—because his life had to be insured before he could succeed to the estate—what with the premiums on the insurance and the duties, the estate which was worth £140,000, left that man less than £600 a year for himself.

Shame!

I know you say “shame” out of derision, because you may think this man got this money for nothing. But this man had incurred such big liabilities to keep this estate together, that eventually the estate diminished to such an extent that he was thrust into the background. His prospects and his abilities were curtailed and handicapped tremendously. There was another case, where we had to administer an estate, where a man thought himself richer than he really was. He left a large amount to a certain charitable organisation, and unfortunately for him the death duties were so heavy, together with the other amounts that had to be paid, that the residue of the estate ultimately amounted to nothing. The tombstone of the rich man had to be put up by the beneficiaries to whom he had left this large amount. There are dozens of other cases. Take the case of a wealthy farmer or tradesman. He leaves an estate of, say, £100,000. There may be three children in the family. He leaves this estate to be divided in equal shares between the three children and the survivor. Twenty-five per cent. has to be paid in death duties, together with the succession duties amounting to 10 per cent. in the case of a nephew. Well, now this property will be mulcted of 25 per cent. If it is in landed property, a bond will have to be raised. And this £25,000 will be put on bond against that property, and then, in addition, you have to borrow another £5,000 for succession duty. That is £30,000. Say it is left to the eldest son. When he gets it it is so heavily encumbered that he will not be able to extend his business. He will be so mulcted at the commencement, and he will be so heavily hit by these taxes, that he will not be able to turn anywhere. I know it is perhaps an unpopular appeal I am making; but, of course, one must have the courage of one’s convictions, and, although I am going to vote for this because it is a war measure, still I think that these death duties are ill-timed, because they constitute a very heavy tax on capital, and people will feel that they are misplaced and do not benefit the State as a whole.

I have not very much to say on this Bill at this stage; I only want to say to the Minister that I hope his hands did not start itching when he listened to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). I hope the Minister is not going to tell us that he knows now what he has to do next year. I want to warn him that if he acts in the spirit of the recommendations of the hon. member for Brakpan he is going to make a lot of trouble for himself. None of us feel that if a person inherits a large amount of money, money which he has not earned himself, the State should not take a fair share of that money, but the estate duty in many instances is very unfair. I agree with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) that particularly among the farmers does one come across instances where the estate duty has most deleterious effects. A farmer as a rule does not leave money, he leaves fixed property, and if the estate has to be divided among the children and they have to pay estate duty a burden is often placed on the heirs which often is the beginning of the children’s financial ruin. If the Minister wants to consider doing something in connection with the estate duty I would suggest that he should consider the advisability of giving exemption to the children in regard to estates. Instead of giving exemption up to a certain amount, as is now done, he should consider giving exemption to each child. Today one gets cases of large estates being inherited by one individual, and that individual gets off scot free. Under the present scale of estate duty one child may inherit £30,000, and he does not pay any estate duty, whereas if one has an estate of £40,000 and there are ten children, and each child gets only £4,000 those children have to pay estate duty. I therefore feel that it would be a fairer basis to grant exemptions to each child. It would be a fairer system of taxation than what we have today. In other words, it would then practically amount to a succession duty, and not to an estate duty. I want to warn the Minister once again, however, to be careful and to think twice before acting on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brakpan.

I would commend the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) for the courage of his convictions—I think it did demand courage to give such an exposition of the miseries of what we might call “the poor little rich boy.” I really had no knowledge that their troubles were so numerous and so extensive and deep. I was rather reminded of the old saying that it is easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter a certain Kingdom. But I was not really impressed by one or two of the principles which the hon. member laid down. He said among other things that it does not take a great amount of brain to make money. Well, one has a certain amount of sympathy with that, and a certain amount of corroboration to give to that, but I think that is a reason for taking a good lump of the proceeds at the end, if it did not take much brain and effort to make the haul in the first instance. I do not see why we should not have a good dig into the dollars when, we assume, the money is of no further use to the fellow who made it in so easy a manner if it did not take brain or strain to make it, and still they get it, why should not the State ultimately take 50 per cent. of it. We were told by the hon. member for Mowbray that it took a particular kind of brain to retain a large fortune. That I agree with. It is that particular type of brain which I do not honour in any respect whatever. I should say it does take, in view of all the open misery there is in the world, it does take a very particular kind of brain, a type of brain which should be medically examined in my view, to go on heaping up and hoarding up until the tally comes to millions of pounds in the end, or even hundreds of thousands. We are told that without these great fortunes the owners thereof, or at least the holders thereof,—I am not so sure of their title to true ownership— the present holders would not be able to assist these various charities. I would suggest to the Minister that it is a disgrace that these so-called charities have to be kept existing at all. We do not want bits and pieces to take to charitable organisations out of these big fortunes, the heaping up of which has caused the need for those charities. The fact is that the distribution should never have been what it is—that many get so much and many more get so little—so little that these charitable organisations have to be set up and maintained, and we look forward to the time when the charitable organisations will not have to exist at all, and that instead of these “poor little rich boys” making their voluntary and often generous contributions, the State itself will look after, adequately, the maimed and the blind and the halt and the poor. The hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Dr. Bremer) urged me to get up on my feet; he said the voice of Labour should be heard. The honourable doctor is erudite, among other excellent and pleasant things, and he will remember that Mr. Shakespeare advised us never to “gild refined gold or paint the lily”—that was a wasteful and ridiculous excess. I subscribe to that: and that is why I was not going to speak, because the Labour position had been thoroughly and precisely explained by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). We simply endorse the position which the hon. member took up.

Has the hon. member for Brakpan joined you now?

No, in this instance I have joined him, as I have for the public good joined my hon. friend over there (Mr. Gilson)—but I have joined my hon. friend over there (Mr. Gilson) with very much greater misgivings than I have been occasioned by my association with the hon. member for Brakpan. The irrelevance of the hon. member’s interruption will not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, or me, or any other member of this House. There is just this one further point which I wish to make. We are particularly keen on the taxation of large inherited fortunes, which very often, it appears to us, do more harm than good to the inheritors—and in many cases we feel that it would be charity to give the possibly able, or the possibly semiincapable son of a man who has made a fortune, a bit less. Inherited fortunes we feel are not an absolute and flawless blessing. And we feel the same about imported fortunes. When I speak of imported fortunes I am thinking of people who come to South Africa not for the good of South Africa, but because it is an easy and pleasant country to live in, it is in many senses of the term “God’s own country” at the moment, and it is in many respects the least taxed country in the world—if not in all respects. And we think these people who come in with their money, these people who have made large fortunes in the making of which they have employed no one in South Africa—those people who come here because they want to use this country as a convenience should contribute solidly to the country’s welfare, and we say that these imported fortunes should be taxed to the extent of 50 per cent.

Why don’t you keep them out?

We are quite willing to do so. What we want here are people with ability and character, for these attributes, and not bank balances, constitute true wealth. We want people to come here who will be good South Africans, we want people to come here to earn their living, we want them to come and live happily in this country and make useful contributions to the success of the Union. We don’t need to import millionaires—we have enough of our own. But my last reference must be this, that there are fortunes which are comparatively honestly made—if there is such a thing as making a huge fortune honestly. There are such people as capable business men; there are such people here as hardworking farmers, there are real geniuses in commerce, and fortunes are no doubt sometimes made by the labour and the ability, and the character, too, of the people who accumulate that money. And it does seem to me that these fortunes which have been earned, and not effortlessly inherited, might be dealt with on a different basis. Money which has been decently and honestly earned could quite fairly be dealt with differently from the money possessed by those who have never had to labour in any way for it. “Lightly come, lightly go” appears to have some application here.

I have had an unusual experience today. I think this is the first time I have ever introduced a Bill where I have been asked by all sides of the House, and even by responsible members of the Opposition, to increase the taxation burden beyond what I have proposed. It surprises me, particularly as this tax is imposed to a large extent in view of our war expenditure. The criticism which has been levelled here has to a large extent neutralised itself. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) spoke about tremendous increases in the duty on small estates under my proposal. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip), whose speech apparently has the approval of the Opposition, proposed to reduce the amount exempted below £15,000.

That was not our attitude.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) approved of it, provided we went beyond 25 per cent. for large estates.

I think you misunderstood him.

I only want to point out that if the amount for exemption is reduced the necessary effect will be in the application of the progressive scale, that the burden on the medium-sized income will be considerably increased. If I follow the hon. member for Winburg correctly it seems that he made a mistake in his calculation of the amount which will be payable. The mistake is not only that this scale will apply to the taxable amount, and not to the estate as such— a correction which I already made while the hon. member was speaking—but I think the hon. member is also under the wrong impression that if a taxable amount of an estate is £10,000, for instance, 9 per cent. has to be paid on the full amount. That is not correct.

Only the taxable amount?

No, that is not correct either. If you have an estate of £20,000, then the taxable amount is £10,000, and you pay ½ per cent. on the first £2,000, 1 per cent. on the next £1,000 and the 8 per cent. you only pay on the last £1,000, so you cannot simply apply 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. on the whole of the taxable amount. If the hon. member makes his calculations on this basis he will see that his conclusions were not entirely correct.

I think the position remains the same.

I admit that there is a certain amount of anomaly, but certainly not to the extent stated by the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said that the duties on small estates are being increased to the extent of several hundred per cent. That is quite wrong. The position is that under the new proposals all estates up to £17,000 will pay just as much as they are paying today; in other words, no more than £40. On an estate of £17,000 they will still pay £40. The increase only comes after that. On an estate of £17,500 an amount of £70 will be paid now instead of £60. On £18,000, £110 will have to be paid instead of £80. And when we come to estates between £20,000 and £30,000 twice as much will have to be paid as was paid in the past. But on no estate will more than the double amount which used to be paid, be payable. On an estate of £20,000, instead of £185, an amount of £370 will now have to be paid. That is not such a tremendous increase. When one comes to the top it is not correct again to say that on the old basis, on an estate of, say, £95,000 or £100,000, 17 per cent. was payable throughout, while on the new basis 25 per cent. will be payable throughout on £100,000. That is not correct. The position is that on the old basis on an estate of £100,000 a little more than £10,000 had to be paid, and on the new basis it will be a little more than £16,000. Consequently there is an increase of 50 per cent.

Will you please give us the comparison in regard to an estate of £30,000?

An estate of £30,000 pays twice as much as it paid in the past. That is quite correct, but in the same way as it was in regard to income tax last year we shall find this: that where we are removing anomalies we can only do so by increasing the tax, in some cases by less than in other cases. I admit therefore that that is the position, but not to the same extent as hon. members think.

†Now I have been accused of being somewhat timid in my approach to this question. Well, some of the speeches which were made after the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) spoke … I am not referring so much to the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare), who told us a good deal about the woes of the rich man, but I am referring to speeches such as were made by the hon. members for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) and Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen), do suggest that there has been some reason for timidity. May I say that before I made this proposal I studied the reports of the debates on death duties in the past, and I had to take account of what the feeling has been in the past as indicated by such debates, and I think I can say, having regard to the sentiments voiced in the past, that we have gone a long way in this Bill. It is perfectly true that public opinion has advanced since those days. It is perfectly true that the sentiment in this House has advanced since those days, but I do not think the average sentiment in this House has advanced to the extent indicated by the hon. member for Brakpan, and I can imagine what kind of a reception I would have had from all parts of the House if I had done what the hon. member for Brakpan wished me to do. However, I am encouraged by the fact that there is such a large body of opinion urging me to go further than I have done, and I assure hon. members that I shall consider that in the future. May I just say that these admonitions have come just a little bit late. If responsible members of the Opposition had told me when I first made my proposals in the Budget that I should go further, there would still have been time to consider it, but I did not hear it then. If the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) had made that speech which he made this morning, even when we were in Committee of Ways and Means, there would still have been time to consider it, but there is now no more time; all I can do now is to give effect to the resolutions passed by the House—now I cannot increase the rates. I am sorry these suggestions were not made at an earlier stage when I could have given some consideration to them.

I move—

Hon. members will recall that in my Budget speech I announced the Government’s intention to propose certain reductions in duties, namely on tea and on knitting and darning wool. They will also remember that we have accepted as a result of discussions in Committe of Ways and Means, certain proposals for increased Custom Duties, partly for revenue purposes and partly for protective purposes. The schedules were before us in the Committee of Ways and Means, and were accepted by the House. The primary purpose of this Bill is to give effect to those two actions which were contemplated, namely the reduction in Customs Duties in terms of the Budget, and the increase of Customs Duties for revenue and protective purposes. In addition, the opportunity which is afforded by this Bill is taken to make certain desirable amendments to the Customs Amendment Act No. 9 of 1913. These will be found in the first four clauses of the Bill. I do not think I need enlarge on them at this stage. If there is any point of difficulty that can be dealt with in Committee. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the position of goods landed in the Union which are not claimed and entered for Customs purposes or which having been placed in bonded warehouses pending payment of Customs Duty, are subsequently abandoned. At the present stage such goods may be sold for a sum sufficient to pay duty and charges which we have incurred and if they cannot be sold for a sufficient sum they can be destroyed. We now propose to take power to amend the law so that if the goods are suitable for use, instead of being destroyed they may be used by the Government as public stores. Then we propose taking this opportunity of giving effect to certain minor recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries in regard to the Customs tariff. The schedules to this Bill in certain minor respects go further than the schedules of which we approved in Committee of Ways and Means. Those schedules of which we approved in Committee of Ways and Means dealt only with increases in taxation. Here we have proposals giving effect to certain recommendations which either do not increase taxation of reduce taxation. For instance, we include in this schedule certain recommendations for reductions in duties on milk conducting pipes, and platinum crucibles, for the benefit of our industries. We also propose to extend the provisions of Clause 15 of the Customs Tariff in regard to materials which our factories may obtain under rebate of duty for use in maufacture. These are the main purposes of the Bill. As I have indicated, we give effect in this Bill to the Budget proposals. One of those Budget proposals was a proposal in regard to increased duties of films. It will be remembered that I suggested that we should in order to give relief to the consumer in respect of duty, make it possible to obtain more money from entertainments. Now that may have the effect of increased charges for admission to entertainments and that might automatically bring with it an increase in the provincial entertainment tax, which would mean an increased burden on the person’s going to these functions. Clause 6 has been devised to make it possible to secure that this increase will not automatically carry with it an increase in the provincial tax. These are the main points arising from this Bill. I ask that the House will now agree to the second reading, and in order to give more time for the consideration of the details I shall not ask for the Committee stage to be taken now but I shall put it down for tomorrow.

I beg to move the following amendment—

I need not expatiate on this subject again. We explained our attitude yesterday, and we said that, although we approved of and welcomed the expansion of the normal activities of the Iron and Steel Corporation, we very definitely object to the Corporation engaging in matters which constitute an interference with the ordinary activities of other sections of the population. For instance, we object to the Corporation establishing for its own employees farms where vegetables and other things can be grown to meet the needs of their employees. In some cases it may be necessary for certain services to be done on behalf of the workers; for instance, it may be necessary to attend to housing; it may be necessary to put up a shop, where these people can buy their requirements. It may be necessary to have places where these people can get meals, and lodging houses. We can approve of that sort of thing, but what we certainly cannot approve of is that the Corporation should go in for farming. As I have already explained, arising out of what has happened at Thaba Zimbi, it means that a market is not created for the farmers in the neighbourhood of such a mine or workshop of the Corporation. It means that the employees will not be buying their vegetables and fruit from the farmers in the neighbourhood, but will get these things from the Corporation which itself will grow these products, and if we pass this clause in its present form it is quite possible that it may mean that the Corporation will keep farms going to breed slaughter stock, with the result that the great expectations which the farming population had of the development of the country from an industrial point of view will come to nought. The market they had hoped for, the market they thought would be created, by the development of this industry, will be lost to them, because if the Corporation goes on in this way it will afterwards produce all the commodities that are required, and in that way the ordinary farmer will be cut out completely. That is why I propose my amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. There is no intention to conduct farming operations there. At Thaba Zimbi they have certain lands on which they grow vegetables and things like that for their employees. They use the effluent from the mines for irrigation, and so on.

Why do they not grow roses rather?

It seems to me to be going too far to say that you shall not grow vegetables for your employees on an isolated place like Thaba Zimbi. There is no intention of farming in the ordinary sense of the word.

Why do you call it isolated, when there are any number of farmers adjoining the mining property?

Yes, but they have no peculiar rights on those farms. You may just as well say that no man living in the suburbs of Cape Town can grow his potatoes. I think you go too far when you say that you will not allow the iron and steel industry to grow certain items of food on these areas for the use of their employees only. It seems to me that we are going too far. Now, with regard to the question of hotels, the reason for inserting the provision regarding the hotels is this. At Vereeniging, for instance, there is a big stretch of land that has been taken up by Iscor, on which they are going to put down very big steel works. There will be a large number of employees at this place, and in the ordinary course, what you might call a village, will grow up there. All the directors of Iscor want, is the control over anything in the nature of an hotel. If people are to stay there, they want the right to control whatever is there. Personally, I am not particularly keen whether they have it or not, but I cannot see why they should not have it. The real point the hon. member is worrying about is the question of farming, and I can assure him that the directors of Iscor have no intention of running farms in the ordinary sense of the word; but if you call a kitchen garden a farm, you are exaggerating the position.

The hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries says that they want to control all these things. As the industry is being run today largely to the benefit of the country, they now apparently want to create a sort of trust. They want to manufacture iron and steel; they want to start farming; they want to put up hotels; they want to open eating-houses, and they want to control the whole world, and instead of being a blessing to the community they are going to be a curse. The Minister says that in the past they grew vegetables for their own consumption in certain areas, and that we could not really object to a thing like that. We say nothing about that, we have no objection to the Corporation establishing small townships for their employees where the workers will be able to grow vegetables in their gardens. We have no objection to that, and as a matter of fact there is no need to give the Corporation special powers under this Bill to allow the people to keep small gardens attached to their homes. We are talking now of the Corporation’s intentions to go in for farming, to buy farms to grow products there. If a thing like that is done then what is the use of such an industry to the country? If the Corporation is going to use the money which the State places at its disposal, to buy farms, where it can produce all its requirements, what then is going to be the position of the farmer? It means that the farmer will not be able to sell any of his products to the Corporation’s employees. I really fail to see what justification there can be for the Minister asking for the right to allow the Corporation to start farming.

If it goes on like that the mines will afterwards want to grow all their own mealies.

Yes, I do not understand the Minister at all. It seems to me that he is very astute. He wants to take these powers—it does not matter what they are. We cannot give this Corporation those rights; we cannot allow them to go in for farming. It is the Corporation’s business to produce iron and steel and it should stick to that, and we cannot give it the right to go in for farming. The Minister should have waited before introducing this Bill. He should have considered it very carefully before doing so. This is the position. The people living in the immediate vicinity of such an industry who produce commodities will not be able to derive any benefit from the industry. What is the good then of such an industry to the country as a whole? If the industry is going to start its own hotels, and is going to have its own people living there, and not only its own people but other people as well, what is going to happen? What is going to happen, and where is it going to end, if we allow the Corporation to buy farms and get people to carry on farming on its behalf? No, it seems all wrong to me. The Minister tells us that he does not understand why the Corporation should not have that right. No, let the Minister think it over again and let him delete farming from the rights he asks for here. If we go on like this, who will the farmers have to produce for afterwards? If the large industries start farming to produce food for their own people they will not be any use to the community. The Minister is trying to bite off more than he can chew and he should not do it.

I have the same trouble as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), because my experience is that Iscor very definitely does compete with the farmers. I don’t want to go as far as the hon. member has done—I said yesterday that if the mine provides for its own needs, I do not object, but if they start competing with the farmers, then I am not satisfied. I therefore want to move this amendment. I move—

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). I think the House is entitled to have a little more light shed on this matter. I notice the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is in his seat. I understand that the Corporation has bought 10,000 morgen of land near Vereeniging. I don’t know whether it is true, but if it is so, then we want to know whom it has bought it from, what its object is in buying it, and what share the hon. member for Vereeniging has had in that transaction? It is suggested in this Bill that this Corporation should now go in for farming. We created the Iron and Steel Industry for the purpose of creating a market for our farmers. We so often say that the farmer is the backbone of the country, but that backbone has been paralysed owing to the country having no markets. We then tried by way of subsidies, by way of artificial measures, such as levies, to export our products to other countries and to find markets there at giveaway prices, to establish an artificial market for the farmers’ products. Eventually, however, we realised that the State had to step in and assist in the establishment of industries and factories in order to create a market for the farmers’ products. The State has spent millions of pounds in the formation of this Corporation to establish such an industry, and now the Minister actually comes here and wants to give further millions to the self-same Corporation to start farming and to deprive farmers of their markets. It is a scandal. The country’s money is used to enable the Government in this way to go in for farming. We should oppose this proposition from beginning to end, and I want to express the hope that the farmers’ representatives opposite will do so. I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging has been listening to what I have been saying, and I want to repeat it again: I understand that the Corporation has bought 10,000 morgen of land close to Vereeniging. What is the object and what share has the hon. member for Vereeniging had in that sale of land?

Both directly and indirectly.

Don’t become personal.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has told us that the mine at Thaba Zimbi can do its own farming to provide for its own requirements. It is nonsensical. The Corporation has been established for the production of iron and steel, to proudce agricultural implements and all the rest of it. The industry has been established to provide a market for the farmers’ products. I cannot understand the nonsensical idea of giving the Corporation the power to go in for farming itself. I don’t know what is going on in the Minister’s brain. Who got this idea of allowing the Government to do such an impossible thing?

I really fail to understand the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). Yesterday he heartily agreed with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and now he comes here as a representative of the platteland and lays down the principle that our industries are to be allowed to do their own farming—and they are to do so with State money. In other words, the hon. member for Rustenburg is now in favour of our taking the money of the State and putting it into industries to enable them to compete with the farmers.

No, that is not so.

That is how I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg. If I am mistaken I hope he will put me right. His amendment, as I read it, amounts to this, that every industry is to be encouraged to do its own farming and to provide for its own requirements, instead of our supporting the principle that we should develop our industries so that we may find a market for the products of the farmers. As I understand the hon. member’s amendment, that is what it means, and I say straight out that I fail to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Rustenburg in regard to this matter. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Waterberg. Do not let us forget that it was the old Nationalist Party which was responsible for the establishment of this iron and steel industry. In those days the Minister of Commerce and Industries was opposed to it, and now he comes here with the proposal contained in this Bill which will have the result that instead of this industry being to the benefit of the country in general, the industry will do all these things which will have the effect that it will not answer its original purpose. We want this industry to develop in its own sphere and we do not want it to interfere in this manner with the rights of the farmers.

I rise on a point of explanation. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) said that I was in hearty agreement yesterday with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). If he will read my speech in Hansard he will see that that is not so. I said yesterday what I said again this morning, that I am satisfied if the Corporation produces for its own requirements, but if it enters into competition with the farmer, then I am not satisfied, and that is why I proposed my amendment to prevent this very thing from happening.

I think that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is the right amendment for us to support. We cannot understand the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). He says that if the Corporation farms for its own requirements, and does not come into competition with the farmer, then he agrees with it; but surely if it farms for itself it must come into competition with the farmer, because those workers who are going to buy their foodstuffs from the Corporation will not buy from the farmers? It means that the purchasing powers of the farmers are being diminished, and consequently the Corporation will be in competition with the farmers.

Then you should also prevent the predikants and the lawyers from farming.

The unfairness of the Minister’s proposal is this. In actual fact it is a crime against the farmer. The farmer is encouraged from time to time to produce more, particularly at a time like the present, but if every industry can farm for itself today to provide for its own requirements, where does the purchasing power which the farmer must have at its disposal for the sale of his own products come in then? There will be no purchasing power left for the farmer to enable him to carry on. In the Transvaal we already have this position, that the Provincial Administration has its school farms. There they produce to a large extent for their own use, and what is left over is thrown on the market. Now, the Minister comes here and he wants to buy farms with public money on the general principle that such Corporations must have the right to produce for their own use; they are to have the right to produce vegetables or whatever it may be. Assuming they have products over. What are they going to do with those? They will be thrown on the market, and, even if there should be a shortage, it is still not the right thing towards the farmers. I therefore say that I look upon this proposal as a crime against the farmer, and if we want to encourage farming in this country and give the farmer the opportunity to produce, then we must leave production to the farmers, and we must not allow the factories, the mines the schools, and similar organisations to compete with the farmers. It is the farmer’s sphere to produce and it must be regarded as such. I therefore support the hon. member for Waterberg’s amendment to delete the words “farms and hotels”.

If my hon. friends opposite had come here this morning with a motion that we should confine certain things to certain specific sections, I would have supported them. If they had proposed, for instance, that we should prevent predikants lawyers and teachers from farming and from producing, we would have supported him.

They don’t farm with public money.

The teacher is paid with public money but my hon. friends opposite now want to have protection for one section of the community. They want the farmer to be paid a minimum price for his products, and then in the same breath they come and tell us that they are speaking on behalf of the poor and on behalf of the workers of the country, and that they must also be protected! Not one of them has said that they would also like to see a maximum Drice laid down for the protection of the poorer section of the population, and for the protection of the workers. No, they don’t do that. They come here and want to claim this right on behalf of the farmers alone. The farmer is to have the right to let prices go up. He is to have the complete say over production in the country and nobody else is to have any say whatsoever. I assume that the Minister by this proposal means that the Corporation is to be allowed to produce things for its own people, so that they will be able to get these goods cheaper than they would otherwise be able to get them. It will mean that it will be to the benefit of the State if that is done. Let the hon. member for Waterberg add in his amendment that all sections of the community are to be protected in the same wav, that all sections are to be confined to their own particular sphere, that the farmer is not to be allowed to do anything but farm. If he does that we can discuss the matter.

But this Bill does not deal with that at all.

I do not see how one section can demand all these rights. For that reason I want to support the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). It is no more than fair that, if we want to restrict one section, we must apply that restriction to every section. If they will add that to the amendment then I shall support it.

When the iron and steel industry was created with the object of securing a market for the farmers’ products and to establish a large industry here where people could be employed so that the farmer could secure a market for his products, the whole position was brought very prominently to the notice of the country, and that is why the public was prepared to allow the State to spend money on this undertaking. The money which was invested in this industry was invested in it by the Government, and if we say now that that money is not to be used to start a farming concern, then it has nothing to do with the advocate and the doctor who use their own money to start farming. What is more, the advocate and the doctor do not ask for protection. Other advocates and other doctors compete with them, but here we are dealing with an iron and steel industry which has been established by the State, and nobody can go and establish that industry. It is a monopoly which has been created. The hon. member who has just spoken is therefore completely missing the point. He does not know what he is talking about. Members opposite, when the Bill was introduced for the establishment of an iron and steel industry, opposed it tooth and nail, and today they are again busy frustrating the object with which that industry was started. What will happen if this clause is passed? It will mean that the Minister can buy farms; he can plant potatoes there, for instance, as many as he likes. He can plant 20,000 or 30,000 bags. He can put up orange orchards; he can sow mealies, and if all our big industries do that sort of thing where do the farmers come in? If the iron and steel industry develops as we expect it to do, ten thousand people can be employed in its workshops. It is an enterprise put there by the State, and we cannot take up the attitude and say that that enterprise is to be absolutely independent so that it requires nothing from the rest of the country. If we are to allow that kind of thing in connection with this Corporation, then other concerns are going to follow suit. I therefore want to ask the Minister to abandon this half-baked idea of his, to come here and ask us to allow him to compete in a sphere where he has no business to interfere. This Corporation is there for the purpose of producing iron and steel, and the people engaged in this Corporation have to be fed on the products of the country, and we should leave it to the farmers to supply them with that food.

I listened to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) when he said that the Government must protect all sections of the community. He spoke of attorneys who went in for farming, and teachers who went in for farming. We are dealing here with a matter of very far-reaching importance, however. We established this industry with the specific object of manufacturing steel, and we expected by-products to be manufactured as well. We expected machinery which is required for agricultural purposes to be manufactured. Now, the Government comes here and wants to buy farms with public money to enable people to go in for farming, and to allow the products to be used for the consumption of the people in the service of the Corporation! Why do we establish these industries? Do we establish them merely to enrich a small crowd of people who have bought shares? One of the main objects in the establishment of an industry is to allow the workers in the industry, by means of their purchasing power, to secure and consume the products of the country. The industry is now to be supported with public money to enable it to compete with the farmers and to deprive the farmers of a market which they would otherwise have had for their products! It is unheard of. I have never yet heard of a Government undertaking farming or undertaking any other kind of business on a profitable basis; there have always been losses on such enterprises. The State cannot even run refreshment rooms at a profit—how much less will it run a farming concern on a profit? The unfair part of it all is that the Government, by the use of public money, is going to make it possible for the iron and steel industry to compete with the farmers.

The workers are just as much entitled to protection from the Government as the farmers are.

Every industry is entitled to protection within its own sphere. The Iron and Steel Corporation was established for a specific purpose, and that purpose was not farming. The Government makes the development of the industries in the outside districts practically impossible.

The hon. member is straying rather far away from the subject.

I hope the Government will abandon the idea of enabling the Corporation to buy farms with public money, and then to compete with the farmers. If it is allowed in this case we can expect other industries also to want to provide for the needs of their employees, and as a result the markets will be monopolised, but they will not be monopolised by the farmers.

I should like hon. members opposite to pay a visit to Iscor before discussing this matter in the way they are doing. Let them go and ask the workers, on whose behalf they claim to speak, whether they support the amendment which has now been proposed by the Opposition. Hon. members on the other side know only too well that those who have sympathy with the workers and who represent the workers cannot possibly support such an amendment. I am not going to allow the interests of the workers to be pushed in the background in this way. Month after month we hear the interests of the farmers spoken of by hon. members opposite, as though the farmers constitute the only section which has to be protected, the only section which is to have any say — the only section which should be considered. And now they want to go further, and they want to give the farmers all the privilege and all the rights. In my constituency I also have farmers whom I represent, but it is not the type of farmer who would come here and support the other side to give the farmers all the say, and to impose restrictions on other sections of the community. Let hon. members pay a visit to Iscor and ask the workers there what they think of this amendment of theirs? My constituents today have to pay through their necks for agricultural products, but it seems to me that hon. members opposite will not be satisfied until the farmers have everything. So long as the farmers flourish, they don’t care what becomes of the workers, and, in order to support the farmers, they don’t care what restrictions they impose on other sections of the community.

If I understand the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heynes) correctly he contends that he is also advocating the cause of the farmers, and he says that it is wrong for teachers and advocates and so on to be allowed to farm. For that reason he says that he is prepared to accept the Minister’s proposal. Now let us understand him correctly. He suggests that it is wrong for people to farm.

I did not say that, I said put these restrictions on them too.

You said that you would support an amendment to that effect.

The hon. member said that before we could accept an amendment of this kind, such as we now have before us, the teachers should first of all be prevented from going in for farming and advocates should be stopped from farming, and yet the hon. member said he was speaking on behalf of farmers. But we are not here preventing teachers or advocates from farming. We are concerned here with a new measure proposed by the Minister, which is going to take something away from the farmers. The Government now wants to use public money to start farming, and now the hon. member comes here and says that before we can object to that certain other things must first of all be done. To two wrongs he now wants to add a third wrong.

So you admit that it is wrong.

According to the hon. member’s argument two things are wrong. And now he wants to add a third wrong. If the hon. member really represents farming interests he should stand by us to prevent the Government from going in for farming this way. The hon. member is getting impatient now. He can get up again. Every time he gets up he puts his foot into it further. We are dealing here with a serious matter. It has been proved over and over again that if the Government goes in for farming it comes out very expensive. Of course we are living in normal times, but in normal times the Government is a very expensive farmer. We have had the example of the Government’s Stud Farm near Kimberley. It is a terribly expensive business and we continually have reports about difficulties in connection with that farm. Now the hon. member comes here and wants the Government to undertake a new sort of farming. Is it right and fair to the farming community? The hon. member for North East Rand does not represent any farmers, except perhaps a few people, who farm for recreation, as a side issue. Otherwise the hon. member would never be able to approve of a step like this on the part of the Government. What is going to happen? If the Government makes a loss on its enterprise the Minister will have to come to this House to cover his loss. It is not quite clear to me yet whether those people will be compelled to buy the products or not. In any case if there is a shortage it will have to be met by taxation and the farmers will have to contribute to cover the shortage. Will that be fair?

How many shortages have the farmers ever made up.

The taxpayers have been asked time and again to make up deficits. I cited the example of the Stud Farm at Kimberley. Has the hon. member ever studied how much that has cost? The taxpayer will have to cover the losses and the taxpayers include the farmers. First of all a farming concern is started with public money, then they go into competition with the farmers and if there is a loss the farmers have to come in and help bear the loss. It is one of the most unfair things a Government has ever taken up.

This seems to be rather a storm in a tea cup, as far as I can see. I understand now from some hon. members opposite that they envisage that the Iron and Steel Corporation are going in deeply for farming. I am not quite certain whether they do not suggest that the whole of the mealie growing of the Transvaal will disappear when the Iron and Steel Corporation gets moving. But, in order to clear the air and to remove hon. members’ fears, I think I had better accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). I understand that the hon. member for Rustenburg moves to omit in line 20 the words “may seem to the Corporation”, and to substitute “are exclusively”, so that the clause will read—

That will not remove the objections.

That makes it clear that the Corporation are not going to put in hundreds of thousands of pounds of Government money into farming projects. I agree with the last speaker that from my knowledge of farming, it is the easiest industry in which to lose money. I have had ample experience of that myself, and the last thing I want the Corporation to do is to touch farming, and they have no intention of doing so. That is what I have explained several times. Growing a few vegetables and potatoes which they have been doing for years at Thaba Zimbe is not going in for agriculture on anything like a large scale. Hon. members apparently want to stop them from growing a few potatoes and vegetables for their employees, but to my mind it is in the interests of their employees that they should do so, and they are not doing the farmers any harm. The constant expansion of this industry is every day bringing the farmers in a great deal more than this tuppeny halfpenny market gardening scheme is taking out of their pockets. This is a scheme to the interest of the employees. So I hope that having accepted this amendment, and having made it clear that these things can only be done exclusively in the interests of the employees, the clause will now be allowed to go through.

I just want to reply first to what the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) has said. He wants to create the impression that we on this side of the House plead for the interests of the farmer, and that we entirely overlook the workers in the industries. May I remind the hon. member that when this side of the House established the iron and steel industry, we did so, in the first place, in the interests of the country; and, in the second place in the interests of thousands of people who would eventually find employment in the industry?

In answer to the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) I said that as he is trying to make it appear that we are only concerned about the interests of the farmers and not about the interests of the workers, when this side introduced the Bill to establish the iron and steel industry, we did so not merely in the interests of the country as a whole, but also with a view to the interests of thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of people who would find employment in the industry. And what did hon. members opposite do at that time? They did not look at the interests of the country, nor did they look at the interests of the workers. They stood up for the interests of the big industries in England and on the Continent—they stood up for the protection of those interests. They stood up as the protagonists of big capital. I shall leave it at that. This is a matter of principle, and the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), which the Minister is apparently willing to accept, does not in any way touch the principle which is at stake here. It does not rectify the position in the slightest. Now what does that amendment mean? It means that the Iron and Steel Corporation will have the right to go in for farming to produce commodities, but it will not be allowed to sell those products to people outside; they can only be used for people in the employ of the Corporation. But it was never the intention of this Bill to allow the Steel Corporation to produce for the market in the ordinary way. I assume it was always the intention to produce merely with the object of supplying food to their own people. We cannot allow it. We expect the iron and steel industry to expand on an enormous scale, and it will therefore mean that the thousands and tens of thousands of workers in the employ of the Corporation will not constitute a market for the farmers, but that the Corporation itself will produce the necessary food for those people and that market will be taken away from the farmers. Let us assume for a moment that the railways were to do the same thing. The railways have far more than 100,000 people in their service; assuming the self-same principle is applied there, that the railways themselves produce the food required by their employees, and assuming the mines applied the same principle and we find that the gold mines grow all the mealies, all the wheat, all the fruit, all the monkey nuts and all the vegetables—I am mentioning the principal things they use—which they require for their workers—assuming the Electricity Supply Commission produced everything they require, then I should like to know from the hon. member for Rustenburg what is going to happen to our farmers?

Are there no other institutions which produce their own food?

Does the Minister not realise yet that we are dealing here with a public institution which has been brought into being with public money? If the Minister wants to condone it and defend it in this case, he can also defend it in the case of the railways and of the Electricity Commission; he can also defend it in the case of the gold mines, and then I ask again—does the Minister think that there will be anything left of the farming community? It is the principle which goes to the very root of the matter, and if it is wrong in the case of all these institutions to do a thing like that, then it is also wrong in the case of Iscor. It will not stop at the mine at Thaba Zimbe. It is not a case there of small gardens producing small quantities of vegetables for the workers. At Thaba Zimbe there are extensive gardens where everything is being produced for those people, and the result is that they are no longer buying anything from the surrounding farmers who at one time used to have that market. Will the hon. member for Rustenburg go to the Thaba Zimbe district and tell his supporters there that they can no longer have the market which they used to have among the employees of the Steel Corporation at Thaba Zimbe?

I have moved my amendment in order to prevent the thing that is going on there.

Yes, but it is not going to stop what is going on there. Thaba Zimbe can still produce vegetables for its own consumption, only it cannot produce for the market.

They are now selling to the public.

I want the hon. member to go to his constituents and explain to them that they can no longer produce anything for sale to Thaba Zimbe, because he has assisted in this House to pass a law which is going to take that market away from them. Now we have to fight this thing tooth and nail, and I hope the Minister will look at this matter from as unprejudiced a point of view as we are doing, and we want him to put the question to himself from the point of view of principle. If he can defend it in this case, the Minister of Railways can also defend it so far as the railways are concerned. Let the Minister realise what the position will eventually be in South Africa if the farmers are to be deprived of their markets in this way, so that the farming community will become a thing of the past. Has the Minister turned a complete somersault now? In principle he did not want to have anything to do with the iron and steel industry originally. To him it was something evil; at least so far as the share of the State was concerned. It seems that he has now been completely converted to the point of view adopted by this side of the House, but now he is going to the other extreme and he wants to outHerod Herod. He is running amok with this sound principle which we on this side of the House have pleaded for. He is takingover that principle, but now he is going to the very extreme with it. This side of the House never intended that the Corporation should do everything with public money, and that the citizens of the country should have nothing left. I want to express the hope that the Minister will look at the matter in that light and that he will not be stubborn because his officials and Dr. Van der Bijl—and I admit that Dr. Van der Bijl has done a great work in regard to the iron and steel industry—have come forward with this idea in the Bill now before us. Let the Minister be strong enough to depart from this proposal to insert hotels and farms in the Bill. When the Minister came before the House yesterday with this Bill he did not know that these things were in it; he did not know that there was provision in the Bill under which the iron and steel industry could go in for farming. When the Minister defended this clause he spoke of the right of the Iron and Steel Corporation to purchase fixed property, and he imagined that that was all there was in the clause— the right of the Iron and Steel Corporation to buy fixed property, to buy, for instance, a farm required for the acitivites of the Corporation. The Minister therefore never came to this House with the intention of giving the Iron and Steel Corporation the right to go in for farming; he only discovered that here when we raised the matter, and that being so I ask why the Minister now wants to adhere slavishly to something put into the Bill by his officials? The Minister should be convinced that this thing is wrong, and if he is so convinced he should not adhere slavishly to it, but he should look at the matter in the light that we see it in and accept my amendment.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) had a lot to say about what was done in the past in this House by the old Nationalist Party in co-operation with the Labour Party to bring into being the iron and steel industry. What the hon. member has forgotten is that there has been a re-orientation of parties long ago, and that the party sitting on the Opposition Benches today has no right to claim the heritage of what the old Nationalist Party did.

Why do you talk such nonsense?

The Labour Party has done even more in this regard than what those hon. members have done. It is farcical to say that those hon. members who are on the Opposition Benches today were responsible for passing the Act establishing the Iron and Steel Corporation, and giving the country this industry. The hon. member for Waterberg further says that the iron and steel industry should not go in for farming. There is a good deal to be said for that if one looks at the matter as a general proposition. But when hon. members over there accuse us on this side of not standing up to protect the interests of farmers in this regard, I want to ask them why they did not object when they were sitting behind the Government which, for instance, at Potchefstroom allowed the Health Department to produce its own milk and vegetables for the institution there? Why did the hon. member for Waterberg not object to the Education Department giving the right to its Industrial Schools to produce milk and vegetables for their own consumption? And why did the hon. member not even go further and object to the Agricultural Department allowing its Agricultural Colleges to produce milk and vegetables for their own consumption? All these establishments would have constituted markets for the farmers in the neighbourhood. If the hon. member wants to accuse anyone on this side of the House of being inconsistent he should, first of all, think of himself, and ask himself why he did not object in the past to these things, and why he has not remained consistent to himself? There is a great deal to be said for the farmers not being deprived of their markets, but the matter is not ons which should be raised in connection with this Bill dealing with the iron and steel industry as it is now before the House. This is a matter which should be dealt with on its own merits, so that all the departments that are involved can be discussed, and not just one of them. When we want to talk about these things we should treat the matter as a whole, and it is no use tackling it piecemeal. If we have a principle in that connection we cannot apply that principle only to the iron and steel industry, but we must apply it to other industries as well, and we should put our position clearly in regard to the whole principle. I therefore say that hon. members opposite, in the attitude they have adopted on this Bill, have simply been raising a hare, and that is all they have been doing. Hon. members over there really do not want their amendments to be passed, and that is why they are raising all these difficulties. I hope the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) will be agreed to, and that the Bill will be passed with that amendment.

The Minister does not realise what the real intent of this clause is. If an industry is established in the country, we are now asked to give that industry the right to go and buy farms in order to provide for their own needs and requirements. But we must look at the future. If every industry is going to produce farming products, what is going to happen to the farmer and what is going to be the end of it all, where is it going to stop? The farmer has to struggle along today and face great hardships because he has no markets. It is true that at the agricultural schools people produce commodities for their own consumption, but they have to be trained there to carry on the industry. What is done there is done on a small scale and not on the huge scale that will result from the proposal in the Bill before us. It is not in the interest of the farmer, and it is not in the interest of the country as a whole, to allow these things to take place. I really do not believe that the Minister does not realise the harm he is going to do if this clause is passed in its present form. The Minister from the very start has been opposed to the establishment of this iron and steel industry. As my hon. friend sitting in front of me (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said, he has now apparently been converted, and now he is overdoing it and going to the other extreme. Today he is not merely in favour of the expansion of the industry but he now wants to undermine the activities of another section of the population and he is going to handicap that section of the population in their activities in the days to come. It is something foreign to South Africa to place legislation of this kind on our Statute Book. This is the sort of thing which we find in foreign countries, where they are now fighting under conditions of extreme cold. No, I want to ask the Minister to get up and tell us that he has been badly informed, and that now that he has considered the matter very carefully he realises that he has made a blunder and that he is going to accept our amendment.

I can quite appreciate that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is very much concerned about this matter: I have already said that I am also concerned about it, but why has the hon. member kept quiet for sixteen years when this self same farm of Iscor’s at Thaba Zimbe entered into competition with the farmers, also with his constituents?

Do you say sixteen years?

Yes, from 1926 to the present time.

Do you know since when they have been producing vegetables there?

They have perhaps not been producing vegetables for the whole of those sixteen years.

Why do you say it then?

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Waterberg has been aware of what has been going on, and he has been aware of the fact that for all those years the farm has been in competition with the farmers and he has not availed himself of the opportunity to draw the Government’s attention to it.

But they have only been doing it for the last few years.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) expecting me to come to him for information in regard to what is going on in a part of the country where I am living myself.

You know perfectly well that it is only during the last few years that things of that kind have been going on.

Since I have been a member of Parliament, that is since 1938, I have been hearing complaints from the farmers in that locality, from farmers in his constituency and in mine too.

What complaints?

And it is because I have heard those complaints that I have moved this amendment, so as to remove the trouble once and for all, and to prevent them from competing with the farmers in the neighbourhood. If my amendment is agreed to the farmers will be grateful for it.

I again want to make an appeal to the Minister. He told us that so far as business was concerned, if we wanted to lose money all we had to do was go in for farming. He told us that there was no other concern where one could lose money so easily as at farming. That is what the Minister has told us, and it is clear to us that in his heart of hearts he realises that this proposal is a bad one.

But they are not going in for farming.

Then why do they ask for powers to enable them to go in for farming? I again want to tell the Minister that we know that in his heart of hearts he is convinced that he is doing the wrong thing and that enterprise should not take part in farming, and if he can prevent it, I am sure he will. The Minister may laugh about it. He has the majority behind him, and he can force this clause through. It makes no difference if these commodities are produced for sale or only for the people working for the Corporation. The position is clear, namely that they are going to produce these commodities and they are going to compete with the farmers’ products on that particular market. It is quite a different thing from a man running a small garden near his own house. There is no legal authorisation required for that sort of thing —no matter which institution or what kind of a concern an individual is working for. The farmers are not complaining about that, but what the farmers do compain of is that a Corporation, which already has a capital of five or six million pounds and which is now going to borrow another £5,000,000 to increase its capital, is going to be given the power to buy farms and to go in for farming there, not for the purpose of making profits— and it does not matter whether it is going to lose money in that particular sphere of its work—but to supply its own people. I want to say that the Corporation has made a success of the Steel Industry, but it is not going to make a success of farming, and the Minister of Commerce and Industries knows it from his own experience; he is a cheque book farmer today. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he does not realise that it is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle, but the Minister’s action is on a par with the whole conception of members opposite, namely that big capital has to have all the power in its hands, and it must be able to kill everything else. What does the Minister care for the farmer? He is always telling us that he is a farmer himself, but he does his farming with the money he has made out of business. If he had to start farming without capital, as other people have to do, he would not talk so glibly today.

He would have been bankrupt.

Have you heard the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie?)

Yes, I have heard that amendment. It means that the Corporation has the right to produce products for its own employees, no matter whether it has 5,000 or 10,000 people in its service.

And if the Corporation produces for those people, what is going to happen to the farmers?

But he does not care about the farmers. This is a big Corporation which is going to farm with the money of the State. With the exception of a few hundred thousand pounds contributed by private individuals the whole of the Corporation’s capital comes from the State It is State money and it now has to be used to enable the Corporation to compete with the farmer. The Minister himself ridiculed the idea that this Bill was giving the State the right to put up all the capital It is a Corporation which has been set up with State money; State money is again to be given to the Corporation, and I want to know why that money is to be used to destroy the farmer when it can be used for the benefit of the country? That is the position. It is no use saying that the Corporation will not do this or that. We are giving it the power to go in for farming. It shows what the Government wants to do, and if we on this side of the House had not guarded the interests of the farmers they would long ago have cut the farmers’ throats.

That is too ridiculous.

I can prove what I am saying. What does the Minister care for the farmer? And as I have already said, the Minister in his own heart knows that what he is doing here it wrong. His Department has given him this thing and now he is not prepared, or he has not got the common sense, to say no, because I say he knows as well as we do that he is wrong.

The hon. member is going too far now.

I say that the Minister knows as well as I do that he is wrong with this Corporation, but he is unable to go against his department. Iscor has no right to go in for farming Iscor’s job is to supply Iron and Stell and not to go in for farming, even if it does only want to supply its own people. If it wants to do that sort of thing, what use is it to the country then? State money has been invested in this enterprise. The farmers have to live from the money which they invest in their businesses, and we cannot hand them over to trusts such as this one. Trusts move in the direction of getting everything into their own hands. The money power has to be bossed, and where the Government is playing into those people’s hands it is stabbing the farmers in the back.

The principle which is at stake here cannot be condemned strongly enough by this House, nor can it be condemned strongly enough by the public outside. It seems to me that what the Government wants is that this House must vote so much money for the Corporation, and the Corporation is then to issue as many shares as possible to the public. We have been told that the Corporation has to be run on sound business principles. One of those sound business principles is to produce as cheaply as possible, to make a much profit as possible, so that the shareholders may get dividends. And as we see in this Bill now it even has to be done at the expense of the farmer No, they don’t look at the farmer, they only look at the capitalist who has invested money and the interests of that capitalist have to be promoted at the expense of the farmer. That is the secret of the whole business and I must say that I am astounded at members like the member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) and other hon. member opposite who are farmers; I am surprised they do not see it, but they are tied hand and foot by the capitalists, they simply have to say “yes” and “amen” to everything. This thing is going to call forth a protest through the country and I hope the Government will ere long be made to feel the force of that protest It is a scandalous thing to take the State’s money for a Corporation like his one to en enable it to start a farming concern with the purpose of boycotting and interfering with the farmers. I hope the Minister of Commerce and Industries will still have so much feeling and sympathy with the farmers that he hay may yet be induced to abandon this proposition now before the House.

I had not intended taking part in this debate but it now appears to me that hon. members opposite want to create the impression that the Government is acting maliciously and that it is the intention of the Corporation to take up farming as such.

But they are asking for the power to do so.

The Minister of Commerce and Industries has already told us that that is not the intention. But circumstances arise sometimes when it becomes necessary for the Corporation to do something in that direction. Take the case at Thaba Zimbe, where the farmers have not grown sufficient vegetables to meet the requirements of the people employed there. In a case of that kind the Corporation must have the power to look after its own people.

That is not what is laid down in the Bill.

No, it is not stated in the Bill in so many words; the Bill speaks about farming, but I tell the hon. member that that is the intention, as the Minister has told us.

But why is it not defined.

It is difficult to define everything in detail. There is no intention to take up farming. At the moment vegetables are being grown. That is farming, and it is now done in conflict with the Law. It is in order to legalise that position that this clause is now put into the Bill. Take a mine right out in the veld which is engaged on the exploitation of some mineral or other. People are employed there and it may perhaps be necessary to start a small farming concern for the purpose of supplying these people with their requirements.

But surely they can get the vegetables from elsewhere?

It is not always possible to do so. Take Thaba Zimbe; they could not get any vegetables there.

The farmers in the neighbourhood can produce all they need.

Yes, they can but they have not done so.

Why do you not mention such cases?

We cannot mention all these things in the Law. So far as my knowledge of the matter goes, and as the Minister has already told us, the object is solely and simply to give the Corporation the right in such cases to produce for its own employees. Hon. members are giving the impression that it is the Corporation’s intention to buy farms and to produce on a large scale. The Minister has said very clearly that there is no intention of starting farming as such.

But he has no say in the matter.

Very well, he has said it. Assuming Iscor does not comply with that. It is an industry controlled in terms of the laws passed by this House, and if Iscor does anything in conflict with the Minister’s statement it will be time enough to criticise it then, and also if it does anything in conflict with the interests of the farmer. The Minister’s statement can always be referred to in order to prove that that was not the intention. I cannot take the matter any further than that. I have the Minister’s promise and I accept it; I accept the statement that it is not Iscor’s intention to carry on farming in order to compete with the farmers.

Why don’t you define it like that?

The definition is quite wide enough. It will not be the Industry’s policy to do so, and if the Industry clashes with the farmers we can criticise it, but we cannot define the position further today. It is merely intended to produce in the interest of the workers, and if the matter has to be very strictly defined in the Bill we will have to come to this House on every possible occasion. I can only say that so far as I know the intention is not, as suggested by hon. members opposite, that Iscor is to go in for farming. All it will do is to produce certain things in the circumstances which I have described. It will only and exclusively produce in the interest of its own employees.

I want to warn hon. members not to repeat arguments used by other members or arguments already used by them themselves.

The hon. member who has just spoken has told us that there is not the slightest intention of Iscor going in for farming. Then why is it not clearly defined in the Bill that it will only go in for the production of certain products required for its employees in certain specified localities, because those products cannot be secured from the farmers in the neighbourhood? Assuming Iscor is carrying on work in Namaqualand and products cannot be obtained there, let us make an exception there, but why should Iscor be given the right in areas where the industry already exists, in areas like Vereeniging and Escourt, where the farmers can produce anything that is required—why should an exception be made in those instances? If the objection is that there are certain areas where the farmers cannot supply the produce let us ask outright for an exception to be made in such instances. But why ask here for a general right to enable Iscor to go in for farming?

I also feel that the Minister should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). I consider it a wrong principle for an enterprise such as Iscor to be allowed to carry on farming, because if Iscor is allowed to do so we shall find that the mines on the Witwatersrand will also come forward with a request to be allowed to do so; they will follow Iscor’s example and go in for farming, and they will then be depriving the farmers of the opportunity to sell their products. If ever there was a time when we should protect the farmers in South Africa that time is now. We know, and the Minister should know, that the farmers are suffering great hardships today, and that being the case it is our duty to assist farming in every possible way instead of discouraging the farmers. As I have said, if the one concern is to be allowed to buy farms and to go in for farming, other industries will be future also have to be allowed to carry on their own farming enterprises and we are then going to do a serious injustice to the farming population of this country, because the products which the farmers will want to sell will not have the same market value as they would otherwise have had. Their products will depreciate so far as market value is concerned. If the precedent is created of allowing Iscor to undertake farming we shall very soon find that the mines in Johannesburg—which as hon. members have repeatedly told us constitute such a valuable market for the farmers’ products—will also come along with requests to be allowed to start large farming enterprises, so that they may supply their own needs, and this will be most detrimental to the farmers of South Africa. I fail to see any justification for allowing this provision in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will agree to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg so that this provision, giving Iscor the right to go in for farming, will be deleted. We want to protect and not harm the farmers in this country, and we want to do so all the more as we are dealing here with a concern which was started by the Government, and in which the Government has the biggest share. The Government should know better than to treat the farmers in this way.

Question put: That the word “farms”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—39:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper, which I do not wish to move. I wish to move this in its place—

This is in accordance with the suggestion I made yesterday when I asked the hon. Minister whether he would accept the amendment. The reason is obvious, and I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept it, and I accordingly move.

I am prepared to accept it.

Unfortunately, the Minister did not reply yesterday to the point I made in my second reading speech. It seems from the Miniser’s introductory speech, that the purpose of extending the objects of the corporation to include the establishment of industrial undertakings, is to enable the corporation to get over some initial difficulty it had in the way of conducting experiments to determine whether an industry could be justified in this country or not. I have spoken to the Minister in regard to the amendment I propose to move, but I have not heard from him whether he is prepared to accept it. I therefore move this amendment—

The effect of these words will be this. The Industrial Development Corporation will be able to get over the difficulty it is at present experiencing, and when the experimental stage has proved satisfactory, and the proposition is within reach of success—the stage where it can be launched into a business undertaking—the corporation can very easily follow the lines followed by Iscor and establish an industry by means of a special charter.

I have considered this amendment, of which the hon. member gave me a copy just after lunch. I fear that I cannot accept it, because it will be open to debate as to when an initial experiment is finished and when it is not finished, and so on. I think that the hon. member will agree with me that I have attained his object when I tell him that when we pass Clause 3 I propose moving that any undertaking established under this sub-section shall be reported to the House, with full details of it, so that the members of the House will be able to criticise it and debate it. If I may suggest this to the hon. member, it will probably hamper the coporation in starting industries of any kind unless it is absolutely necessary. I quite agree with the hon. member; the last I want to do is for this corporation to go into the establishment and running of industries, and I think that I arrive at the same result if I put in, when we are finished with Clause 3, an amended Clause 19 which will make it necessary for all these cases to be reported to the House. As I have now accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) which necessitates any undertaking being submitted to the Government for approval before it can be undertaken— that is you have got to get the consent of the Governor-General—I think we are quite safely fixed, and we are not likely to get this corporation running wild.

I am glad to hear the hon. Minister say that he will introduce a further amendment which will make it obligatory to submit financial details to this House; but as the Bill stands now, it would appear that the fundamental objects of the corporation are really being changed. When this corporation was originality established, it was established for the purpose of guiding, assisting and financing industries etc. Now the primary object appears to be to conduct industries. The hon. Minister has said that we are not likely to have this corporation running wild and conducting industry. Then why make this a primary object of the Bill without any limitation at all? My only object in moving this amendment is to ensure that the corporation is not restricted in its activities in the way of its original objective, that is as an industrial bank—it was established as an industrial bank—but prevented from engaging in industry. I am afraid that if it is an industrialist on the one hand, and a promote and finance of industries on the other hand, there will be a serious clash of interests, so that its position will become untenable. I am sorry the hon. Minister will not accept the amendment, because I fell that such a limitation will not interfere with the object of the corporation, and at the same time will safeguard the corporation being retained as an undustrial development corporation.

I see the hon. Minister’s interpreter is not in attendance, and as I wish to discuss a certain matter affecting his department, I shall speak in English. This Bill, as was pointed out yesterday, aims at the establishment of industries for which there is not the necessary private initiative or private capital. I wish to take the advantage of this occasion to mention a certain matter which I have already discussed personalty with the hon. Minister, but which should be mentioned in this House, and that is the position with regard to rubber. Some years ago—I think it was in 1928— a very well-known American firm sent out its representatives to South Africa to investigate the possibilities of securing rubber from the plant or tree known as Euphorbia Latex. I believe the ordinary name is naboom. I believe there are large quantities of these trees in the Cape and also in the Transvaal. The experts of this company were sent out to South Africa and considerable experiments were undertaken. Unfortunately, the American firm was in contact with a syndicate or group of persons in Johannesburg who were not of the right type, and as a result of that things went awry; but considerable experiments were made in South Africa and the stuff was sent to the United States. I was informed by the chief chemist of that company that as a result of their experiments they had managed to manufacture a rubber which was described as being 80% as good in quality as natural rubber. Now in view of the position resulting from the war, and the shortage of rubber stocks, and in view of the fact that in other countries, for instance in America, to-day, they are experimenting with a certain type of bush, and large quantities of rubber have been obtained from it already, I feel that the time has arrived for the hon. Minister to conduct further investigations through his department in conjunction also with other departments, with a view to seeing what the possibilities are of making rubber from this euphorbia latex. And here we have an opportunity which was presented by the Industrial Corporation, where perhaps there would be a natural disinclination on the part of business enterprises, to undertake anything of that sort in view of the risk which is attached thereto, for the Government to take the initiative in this case; and if it is proved from the experiments that something can be done, the Industrial Corporation can then furnish the necessary capital. I feel that the Minister should investigate this matter and see what can be done.

I must say that a few months ago, when I was nervous about the rubber position, I did make enquiries regarding this euphorbia latex, and I understood from my department that some years ago the matter came up and we had an investigation. The result of that investigation was that the Board of Trade turned it down, but now that the hon. member has brought the matter up again, I think I will get my department to get together the facts, so that we can see whether anything can be done to use euphorbia latex for rubber. The difficulty is whether we will be able to get from it anything like the quantity of rubber which we require. But I will ask my department to revive the subject to see whether anything can be done in order to help the rubber position, which I agree and hon. members will recognise, is very serious today, as any hon. member who is looking for motor tyres will find out.

May I suggest to the Minister that he should get his department to look up the files for the reports which were sent out in 1928. There he will find the particulars.

In spite of what the Minister said yesterday about not being prepared to accept the suggestion I made then, I am encouraged by what he has just said in reply to the hon. member for Beaufort West again to suggest that the phraseology of the end of this clause should be changed. I feel that there is an essential possibility of conflict between the first part of what is here stated as the purpose of the corporation, and the second part, that is between “the development of the economic requirements of the Union,” and “the encouragement of industrial development on sound business principles.” Sir, I can conceive, for instance, that the experiments with the possibilities of the development of a rubber industry which have been proposed would not pass those critics who take their stand on sound business principles. I can understand our wishing to develop industries in this country in order to provide our economic requirements on lines which would not square with the traditional conception of sound business principles and being able to do this within the terms of the first part of this section, but I suggest that the introduction of these words in the second part is intended to encourage the belief that we are only going to support efficiency in our industrial development. But we have already stated that efficiency is the objective of the corporation; this is in sub-section (2) of this clause. So the terms of this clause are, I contend, misleading. The first part suggests that the corporation may encourage industries simply because they will produce the economic needs of the country while the second section appears to place emphasis on industries that will guarantee adequate dividends to the people who promote them. Now to resolve this possible conflict I suggest to the hon. Minister if he does not wish to drop out the second part, that at least he be prepared to re-phrase it in some way like this: “And industrial development within the Union may be planned, encouraged and expedited,” which is really his intention. The purpose of this Bill is to encourage industrial development in order to meet the economic requirements of the Union, and we have already said in sub-section (2) that in applying the resources of the industrial corporation to establish industries, our purpose is to make for efficiency. I do not think we need repeat that in this clause. We are merely throwing into juxtaposition two things that could be in conflict. I do not think the hon. Minister will lose anything by accepting this proposal I think it will clarify the intention of the Act and remove possible difficulties in its application.

I hope the hon. Minister will give the suggestion that has now been thrown out his sympathetic consideration. The conflict that I referred to yesterday between paragraph (a) of Section 5 of the Bill as it is now before the House, is one which perhaps is not of such importance, because paragraph 5 (a) of Section 5 only applies to private enterprise, and there I realise that probably the corporation, before it is prepared to advance any money to a private enterprise, might want to satisfy itself that there is economic merit in the enterprise. But where we are dealing now with the possibilities of the corporation having the opportunity to establish industries that are national, and which private enterprise is unlikely to do, I feel that the clause should be framed in such a way as to leave it beyond all doubt that the real question of profit-making shall not interfere with the objects which the corporation is now seeking to attain. It is perfectly true that the words “sound business principles” do not mean profit-making. I must say that is quite a novel interpretation, that it only means efficiency. I am as anxious as anyone else to have efficient administration in any industry, especially in Government concerns, because the usual criticism of Government concerns is that they are not run on efficient lines. I am in favour of efficiency, but you already have in that sub-section (2) to which the hon. member has just referred, provision for the efficient carrying on. If you include the phrase “sound business principles” it will obviously be regarded as something else. It may mean purely running an industry on profitable lines, and that will interfere with the establishment of industry for national purposes. Take, for example, the agricultural industry in South Africa. However badly it may be run at the moment, it is still an important national enterprise, and I wonder what would be our position if we insist that agriculture should be run only on sound business lines? I hope, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that he will at any rate tell us that he will give his serious attention to the matter.

Let me say in order that this debate does not run on like the farming clause in the last Bill, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). My view is this, that the Industrial Development Corporation is founded for industries that can be run on sound business principles. Now the hon. member seems to have a very mean estimate of what sound business principles are. Sound business principles, as far as I can see, will not make it impossible to provide the economic requirements of the Union and industrial development, and that is the sheet anchor of the whole of this Bill from the beginning; that is that no industry can be touched unless it is on sound principles from a business point of view. If I allow these words to be deleted, it will mean that all kinds of fancy industries will be put forward by well-meaning idealists, which cannot be worked on business principles, and the money will to a great extent be wasted and become useless. My position regarding this is perfectly clear. Take even the position that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) brought up now regarding euphorbia latex; if that cannot be run on sound business principles, then it is not a subject matter for this corporation. If owing to the war we had to make rubber out of euphorbia latex on uneconomic principles, which we might have to do in case of war, then it should be run as a separate business by the Government under a war emergency measure; but do not let us mix up industries which have got to show capacity for living after the war with any of these matters which, I know, are urgent to-day; but it must be undertaken by the Government separate from the Industrial Development Corporation. I am very sorry I cannot meet the hon. member. It is almost a part of my religion, if I might say so, that a business must be run on sound principles, and I cannot get away from it with regard to this corporation. They must work on sound business principles.

Despite the fact that the hon. Minister has said that he is not prepared to accept some phraseology more in keeping with the expression of his interpretation than might be read into the words “sound business principles,” I venture to suggest that the Minister should still consider the amendment of this phrase to conform to the suggestion by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). The hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries knows very well that there are certain economists of the conservative school who interpret sound business principles in relation to the establishment of any local national industry in competition with the foreign article, as meaning any industry that can stand on its own feet without increasing the cost of living of the internal consumer, and at the same time it is definitely stated that it must not come to the Government for protection. The hon. Minister himself has repeatedly in the past interpreted sound business principles in relation to any industry as being an industry that can be established in competition with the competitors without passing the initial burden in the way of protection on to the internal market. The hon. Minister, in interpreting this clause in relation to this particular Bill, has interpreted sound business principles in quite another manner. He has interpreted sound business principles in a way which will conform in every detail with the altered phraseology as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. So the hon. Minister almost adopted the ipsissimo verba of the hon. member for Cape Eastern yesterday afternoon, when she suggested that the establishment of industries in this country should conform to. The Minister suggests in his argument against the elimination of these words “sound business principles” and thenreplacement by other more suitable words, that the Industrial Corporation would be advised or influenced to fritter away the bulk of the £5,000,000 which the Government is putting up, but in view of the fact that the Minister has already accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) that the consent of the Governor-General, or in other words the Government, shall be free to determine unhampered by these sound business principles, surely he should accept the amendment. Even at this stage I again ask the Minister to replace the limitation which he himself has imposed in this Bill upon the Government itself, with other more suitable words. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria Central makes it impossible to establish any industry without the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council. But the Minister’s own limitation prevents the establishment of any industry despite the economic needs of the Union, unless he can fit into the formula laid down in this Act the words “on sound business principles.” No limitation should be imposed upon any Government in regard to the economic development of the country. The deletion of this particular phrase will be gratefully and generously accepted by every member of the Opposition. They want industry whatever the cost; we want industries provided they give a decent living to those who are employed in them; the hon. Minister wants industries provided the Cabinet of the country is satisfied that they meet the economic needs of South Africa. If that is so, then we are all agreed and there is not the slightest need for the Minister to encumber his Bill by placing this limitation upon the Cabinet whose consent must be obtained before the Industrial Corporation will have the right to establish any industry.

I would like to follow up the remarks made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) with respect to the rubber position in South Africa. It is very pleasing to see the hon. member coming forward with a suggestion which will certainly help the war effort of the Union. He has referred to certain plants in the Eastern Province from which rubber can be obtained. I know nothing about them, but I know something about an indigenous plant which grows in Natal and Zululand, where there are thousands of acres of it. I refer to Euphorbia Tiraculli. When the shortage of rubber took place some years ago, the price went up. A great deal of interest was taken in this plant, but unfortunately before the company could get going the price of rubber fell very considerably, and the project fell flat. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister a characteristic of this indigenous plant. It does not need tapping, but is cut down and crushed to obtain the latex, and in that manner it is far more economical than tapping. I commend this matter to the Minister. Owing to the rapacity of the hon. Minister of Finance, in appropriating profits, private enterprise is rather discouraged, that is to say if profits are made in war time.

The hon. member is going very far from the clause now. I have given him great latitude, but he must not pursue that.

Well, sir, there is very little encouragement for private enterprise, and therefore I hope that the Government, in view of the shortage of rubber, will explore any indigenous plants of this nature in order to provide the country with rubber.

In order to complete the intention of the amendment to Clause 3 (a) I want to move the following amendment—

The intention of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is this: In the Act the accounts of the Corporation have to be laid on the Table of the House by the Minister, and in that way they are at the disposal of hon. members for their criticism, but I have gone one further in this instance; I have said that these accounts must contain separately the financial details in connection with any of these undertakings which have been worked by the Industrial Corporation itself, and that is the point I made with the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell), namely, that these reports would be at the disposal of members of this House, and they can criticise any part of the accounts and even the working of these industrial undertakings which have been founded and worked by the Industrial Development Corporation.

In accordance with paragraph (1) of the resolution of the House adopted on the 30th March, the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1943, stand referred to the Committee.

I want to revert to the matter which I raised when the vote “Interior” was under discussion for the first time, namely, that of the Information Bureau. In the first place, I want to deal with the reply which has been given by the Press through the instrumentality of the Johannesburg “Star” in regard to certain statements which I made here. I notice that the “Star” had a leading article about it—and let me say in passing that the English papers are prepared to give publicity to a tax made on them—and in that leading article the “Star” said, inter alia, that my remarks in this House were “misstatements and pure nonsense”; and then the “Star” proceeds to analyse my speech and to defend itself.

The hon. member cannot quote from a newspaper on a matter which happened in this House.

It was in reply to something I said in this House.

The hon. member cannot quote from that reply.

Then I want to say in passing that I am sorry I am not allowed now to reply to that leading article, but I merely want to point out that, although it is said in that article that the facts which I mentioned in my statement in this House were unfounded, the paper in its leading article admits that all the facts are definitely well founded, that they have made a larger profit than in the past; that they have not placed any advertisement in connection with the war effort free of charge, and that they have not inserted any subscription lists in connection with the Governor-General’s fund free of charge. In spite of the charges made against me, the paper admits that the facts adduced by me are all perfectly correct. As I am not allowed to go into this matter any further I want to confine myself briefly to the very extensive reply which the Minister gave to my remarks. He made careful notes while I was speaking, and I expected him to reply to the charges I made, but when the Minister got up all he said was that I had made an unworthy charge against the Committee. He spoke of “unworthy”! The Minister is an expert on the subject of what is worthy and what is unworthy, and never before had he behaved in a more unworthy manner than he did when he replied to my charges here in this House.

The hon. member is going too far.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to say that the Minister is behaving in an unworthy manner?

I have already told the hon. member that he is going too far.

Very well, Mr. Chairman; then I shall keep this side of the fence. The hon. the Minister of the Interior’s whole reply amounted to this, that I made an unworthy attack, or that I had represented the matter in an unworthy fashion when I said that the members of the Committee were there “to feather their own nests”. He said that they were doing excellent work, and that they were there in an advisory capacity. I had already stated in my speech that they were there in an advisory capacity, but I added that, although they had ostensibly been appointed only in an advisory capacity, they had taken over the whole control of the Information Bureau, and I repeat that the Minister simply has to dance to their tune. I at once made serious accusations, and I put some very pertinent questions to the Minister. My first question was whether it was a fact that more than £29,000 had recently been spent on an advertisement campaign. The Minister kept silent. I thereupon asked under what heading that expenditure appeared on the estimates; I am still awaiting a reply. I asked him what the expenses were in connection with the publication of this little paper up North, the “Springbok”? The Minister still owes me a reply. I asked what kind of news was published in that paper, whether it was only of a propaganda nature or whether it was ordinary news? I am still awaiting a reply. I asked the Minister—and I did not make that charge against individual members of the Committee—I want hon. members to follow me very carefully, because I assume that they are prominent people … but I did make the charge, and I said by way of illustration, that if the Government should decide to buy motor cars and it appointed Henry Ford to advise it as to how many cars it should buy, and what type of car it should buy, we would know what his advice would be. And I said that the very same thing had happened in the appointment of this committee to advise the Government in regard to the character of the propaganda and the amount of propaganda that has to be made. The Government has appointed a committee consisting of people actually representing newspapers which are principally benefiting by the expenditure of that money. I made that charge and I am still awaiting a reply. The Minister says that that is an unworthy representation of the case. No, there is nothing unworthy about it. It is in the public interest that we should know it. I asked the Minister whether the committee had recommended the expenditure of £80,000 per year on propaganda and advertisement. I have already said in my first speech that that amount has not been spent, but I asked whether it is a fact that the committee gave that advice—the Minister still owes us that information, and it is his duty to give this House and the country all the information asked for. But as I have already said we are still awaiting the Minister’s reply. I also asked the Minister whether it was a fact that the Information Bureau had done all the work for the newspapers during the Abyssinian campaign, and that it was doing it again in the Western Desert. I told the Minister that according to my information not one of the local papers had had a representative there; not one of our local papers had had a photographer there, but all the work had been done free of charge for the papers by the Information Bureau. I asked the Minister whether that was a fact, but we are still awaiting his answer. I also put a question to the Minister in regard to 300,000 booklets having been ordered from the Government printer — booklets entitled “The Battle for Britain.” I wanted to know from the Minister whether the full number of 300,000 had been printed; if not, how many had been printed, and whether those booklets had been sold at 6d. each as originally intended. Those were the questions I asked, but the only reply I received was that my representation of the case, or the charge I had made in regard to the matter, was an unworthy one. Is it unworthy to ask a responsible Minister to reply when such accusations are made against the department? Is it unworthy to ask him to give full information to the House so that that information can be given to the country, and so that the Minister shall not come along with nonsensical remarks? Is it unworthy to expect the Minister to give information in reply to such questions and not to try, as he did, to evade giving an answer? In conclusion I only want to say that I shall avail myself of another opportunity if possible to go more fully into the charges which the newspapers have made. I notice that the kernel of the defence put up by that paper is that I am alleged to have said on a certain occasion that the whole future of Afrikanerdom depended on a victory by Germany. That is incorrect. I shall be pleased if those newspapers and those people who made that statement will study my speeches of the past two years. They will then see that I and other members have consistently warned our people against fixing their hopes for the future on a complete victory by Germany. It is merely an attempt to detract attention from a serious charge which cannot be answered.

I would like to dispose of the matters which the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has raised right away. I am sorry I did not deal as fully as he might have wished with these matters last night, but that was probably primarily due to the fact that the hon. member was absent from the House.

I was here all the time while you spoke.

Then I am sorry, I thought the hon. member was absent. Let me say at once that there is no mystery about these amounts which have been spent on publicity and I repeat once again that the suggestion made by the hon. member that a committee has been appointed which is looking after particular interests is an unfounded allegation and an unworthy one in regard to the personnel concerned. The Bureau of Information has been charged with the duty of carrying out Government publicity in regard to the war effort. That publicity has a very wide range, it is concerned with Defence matters, with protection of the civilian public, and it might be concerned with agricultural matters, for instance, the fruit campaign “Eat more Fruit,” and a number of other things.

Has it been utilised for that purpose?

Yes, the Bureau of Information carried out a campaign in regard to fruit when it was found impracticable for certain of our fruit to be exported. The function of the Bureau is to act as the agent of the Government departments in regard to Government publicity. At the end of 1940 the committee, an advisory committee on publicity, was appointed and it consisted of a number of experts in various lines of publicity, the Press, the radio, films, advertising and so on. Out of that committee an executive was formed which since then has met at regular intervals and has expended a tremendous amount of time and effort in drawing up schemes and in advising the Bureau in regard to publicity. Let me say that every member of that committee acts in an honorary capacity. There are, of course, departmental officials, but the private individuals who are members of that committee are acting purely in an honorary capacity. The hon. member has suggested that because certain of the members are associated with The Argus group of newspapers they must be prejudiced in favour of that particular group, and because a particular member is associated with an advertising firm that his presence on that committee is to further the interests of that particular firm. I repeat what I said last night, that I have every confidence in the integrity of that committee. And it is not merely a question of having confidence in the committee. If hon. members appreciated the functions of that committee they would know that being purely advisory they could not, even if they wanted to, feather their own nests, or do anything in the interests of any particular group of newspapers. Quite apart from the fact that no one would imagine that any member of the committee would act in such a way, they are not in a position to do so.

Don’t you place them in a rather invidious position by having to recommend expenditure which will benefit themselves?

I do not know where the hon. member gets his information, but his facts are wrong. Let me tell him that this particular committee has no power to authorise expenditure.

Not authorise but recommend. Do you deny that they recommend expenditure?

No, I do not deny that, I say they have no power to authorise expenditure. The Government is responsible for expenditure. Many persons recommend expenditure, hon. members of the Opposition recommend expenditure on a number of things, and the Government has to decide whether it is justifiable or not. So far as publicity is concerned, the Bureau of Information when it gets a recommendation from this committee, takes it to the department concerned. For instance, if it is a matter which concerns Defence, recruiting or the mobilisation of the public generally, then the responsibility for that expenditure is a defence matter. The recommendation goes to the Authorities Committee, which takes the decision and not the Advisory Committee. The Authorities Committee, as the hon. member knows, consists of members of the Cabinet and high Government officials who deal with the recommendations on their merits. I emphasise the point again that the Advisory Committee has no power to authorise any expenditure. The hon. member has asked what moneys have been spent to date by the Bureau. Approximately £51,000 has been spent to date in carrying out certain publicity campaigns. There was, for instance, the campaign in connection with the Steel Commando, the War Train, and the Air Commando. The Steel Commando cost approximately £7,000; the War Train £4,500 and the Air Commando approximately £5,000. The most recent campaign, which is still carrying on at present, the pull-together campaign, if I may call it that, will involve an amount of approximately £35,000—it may be a little more or a little less. All these amounts were amounts approved of by the Authorities Committee. These sums have been spent not only on advertising but on cinema slides, posters, cards, leaflets, etc.

Is that not advertising?

Not newspaper advertising. The hon. member has suggested that this money has been spent on newspaper advertising, and that the bulk has been spent on the Argus group of newspapers. Let me tell my hon. friend this, that when the Bureau of Information decides to place an advertisement it has in all these cases, in practically all these cases, gone through an advertising agent.

Is the advertising agent the Transvaal Advertising Contractors?

No, there are six or seven well-known agents who have been used, and every advertisement is placed strictly in accordance with the amount of advertising which these companies get in the course of business.

Have the Transvaal Advertising Contractors been one of these agents?

Yes, they have been one, but not the only one. These amounts are spent not only on newspaper advertising, but for publicity media; they are sent to newspapers all over the country—to all sections of the Press. It is true that certain sections of the Press, certain newspapers which do not support the Government in its war effort, have refused to take advertisements on the ground that they do not support the war effort, but let me say that there is no discrimination made.

I made no charge of discrimination.

But the hon. member suggested that the Argus group was selected for favourable treatment.

I said that the Argus group controlled this Committee.

And it was inherent in the charge that the Argus group was benefiting to some considerable extent.

And are they not?

The Argus group happen to be a group which is in this country, whether the hon. member likes it or not, and if one has to advertise in this country, if one wants to advertise in this country, then one cannot ignore them.

Won’t they take some advertisements for the love of the cause?

My hon. friend puts up that specious argument.

It is not specious at all. They claim to be such great supporters of the war effort, but they know how to make money out of it.

These are newspapers which are conducting a business. If this particular business wishes to help the war effort, as they do, they can do it in a number of ways. They are assisting the war effort not merely by advertisements but by the publication of articles.

Which you pay for. You pay for the articles apart from the advertisements.

My hon. friends are so keen on interrupting that they do not want to hear my answers.

You have an unlimited amount of time and we have not.

That garralous member complained that I did not answer him, and when I tried to answer him I am fired at from all sides. The Argus group, just as other groups of newspapers supporting the Government, are assisting the war effort in a number of ways—by news items, articles, and in other ways, to bring home to the public the gravity of the situation, the need for a wholehearted war effort, and they do not ask for payment. But I go further. I have not got the facts or the figures before me, but I have no doubt that the Argus groups, and the other groups too, have contributed liberally to war funds, and that is the proper way to do it. One cannot ask a business to do these things for nothing. Does the hon. member suggest that if the army wants boots we should ask the bootmakers for the love of the cause to make boots, and that if the army wants tanks we should ask the tank makers to do so for the love of the cause? Let us divorce the business side from the other side.

Your analogy does not hold water at all.

If these firms are making undue profits they will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance. I am not suggesting that they are, but if they want to make a gesture to the war effort, they can do so, and they have done so by liberal contributions to the war funds. So the hon. member’s insinuation is unworthy. These advertisements are offered to all newspapers, although a number have not accepted them. When defence matters are under consideration this advisory Committee is augmented by having on it the director of Recruiting, the Controller of manpower, and a representative of the Director General of War Supplies. And in order to ensure that when a particular campaign is embarked upon, all the interests involved are properly represented, and there is no overlapping, and there is proper co-ordination—all these people are consulted. Now the hon. member asked me what amount has been spent on the journal “Springbok” which is published in Cairo. That journal is published by the Bureau of Information on behalf of the Department of Defence.

Is it an official publication?

Yes, it is, it is published on behalf of the Defence Department by the Bureau of Information which has sent a staff there for the purpose. It is delivered free to the troops. Its aim is to supply our troops in Lybia as soon as possible with topic news. It is not run on political lines, and let me say that a very definite instruction was given by the Director of Information in writing that news to be sent there should not be coloured or shaped along political lines, but should be of an objective nature, in regard to various matters of news in this country. That instruction has been given.

Yes, I believe that …

Yes, my hon. friend read into everything in relation to the war something political.

We judge by the news we read in the ordinary newspapers.

Then we must differ. If my hon. friends consider that news about the war and the war effort is political, then I must differ from them. That news is sent up to our soldiers because our soldiers up there want that news.

With a little bit about the United Party thrown in?

The cost of that paper is approximately £120 per week. Now I don’t want my hon. friend over there to overtax his resources. We are getting in about £110 per week by way of advertisements. Admittedly when the publication was started the advertisements did not come in as well as they are doing. Now we are getting advertisements from South Africa and from Egypt and we hope the time will come when this journal, like the ones published by the Australians and the New Zealanders, will bring us in a profit.

What is the total loss to date?

I have not got the figures, but we are quickly making up arrears. Then two final points: The hon. member suggested that the Press had failed to send proper representatives to Abyssinia.

I did not suggest it; I asked a question.

Let me admit candidly that I do feel, whoever is to blame, the Press or the Government—it may be a joint responsibility—that the Abyssinian campaign was not covered as adequately as it should have been.

Was there any Press representative there at all?

It may have been that the rapidity of that campaign took us all by surprise, and that the campaign was over hardly before we knew it had started, but that position has been remedied in regard to the Libyan campaign. There were two official representatives representing the Press in Libya. But the hon. member must remember that the Press in South Africa gets news not only from its own correspondents, whom it sends up, but through the agency of S.A.P.A. which has at its disposal vast resources in the Middle East.

And the Information Bureau supplies the Press with news and photographs?

It has been laid down as a matter of policy that the Bureau of Information will not compete with the Press in regard to the supply of news. It has always been laid down that it is for the Press to get the news. The Press has asked for that, but the Bureau of Information has been able to supply photographs, and sometimes background articles, particularly for the country Press, which is unable to send representatives there, and by means of these articles the country Press can give its readers a fuller picture than it would otherwise have been able to do in regard to our war effort.

Does the Press pay for it?

The articles which are given to the Press are not paid for. Now, I don’t know how many articles are used by the larger journals in the urban areas, because their resources, of course, are so much greater than those of the country papers, and they can get their own news and their own articles, but I do know that information supplied to the country Press has been found very valuable and very acceptable. It is given by the Government as part and parcel of the Government’s war effort.

You pay for advertisements and we give free photographs and articles?

We pay for advertisements, and when we want publicity of the Government’s war effort to be given in the papers which would not be given otherwise, we give that information.

Just by way of philanthropy?

We are quite prepared to supply those small country newspapers with information which will give the country a fuller appreciation of what is done by our forces in the North, and in the country itself, in regard to the war effort. Finally, the hon. member said that 300,000 copies of the “Battle of Britain” had been printed.

I asked whether it was so.

No, approximately 75,000 copies were printed in English, and approximately 25,000 in Afrikaans. The sales have not finally finished, but I understand that they did not go as well as might have been expected, but at that time that number was chosen in order to test what the sales of a publication of this sort would be, and one has been able to regulate future publications in the light of the experience gained. The hon. member suggests that this is waste—but that does not go down. Let me remind the hon. member that the Government Printer is constantly printing Blue Books and other things—that he is constantly over printing, and there is no complaint of that. There is no suggestion that that is wilful extravagance.

Merely in the nature of philanthropy.

We have had the story of the Abyssinian campaign, and that has also been printed, and has been sold, and we find from experience the number of copies that are liable to be purchased either in English or in Afrikaans.

In other words, you have not 100,000 supporters who would buy this?

No, the hon. member might try to gain some comfort from the cheap gibe of that sort, but the point is this. I might ask him if he makes a statement of that sort, how many copies of a particular report, which is supposed to be of great interest, are purchased, and he might be surprised at the answer. The “Battle of Britain” was one of the initial publications, and it might very well be that the sales were not as heavy as they were overseas for a number of reasons, for the fact that the publication was somewhat late in the day, and for a number of other reasons, but in the light of the experienced gained, the Bureau now knows approximately the number of copies of a given publication should be published, and will continue to do so. The Bureau will continue to supply the people of the country with information and publicity valuable to the Government’s war effort.

We have listened with interest to the Minister’s exposition of the situation. We cannot agree with his comparison between Government blue books and publications issued by the Government in support of the war effort. In connection with this propaganda matter, however, I put a question to the Minister of Defence in January of this year. Now it turns out that it comes under this Minister’s department. It was a question in regard to the money spent on advertisements, publications and propaganda to encourage recruiting, and the amount of £57,000 was shown, of which a little more than £2,000 was for newspapers, £1,085 for cinemas, £1,258 for film production, and £13,755 for advertisement contractors. On a later occasion I also asked whether there was an Advisory Council to authorise the expenditure of these amounts, or who gave advice on the expenditure of money. To that question I received a reply, and I was given the names of the Advisory Council. Naturally, if one has a Committee which has to decide on the amounts to be made available one has to avoid the possibility of people serving on that Committee who either personally, or by their business affiliations, are interested in the amounts which are spent. Naturally, if £50,000 are spent instead of £20,000, then if they have business interests, their business will benefit to that extent. Now let me give the names of those people who are members of this Advisory Council. Some of them are known to me, others are not. I should like the Minister, when I mention the names of these people, to say whether they are in any way concerned in, or affiliated to newspapers or advertising contractors, or cinemas.

It is not an Authorising Committee; they can only give advice.

Yes, they can recommend. My point is, assuming an amount of £50,000 is recommended instead of £20,000, then we would like to know that the people who make the recommendation are not directly concerned with the business which benefits from the money that is spent. Now I want to mention the names. Lt.-Col. Kreft, Lt.Col. McDuffog, Mr. Le Mare, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Sisson Cooper, Dr. Bruwer, Mr. Redford; I want to know from the Minister, I want an assurance from him, that the people I have mentioned are not directly associated with concerns which benefit from the money spent on propaganda. Then there is another matter I want to mention and in connection with which I also put a question to the Minister. As a matter of fact I raised this matter during previous sessions—it is the question of changes of name allowed by the Minister and his department. We have pointed out before that a fairly large number of changes of names takes place in South Africa every year, and that in most cases those changes take place in the names of people of Jewish descent. I have a long list here which the Minister gave me when I put that question to him, and it appears from this list that the overwhelming majority again are of Jewish descent. In terms of the law reasons have to be given for such application for change of name. In quite a number of cases the reply used to be—and I assume that it still is so—that they wanted to change their name for social or other similar reasons. We on this side of the House feel that this sort of thing should be stopped. If there is a change of name there should be good and solid reasons for it. I can quite understand the case of a man whose name has a peculiar sound, or perhaps an unusual meaning; I can quite understand such a man wanting to change his name. I notice, for instance, that a Mr. Wellbeloved wanted to change his name. I can quite understand that, especially if he has not got many friends, but most cases are of a different kind, and I feel that these changes of name constitute a deception of the public. Fortunately for the Afrikaans speaking people the new names they assume are usually English names. For instance, Sidorsky changes his name to Finlay, and so on. They change their names into wellknown English names. In the first place, it is not right to the English people, and I hope our English speaking friends opposite will appreciate that it is not to their interest. It is not right to them that their names should be assumed. Secondly, it is a fraud on the public. Many of us who for certain reasons do not want to buy in certain shops find that when we enter a shop showing a good English name on the signboard find that the owner is a totally different man from what we expected to find. The law is being abused in regard to these changes of name, and I want to express the hope that the Minister and his department will apply the law more strictly than they have done in the past, so that changes of name will not be allowed without good and sound reasons. The reasons which are adduced in most cases constitute a fraud on the public.

I want to raise a serious objection to the Minister and his department, and that is in connection with the treatment meted out to the Free State Provincial Council. In 1940 they passed an ordinance. I cannot remember whether it was passed unanimously, but let us assume that the two Government supporters voted against it; then it was still practically unanimous. I refer to the Local Management Amendment Ordinance, an ordinance which was of great importance, especially to the Free State towns. The most important provisions of this ordinance were in connection with municipal elections and the municipal vote. It was laid down that all persons who were on the Parliamentary Voters’ Roll would be able to vote at municipal elections, and the second provision was that the ward system would be compulsory in all towns with more than 7,500 European inhabitants. It was an ordinance for which the public of the Free State had been asking for a considerable time. Representations were made to the Executive Committee and to the Provincial Council, and then the Provincial Council adopted the measure with a great majority—nearly 100 per cent. The Executive Committee of the Provincial Council was also unanimous in connection with the matter, but last year the Government would not approve of the ordinance. They were supposed to hold it over for further consideration. On the 30th January this year I again put a question to the Minister, and the Minister replied that the ordinance was submitted to him on the 1st November, 1940, and that on the 5th December notice was given to the Provincial authorities that the ordinance was being held over for further consideration in terms of the South Africa Act. I asked a further question, whether the ordinance had already been approved by the Governor-General-in-Council, and, if not, why not? The Minister’s reply was—

I put a further question, namely, whether the Minister would put the correspondence and memoranda in question on the Table, and the reply was an abrupt “no.” As members representing the Free State we have the right to know what moral right the Government has to interfere in matters which fall exclusively under Procinvial Councils, and what right the Government has to apply a veto of this nature in connection with such an Act. I also want to know why this correspondence was not put on the Table, so that members could judge whether or not the Government had sufficient reasons for the refusal. Why does the Minister refuse to give the information? Is the Government ashamed, or are they afraid to give the reasons? The correspondence cannot be very voluminous. Why can we not get the information? The first point in connection with the ordinance is that the Parliamentary Voters’ Roll will be valid in the case of municipal elections. It is of force and effect in other provinces. What objection has the Minister to applying to the Free State what is applicable in the Transvaal? In the second place, the ordinance makes provision for the compulsory ward system in respect of towns with more than 7,500 European inhabitants. Why can that not be accepted? In Bloemfontein there was a strong movement in connection with this, and a special civic association was established to obtain it. What is the truth of the matter? The Minister goes and listens to the present Town Council of Bloemfontein, and because they, not as a whole but only the majority of the city councillors, are opposed to the ward system, he acts on that. He allows the whole Free State to be governed by them. What other objection can the Government have against it? The hon. Minister does not want to give me the information, just as in the case of the previous matter with reference to the postponement of the Provincial Council election, but I did, nevertheless, get hold of the information. It appears from that information that the Minister submitted certain objections to the Executive Committee, and in reply to each of those objections the Executive Committee sent a unanimous reply that they did not accept these objections of the Minister. The Minister’s first objection is—this is news which he gets from a few members of the Bloemfontein City Council—that this ward system is being forced on the people. The Executive Committee disputes that. It is true that they did vote on it, but only registered owners of property could vote. Out of 1,700 such registered landowners, only 949 voted of whom 575 voted against the ward system and 374 in favour of it. That is only the landowner, but the people of Bloemfontein who are entitled to the vote have not yet had the right to vote on it. The Executive Committee says in regard to this—

But the Minister simply rejects their opinion, and he accepts the opinion of the majority vote of the present City Council. The Executive Committee writes these strong words to the Minister—

This is a serious accusation on the part of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee says that the Minister accepts the opinion of a clique in Bloemfontein, and not their opinion, the opinion of a responsible body. In the Executive Committee there is a person like Mr. Jack Reitz; he is a former mayor of Bloemfontein. He agrees with this, but the Government rejects their opinion, and accepts the opinion of this small clique in Bloemfontein. Towns like Kroonstad, which are fast expanding, will also fall under this in the near future; they have to be divided into ward systems as being the most effective representation. The Executive Committee points out to the Minister that Bloemfontein is especially suitable for the ward system. But the Minister listened to this small clique in Bloemfontein, and not to such a responsible body as the Executive Committee. Last year an ordinance was passed in the Cape Provincial Council with regard to East London, and which introduced a compulsory ward system in East London. The ordinance lays down that Cambridge will have so many wards, and East London so many. Well, that has been approved of; I do not object to that, but when the Executive Committee of the Free State puts all these facts before the Minister, he simply rejects their opinion without giving them the opportunity of replying to the Minister’s objections. [Time limit.]

I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) said. If the Government has any objection on principle to the institution of the ward system, then it must be an objection which is not confined to any town or Province. Then the Government must be consistent, and prohibit the ward system everywhere. But, in the absence of any principle which is advanced in support of the negation of this desire on the part of the Provincial Council, one cannot other than infer that the Minister accepts advice not through official channels, but from local cliques who have influence with him, and I hope that the Government will take this matter into review and not continue to accept advice through unauthorised channels. Then in connection with the question of internment. I listened attentively to what the Minister said, and to me the most ominous characteristic of his defence was the certainty with which he stated here that no one who is innocent is detained in the internment camps. We are all human, but when you have the position that a Minister places himself in, the position that he cannot make a mistake, that people whom he interned cannot be innocent, except in the case of two people who were placed there by his predecessor, then I say that it is a very ominous thing.

I did not say that.

That, at any rate, is the impression which the Minister gave. He gave an example. He said that more than 100 people had already been released, and that that was proof of the fact that no innocent people were detained. That only proves the opposite. It is proof of the fact that more than 100 people who were innocent, were initially detained, people who had to suffer the humiliation of internment and the material losses which that brought about, and who were later released. The system which the Minister has here is a condemnation of his certainty. One can have no stronger condemnation of his system than by comparing it with the system of Britain. Britain’s system is very much safer, and gives the internee a much better opportunity of getting his rights than he has here. The Minister knows what happened there. Just let me refer to a few safety valves which there are in England. In the first place, the internee appears in person. The second is that there is an Advisory Council which actually gives a decision, not as in the case of our Advisory Appeal Commissioner, who is nothing more than a glorified clerk, who has to collect information. The function of our Advisory Appeal Commissioner is no more than to investigate whether certain facts stated by the internee are true, and then to determine what is against the internee, and what is in his favour. He does not make a definite recommendation to the Minister. He does not say that certain people should be detained or released. In England the Advisory Committee makes a definite recommendation, and that safety valve which they have in England provides that if the Minister does not agree with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, he has to put the documents on the Table of the House, so that the House may know that there are cases where the Minister did not act upon the recommendation of that Advisory Council, well, I say that in these circumstances, in spite of all those safety valves which they have in England, it has now appeared in one case that they were wrong; I refer to the case of Green, which came before the Appeal Court. That was a case in which the Minister agreed with the judgment of the Advisory Council, and after Green had been there for three months, evidence was discovered which proved that he was actually innocent, and he had to be released, in spite of the more stringent precautionary measures which there are in England in comparison with those which we have here. In spite of all his defective machinery, the Minister now says that innocent people are not being detained. There is no machinery for trial, and nevertheless he says that under his regine no innocent people were interned. If the Minister does not want to go so far as to give those people an opportunity of having their cases tried before a court, even though it be in camera, let him then extend the work of the Advisory Appeal Commissioner so that he can actually make recommendations. Do not let him function merely as a clerk whose only duty is to collect facts. The appellation Advisory Appeal Commission is quite wrong. It is altogether wrong to give that official the title of Advisory Appeal Commissioner, because his powers are apparently confined to the collection of information. The Minister also said that usually these people are informed within fourteen days what the charges are against them. I only investigated two cases in which I interested myself. In both those cases the Minister’s statement proved to be incorrect. The first is the case of the Rev. Fick. He made a speech on the 31st. August, 1940. He was interned on the 10th October, and the indictment was only given to him on the 25th November. But this is the interesting point, that ten days before he was interned, a colleague of the Minister of the Interior, namely, the Minister of Lands, stated at a public meeting that this person had been interned; and he did not only state that he had been interned but he suggested prophetically what the charges against him were, and many of those charges which he mentioned were the charges which were later sent to the internee. Well, if the Minister’s colleague is able to state at a public meeting what those charges are ten days before the internment, why then must the person concerned wait for six weeks before he is informed of the charges? He has to wait six weeks before being informed of the charges, and then the Minister still says that in the majority of cases that is done within fourteen days. The other case is that of Mr. Truter, a local teacher. In spite of his name, which one would have thought would afford him favoured treatment, he was still awaiting the charges against him when last I heard from him. He had then been waiting for more than a month. I understand that he has now received them. Now the Minister wants to give the country to understand that normally the average time is fourteen days. Here are only two cases which I investigated, and I find that in both cases it took very much longer than a fortnight before the internee received the charges against him; and in the one case, in spite of the fact that ten days before the time the Minister’s colleague said that this man had been interned, and also said why he had been interned, he had to wait for a long time before he actually received the charges.

I just want to ask the Minister to give the House information in connection with the question which I put to the Minister and to which he did not give a very clear reply. The question was—

The Minister replied as follows—

Now I want to ask the Minister frankly whether he allows “Die Burger” there; whether he allows “Die Transvaler” there; whether he allows “Die Volksblad” and “Die Oosterlig” there? The general reply which he gave here is not very satisfactory.

I think the reply is that generally speaking they are not allowed.

Then “Comic Cuts” only are allowed. I also put this question to the Minister—

The Minister replied as follows—

I notice in today’s newspaper that there have again been escapes, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will now apply even more stringent measures, because there have again been escapes? I want to ask the Minister not to punish those people who remain behind; they are innocent, and may have had nothing to do with the escapes. If he wanted to punish those people who escaped, it would have been a different matter, but why should he take away privileges from those people who did not escape, and who probably had nothing to do with the escape? But now I want to return to a point which I dealt with yesterday evening, and that is the question of immigrants admitted into the country. I want to refer the Minister to the consumptive immigrants who are allowed. I tried to explain yesterday evening that many people were entering in whose cases the medical authorities do not know that they are suffering from tuberculosis. People who develop tuberculosis in other countries and who come here, take particularly good care not to disclose the fact that they are consumptives. And for that reason it happens that a greater number of consumptives enter the country than would otherwise. But at the moment troops who have to be treated here are specially admitted to the hospitals, troops who suffer from tuberculosis. An amount of £50,000 has been voted which is to be spent on hospitals for soldiers suffering from tuberculosis. The Minister gave me the number. A large number of consumptives had entered the country. I asked the Minister—

The Minister replied—

In reply to the question—

The Minister said—

I do not know whether the Minister knows what difficulty the municipalities experience in getting Afrikaners who suffer from tuberculosis admitted to the sanatorium at Nelspoort. I do not know whether he knows of the long waiting lists of consumptives in small towns who cannot be accommodated at Nelspoort. Notwithstanding the fact, we find that 63 troops of the Imperial Forces were accommodated at the Nelspoort Sanatorium. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. Blood is surely thicker than water, and I want to ask him to see to it that our people be given preference. I protest against the admission of troops who land here suffering from tuberculosis. May I just point out to you how consumption has spread in this country? I read from the Official Year Book of 1940—

Now, I just want to point out to the Minister what has happened since the time these people have been admitted to South Africa. I read further—

I just want to show you what is written in the Official Year Book, namely, that the spreading of tuberculosis was mainly caused by people who came from Europe suffering from tuberculosis. Can you believe that because one is a soldier of the British Imperial forces, the Minister says this does not fall under the Act; he cannot prevent consumptives from coming here. They come to this country to be treated. When they are restored in health they are no longer infectious, and then they return to their country, and in the meantime they remain here in the hospitals of South Africa. Tuberculosis is widely spread by these people who come into this country. I quote further—

And this is the place where the majority of Imperial soldiers come. Here where one already has this great danger, the Minister allows people who suffer from tuberculosis to enter the country. He is the person who is there to see to it that immigration is limited. He allows the Imperial troops to enter the country, notwithstanding the fact that they suffer from tuberculosis. When one notices what goes on in the streets when these troops land here, one cannot be surprised that tuberculosis is spread, and that it increases as it has increased during the past. I would rather not talk about the other things; I would rather confine myself to soldiers who are consumptives. It is further stated—

It appears, therefore, that since the year 1880, there has been a big increase in tuberculosis. The Minister told us that he could not keep out these troops; they do not fall under consumptives who may not be admitted. I now want to ask the Minister —he also has a home here, and he has children—whether it is right to admit these people simply because they are in the British Army? I understand that persons from other armies who suffer from tuberculosis will probably not be admitted. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that no person who suffers from tuberculosis is admitted to this country. There are people who come here, whom no physician can diagnose as suffering from tuberculosis. Normally, amongst the people of Great Britain, especially in the case of rich people, if anyone develops tuberculosis, he goes to his doctor, and then he is usually sent out of the country. Usually the excuse is that he suffers from nervous troubles, and that he has to be sent overseas, and usually to South Africa. When you sit in hotels in this country, you see numerous persons who show clear symptoms of tuberculosis. When you ask them what they are doing in this country, they say that they are touring South Africa. But you will find that this tour is usually only in the Karroo, because they know that they are suffering from tuberculosis, and they go there in order to recover. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, for the sake of the health of the South African people, to take more stringent steps, and not to admit troops into this country who suffer from tuberculosis. I would like the Minister to tell me that he will not admit troops who suffer from tuberculosis. [Time limit.]

I want to say something in connection with the delimitation of constituencies. But before doing so I also want to associate myself with what was said in connection with the internment of Mr. Truter. He is in my constituency, and, to the surprise of everyone who knows him, he was suddenly interned. As the Minister will probably know, he was an outstanding sportsman in his university days. What is peculiar to the public in the first instance is that he was interned. No one who knows him would select him as a person who ought to be interned. In the second place I cannot understand what the reason could be why Mr. Truter had to wait for a school term before receiving the charge against him. Surely it is unfair simply to take away the breadwinner of the family, a father of six children, and then to keep him in the internment camp for a whole term without laying a charge against him. That is repugnant to any person’s sense of justice. If Mr. Truter is guilty—I personally do not believe that he is guilty—then he should be charged and given an opportunity to defend himself at a proper trial. But do not let this man wait for a whole term before advising him what the charge against him is. It seems most unfair to me, and I must say that I did not expect such unfairness from the Minister of the Interior. Nor do I expect it from his department. I want to ask the Minister whether, in this case, because this person has already been in the internment camp for such a long time without knowing what the charge against him is, he will not ask the persons concerned to give Mr. Truter a trial and to take into consideration the fact that he has been out of employment for a school term. I could have used much stronger language; I have to talk with my tongue in my cheek, because I think that in this case there was a certain amount of unfairness. Every man who knows Mr. Truter will be able to testify to the fact that he is not the type of man who would want to prejudice the Government. Now with regard to the delimitation of constituencies. The personnel of the Delimitation Commission has now been published in the Press. I take it that it is correct. I should like to hear from the Minister who was appointed as the secretary of the Commission, because this is an important Commission.

It is Mr. Doyle.

Is that the same Mr. Doyle who was the previous secretary?

Yes.

I have been engaged upon quite a few delimitation commissions, and they were all friendly enough to tell me that they had received assistance from the various parties in connection with the evidence given in the preparation of plans. But the difficulty which we have always experienced was that we did not work on the same maps as the Commission. On a certain day you discover that you are apparently working on a different map to the one used by the Commission. That is our difficulty, especially in connection with the urban areas. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he will not make representations to the Commission and tell them that they should take the various parties into their confidence in connection with the type of map which they use, because the parties assist the Commission considerably. One cannot get away from that fact. The Commissioner admits it. Well, the second point is that figures are supplied to the various parties with reference to electoral districts. These are not secret figures. The more information the Commission gives us— which it can give us—the more the parties can assist the Commission. In the past the parties assisted the Commission considerably. These are the two points which I want to raise, the maps and the figures which we would like to get from the Commission, and the sooner they are given to us—the sooner we know those things—the better we will be able to help the Commission. Then I would like to say something with regard to the conference which the Minister of the Interior will hold in Cape Town in the near future in connection with the black-out measures. I want to ask him not to take part in the tremendous propaganda to create a war psychology in the coastal cities. Some people who support the war effort have become so terrified already that they are considering the question of sending their children away. Is it fair towards the people to terrify them in this way and to make them so panicky? I want to ask the Minister not to make us an appendage of an overseas city; do not treat us in the same way as those cities which were bombed. We hear that our motor cars have to be blacked out, and even that trenches have to be dug in Cape Town. Soon it will be winter, and what will the position be if the city is full of trenches? If the Minister believes that Japan will come here, let him believe it. But he must not try to mislead us with that bogey. Do not try to create that impression in the minds of the public. Let him be alert when he holds that conference, as the Prime Minister was the other day when he delivered his radio talk. When the Prime Minister spoke in this House regarding Japan, he spoke for home consumption, but when he spoke to the world over the radio he was ashamed of the things he had said and he did not say a single word about the Japanese danger. He explained how Japan would try to cut off the sea connections above the Equator. The Minister also told us how much money was spent on that propaganda paper “Springbok,” and therein we are told how slight the possibility is of Japan coming here. I would like the Minister of the Interior in this connection to listen to the Prime Minister when he talks to the world. Then he is afraid that the world will laugh at his ignorance if he speaks of the Japanese danger to South Africa, that Japan will come here to cut off the shipping lines, and not do so in the North. If the Minister of the Interior really believes that Japan will be so silly as to send an aircraft carrier over the wide ocean in easy stages in order to attack us, then he must please not air that conviction to make our country look ridiculous. He must differentiate between precautionary measures in our cities and those which are taken in overseas cities. He should not want to do certain things here simply because they are being done in London. The municipalities of Durban, East London and Cape Town have become panicky, and they want to apply to our cities every trivial measure which is taken in London. I hope that the Minister will put his foot down and not plunge us into those troubles.

I would like to know what has become of Mr. Eyssen, the Principal of Heidelberg School. This man was interned, and I take particular interest in him because he is married to a wellknown girl of Ladismith. He was interned shortly before the matriculation examinations and it was urged from all sides that he should be released until the examination was completed. This was refused, however I think that he has not yet been tried, and I should like to know whether the Minister will expedite the matter, so that this person can be tried. I do not think he is a rich man; teachers are not rich people. This man’s wife must live and his family is anxious to hear what has become of his case. I shall be glad if he can be tried. Then there is another case. I am not certain whether this case falls under the Minister of the Interior or under the Minister of Justice. It is the case of a certain De Wit, a detective-sergeant in the police division. He was interned. His parents do not know what the charges against him are, nor does he know himself. We hear nothing about it.

That falls under “Justice.”

I have already made enquiries from the Department of Justice and I cannot find out anything. The parents are anxious to hear what has become of the boy.

Very briefly, may I just refer to a few points. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) asked a question about the Delimitation Commission. I understand that the preparation of the maps which are used by the Commission is a long and difficult task, and I do not know whether it would be practicable for copies of the maps to be made available for the parties. I shall asked the Secretary for the Interior to go into that matter and see whether that request can be agreed to. The question also of supplying the parties with the figures on which the Commission operates will be gone into. Prima facie, there appears no reason why these figures should not be available to all political parties, and the department will go into that. I am sorry there appears to have been delay in regard to supplying the grounds for the internment of Mr. Truter. As I have explained on more than one occasion the system laid down is that when a Union national is interned he has the right of appeal as a Union national, and the system is that he will be supplied with a summary of the charges against him within a reasonable time. Purely departmentally I have suggested that a reasonable time is a period of fourteen days. One knows that with the small staff and the rush which does take place at times, it is extremely difficult for the Chief Control Officer’s staff in Pretoria to get out the summaries in time, but I shall ask the Chief Control Officer to look into the matter and take every step to ensure so far as possible that these summaries are completed and these delays avoided. In the case of the Rev. Fick, of the Transvaal, there, I understand, there was delay because further enquiries were made after he was actually interned, and it was necessary to carry on these enquiries before he was supplied with the written reasons.

Why did the Minister of Lands give the reasons before?

The Minister of Lands, so far as I know, would not have seen any written summary of the charges against him.

Why did he, ten days before, say that the man was interned, when he was not?

My hon. friend must not ask me to speak for my colleague; when he made that statement it was obvious that as a member of the Cabinet he must have discussed the matter—I suppose that was the position. Members of the Cabinet very often discuss matters among themselves, and it was quite obvious how the hon. Minister may have known the circumstances of the case. Quite naturally he may have given reasons because we often have discussions about these matters, but my hon. friend must not ask me why one of my colleagues makes a statement. That is a matter for him personally to deal with, but it is obvious that a member of the Cabinet might know and does know of the decisions taken in another department before the decision is publicly announced. There is nothing wrong in that, nor is there anything strange about his knowing what is happening in another department.

Yes, but why should he be interned when one of your colleagues knew ten days before …

The information must have been in the possession of the officials in the Chief Control Officer’s Department. Due to pressure of work, there apparently has been delay. I regret the delay. There has been another case, and I shall ask the Chief Control Officer to see if he can expedite matters. Let me assure hon. members that every effort is made by the staff working under great difficulties, by a depleted staff, to deal with these matters. The Chief Control Officer could justifiably ask for at least two additions to his staff—he is carrying on, however, with a small staff owing to war conditions. I understand that Mr. Truter is now in possession of the reasons for his interment, but I did give an undertaking to my hon. friend from Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that he would have these reasons. If he has not got them I shall see that he gets them. In regard to Mr. Eyssen’s case I understand he has exercised his right of appeal and that the papers are before the Appeal Commission. Now one final point. In regard to change of names, the policy which has been followed since the passing of the Act in 1937 is that where an individual applies to change his name he will be allowed to do so unless it is fairly obvious from the application that without good reason the person concerned is attempting to hide his origin. There may be good reasons for doing so. A person may be a beneficiary in terms of a Will, and on that ground he applies, and as a rule his application is granted in a case of that kind. But a number of applications are turned down. Numbers are agreed to. I have given my hon. friend a list of the applications which have been acceded to. He thinks they are too many.

No, I think there is an agreement.

Well, he thinks there are too many, and others again, think that too few are granted. The fact is probably an indication that the Department is fairly administering the law.

Have you refused many?

Quite a number have been refused. I have not got the figures now.

What happened to Gorfinkel?

Finally the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) asked me the grounds for the vetoing by the Government of the Free State Local Government Ordinance. That action, of course, was an action taken by the Government. It was not a Departmental action. It was not an action taken by myself insofar as the Department of the Interior was concerned. But I am responsible as the link between the Government and local authorities. But that decision was a Government decision, come to after careful consideration of all the facts, and after having heard the representations which were made from a number of quarters in Bloemfontein Representations were made to the Government that the Ordinance was specially aiming at Bloemfontein, contrary to the wishes and desires of many of the persons concerned.

Who gave you that information?

My hon. friend may not agree with that …

Who gave you that information? The Executive Committee gave different information.

I admit that in this matter the Government acted contrary to the views tended by the Executive Committee. But it acted in accordance with what is felt were the best interests of the Free State, and particularly having regard to the very strong representations made to it from a number of quarters from Bloemfontein. It was a Cabinet decision and I regret I cannot take it any further.

That does not make it right.

I take it that the Minister considers the immigration of consumptives to be of so little importance that he does not consider it worth while replying to the questions which I put.

I must beg the hon. member’s pardon; I inadvertently omitted to deal with the question of soldiers coming here, members of the Imperial forces, who come to South Africa, and who are suffering from tuberculosis. There seems to be a certain amount of misconception about the matter. These persons are not immigrants in the accepted sense of the word. In any event soldiers who are members of Mis Majesty’s naval and military forces are persons who shall not be prohibited immigrants for the purposes of the Immigration Act, and for very good reasons. Because members of His Majesty’s forces are acting under military orders; they do not come here as immigrants. They may be here for a short time, but eventually they have to go back to their country of origin. All these soldiers who may have come from the Middle East or elsewhere and are now temporarily cared for in South Africa, will ultimately have to be discharged in Great Britain, so they are not looked upon in the eyes of the law or by the Government as prohibited immigrants. Let me say that the Government is only too glad to assist in this matter, to assist the British Government in looking after and giving them all the assistance they can in helping to cure these men. The British Government is paying; there is no financial obligation on the South African Government, and let me say again that no patients are ousted from our institutions as a result of the treatment of these people.

That is not correct.

It is quite correct; no South African is ousted. Additional accommodation for military patients has been provided at Nelspoort, but at the expense of the Imperial Government. Additional accommodation has been built, and after the war we hope to take over that accommodation. At present there are 174 beds available at Nelspoort. Of these 100 were provided by the Defence Department for military purposes. There are 106 beds for Europeans, and 68 for coloureds. This accommodation, these 174 beds, are controlled by the Department of Public Health, and these beds are used exclusively for civilian purposes for Union nationals. The 100 beds are used for military cases, for Imperial cases, and where available for defence cases. But they were built, and they are additional to pre-war accommodation, and were built for this specific purpose. The Public Health Department is puttingup additional accommodation at Rietfontein, Transvaal, for non-European patients. We are building 50 or 100 beds at Rentzkie’s Farm, Cape Town, for military patients. If these persons eventually go back to their country of origin and then wish to come back here, they will be subject to the ordinary Immigration Law. This is merely a period of transition, and during this period of war the Government is only too glad to give what assistance it can in curing these men who have assisted their country.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—34:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and C. R. Swart.

Noes—57:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Just before the end of last year a Congress of the Party opposite was held here in Cape Town. At that Congress a great deal was said about appointments to the Public Service and there were a number of motions on the Order Paper on the subject before the Congress. The Minister of the Interior took a big share in the discussions on those proposals. Among those proposals was one that the organisation of the United Party should be consulted before such appointments were made by the Government. That proposal was agreed to and referred to the Government for consideration. I then asked the Prime Minister whether such a resolution had been passed by the Congress and what the Government intended doing about it. The Prime Minister’s reply was that no such resolution had been passed. I don’t Know who was mistaken, whether the newspaper correspondents were mistaken or whether the Prime Minister was mistaken, but it is a serious thing to find that a Party Congress adopts a resolution like that in connection with appointments to the Public Service, a resolution asking that Party organisations be consulted before such appointments are made. If that is the case then why have we got a Public Service Commission? Surely the Public Service Commission is there to see to it that right and justice are done. For instance, in regard to the question of seniority, and also to see to it that political considerations do not enter into the matter at all. The Minister of the Interior, however, attended that Congress and he apparently agreed with that resolution. I do not notice from the report in the papers that he raised any objections to the Congress of his Party wanting to interfere in appointments to the Public Service. I consider that the country should know that the Party opposite wants to use its organisation first of all to supply information to the Government about appointments. Such a procedure is worse than that of Tamany Hall. I consider the time has come for us to realise that the Public Service Commission has to let every appointment be made on its merits, and the applicant’s politics must not come into the matter at all. We strongly protest against this method suggested in the resolution before the Congress.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is under a complete misapprehension. The debate which took place at the Congress to which he referred had nothing to do with appointments which are made by the Public Service Commission, and it would be an intolerable state of affairs if the hon. member were to suggest that the members of the present Commission, wellknown senior officials, known for their experience and their integrity, were going to be influenced by any resolution that might be taken at a Party Congress. The suggestion is ridiculous. But the resolution did not have relation to the appointment made in the ordinary course by the Public Service Commission. The Congress was discussing the personnel of a number of Committees in the country such as Committees dealing with old age pensions, relief to farmers, Committees dealing with the taking of lists for voters’ registration, census figures, etc. I am speaking from memory, but I believe a number of allegations were made that members of the OssewaBrandwag were being appointed, that the Government was allowing members of the Ossewa-Brandwag to be appointed on these Committees, and that supporters of the Government were not also represented. And the suggestion was made that where these extra statutory appointments were to be made, that in local areas the Minister responsible should consult the local persons and local Party representatives before making appointments—not with the object of appointing only Party supporters, but to ensure that Party supporters would not be left out of the picture altogether. That was the effect of the discussion and it had nothing whatever to do with the Public Service Commission.

On the subject of institutions for mentally disordered persons I just want to point out that the annual expenditure has reached a colossal sum and that we have not got to the end yet, and also that there is still a lot of dissatisfaction in the service about proper provision not being made for large numbers of patients who should be taken into such institutions. I think it is essential for the Government to give attention to the question that people who require treatment should receive such treatment. At the moment the Government is perhaps disposed to hide behind the fact that there is a Commission of Enquiry in regard to medical services. If that is so it is further evidence of the fact that this whole question should come under public health. I don’t want to go into that matter any further now, but the point is that large numbers of patients require treatment and are not getting it. Perhaps the idea is that these people do not so much need treatment as that they should be looked after because of their weak mental condition. That is not the whole question. The fact is that these people require definite treatment, which in many cases may lead to their recovery. Cases of curable mental diseases should be removed from those institutions and should no longer be kept there at the expense of the State. If the proper steps are taken many people can be cured. There are, however, no preventive measures even for the middle class people, or the people of means who are mentally disordered. Early treatment of mental disease is a matter of the utmost importance, but even people of means and people who are rich have not got the opportunity to get the early treatment which they should get. This is a matter where we should not forget our poor people, but at the same time we also want to look after the middle class people and the well-to-do. There are no public institutions for them and the private institutions are quite inadequate. The less one says about them the better, because one does not want to expose oneself in this House to speaking out and saying what is the truth about certain institutions. There is no possibility for early treatment. It is not necessary to say much more on this subject. We are passing through times when expansion is difficult, but this is the time when we should give some thought to the necessity of providing for a different kind of early treatment for those who are backward, a different kind of treatment from that which is given today. The backward people should be under supervision on the platteland where we can work nearest to nature, where they can work on the land and not be kept in institutions where they do nothing but draw pictures and do things of that kind. Those people are nearest to nature than some of us who think that we are educated and developed, and because they are nearer to nature they should be made familiar with the simplicity of life, and they should be taken away from those large institutions in the towns and moved to the platteland where they can learn the simple things of life and become useful persons, as useful as their mental condition will allow. These are things we should not lose sight of, and that is why I raise this matter here again.

Upon this vote for the Minister of the Interior I wish to discuss the administration of the Mental Disorders Act with the object of drawing attention to the grave danger to which the public is exposed through the abuse of the provisions of the Act. The Act came into force in 1916, and the present Minister of the Interior, whilst he was a private member of the House, was the first to draw attention to the danger of losing the confidence of the public through condoning improper methods of committing persons to mental institutions. In 1931 he introduced the following special motion to this House—

In support of his motion the hon. member for Salt River as he then was emphasised that—

And further added—

On that occasion the present Minister quoted from the remarks of a Supreme Court judge to show the danger of placing a patient in a position in which the issue of a certificate of mental disorder became a foregone conclusion—to the exclusion of an entirely impartial medical man. He quotes the learned judge as having said—

The Minister emphasised the judge’s comments by adding—

The Minister of the Interior, now conveniently unmindful of the views he expressed with so much sincerity as a private member has recently informed me, in writing, that no further safeguards in the Mental Disorders Act are needed, and it becomes necessary for me to show what kind of danger to the public may arise from the Minister’s latter day complacency, unless the present administration of the Act is to be revolutionised and made safe in the interests of the people. I do not rely upon any problematical or hypothetical case to demonstrate the weakness of the safeguards inherent in the present administration of the Act, but I shall produce an actual case—easily the worst on record in South Africa—to prove how gravely the Act has been abused. Mr. Chairman, you would hate to believe that in the Union of South Africa, an official, smarting under a sense of having been slandered or criminally defamed by another person, had, with the object of getting that person committed to a mental institution for an indefinite period, found it possible to obtain the willing assistance of two physician-superintendents, who had given a declaration of the alleged traducer’s insanity without having seen him. And yet, Sir, such a case actually occurred last year. The case to which I refer was dealt with by the magistrate at Howick, Natal, on the 31st March, 1941, when Mr. G. W. Penrice was committed to Fort Napier as a Governor-General’s decision patient without a trial. Only his immediate appeal to the Governor-General under Section 40 of the Act for relief, resulted in his first being liberated and then granted unconditional release, after being detained for over three months in a general ward with badly demented and some violent patients. The costs incurred by him in connection with his release and representation at the enquiry into his case held by Mr. Justice Carlisle, amounted approximately to £250. Under the Mental Disorders Act the liability of a person for wrongful acts to any other person, must depend upon the absence of good faith and reasonable care on the part of the person guilty of such acts. I shall show hon. members that there was a complete absence of good faith and reasonable care. The evidence taken before Mr. Justice Carlisle in June, 1941, with regard to the Penrice case has been laid upon the Table of the House, and portions of it constitute a grave indictment against the official who was Attorney-General of Natal in January to March, 1941. That evidence shows that the Attorney-General in question was himself able to bring about the committal of Penrice without a trial, largely through the complicity of the physician-superintendents in giving initial evidence as to Penrice’s alleged insanity without having seen him. Both of these physician-superintendents (Drs. Van Coller and Glashan) admitted under oath, that this procedure was unusual —the usual procedure being for the physician to examine the patient personally—but they claimed legal sanction for their action. Their evidence given without examination of Penrice, led inevitably to his being sent for observation to one or other of the two physician-superintendents who had declared him insane without examination—thus making his final certification for committal a foregone conclusion—though it was unsupported by an entirely impartial medical man. Under Chapter I of the Act, physician-superintendents are among the people who are disqualified from certifying any person who is to be committed to their care. The defamation alleged to have been uttered against the Attorney-General by Penrice, formed the subject of an affidavit by the sergeant of police at Howick on the 10th January, 1941, which was forwarded to the Attorney-General. Before preparing a case against Mr. Penrice for defamation, the Attorney-General sought the approval of the Minister of Justice to a certain course of action. He wrote to the Secretary for Justice on this subject on the 20th and 23rd January, 1941, and the latter communication is remarkable, because it shows clearly that the writer, who is said to have been defamed, was bent on getting Penrice committed as a Governor-General’s decision patient without a trial. Other means of redress—open to him (1) by civil action, (2) by prosecution without a view to his conviction for criminal defamation, were not even discussed in the Attorney-General’s letters. The evidence before Mr. Justice Carlisle of the physician-superintendent whom the Attorney-General referred to in his letters, will serve to astonish hon. members as to the nature of his discussions with the Attorney-General, and the unreliability of the representations made by that officer to the Minister of Justice. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that after the speech made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) a case has been made out for the alteration of the law affecting mental hospitals, and I hope the Minister will institute some further enquiry into this case and be able to satisfy the public that it will not be possible for perfectly sane people to be detained in asylums in South Africa.

Page 61 of the transcript of evidence shows that the Attorney-General wrote to the Secretary for Justice on the 20th January, 1941—

The Physician-Superintendent on being questioned about this passage at the Carlisle enquiry said—

Does this justify the interpretation that he was of opinion that Penrice was “most probably” mentally disordered? On the 23rd January the Attorney-General again wrote to the Secretary for Justice—

When questioned on this point, the Physician-Superintendent said—

Does this justify the interpretation that he had no doubt Penrice was mentally disordered and urged his committal under Section 28? Counsel for Penrice then asked the Physician-Superintendent—

And the reply given was—

Counsel then asked—

To which the Physician-Superintendent replied—

At this stage it is necessary to recall that the most important judgment ever given on the Mental Disorders Act, was delivered in 1924 by the then Chief Justice, the late Sir J. Rose-Innes, on a Natal case (Appellate Div. 1924 p. 256). A person charged with assault, with intent to murder, was found by the jury to have fired shots with a gun while temporarily of unsound mind, and he was committed by a Judge under Section 29 of the Act to a mental institution as a Governor-General’s decision patient. The right of the Crown to call evidence as to the insanity of an accused person was objected to in this case, and formed the subject of argument in the Appellate Division. The then Chief Justice, for the first time in the legal history of South Africa, affirmed the right of the Crown to lead evidence of insanity against an accused person, and he afforded guidance in his judgment as to the proper procedure to be followed in all such cases after a plea of not guilty had been given, so as to ensure a fair trial, and the possibility of acquittal to all such persons before they could be committed as Governor-General’s decision patients. He said, inter alia—

There remained the possibility of a special class of case being committed as Governor-General’s decision patients by the Courts without trial, viz. those referred to in Sections 27 and 28 of the Act, in which the onus of observing that they are mentally disordered is placed upon certain specified officers—

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has referred to the questions of accommodation in our mental hospitals, a subject which was referred to by the commissioner in his last annual report. The position, which is a difficult one, has been rendered more acute by war circumstances. We are proceeding with the building of a new mental hospital in the Bellville area to take the place of Valkenberg, there is money on the loan vote for that particular building, but I am not able to say when it is likely to be completed, but one hopes that it will be available as soon as possible. Our difficulty at the present time is not merely finding the money for new buildings, but finding staffs. There is a new building at Krugersdorp of which one block is already completed, but we are not able to staff that block. We have vacancies for something like 200 staff nurses, but the persons who would normally be accepting those positions are now employed either as nurses in the army or some other form of war duty. I quite agree that we have to secure additional accommodation as quickly as possible, but as I say, that question is not only bound up with the questions of finance, but with the questions of staff. The Health Commission which is to be appointed will probably have in its terms of reference, indeed I think I may say it will have, the question of mental disorder cases, and one will be able, one is hoping that the commission will be able, to view those cases in proper perspective and from the proper background of public health. I cannot promise my hon. friend anything more than that we are trying to go ahead with the new building at Bellville as quickly as possible, and so soon as we have obtained a staff we shall make a start with Krugersdorp. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has referred to what has become known in Natal as the Penrice case, and in his reference to that case the hon. member has dealt with a most important matter, namely, the deprivation of freedom of a subject of the State, and the placing of such a person in a mental institution. The hon. member has made some very serious allegations against the former AttorneyGeneral for Natal. I think the hon. member has gone very much too far, because when I heard from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) who made, privately, representations to me about this case, when I heard from him that there was apparently some doubt as to whether the correct procedure had been adopted, I immediately arranged for a judical enquiry to take place. That enquiry did take place before Mr. Justice Carlisle. I don’t think the hon. member for Illovo gave evidence at the enquiry, but a very full enquiry took place, and the learned judge found, as a result of that enquiry, that everything was perfectly in order.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has to my mind done this country a service in bringing before us this matter of the possible irregular detention in mental hospitals. From documents placed before me I am perfectly content, or discontented, that there are certain difficulties and gaps in our legislation under this head, and also, at least occasionally, laxities in our administration of the law. I am satisfied, or dissatisfied, that a person as sane as the hon. member for Illovo, or the hon. the Minister, or even as you yourself, Mr. Chairman, or myself—can by misadventure find himself detained in such an institution.

The hon. member for Illovo should be there already.

The hon. interrupter is no doubt an authority on this matter, but if he found himself there he would find it extremely difficult to get out. I am satisfied, too, that the House is with me in saying that no more harmful experience can possibly come to any human being than wrongfully to be incarcerated …

What is the word?

Incarcerated, I said—it is English. I am sorry the hon. member is not even unilingual. I support the hon. member for Illovo, because three cases have distinctly come to my notice during the past twenty years, and very sad consequences ensued in each instance. I shall put only one case briefly before the House. It is that of a client who has been to see the hon. member for Illovo and myself quite lately for such help as we can give. Twenty-two years ago he was sitting on one of the perfectly good benches in our excellent avenue just outside this House between 12 midnight and 1 a.m., when he was summarily arrested by a member of the police force. There are two accounts as to the reason for this, one that information had been lodged with the police that this gentleman was a dangerous character, and secondly, rather contrawise, that the policeman himself thought, by the look of this man sitting on the bench, that he was a mental case. I don’t know how you have to sit on a bench to induce a policeman to think that you are mentally incapable.

On all fours.

Probably the hon. doctor would know better than I do. But the consequence was that the man was lugged to Wale Street, where I understand the cells are far from comfortable, and dumped there for the evening as it were, or the night. The following morning, quite summarily once more, he was hauled off to Valkenberg without any order from a magistrate for observation or detention, and without any medical examination or certificate as to his mental incapacity whatsoever. People can be so arrested and so committed, but according to the Act within forty-eight hours medical authority must be produced for their detention, and in this case no medical examination was given until the eighth day. I say that if there was this irregularity it is very dangerous. Our client says that that was the position, and he produced documentary evidence to establish his claim that his treatment physically and otherwise was by no means good.

What year was that?

I stated it was twenty-two years ago, and assumed the hon. member could subtract to that extent and get the right year. But the essential point is that without a medical certificate this person was received and detained in this place. He was there for a matter of four months, and he issued from there an absolute physical wreck. He has been entirely unable to obtain any sort of recompense for that whatever. He naturally lost his appointment. He was a well known and respected professional man in this town, and he has lived ever since in a state of extreme poverty— “ever since” is a period of twenty-two years! Now I definitely suggest that that is sufficient illustration of the justification of the hon. member for Illovo in bringing this matter before the committee, and my hope is that the Minister will take some action, even if it is delayed action, in these particular matters.

It seems extraordinary to me that a single case which should be capable of adjustment by sensible people in a sensible way should be flung backwards and forwards in this House in this way. I am not trying to speak for the Minister or to defend the Minister. If he made a statement, it would be an ex parte statement in favour of the people in Valkenberg, because he has a fellow feeling with them for a good many reasons, but I want to say that in this country the reputedly insane person, or the person alleged to be mentally unbalanced has a better chance than anywhere else in the world. We have no private institutions in South Africa to which a person can be committed on the certificate of one or two doctors, and be detained there for a long time without the State being definitely concerned in the matter. In South Africa when a man is detained because he is supposed to be mentally unbalanced, the State immediately has a tremendous responsibility in the matter, and for that very reason we are better protected in South Africa, and for that reason a great many of us are permitted to remain in this House. It is not so in all countries in the world. I say that these people are better protected here, and what do we find? We find that the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) recalls a case of the year 1920. I think that is very important. He recalls a case of the year 1920, and I think the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) gave a case of two years ago.

No, last year.

And I think that if we were to say that these are probably the only two cases in the whole of the twenty years …

I know two more.

Yes, if I were to recall the cases of people writing letters to me, the number would at once go up to a couple of dozen, but in actual fact there are very few cases. I don’t want to go into the merits of this case, and I say that this matter is capable of adjustment, and it should not be flung backwards and forwards across the floor of the House. It is too important, it is a personal matter, and it is a matter for certain administration action. It is a matter which should be submitted for decision to certain legal persons. We cannot decide a question like that raised by the hon. member for Illovo here without evidence, without sworn evidence. His evidence, I take it as being very excellent, but I say that the question is too complicated and too important to be solved in a manner like this, and I want to repeat here again that the impression that is given, that the position in this country is a dangerous one for slightly ill-balanced persons, is not an accurate one. In South Africa we are better assured because of the State control over ill-balanced people … I only wish our internment camps were so well controlled for these other persons. Therefore I say that we need have no fear in this matter, and I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory reply.

It is not with any wish to prolong the discussion that I ask the indulgence of the House merely to state finally what happened in this case. I admit the temperateness of the speech made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). Insofar as I am concerned, there is no wish to use this case of Mr. Penrice for propaganda purposes in this House, but merely to indicate that the administration of this department does not enjoy the perfection which some persons ascribe to it. At the dinner interval I had just completed a reference to Sir James Rose-Innes’ judgment devoted to ensuring fair trial to all persons brought up on a criminal offence, against whom any mental disorder was alleged. But I pointed that there still remained certain cases in which persons could be committed as Governor-General’s patients without a trial, but I emphasised that in those special cases the onus was placed on certain persons of noticing their mental disorder. Firstly, the judge or magistrate before whom the trial is being held: in the case of an accused person being mentally disordered when asked to plead, or in the course of his preparatory examination or trial (Section 28) (1); secondly, the gaoler, in the case of a person being mentally disordered while awaiting trial or sentence (Section 27). It will be seen from the Attorney-General’s letter quoted by me, how he sought to avoid the safeguards embodied in Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. The Attorney-General in his letter states—

He evidently feared that one magistrate, then another, and then the gaoler, would fail to observe any mental disorder in Penrice on their own initiative as contemplated by law, but he decided that “something must be done”. It must be quoted that, although the Attorney-General admitted that he was in a sense the complainant, and was loath to issue any instructions to the public prosecutor, he failed to represent faithfully to the Minister of Justice the opinion of the physician-superintendent whose evidence before Mr. Justice Carlisle I have quoted clearly on the points in question. The Attorney-General overstated the case when claiming that the physician-superintendent had no doubt that Mr. Penrice was mentally disordered. The fact that the matter had been discussed merely by telephone was not disclosed by him to the Minister of Justice, nor was it made clear that the physician-superintendent had neither examined Mr. Penrice, nor had he had any opportunity of perusing a single letter written by him. The evidence of the physician-superintendent repeatedly emphasises that the AttorneyGeneral was very worried about the case, and did not know what to do. It is a fair assumption that the physician-superintendent was considerably influenced by the appeals of that officer. As soon as the Attorney-General had obtained the written approval of the Minister of Justice to a charge being brought against Mr. Penrice, with a view to his being committed as a Governor-General’s decision patient, the Attorney-General noted thereon, in his own handwriting, an instruction to his department to proceed summarily against Penrice. It was the summary character of Penrice’s prosecution that was responsible for his non-stop transfer from his home at Howick to the Fort Napier Mental Institution in the course of a few hours. The Attorney General recognised the two physician-superintendents in Natal, and submitted for their inspection his file of correspondence containing a number of letters to and from Mr. Penrice. Not a word was allowed to leak out as to the possibility of a prosecution against Penrice: even the magistrate was not permitted to know the name of the accused, though he was told that a case of defamation was to be brought before him on the 17th March, 1941. Penrice was brought to court under the impression that he was merely wanted by the magistrate, and no warrant was ever produced to him. On that date two physician-superintendents, without a subpoena, proceeded voluntarily to Howick to swear to the insanity of Penrice, whom they had never seen. They constituted the most important part of the plan for persuading the magistrate to send Penrice for observation, and it was clear that if such an order were made by the magistrate either one or other of the physician-superintendents would be placed in a position to finally certify that Penrice was mentally disordered, so that he could be committed as a Governor-General’s decision patient. Mr. Penrice applied to the magistrate in vain for an adjournment of the case, the magistrate holding that he must first hear the evidence of the Crown. After hearing the evidence of the doctors, the magistrate did not come to the conclusion that Penrice was mentally disordered, but evidently having some doubt about the matter, he sent Penrice to the Fort Napier Mental Institution for observation under Section 28 (3) of the Mental Disorders Act. One of the most significant features about the letter of the 23rd January written by the Attorney-General to the Secretary for Justice, was that he asked the sanction of the Minister for proceedings to be taken under Section 28 of the Act, which permits the committal of a certain class of case to a mental institution without a trial, whereas he must have been fully aware that according to Sir James Rose-Innes’ judgment, Penrice would be entitled to a fair trial when once he had been charged before the magistrate with criminal defamation, and had tendered a plea of not guilty. The circumstances which led to the committal of Penrice before he could avail himself of legal assistance, is shown by other evidence. Penrice was kept in complete ignorance as to any charge being about to be made against him. On the morning of the 17th March, 1941, three policemen arrived by motor car at his home and stated that the magistrate wished to see him: he complied with their request in the belief that his presence was desired as a witness in a native matter.

Mr. Justice Carlisle in his report stated—

The magistrate was asked whether he had made it clear to Penrice that he could not have an adjournment until after the evidence had been led, and his reply was: “That is so; formal evidence will be led and then the medical evidence would be led.” He admitted that the record was correct in showing that the accused pleaded no guilty, and that when evidence was adduced the accused then appeared to be in his sound and sober senses. Moreover, he was not responsible for the question being raised as to whether Penrice was or was not mentally deranged, and that that question only arose after the hearing of the medical evidence of the two doctors. At what stage can it be suggested that Penrice had any opportunity of being effectively represented by an attorney to cross-examine witnesses and draw attention to the effect of the judgment of Sir J. Rose-Innes? When once Penrice was sent to Dr. Van Coller for observation, it would have been a miracle had he escaped committal as a Governor-General’s decision patient, for Dr. Van Coller had on the 24th February, 1941, before seeing Penrice, stated in writing—

At the enquiry held by Mr. Justice Carlisle, objection was entered by counsel representing Mr. Penrice, firstly to the Attorney-General being represented at the enquiry, and secondly to the Attorney-General’s representative being allowed to lead the evidence that was to be called. Counsel pointed out that the Attorney-General had no standing at the enquiry except as representing a particular individual. The objections were, however, overruled by the judge. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has raised a very important matter of principle which I dealt with very shortly before the dinner adjournment, and I entirely agree with his premises that no person should be detained in terms of our Mental Disorders Act unless there is adequate evidence that the person concerned requires treatment. I think that that is common cause among members on all sides of the House. The hon. member tonight has made a number of charges, and frankly I am in some difficulty to know against whom the hon. member is levelling those charges. He has referred to the former Attorney-General for Natal, and suggested that the AttorneyGeneral, a very high official, a judicial official, had acted improperly. It would appear also from the hon. member’s remarks that he feels that the magistrate who heard the case of Mr. Penrice also acted improperly.

I said that he was inexperienced.

But being inexperienced, I suppose the hon. member means that he acted improperly or unwisely, but either the magistrate acted in terms of the law or he did not do so.

He did not act in terms of the law.

The hon. member says he did not act in terms of the law. The hon. member has also rather suggested that I, as Minister of the Interior, have taken a somewhat complacent attitude in regard to this matter. I naturally only came into the picture after the hon. member had brought the facts to my notice, and what happened when the hon. member brought the facts to my notice? I asked for a report, which was submitted to me by the distinguished head of the department dealing with this matter, the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene, Dr. Russell, an eminent alienist. That report seemed to me to be decisive, but in order to remove all doubt I asked my colleague, the Minister of Justice, whether he would allow me to have one of the judges of our Supreme Court to hold an independent enquiry. That was done. A judge was appointed to hold an enquiry into all the circumstances of this unfortunate case. The judge was appointed, he sat in open court, and heard evidence. My hon. friend has explained why he was not able to give evidence, or was not in a position to give evidence. I would venture to suggest that it might have been useful for the purpose of Mr. Penrice if he could have placed the facts before the learned Judge as eloquently as he has done tonight in this Assembly, but the hon. member was not able to do that, but the learned Judge heard evidence. Mr. Penrice was legally represented and the conclusion which the learned Judge came to was that the magistrate had acted perfectly properly and that the Alienists concerned had acted perfectly properly. And what were the facts upon which the learned Judge based that decision? They were these: Mr. Penrice had been charged in March 1941 with the crime of criminal defamation in respect of the Attorney-General of Natal. The case was set down in the Magistrate’s Court for the district of Lions River held at Howick. Apparently before the case actually came into court the Attorney-General on the papers and documents submitted to him had a doubt whether Mr. Penrice was mentally balanced. There was no question so far as the evidence disclosed, of any vindictiveness on the part of the Attorney-General. He was out to help this man, and feeling that, as be did apparently, that he was suffering from some mental disorder, he felt the best thing was to have the matter brought to court and not have a conviction under the ordinary Criminal procedure, but enable the court to decide whether this case should be dealt with in terms of the Mental Disorders Act. The physician-superintendents, Dr. van Coller and Dr. Glashan, had been given certain documents in regard to letters written by Mr. Penrice and other documents relative to the case. On those documents they expressed the opinion that this was a case of paranoya. As the result of that evidence the magistrate did not commit Mr. Penrice to a mental institution, but he adjourned the case to enable him to be sent to a mental institution for examination. At that stage it is perfectly true that Mr. Penrice had not been seen by these two doctors. He was then sent to a mental institution and was detained in Fort Napier from the 17th to the 27 th March, 1941. During this period of observation, he was seen by a conference of the medical staff of the institution, and the diagnosis unanimously was that he was suffering from paranoya. On the 27th March, 1941, the physician-superintendent of Fort Napier submitted the following report to the magistrate—

The report went on—

That sounds like the Minister.

It certainly is a warning to some of us. After he had been detained for observation in this institution the trial was resumed, and the doctors who examined him gave evidence in the light of Mr. Penrice’s personal examination, and the magistrate at Howick, after having heard the evidence of the physician-superintendent, directed that he should be detained as a Governor-General’s decision patient under Section 28 of the Act. He was then re-admitted to the institution, and was kept there and treated. It makes it quite clear from what I have stated that this unfortunate person—I say unfortunate because I think it is most unfortunate that a person in this position should have his case debated in public in this manner— I say it is clear that this unfortunate person was detained after evidence had been given in a court of law by medical officers who had examined him personally. There was no question now of going on evidence of documents or letters. It was quite clear that this man had a history in regard to this litigation complex, and that history went back to England. He had written some most extraordinary letters to high officials in Great Britain, and there had been difficulties in Great Britain.

These letters were not before the court.

The fact remains that these were very relevant, as the learned judge pointed out when he dealt with the case. So far as I am concerned, and my department is concerned, having asked for the appointment of a learned judge to go into the matter, and having given every opportunity to all interested persons to take their evidence before the judge, one felt that one could do no more. The learned judge gave a very definite finding; he found that the magistrate had acted perfectly properly, and the action of the alienists was perfectly in order and above reproach. With that finding, Sir, the department cannot quarrel. I regret that the hon. member has seen fit to make this charge against the department. The department has been quite prepared to have its officials crossexamined, and the hon. member for Illovo had his chance to put his facts to the doctors, but that chance was not taken, although Mr. Penrice was legally represented. Let me say I understand that Mr. Penrice has incurred certain legal costs, and I have asked my department to take that matter up with the Department of Justice. The question is the subject of negotiations at the present time, because I think that there is some ground for contending that in a matter of this sort it might be equitable for the State to bear, at any rate, a portion of the cost of Mr. Penrice’s representation before that impartial court. Finally, the Department of the Interior has in review at the present time the whole of the Mental Disorders Act of 1916, which was passed 27 years ago, and I hope it will be possible for me next year to introduce a consolidating Act with amendments in the light of the experience that the department has gained in the course of the last 26 years. But when I say that, I do not want it to be inferred that anything that will be done or is intended to be will be done as a result of what has happened in the Penrice case. On the evidence placed before me and my department, I think it is perfectly clear that unfortunate as that case is, and I have the greatest sympathy with Mr. Penrice, I am afraid that the law was carried out properly, and that the alienists concerned were completely justified by an impartial judge of our Supreme Court, and not only of our Supreme Court, but of the Natal Division.

There are certain points upon which the Minister of the Interior, fair though he was in his statement, has not completely appreciated the facts in the Penrice case. The two doctors who declared him insane without ever having seen him, founded their opinion upon certain letters Penrice had written. Passages were cut off from their context so as to be rendered unintelligible or confused as to their meaning—and in some instances reference was made to letters which were not even quoted; for example, Dr. Van Coller quoted from one of Penrice’s letters—“can be proved to refer to Europe, by a letter from Mr. Winston Churchill—also a letter to Sir Archibald Sinclair”. At the enquiry held by Justice Carlisle the letter to Mr. Churchill was produced. It reads—

Dr. Glashan was questioned on this letter by counsel for Penrice. He said—

And the acknowledgment—

And the letter to Sir Archibald Sinclair, dated April 23rd—

Further questioned, Dr. Glashan said a man might be rational on certain matters, and yet suffer from paranoia. He said—

In regard to the statement made by the Minister that Penrice was certified finally by Dr. Van Coller, after he had had him under observation, it would have been nothing short of a miracle if Dr. Van Coller had not so certified him, since he had said the man was insane without seeing him; is it human that anyone who acted with such lack of reasonable care would subsequently say that the man was not mental? It was inevitable that Dr. Van Coller should certify him insane after what he had done previously. This is precisely the kind of case condemned by the Supreme Court judge, and quoted by the present Minister of the Interior in 1931, when he said: “Considering the way in which the magistrate arranged matters, the issue of the certificate was a foregone conclusion.” That was the position in regard to Dr. Van Coller’s case: he had already said the man was insane without having seen him, and it would have been a miracle if he had subsequently said anything else. If he was going to continue as an alienist any longer, he was bound to say that the man was insane, and that is what he did. If the man was really insane, why, within one month, was Dr. Van Coller offering to release the man on conditions? After being released, Mr. Penrice was certified as perfectly sane by the district surgeon, who all through had been available to give evidence, but was never called. The process adopted was to call the doctors who had never seen Penrice and ask them to certify that he was insane. That sort of thing constitutes a serious danger to any person who offends a powerful official who has the opportunity of putting him inside an asylum. I hope the Minister of the Interior does not seriously suggest that when he amends the Act he will not do so in respect of matters which have arisen out of the Penrice case. If he permits alienists to certify people without seeing them, he will certainly hear more about it, and I am not at all sure that this case may not yet form the subject of litigation. Nobody will submit to be certified by an alienist unless he has been properly examined.

My point was that the Penrice case was not the reason for amending the Act.

I want briefly to raise the question of the very great waste of paper which is going on in our country, and to ask the Minister whether in view of this waste he will in conjunction with the controller of paper, take more efficient steps to ensure economy. Every day in this House members of Parliament are deluged with publications of all kinds, reports, newspapers and magazines, our boxes are full of papers, the majority of which, I venture to say, go straight into the waste paper basket. It does seem to me that a very large number of these smaller publications could be shut down by the paper controller, with the very slightest damage to the public interest. Then there is the question of Parliamentary documents which we ourselves receive. Every issue of the Government Gazette is sent to every member of Parliament, a large number of whom, I am convinced, never even look at more than the outside cover. Surely it should be possible to ask members of Parliament whether they want the Government Gazette sent them every time, and to send it only to those gentlemen who express a desire for them.

What about Hansard?

Hansard is a different question, which I do not think comes under this vote. It is not controlled by the controller of paper, it is a matter of private contract between this House and those who produce it. I understand there is an arrangement to stop the publication of a number of departmental reports, and I think perhaps the House will agree that that is a good step. I wish that in conjunction with the controller of paper the Minister would devise means for saving a great deal of this waste.

We should like to have a statement from the Minister about the way the Estimates are printed. The English is in large letters and the Afrikaans in small letters. I want to know what the idea is and whether it will be the other way round next year.

The Hon. Minister of Finance has already answered that question.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long). I do not think anywhere in the whole of South Africa you can find a place where there is so much waste of paper as there is in this Parliament. Not only do I think that in many cases we could very easily do away with a great number of the publications that are issued to us, but I think that many of the reprints of Bills and things like that might be done away with in a time of acute shortage of paper, like the present. We ought to be able to put up even with pencil alterations if you like, anything to save a great deal of unnecessary printing and waste that goes on. I think at a time like this there is no need whatever for these blue books that are being printed, and we might save a great deal of valuable paper in that regard. I should be glad of some assurance that adequate steps are taken to deal with the waste paper after it has been finished with in this House. The litter that habitually covers the floor is unbelievable, and I would like to have an assurance that adequate steps are taken to see that all this waste paper is collected and looked after, and I hope made proper use of again. It is really a very serious subject. While we call upon the country to make sacrifices and to save all that can be saved, we find all this waste going on here. I do think the time has come when members should make a sacrifice and endeavour to save paper by not talking quite so much. This would be a real saving.

Whilst I associate myself as regards the waste of paper in this Parliament, I must say I am somewhat concerned about the position in so far as the newspapers are concerned. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) suggested that it would be a good thing to close down a batch of the small newspapers. While that may or may not be a good thing, the point I want to make is that there is a considerable amount of consternation as to the manner in which this newsprint is controlled at the present moment. Recently the big dailies in South Africa, certainly those in Johannesburg, decided that they would do away with posters and conserve that amount of paper. But the small newspapers, the weeklies and so on, which are dependent upon circulation in order to get advertisements, continued to have their posters out, but when the Control Board came into being they had to carry out the policy which is pursued by the big newspapers, because the Board enforced a regulation under which the small papers had to do away with their posters. There is a feeling, and I think it is well the Minister should know it, that the big newspapers are too well represented on the Board of Control.

This has nothing to do with me, it is my colleague the Minister of Commerce and Industries you should approach.

My friend is inclined to shelter himself behind the Minister of Commerce, but this has to do with the Controller of Paper, who is in the Minister’s department as Government Printer.

It has nothing to do with me. I am not responsible.

I want the Minister to bring it to the notice of the Controller of Paper, who is also the Government Printer.

It is not my function to do that.

At any rate, I think the Minister should take notice of the things that are said in connection with the matter and bring it to the notice of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. There is a considerable amount of nervousness at the fact that the controller is advised by a body which consists of the representatives of the principal big papers, and I would like to impress upon the Minister that a reduction in the supply of paper is a more serious matter to the smaller newspapers than to the big dailies, who can hold larger stocks.

I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Mr. Hirsch), that we can save a lot of paper in this House and also in the various Government departments. I remember that in the last war they used envelopes twice, three, and five times. In this department I notice that only two of the departments which write to me do so. If two of them do it, why do not all the others also do it? Besides that, I consider that they should use half folio sheets and type on both sides. If they did that we would be able to save thousands of pounds, in addition to the saving on paper.

I understand from the Minister that it is the intention not to print the reports of the various departments but only to hand them in and lay them on the Table of this House. Every member will then be able to study them. We shall have to stand in a queue to get hold of those reports. There are many other ways of saving paper, ways that will prove more effective than not to publish these reports. I agree that many of those reports are not worth printing, but I think it will cause a lot of trouble if we have to come to this House to get the reports, to read them, because when we are attending to our duties in this House we have not got the time to secure those reports and read them. I want to protest against this, and I think a lot more paper can be saved in other ways than in this way. Even if only a hundred or a hundred and fifty copies are printed for members, it is enough, but unnecessary additional copies are printed. There are other ways of saving, but I think we must have the reports for members so that they can be studied. It is essential that we should have those reports if we want to carry out our Parliamentary duties. I admit that some of the reports are not worth reading, but some of them are very important.

I wish to avail myself of the half-hour rule. Our Public Health Vote amounts to a little over £1,000,000, and if we take the question of public health in its true perspective, we have to add the other £1,000,000 which we have already dealt with on a previous vote, so that altogether our Public Health expenditure amounts to £2,000,000, or one-twentieth part of our ordinary Estimates before the war. In other words, public health has already scored in the perspective of the general improvement of conditions. We are already satisfied when we find that one-twentieth of our peacetime expenditure is used for public health. But that is only a start. It is perfectly clear that public health is a primary fundamental matter, affecting every individual in the country, which every citizen should take an interest in, be it scientific or unscientific. It is quite palpable that 5 per cent.—that is to say, one-twentieth of the total of our Estimates—is not sufficient by a long way yet, if we realise that it affects every citizen of the country. This being such a fundamental matter, we should have a better perspective and we should realise that what we do with our public money in this regard may be to the benefit of the whole of our population. As the interests and the well being of the whole population, of every individual, are dependent on a larger proportion of our public revenue being spent on public health, this matter should have our constant attention. Naturally, if the position in regard to the health conditions of the people were entirely satisfactory, we would have no reason for complaint, but the position is not such that it is not open to criticism. That is why we are not satisfied with a 5 per cent. share of our ordinary Estimates. The position, so far as the health and feeding of our people are concerned, is not satisfactory. But where we find today that the health of the individual, of the poorer section of the community, of the coloured people and of the native, has been brought to the forefront as a result of world conditions, it is necessary to call our Parliament and the Government of the country to attention and to say, “Do not let us lose sight of this fundamental matter, let us realise that it is imperative in all eventualities, in all these war events and peace events, throughout any world crisis, throughout any war, throughout any possible bombardment, that the health of the population shall be looked after and attended to as a fundamental matter. It must not be neglected during war time, or at a time of crisis. We have not the right to say: “We cannot deal with that matter now.” I want to give a few instances before coming to questions of general policy. We have set up a Nutritional Council, and we have provided funds for nutritional research. Funds have been provided for the past couple of years, and the Minister should realise that it is impossible to complete research work about nutrition and underfeeding in one or two years’ time. It is essential to get data over a period of years, and it is essential to design a preliminary scheme stretching over at least five years. That is why I want to ask the Minister not to stop the grant that was given in the past for nutritional research work. That work was done with the assistance of the Department of Public Health, and has already led to important data being obtained, and as we are now on the verge of securing important results, we are just a little bit afraid that the Minister at a time of crisis like the present may say that this is not the time to continue research work. It would be a short-sighted policy to do so, and I trust the Minister will not give up that type of work, but that, on the contrary, he will sooner provide a larger sum of money, and I hope he will give us an assurance that we shall to the best of our ability carry on this work for at least another three or four years. The people who at the universities of South Africa, for instance, are engaged on this work must be assured that they will continue to get the necessary support and assistance so that they can employ the right people for the purpose. It is not possible to appoint a highly qualified person with expert knowledge for six months or for a year to do nutritional work, and then to say: “We shall let you know when we need your services again in six months’ or a year’s time.” We have to provide for a number of years, and the Minister must give an assurance to the population that we shall make provision as far as possible to carry on the work for a number of years. Before I come to the greater question of policy I just want to touch on one or two minor matters in connection with public health. We find that ordinary infectious diseases have not increased during the last few years. There may be slight increases in certain cases, and slight drops in other instances, but the actual work of effecting great improvements is not yet possible, because our departments have not got the necessary funds extensively to carry on the preventive work in regard to certain diseases; they cannot carry on the immunisation of certain parts of the population on an extensive scale yet. I want to point out that we do not have so many actual difficulties with a disease, such as smallpox. We may have perhaps a thousand cases of smallpox per year, and only eight or ten deaths. That is comparatively normal, because we get the disease in a light degree among the natives. So far as typhus is concerned, we have had more than 3,000 cases, and there we must try to render immune those parts of the country where the infection keeps on recurring. That is to say, we must try and render as immune as possible that part of the population which is in danger of drinking infected water; we must have them innoculated every twelve months, or we must have them treated to procure immunity so far as they are concerned. That is a small question. Just to remind the Minister again of the value of research work, I want to mention the work that has been done by the dentist, who a few years ago was appointed through the instrumentality of the department to do research work in regard to dentistry in South Africa. The work of that dentist is not only particularly interesting, but it is also most important. We thought originally that this dentist would make a survey of the country, and would find out that cases of bad teeth occurred in certain parts of the country, and that in other parts of the country people had good teeth, and we expected that he would perhaps give us some theoretical reasons for those conditions. But what do we find? This dentist has done important research work and he has already come to certain important conclusions. He has examined the chemical substances of water, so that he is not only able to give expert advice to individuals but to whole groups of the population—he can tell them what has to be done about water and food to improve the peoples teeth—which after all are the cogs of the whole machine. But perhaps accidentally in part he has made very interesting discoveries, such as for instance that some of our water is poisonous and that there is an excess of flora in the water, so that one gets a condition of florose which causes poisoning among large sections of the population. I am not so particularly interested in this special matter. I am only pointing out how important research work is and can be if it is carried on by the right people. I spoke of nutrition research earlier on. There are very few people in this country who are fit to do that kind of work. When we therefore get the right person here and there to do the work, special steps must be taken to secure the services of those people. Surely we have to go out of our way to obtain the few people who can do valuable work for South Africa and to give them the opportunity to do such work so that they need not go back again and look for work as teachers or as part-time professors. We must keep them on for this valuable research work and we must use their services to do the work. I find fault with what we have done in the past. When there were really suitable people who could do something and could produce something from a scientific point of view, who could do essential work for our country, we have too often allowed their services to be lost to us by saying that there were no positions available for them; no vote on the Estimates. That is all I want to say about this research work. It is most important. Now if we go on we come to the important matter which I want to deal with tonight, the question of general policy. We have £1,000,000 on these Estimates and another £1,000,000 on the other vote for mental disorders. We now have to consider the position as to what we have to provide for in future. We have to consider a position for which we shall perhaps have to provide four or five times as much money as we are doing now under the Public Health Vote in South Africa. The Minister is already taking steps and he has appointed a Commission of Enquiry. The matter is so important that I want to point out that the Commission must be able to enquire into all aspects of public health in South Africa. I want to remind the Minister that I am not very keen on the idea of a Public Commission of this kind to deal with a subject of this importance. I hold the view that we have had quite sufficient semi-expert, or “un-expert” investigations and that it is unnecessary again to enquire into the whole principle and the whole future of public health, and to hear a whole lot of witnesses all over the country whose testimony may eventually constitute a whole mass of indigestible evidence out of which it may be impossible to make anything or on which it will be impossible to frame a Bill. But the Minister has announced that he is going to appoint the Commission. As the Minister has decided to do so, I want him to see to it that the people who are to be appointed as members of the Commission are really representative of all the aspects of the problems in South Africa. It is so important that we cannot really sufficiently emphasise this matter. I am reminded of the fact that the Minister is perhaps appointing a hundred or a hundred and fifty district surgeons, and that within the too far distant future he may have to appoint two thousand officials to look after public health instead of the trivial few hundred the department now has. I am reminded of the fact that political influences have often been brought to bear on the appointment of such people. Political considerations have not weighed directly with the department, but outside, beyond the department, influences have been at work to try and have certain appointments made. Here we surely have a matter where all political considerations should be ignored. This is a matter where we want to achieve one hundred per cent. effectiveness and efficiency—what we want to aim at is a remedy for the present situation and to provide for the wants of the population. I want the Minister to bear this in mind when he considers the appointment of a Commission. Secondly, the members of the Commission must be people acquainted with every section of the people. In South Africa we have some densely populated areas in our big towns—we have members of the public who have always sat close to the manger, who have always to a considerable degree had the benefits of public health services— barring, of course, the slums which have never been cleared away—those of course have been the problems of the big towns. The problem of the platteland has always been and still is the problem of the poorer section of the population and of the natives and the coloured people in the sparsely populated areas, and I want the Minister to appoint people on the Commission who know South Africa, who are familiar with the needs of South Africa, and who are socialistic in their tendencies. I want to use that word. I want to say that so far as the medical profession is concerned we do not want any protection. We hear such a lot about the protection of vested rights. What are those vested rights? Those vested rights are this: That the people have the right to obtain the best medical services available. There should be no such thing as existing financial rights—that is, if the Government is going to provide a living to the medical profession on the same scale as any other learned profession. Then there are no existing financial rights which have to be protected. I don’t want the Minister to be so deeply concerned over the protection of financial rights except this, that I want him to appoint people—as the State is now going to step in—who to the extent of 70 per cent. will be members of a learned profession—I want him to see to it that the people who are appointed and who will have to give their full services will be protected in the same way as any other learned profession in the country. Nothing more and nothing less. We are not asking for any protection; we are not asking for any compensation for existing rights or existing property. We only ask the Government to consider the profession, which to the extent of 70 per cent. will comprise the staff of the schemes, in the same light and to give the profession the same status as any other learned profession in the country, which requires the same money and the same sacrifices for its training. We hear such a lot of talk about the existing rights of certain people, but I want to emphasise that the only existing right is the right of the people to have their health and retain it, when that health is threatened by the conditions existing in this country. We know that we have for years been hammering on the expansion of the medical services in the direction in which we are now discussing it. The Government has appointed a Commission of Enquiry but meanwhile one of the provinces in South Africa has held its own enquiry into a very important sphere of public health, namely the hospitalisation of the people of the Transvaal, and although we know no more than what the Administrator of the Transvaal has said in public or what has been said at public functions by officials, it is perfectly clear that we can learn a lot from the attitude adopted on the subject by the Transvaal. We are given to understand that they are going to give hospital services—and that does not only mean nursing services, but also medical services to the whole of the people of the Transvaal. They want to do this by means of a health tax. That is the very thing which I suggested on a previous occasion when I said that we should pay for our medical services by means of a health tax, a special tax which may go up or go down as the year’s estimates demand. We find that in the Transvaal very interesting predictions are already being made by the Administrator and others, and I must say that I am most deeply interested in this matter and am most sympathetically disposed. I have no full details on the subject except that that Province of the Union is prepared to take the lead in this important and serious matter, while the Union Government is not yet ready to take any steps. True, we are going to appoint a Commission which may perhaps present its report in two or three years time, and two or three years later their report may be acted upon. But do not let us forget that in the Transvaal they have apparently already made considerable progress, but judging from what the Administrator has said they must have made considerable progress. They are apparently ready to undertake a very important and very comprehensive scheme. I feel the Government can learn a lesson here and we are perhaps big enough to make a compromise with the Transvaal and say “You people have acted so quickly and we have been so slow, let us make a compromise and fix a time so that you put off your business a little while until we have certainty on these matters.” The Government will then have to promise that it will take action within a year’s time. There must be a promise that the Government will try to put matters in order within twelve months. In those circumstances we may perhaps be entitled to ask the Transvaal to wait. But if a small province, or if you like call it a big province, such as the Transvaal, in a year or two can finish its research work and come forward with a scheme which is going to be given effect to, it should be possible for us to promise that we will come along in a year’s time with a complete scheme, to include the whole of the Transvaal scheme, so that they will not, just before the Government has completed its enquiries, make concrete proposals which may cause difficulties owing to our being faced with a fait accompli and the other provinces having to follow suit —which may perhaps be a good thing, but it may yet cause confusion and it may perhaps not entirely fit in with the big scheme. I hope the Minister will look upon this as a matter of such importance that he will try to make a compromise with the Transvaal, the province which threatens—and a very good threat at that—to carry on with its scheme as we have consistently lagged behind in taking action. I want to insist, however, that the matter be regarded in that light so that we may come to finality within twelve months. The other matter is this, that the people of the Transvaal are going still further, and they are also prepared to help to provide for the doctors the country requires; they are going to make that provision out of the population of he country itself, they are going to make provision to get the men who are wanted for this particular work in South Africa. The Transvaal Province, as far as I can make out, is apparently willing to contribute its share. Apparently we are not taking much interest in this matter. We are simply leaving it to the people who want to study medicine, although we could take very specific action and give assistance in obtaining the right type of man who could be used in the service of such a scheme. I hope that so far as medical training is concerned that aspect will constitute part of the Commission’s enquiry; that aspect of the matter will have to receive special attention so that we may know how the best people may be selected for service in the medical profession in future. I promised that I would not take up much time, but I think the matter is of sufficient importance for the Minister to tell us that he will try to start dealing with the whole question within twelve months.

I see on the Public Health Estimate provision is made for 347 part-time district surgeons and medical officers, and their salaries range from £900 per year to £1,050 per year. It seems to me a fairly handsome provision. Now I am not going to say anything to the detriment of the district surgeons, but I do want to bring one case to the notice of the Minister, because I hope it is not a typical one. I am afraid that the attitude displayed throughout in this case is typical of the official attitude to the native people of this country as a whole. I have here a letter from a constituent of mine, a man of some education, though not much money, which speaks for itself, and I want to read passages from it. This man complains that he was suffering from one of the infectious diseases, anthrax, which I personally thought was restricted to animals, but apparently it is not. He says—

This is a most extraordinary story. He called the district surgeon, who charged him £8. I see the Minister laughs, but this is no laughing matter. The Native Commissioner, instead of sending the district surgeon again, sent a “vet.” who was interested not in the condition of the man, but in where he got the anthrax.

I was wondering whether he died.

I am going to tell the House the story. The Minister may laugh.

I was not laughing at you.

The district surgeon gets a good salary, over £900 a year; he charges this man £8, and does not go back again to see him. The Commissioner is informed of the matter and sends a “vet.” to try and find out whether this disease is going to spread to cattle. Then this man went to Kimberley, and he goes no to say—

I purposely have refrained from mentioning the place or the district surgeon, but I will give all the information to the Minister.

Give it to me afterwards.

I will give it privately. There may be something to be said for the district surgeon, and I do not want to be guilty of injustice to an individual. I hope that this case is in no way typical. If this man had anthrax he should have been treated by the district surgeon, and in any case that official should have sent the man to hospital and not left it to a “vet.” to come and interview him. I would be glad to have the assurance that this is not the usual way that district surgeons, who receive handsome salaries, do their work.

When one reads the report of the Department of Public Health, there is one thing which strikes one, and that is that the department is only concerned with the prevention of infectious diseases. All the activities of the department are aimed at the prevention of infectious diseases, and very little is done in order to educate the general public in connection with the diseases; hygiene is neglected. Not enough is done with a view to enlightening the public. One page 14 of this report, it is stated, in connection with health instruction and propaganda, that a large portion of the work is delegated to the South African Red Cross Association, and I think that when one goes about in the country, one gets the impression how absolutely ignorant people are in connection with diseases, and in connection with hygiene. It is true that something is being done in the schools, but I think that the Department of Public Health ought to depute a number of lecturers to travel about and to give lectures in connection with this matter. It is no use preventing infectious diseases, and then when people get these diseases, they have to fall back again on the district surgeons. And in many places there are no district surgeons to be obtained timeously, with the result that many people die. And I think that one of the big tasks of the Department of Public Health should be to send about trained persons in the country in order to educate the public in connection with this matter. There is something which struck me especially when I read this report, and I refer the hon. Minister to page 46 of the report. The hon. member for Graaf-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has already referred to it, and that is the endemic fluorosis which is prevalent especially in those areas which I represent. Since I have been representing those areas, it has struck me that the teeth of these people are in a hopeless condition. On that page the following appears—

In this case the department went so far as to appoint one person, namely, Dr. T. Ockerse, and he did important work, especially in the North-West. But the strength of one man is insufficient. If one goes to those parts which I represent, one finds that there is an excessive quantity of fluorine in the water. This appears in the third paragraph—

Dr. Ockerse did the experimental work there, and he can state this as a fact, but nothing further is done in the matter. The disease is today prevalent in those parts of the community, and he said that it was not only prevalent in those parts, but in the districts Jansenville, Cradock and Middelburg, too, fluorides are found in excessive quantities. Fluorides are also found in the Pilansberg area of the Transvaal, and in the district Potgietersrust and in the Nelspruit, as well as in other areas which are set out in the report. When you read the whole paragraph in connection with the matter you realise that this is a serious state of affairs, and for that reason I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to appoint even more dental surgeons to go into the matter and to help these people. You find some of these people who are still young and whose health has already received a setback as a result of the condition of their teeth which is caused by the water they have to drink. I think the department should now take serious steps in this matter. This is a type of disease which has fatal results. One also sees in the report how these people, when they become old, have to suffer pain as a result of the condition of their teeth. Then there is the question of housing. Under the Act of 1937 (No. 41 of 1937), the Additional Housing Act, the Government provided facilities whereby a person who wanted a house could go to a building society, and that building society could advance up to 90 per cent. of the money he required. He only had to deposit 10 per cent., and the remaining 90 per cent. may be advanced by the building society. But I learn, in connection with the Durban Bill, that those facilities are today no longer obtainable, that the Government has decided that all the facilities under the Additional Housing Act of 1937 are to be withdrawn, and I want to tell the Minister that the position in connection with housing in all our towns and cities is very serious today. There are numerous persons who cannot get houses today, even in our smaller towns, and if things continue in this way, if the facilities under the Act are withheld for the duration of the war, I wonder what will happen to the people? There will be a congestion of people in these houses, and when an epidemic breaks out we will probably have the same fatal results as in 1918. For that reason the Government should not be short-sighted. They ought to maintain those facilities, and to continue providing those facilities to the building societies. My information is, according to the evidence which we got in this case, that that 10 per cent. has been taken away, and I hope that the hon. Minister will see to it that it is restored. [Time limit.]

In view of the fact that the health of the people is a national matter, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that more institutions ought to be established for consumptives. Last year I attended the Agricultural Union Congress at Port Elizabeth, not as a delegate, but I was invited to attend the Congress. Then the members who were delegated by the Eastern Cape complained bitterly about the shortage of institutions to which they could send consumptives. They said that they sometimes applied and that they had to wait for more than a year before the consumptive could be admitted to the institution. In the meantime, the consumptive has to remain at home, with the result that more than one of the members of his family are infected by him, and they all become consumptives. Well, we know how rapidly tuberculosis spreads, and it is not only that family or circle where the husband or wife is the carrier, but it is those people with whom they come into daily contact who are also infected. When we think that our children have to be looked after by coloured girls and coloured persons who are consumptives, we demand that steps should be taken to ensure that that tuberculosis will not be carried to us or to our children. I would just like to make this point too, that every coloured person or native girl or servant whom you use in your house, ought to have a clean certificate from a doctor before you take such a person into your house, because the endless suffering which such a girl or servant can bring into your house is incalculable. Then there is also another point with reference to people who suffer from venereal diseases; they ought to receive the same treatment, and institutions ought to be established where these people can be looked after, because they also spread infection in some manner or other, and they are not people one would like to come into daily contact with. These are people who work with our food, people from whom we buy our food. There are Asiatics in the shops, although I do not buy from them, who handle the food, etc., which we buy. I notice sometimes that they are in the last stages of tuberculosis, and then they handle fruit or sweets with hands into which they have coughed, for sale to the children. Then the tuberculosis starts with the child and also spreads amongst grown-up people, and I feel that such people who handle our food supplies or who work in our shops, ought to be medically examined before they are allowed to handle that type of thing, because it affects the health of the whole nation if the disease is spread by people in this way.

Mr. Chairman, as the result of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman), the Minister of Public Health indicated that the Government would shortly appoint a Public Health Commission, and I want to bring up one point which I trust the Minister will take into consideration, as it has a direct bearing upon the terms of reference to that Commission. I refer to the question of the Food and Drugs Act. It has been recognised by most people interested in public health that that Bill is merely a negative one, it is merely intended to control what may be described as poisonous foodstuffs, but it does not prevent any article or commodity being put on the market and sold when such article or commodity has in fact no nutritive value whatever. I am satisfied in my own mind that there are many articles on the market today which have no nutritive value at all. In fact, one need only take the question of the wellknown food porridge. I have heard it said, and it has not been contradicted yet, that the wheat germ is taken out of the grain, and I understand that germ is the most important part of the wheat, and the result is that the porridge, if it has any nutritive value at all, contains very little. May I add further that I am satisfied that in these days when there are thousands and thousands of proprietary foods coming on the market and being sold all over the place, it should be the duty of the Government to protect the householders to the extent of letting them know exactly what the value of the commodity they are buying is. If some such measure as I have suggested were taken, then there would be some sort of Government stamp on the article showing that it possesses some nutritive value. The second point I want to mention is in regard to what I consider the extravagant nature of many advertisements of certain foodstuffs. After all, what does the man or woman in the street know about the nutritive value of foodstuffs? I am strongly of opinion that we must control these advertisements. I have been told that some two or three years ago many of the tea combines in this country were spending thousands and thousands of pounds in the rural areas on daily propaganda. I am told that on one occasion a film was shown all over the country depicting a native who went into the forest and met a lion. There ensued a terrible struggle for some considerable time. In the end the lion was killed, and the native was represented as saying that the thing that saved his life was a cup of tea. Quite frankly, apart from the psychological point of view, I have yet to learn whether tea has any great nutritive value. When one thinks of the 8,000,000 natives we have, and even if they only spent 10s. a year on tea, then the big combines who spend £2,000 or £3,000 on advertising are in fact reaping great rewards from an unsuspecting portion of our population by putting across a story about an article which has no direct relation to the quality of the goods. I do ask the Minister to take into consideration these two points when he is framing the terms of reference to this Commission. We want a positive Foods and Drugs Act which will control the quality of the foodstuffs sold throughout the country, because it cannot be denied that an improvement in the health of the public can only be brought about by control of the policy of the food consumed. Secondly, in this Bill as I envisage it, some machinery should be introduced in order to control extravagant propaganda claiming certain benefits from the consumption of certain foodstuffs, which in fact do not exist at all. The Minister, in his reply, may perhaps refer me to the fact that a National Nutrition Council has been appointed. Some three months ago I am told that this committee which was appointed two years ago had only met once. I hope the Minister won’t refer to that as a source from which we may expect very much.

That is not correct.

That is my observation.

Your observations are incorrect.

That may be so, but I don’t think I am far from the mark. After all, when we passed that legislation, we expected a lot more from this Nutrition Council.

A great deal has been done.

I have been told that the council was appointed in February, 1940, and I am given to understand that up to three months ago the council had met only once. But I don’t want to quarrel on that score. All I ask is that the Minister will seriously consider embodying these two points in the terms of reference to this committee.

The question which I ask myself is what the Government is doing today with a view to maintaining our public health on a high level. We know that the Government does a good deal to improve it. When we speak of public health we involuntarily think of hospitals, nurses and doctors, etc., but I want to suggest that the Government should give special attention to the following thoughts: General physical training; promotion of a general hygienic standard of life; effective hospitalisation and medical treatment in all its branches, that treatment to be free of charge with regard to the less privileged classes. And I also include the middle class, the person who tries to maintain a decent standard of living, although not having the necessary means, the person who tries to keep his child healthy by giving him good food and good clothing, the man who looks after the health of his children. That is the person who usually experiences difficulty when there is a setback of illness. That is the person on whom the State can rely, and who usually comes up to scratch when the State requires him. I feel that the State is not doing sufficient today for those middle classes, and for that reason I think that the State ought to make provision especially for the middle classes. I feel that the State ought to be responsible for hospitals, so that it can take care of that type, and especially of the middle classes. There ought also to be sufficient and nourishing food, and sufficient clothing for all sections of the people, accompanied by adequate housing. We have our housing system today, but you will agree with me that we still have to do a great deal more in that respect; especially today when there is a war in progress it is not possible to neglect this matter, and then I think we ought to have sufficient facilities for effective recreation for all sections of the community. All these together, in my considered opinion, goes to make that healthy nation which we want. In a healthy body it is possible for a healthy spirit and a healthy soul to dwell. I want to make a courteous request to the Government and to ask them to take steps in the various matters I have mentioned, so that in that way we may be able to build up a sound and healthy people.

I wish to bring another matter to the Minister’s notice, a matter which to my mind deserves his attention, and it is this, that there is a shortage today of water pipes. More than one home cannot be properly supplied with water. I want to mention one particular instance. In the immediate vicinity of Cape Town, namely, on the Cape Flats, people complain that they are not being supplied with water, because the Divisional Council has not got the necessary water pipes. I trust that if the Divisional Council approaches the Minister to use his influence as Minister of Public Health to induce the Minister of Defence to help in this matter, he will do so. There is a shortage of water pipes and water meters. I have a letter in my hand from people on the Cape Flats who cannot be supplied with water because no water pipes can be obtained. I trust the Minister will give this matter his attention. I also want to say a few words about tuberculosis. If we have to accept the reports of the medical people we must come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of the population are suffering from this disease, especially among the non-Europeans of the Cape Peninsula. We find that if a person suffers from tuberculosis and he is in the first stage of the disease, the Municipality or the Divisional Council can send him to Nelspoort. If he is in the last stage and is practically dying he can perhaps be taken to a hospital, but I want to point out to the Minister that the individual who is in the middle stage has not been provided for anywhere, he cannot be looked after anywhere at the expense of the State. I consider this a matter of the utmost importance. Take the native and the coloured population. They are becoming a source of infection in the Cape Peninsula, from which tuberculosis will spread. I also want to plead for greater provision being made for our less privileged Europeans in regard to public health matters, and I particularly want to put up a plea for those people who are not poor actually, but who are not rich either. If a native on a farm takes ill the farmer can ring up the district surgeon, and the district surgeon will come out to attend to the native, but if a farmer’s white foreman gets ill there is no such free medical attention for him. I feel that this question of public health should be a national question, and that we should not only help the very poor or the man who can help himself, but that we should do something to help the middle-classes. They must be able to get the necessary medical attention. It is a matter of the utmost importance. We don’t want to say that this Government is guilty of a greater neglect of duty than the previous Government. To my mind, the matter is one which has not received sufficient attention in the past. I hope the Minister will give his attention to these few points, and particularly to the question of tuberculosis.

I should like some information from the Minister on one or two points. The first is this: whether he is aware that in the Transvaal the provincial administration has approached the various medical associations with a cut and dried State medical service scheme for all people earning under £750 per year? I have expressed myself both inside this House and outside in favour of such a scheme, but I wonder whether the Minister could not perhaps use his influence with the Provincial Council of the Transvaal to stay their hand until such time as the Commission is appointed to investigate and report on this matter. Surely if we are going to have such a scheme of State medical service it should be a national and not a Provincial scheme. That is my first point. The second point is this: Whether the Minister could not see his way clear to continue the research work that has been done in the last few years in Cape Town at the University by the Professors of medicine and of Social Science who have undertaken these enquiries. The reports published so far have been excellent and the Nutritional Council has gained by these reports. The Parliamentary Committee who have been issued with these reports, I am confident, have gained valuable information from them up to date, but these reports, or rather the research work done so far, is not complete. There is still a lot of work to be done especially so far as nutrition is concerned and also so far as the sectional incomes of the various homes are concerned. A lot of work has been done in regard to published diets and the cost of diets relative to the weekly incomes in certain homes. I think a further amount of money should be voted for this purpose. A small amount was voted last year and I heard a rumour that this money was to be deleted this year. However, I still see a sum of £500 for research on nutritional matters on the Estimates, and I hope the Minister will see his way to have this work continued at the University of Cape Town. In regard to the question of Tuberculosis which was referred to by the last speaker I might tell the Committee that I have run a special clinic for Tuberculosis sufferers in the Cape for the last nine years. No one is more aware than I am that the incidence of Tuberculosis is making tremendous headway in this country, and it is a problem which should be tackled at once, and it should be dealt with on a National scale. It is no use tinkering with the problem by opening small hospitals here and there. It should be a National scheme, and I want to plead with the Minister to realise the necessity of instituting a great National scheme on this question, on a sound basis, and I do hope that when the Commission of Investigation on a Social Security Code takes evidence; the question of the incidence of Tuberculosis and of the methods of combating Tuberculosis in South Africa will be investigated and that steps will be taken to deal with this disease on a National scale, and in a comprehensive and co-ordinated manner.

This debate tonight has covered quite a wide range on the subject of public health, and it is notable for the unanimity of all sides of the House in regard to the need on the part of the Government for a progressive policy. A number of very important matters have been touched on—the question of tuberculosis, venereal disease, free hospital services, and so on. I think I can best reply by explaining very shortly what the policy of the Department of Public Health is at the present time. That policy is a twofold policy. On the one hand there is what I might term a long term policy, and then there is a policy for the immediate future. The long range, the long term policy, is linked up with the Commission, the National Health Commission, the terms of refernce of which and the personnel of which I hope to be able to announce before Parliament prorogues. Hon. members will remember that the Government announced that it was its intention to appoint that Commission on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman). Apparently there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding among certain sections of the public. The debate introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville was adjourned. No vote was taken on it, and some members of the public have apparently assumed from that that there is still some uncertainty as to whether this Commission will be appointed or not. If there is still uncertainty, I want to remove that, and I want to announce on behalf of the Government that the Government accepted the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. That Commission is going to be appointed; the terms of reference have already been drafted, and it is merely a question of fixing the personnel. The announcement of the terms of reference and of the personnel I hope will be made before Parliament prorogues. That Commission will be given very wide terms of reference. It will have the whole sphere of public health to examine. It will not merely take into review the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1919, but it will also consider the organisation of a national health service in conformity with the modern conception of health which will ensure adequate medical, dental, nursing and hospital services for all sections of the people of the Union of South Africa. That is the broad basis upon which the Commission will be asked to carry out its investigations. Now that Commission will naturally by reason of the wide scope of its terms of reference have to travel about the country, examine conditions in town and platteland, and will take a certain amount of time before it is able to come to its conclusions, but I hope that time will not be a very long period. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) tonight suggested a year. I certainly hope that within the period of a year the Commission will be able to report to the Government and this House, and let me say that the Government does not intend that this report when issued should be pigeon-holed. I as the Minister of Public Health, and the Secretary for Public Health, and the department, are looking to this Commission to come forward with a constructive policy in the light of the experience of the last twenty or thirty years when the Public Health Act was initiated, and make concrete suggestions which can be put into operation and which will lead to what I call a new deal in public health in this country.

A new order.

That is our long term policy. Flowing from the report of that Commission I look forward to reforms of a far-reaching character. But it is no use attempting to institute reforms at this stage until the Commission has had an opportunity of going into the whole question. It has been suggested in certain quarters that I and my department have been lacking in initiative, that we have been lukewarm in our approach to this matter. I have been told that what is needed is a dynamic health policy, a dynamic lead from the Government. I ask hon. members tonight to define a “dynamic policy,” to define a “dynamic lead.” I ask our critics to say where we have been hesitant or lukewarm, and I ask them to define what they mean when they say that we are faltering—I ask them to define what they mean by a “dynamic health policy.” Because, sir, a large number of suggestions have been put forward in regard to this matter. We have had suggestions, for instance, from the medical profession—widely varying and differing suggestions. We have had suggestions that we should institute a system of State medicine on the communist model of Russia.

That would suit many of your friends.

Is that the dynamic policy which some persons want? Other sections of the medical profession have suggested that we should have a system of co-operative medicine. The medical profession will put up a plan. They will work out the needs and requirements of the community, they will supply the services and the Government will pay. But the Government must have no control. Is that the policy? Another suggestion has been that we should have the medical profession reorganised, the Public Health Department should be reorganised on the basis of the Electricity Supply Commission. There you certainly have the analogy of something dynamic, but whether that is the most suitable solution I don’t know. I am a layman and when the doctors differ, as they do, one can hardly expect the Public Health Department to step in with a cut and dried policy to solve the matter for ever. In this matter it seems that the wise policy is to appoint a strong responsible Commission which will take evidence, will examine the position in town and on the platteland, most wisely and carefully, and will then, in the light of all the evidence put up to it, make suggestions to the Government. That seems the right and proper way. It is not a question of putting off the solution of the question unto the Greek Kalends— it is merely a question of the method of approach, and when doctors differ, as they do, when the medical profession is by no means unanimous as to how this question should be dealt with, how can a layman be expected to put down a cut and dried scheme without thorough investigation?

They differ because they do not examine it from the same point of view.

Exactly, they all look at it from a different point of view. Now the idea of this Commission, the underlying idea is that a responsible body, a representative body, will be able to hear the various schemes outlined here, will hear the evidence, examine the evidence, and in the light of that evidence, and on the experience gained, be able to put forward concrete proposals. Now that is what I term the long-term policy. But we cannot wait, the Public Health Department cannot wait, until the Commission has reported, and so the department has set itself for the forthcoming year, for 1942—’43, to carry on the programme of progress and initiation of new schemes in the light of the facilities available at present. Hon. members will see that for the first time the Public Health Vote has topped the £1,000,000 mark.

It should be double that.

There is an increase of something like £70,000 this year, but that does not tell the whole story yet. Let me for instance refer to the question of tuberculosis. Hon. members have spoken about this dread disease. There is no doubt that tuberculosis has ravaged our coloured and our native population in recent years very severely. Fortunately its inroads into the European population are not as great, but certainly in the coloured population, particularly in certain coastal belts, the incidence of the disease has been increasing to an alarming extent. On the other hand it is a pleasing fact to note that the general figures for the last twenty , years show a decrease, a fairly considerable decrease in the death rate from this disease. If we take 1921 we find that the death rate per 100,000 nonEuropeans was 58.26. For 1940 it had fallen to 38.95. That is a satisfactory feature. But when I say that I do not by any means mean that the position as a whole is satisfactory, and I admit that a great deal more has to be done in combating tuberculosis among our non-European population. But just let me give the House one or two indications of the way we are tackling this problem in our immediate programme, in what I might term our one-year programme of 1942—’43. If we take the year 1935 we find that the amount spent on combating tuberculosis from ordinary revenue was £33,219. On capital account £12,400, making a total of £45,619. That was spent on combating tuberculosis in 1935. For the forthcoming year, 1942—’43, we propose to spend £145,295 from revenue, and on capital expenditure £219,365, making a total of £361,660, an increase of 800 per cent. over what was spent in 1935. No less than £219,361, nearly onequarter of a million of new money, will be spent this year in combating tuberculosis. We are providing 100 beds at Rentzkies farm for coloured men discharged from the army, at a cost of £55,000. We are providing an our estimates £20,000 in respect of a tuberculosis hospital at Durbanville. Portion of the cost of that will be paid by the Cape Town City Council. At Beaufort West we have established a small hospital for thirty Europeans and thirty coloureds. At Swellendam we have established a similar hospital. And recently a similar hospital was built at Paarl, also at East London, and we are building, and we hope to have one soon at Worcester, and also at Malmesbury. The department is encouraging the idea of local authorities building not extensively equipped hospitals, but placed where people can go and receive proper treatment, and where the equipment is reasonable, and necessary for that treatment, but not on the standard of a £1,000 per bed hospital. But on a reasonable basis where adequate treatment can be given. We are attempting to establish a network of these cheaper hospitals. I have mentioned Paarl, Beaufort West and Swellendam. I hope to have them at Worcester and Malmesbury, too. At Worcester I hope to have one which will take in the surrounding districts.

Did you say that is the policy?

Yes, that is the policy.

Then why was the one at Somerset West stopped?

That is the policy which we are adopting. I have no information about the one at Somerset West but I shall go into it. That is the policy which the department has been following, to spread a network of cheaper hospitals to deal with tuberculosis cases; that is for the Cape. In the Transvaal we are providing 100 additional beds for native tubercular cases at Rietfontein at a cost of £92,000. To relieve the pressure at the Johannesburg Native Hospital where the overcrowding existence was scandalous, we are spending money on the old Chronic Sick Home, to take 86 cases, and we are also spending money to enable the Johannesburg Municipality to provide additional accommodation for natives—32 males and 42 females. We are negotiating with the Free State authorities in regard to Tempe and in Natal we have induced the local authorities to open a controlled clinic. The department had hoped to be able to provide a new method of taking X-ray photographs, micro photographs by means of which a large number of patients can be examined quickly. There are at present two of these machines in the country and they are used by the military authorities. The examinations carried out by the Defence authorities are proving most interesting. We are discovering large numbers of incipient cases among coloured people offering themselves for service, and after the war one hopes to be able to take over those particular machines. I am mentioning this to show that in the coming year we propose to spend nearly a quarter of a million pounds of new money on tuberculosis. In the light of that it can hardly be suggested that we are going slow. Now, take venereal diseases. In 1935 the amount of our expenditure under that heading was £35,000. This year we are asking for £100,180, more than double what it was seven years ago. We are making additional accommodation available at various places.

Under what heading is that?

That is under heading “F”. But the position is that we are asking now more than double what we did seven years ago. So it will be seen that so far as infectious diseases are concerned, we are carrying on our immediate programme, and our intention is to carry on a frontal attack on these diseases which are particularly rampant among our nonEuropean population. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), has said that the fault of the department is that it confines itself to these infectious diseases, and does insufficient work in educating the public in regard to other diseases. I agree that it is of the utmost importance in public health that the public should be educated. The more information we can give about health, about disease, about the prevention of disease, the better. We have been acting hitherto in conjunction with the Red Cross organisation and subsidising the Committee on National Health Propaganda, of which the hon. member for Yeoville is the chairman, to the extent of £5,000 per year. That National Health Propaganda Committee has been doing very excellent work, but we propose to go further this year. Our plans have been drafted for the introduction of a national health campaign throughout the Union. The Department of Public Health proposes by way of lectures, cinema slides, demonstrations, and similar matters in the large towns and in the country areas, to try to bring home to the people, to men, women, and young people, the various aspects of public life, not only the question of disease, but questions of nutrition and other aspects as well. One knows there are many housewives, who, if they only had a little more help, would be able to provide better balanced diets for their families than they are doing at present. They want to be told a little more about these things; they are doing their best to come out on small allowances with a little more knowledge they would do very much better. This national health propaganda campaign will be started, and I hope it will infiltrate not merely in the towns, but into the country areas, and I hope members will assist the Public Health Department in carrying out that campaign. When the campaign is over it will be necessary to follow it up, and, with that object in view, I am having a special section set up in the department known as the health and education section. It will be there to see that this campaign is followed up, that it is not merely a spasmodic effort, but that we are following it up constantly in the various parts of the country, with the idea of giving information in regard to public health. There is a scheme under consideration for the introduction of mobile health units which will go out into the platteland and the native reserves, where talks will be given by appropriate medical officers. The unit will go to places where a particular disease or a particular trouble is rampant, and will get into touch with the public, will get among the natives with the idea of breaking down superstitions and matters of that kind. If this scheme works, and I am hoping it will be a success, the idea is to go out, to radiate these health units into various parts of the country carrying this information of vital importance. The hon. member for Cape, Western (Mr. Molteno), has referred to a case of a native who was infected with anthrax. I am not able to give him any information tonight, because I have no details in regard to the matter. I shall be very glad if he will give me the information and the name of the district surgeon, and I shall certainly have the matter investigated.

Was it not the duty of the district surgeon to have the man sent to hospital?

It is difficult for me to say what his duty was without getting all the facts. I am not in a position to pass judgment without getting all the facts. I shall have the matter fully investigated. Finally, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) have referred to this question of endemic and dental trouble, and the very good work that is being done, most excellent research work, by Dr. Ockerse. Let me tell the hon. member that that very excellent work will be further subsidised. Dr. Brock and others have been doing excellent work, and they will get all the help we can give them. Admittedly the work of Dr. Ockerse has been excellent, and has enabled the department to proceed upon constructive lines, and one of the first of these constructive efforts has been the decision recently taken to establish a health and social welfare unit in the district of Knysna at the Kareedouw settlement there. The dental conditions among the children there are most deplorable. I am told that children of 15 and 16 years have no teeth at all. The Minister of Social Welfare and I have collaborated, and with the assistance of our colleague, the Minister of Finance, we are enabled to start this settlement, where in due course there will be a full-time doctor, dentist and social workers, district nurse, and so on. If that experiment is a success, of which I have no doubt, I certainly hope we shall be able to duplicate that health unit in other parts of the country. I hope what I have said will indicate that the department is alive to the obvious public desire for a forward move in this matter.

[Inaudible.]

I think that is a rather cheap remark.

You have done nothing radical.

There is no doubt that the public conscience is stirred, and not only the medical profession, but the public generally wants more done in the way of public health. I have already indicated that our public health service is out of date. We have to go into the whole question of the relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and local authorities. The Government is now appointing a commission which will go into all these questions, but without waiting for the report of that commission, it is carrying on with this forward policy. It is instituting a new service, carrying out experiments under most difficult circumstances, with numbers of doctors away, and under war conditions. But, despite war conditions, despite all the difficulties, we are spending more than we ever spent before the war, introducing a large number of experiments, and with the goodwill of hon. members and the public, I am perfectly certain that we shall be able to use the time at our disposal to excellent purpose, and that in due course, and before long we shall have a real new deal in public health in South Africa.

Will the Minister tell us if he is going to do something about the water pipes on the Cape Flats?

If the hon. member will give me the details and tell me where this is I shall certainly go into the matter.

The Hon. Minister has given us a very comprehensive exposition of what he and his department are doing to combat tuberculosis in South Africa. He has given us figures to show what is being spent in dealing with this matter. And now I want to revert to a question which was raised on another occasion when the Minister was acting in another capacity, namely that of Minister of the Interior, when he told us that they were doing all they possibly could to combat tuberculosis. My complaint is that people are coming into the country and spreading tuberculosis in this country. It is no use telling us what the Department is doing and how it is combating tuberculosis if simultaneously he, as Minister of Public Health, does not ask himself as Minister of the Interior to take the necessary steps to prevent these people from coming into the country. We have had this instance mentioned of the soldiers who come in. We can leave that alone, because I realise that the Minister and his friends feel so strongly about the war that they want to make a special effort there, but during the past month, during the past year thousands of refugees from all parts of the globe have come into this country. Now I want to know whether he, in his capacity as Minister of Public Health, has asked himself as Minister of the Interior whether the necessary precautionary measures are being taken to ensure that the thousands of refugees who are entering the country are not importing a new sort of infection into South Africa? When the Interior Vote was being discussed this afternoon the Minister differentiated between an immigrant and an ordinary visitor, and I received the impression from him, as Minister of the Interior, that there was a distinction, and that the same precautionary measures were not taken in the case of ordinary visitors as were taken in a case of an immigrant. Is there any differentiation?

No, the same precautionary measures are taken.

Then I perhaps misunderstood the Minister but I received the impression from the Minister of the Interior that there was a distinction made between an immigrant and a visitor. Now I should like the Minister to tell us whether any provisions have been laid down in regard to the entry into South Africa of those thousands of refugees? There is always a danger that if those people are once here, and there are tubercular sufferers among them, it would be very difficult to get rid of them again because the tuberculosis sufferers will want to enjoy the benefit of the South African Sun in South Africa. In regard to the dangers of infection I just want to put another question to the Minister. Patients are being continually sent to Nelspoort. Are any precautionary measures taken in co-operation with the Minister of Railways to see that when such patients travel by train and are put off at Nelspoort the compartments or coupes are sealed up so that no other patients can use them? The Minister will realise that those compartments would be an extremely dangerous source of infection. One may get a patient with tuberculosis who may get out and at the next station young children may get into the same compartment. The Minister knows that young children are particularly susceptible to infection and I want to know whether the necessary precautionary measures are taken in that regard.

I am sorry the Minister did not tell us what his department’s policy is in regard to housing. This is a very important matter. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the clearing of slums in our towns. It appears to me that the Act of 1924 in regard to slum clearance is not being carried out in our towns. After all these years we still have these slums as festering sores in our community. If the Minister were to take a walk about 500 yards from here, if he were to go to St. John’s Street, he would get to the slums, and if he were to go to some of our suburbs where some of our prominent people live, if he were to go to Newlands and Claremont, he would find some of the worst slums in any part of the world there. It seems to me that the Department of Public Health does not pay sufficient attention to the clearing of slums in the towns and that the local authorities, municipalities and so on are not being compelled to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act. Slum landlords are found on the councils of many of our municipalities, and they are the people who oppose the application of the Act. There is part of Maitland, for instance, the property of prominent people in this town, who are slum owners, and they are opposed to the clearance of those slums. I consider that the department should apply the law so that the slums are cleared up. If we should have another epidemic after the war, particularly in view of the fact that practically no new houses are being built, and if we still have these slums in our towns, we shall be faced with a national disaster, and I hope the Minister and his department will give their attention to this very important question.

I am sorry I did not answer the hon. member’s point about housing when I replied before. The position is this, the Government intends carrying on with this housing policy, subeconomic and economic. Funds will again be made available on the loan vote to enable these schemes to be carried out. Where the Government is going slow is in regard to the scheme under the Additional Housing Act, No. 41 of 1937. That is the scheme in terms of which a building owner borrowed money from a building society and the Government advanced a portion. There we are going slow, but in regard to sub-economic housing we are trying to carry on as far as possible as we have done in the past. During the past year it was found possible to divert quite a large sum of money, very nearly a million pounds, from certain of the bigger areas to the platteland areas. Hon. members will realise that in carrying out our housing policy we naturally have to have regard to the exigencies of the building trade, the question of workmen being required for defence purposes and so on. In some of the bigger areas it has been found that schemes will have to be delayed and we have diverted the money to a number of platteland towns, which have been asking for money for a very long time. I can assure hon. members that the question of housing and the operation of the Housing and Slums Act will form a portion of the terms of reference to the National Services Commission. Finally the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has reverted to the question of overseas refugees coming from other countries suffering from tuberculosis. I can give the assurance that we are exercising the strictest control in regard to these persons. When the Government agreed to accept refugees we arranged for the medical examination of the applicants in Egypt and the question of tuberculosis was considered at that time. If there had been any suffering from this disease they would have been ruled out of the scheme. Now, of course, there are refugees arriving from time to time who obviously could not submit themselves to examination before they left. They may have to leave in a hurry and cannot be medically examined before leaving. If they come here, however, and they are included in our refugee or evacuee schemes, they are subjected to medical examination, and if treatment is necessary, that is given them. We would not turn out one who had come here suffering from the disease and say “You are suffering from this or that, and you must go.” But what we do ensure is that that person has proper treatment and that he is not a danger to other members of the community. We are watching that question very carefully.

The hon. the Minister has told us that progress has been made in the combating of venereal disease and he has pointed out that an amount of about £100,180 is being spent for that purpose this year, an increase of £1,200 on the year before. I still contend that the amount to be spent for this purpose is quite inadequate. It is one of the greatest social problems which has to be tackled in a drastic manner so that the evil may be remedied to a certain extent. This question of venereal disease is a subject which is raised year after year in Parliament. I remember that in 1939 the then member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bain-Marais) introduced a motion in this House in regard to venereal disease, and after a long discussion that motion was passed by this House. This is a matter which has been discussed in this House year after year. But so far very little has been done about the matter. In 1939 when the then member for Orange Grove raised the matter he produced evidence to show the increase in the incidence of venereal disease. Among other things he quoted a letter from Dr. Gale which appeared in the South African Medical Journal on the 8th April, 1939. It is a very important letter, throwing a great deal of light on the increase of this terrible disease in South Africa. Dr. Gale says this among other things—