I move the amendment standing in my name as printed on the Order Paper as follows—

1. (3) The Administrator shall not approve of any scheme after the commencement of the said Act in respect of any land which adjoins or is in proximity to land occupied predominantly by persons of a particular race unless he has prescribed as a condition of his approval that no land comprised in such scheme shall be alienated or leased to any person who does not belong to the aforesaid particular race and notwithstanding any contrary provision contained in the Deeds Registries Act 1937 any such condition so prescribed shall be inserted in every deed of transfer conveying the ownership of such land.

I want to explain the amendment and the implications of the amendment and I am hoping that hon. members who represent Durban constituencies will give me their wholehearted support and will endeavour to persuade the Minister to accept this. It is advisable first of all to deal with the clause as it stands. The clause as it stands is acceptable to this side of the House. In this the Minister makes the necessary provision that where a scheme was originally intended for a particular race it will not be alienated to members of another race. Now that is a step in the right direction. The Minister recognises the necessity of preventing the intermingling of Europeans and non-Europeans. And in an effort to prevent that intermingling the Minister moves this amendment which will prevent houses in a particular scheme from being occupied by members of a race for which the scheme was not originally intended. This amendment of mine is merely the logical following of this amendment of the Minister’s. Where he says that present schemes, present houses in housing schemes, will not be alienated to members of another race, I am moving an amendment to provide that no such scheme will be able to be agreed to by the Administrator if that scheme is intended for members of a certain race and which will be in close proximity or adjoining an area where people of another race reside. The reason for this is very simple. It is found that some local authorities build sub-economic houses for, say, coloured people in close proximity to European areas. It has even happened that these schemes for coloured occupation have been built in areas surrounded by areas predominantly occupied by Europeans. It will be noticed that no distinction is made between one race and another. The same provision will apply where you have a predominantly coloured area where no European scheme will be allowed in close proximity to it. So it is applicable to Europeans and non-Europeans alike, and I am sure it will be acceptable to both Europeans and non-Europeans

I trust the Minister will not accept the amendment just proposed. I feel that it is entirely unnecessary and that it would have a very bad effect. I think I am right in saying that it is very unlikely that Municipalities will now contemplate establishing housing schemes for one race in close proximity to areas occupied by another race. Any possibility of that happening has been largely done away with as a result of recent agitations and debates and it is now understood that housing schemes shall be put in areas occupied predominantly by the race for which they are intended. My suggestion to the Minister is rather that we should delete Clause 3 altogether. I suggest that on the strength of the Minister’s own remarks on the second reading of the Bill. I understood the Minister then to say that this clause does not alter the Common Law, and on enquiry I find that that is the case. Under the Common Law it is possible for Municipalities, both to limit housing schemes to particular races, and to introduce into the Deeds of Transfer a clause stating that if they decide to alienate the houses, a limitation of a racial kind shall apply. I understand there is nothing in the present law to prevent a Municipality from establishing housing schemes for occupation by members of a particular race and deciding later to alienate the houses let under that scheme to persons of that race only. If that is the case I see no reason for introducing this clause into this Bill. There is no purpose in legislating for a position which is already covered by the law. I submit it is bad legislation to introduce laws over a field already covered either by implication or by Statute, and if I am right in regard to the facts of this particular case, I trust the Minister will consider the advisability of dropping this clause altogether. I am not moving in that direction at this stage, I want first of all to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). I feel that if we want a good spirit in our country between European and non-European then we must bring about segregation between them, particularly in the sphere of residential quarters. I was surprised to hear from the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that this will create a bad feeling. I do not understand why she should go out of her way in this House to advocate that segregation between European and non-European should not be brought about; why she should look upon it as her duty to be a stumbling-block in the way of any proposal of that nature. One really cannot understand why she should act in that way. She says that we should leave this matter in the hands of the Municipalities. So far as the Municipality of Cape Town is concerned, we feel that we should not be very safe to leave the matter in their hands. We know that at the Municipal Congress at which the question of separate residential areas was discussed, the Cape Town delegates were practically the only exception when they declared themselves against separate residential areas. And to come and tell us now that we in the Western Province, where we have such a large proportion of the coloured population, should leave this matter to the Municipality of Cape Town, and that we could safely leave it in the Minister’s hands—well, from the experience that we have had in the past we cannot do this. We feel that if we have housing schemes into which we put State money we should ensure particularly that there should be no white patches in non-European environments, and vice versa. They should be situated a reasonable distance from one another. If this is not done, then we must accept that here round about Cape Town, where building is being undertaken everywhere, such residential areas will ultimately border on one another, and therefore we feel that we should have the coloureds on one side and the Europeans on another side. If we do that, then we shall be on the right road. It is now said that this cannot be done during the war. Must the war then overshadow everything? One feels that it will not help us to have a republic here in South Africa if it has to be a non-European republic. Nor will it help members on the other side to retain South Africa as a part of the British Empire if it is going to be a non-European part. That is not what members on the other side desire. Here we now have an opportunity of moving in the right direction if we adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. It can do no harm to incorporate that amendment in the Bill. It can only do good; and therefore we plead with the Minister in all seriousness to accept the amendment.

I do not want to get drawn into any controversies about racial issues of this kind, but I would prefer to deal with this matter entirely on its merits. It is part and parcel of the Government’s policy to provide housing accommodation for all sections of the community, for Europeans, Coloureds, Natives and Indians. It has been repeatedly stated by this Government that in eliminating slums and attempting to ameliorate the social conditions among the various sections, one of the best methods of approach is by encouraging local authorities to establish townships where the members of particular racial groups can live together, not under compulsion, but under decent circumstances, under proper housing conditions. That policy has been carried on for several years in this country. A number of townships have been built by local authorities, and striking examples of these townships can be seen at Port Elizabeth and in the environment of Cape Town. Not very far from this House, adjacent to Rondebosch and Landsdowne there are coloured townships such as T.T. Lands and Bokmakirie, and similar housing undertakings. These have taken place quietly without difficulty or friction between the various racial groups. But in laying out these townships, these housing concerns, certain local authorities have in the past inserted in each individual Title Deed to the property a servitude restricting the alienation of leasing to a member of a particular racial group. Under the Common Law it is clear that the right to impose such a servitude vests in any individual, but I understand, on making further enquiries, that such right, which vests in a private owner does not vest in a public body. Our Common Law does not permit public bodies to make such provision, and in that regard I was in error during the second reading, and gave the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) a wrong impression. There I may have misled the hon. member. I understand that public bodies have not the right to impose such conditions on a whole township. The condition must be made in respect of each individual stand. To that extent Clause 3 proposes to alter the Common Law. It has been done in conformity with an undertaking given by the previous Government and reiterated by the present Government when it took office. The previous Government, of which I was a member, and the present Government, stated its policy in regard to housing. In 1939 the Government said this—

There was a statement of policy made on behalf of the previous Government in 1939. In 1940 the Leader of the Opposition introduced a Segregation motion into this House. I replied on behalf of the present Government and intimated that the Government rejected that motion, but on that occasion I reiterated on behalf of the present Government its policy in regard to the non-European community, and I indicated that the present Government accepted this statement of policy. I am now carrying out the undertaking given in 1939, namely, giving the local authorities power to impose these conditions when planning townships, conditions which will enable them to give effect to the spirit underlying the creation of such townships. That is the effect of this section and I hope my hon. friend, the member for Cape Eastern, will realise that, in doing this, one is merely assisting local authorities in the excellent work they have been doing, and which I hope they will continue to do, which the Government will urge them to continue in providing adequate accommodation for all sections of the community. I do feel, therefore, that I cannot withdraw this clause. On the other hand, I do not feel that the Government can accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). If his amendment were accepted it would virtually make the establishment of these schemes impossible. It would cut at the very root of the policy.

Why?

In his amendment it is provided that if a scheme is to be put into effect and that scheme is adjacent to an area occupied predominantly by one racial group then the occupants of the scheme must also be members of that group. If that is carried out it will be impossible to carry out any scheme for Indian housing in Durban. It would mean that schemes like Bokmakirie at Cape Town and other similar schemes would be ruled out—it would cut at the root of this policy and it would affect the interests of both sections of the community.

I hope the Minister will not consider the question of withdrawing Clause 3. When the Bill was before the House on the second reading, I complimented the Minister on having introduced this clause; I went further and I said it was a pity it had not been introduced fifty years ago. If it had been, we would not have had all the bother we have now. I hope the Minister will stick to his guns and even go further and make it retrospective to townships which have already been established for certain classes, and certain races. Why should they not have the privilege of this clause applied to them? With regards to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), while admitting his good intentions, it would be very confusing to have these words: “Any land which is in proximity to land occupied predominantly by persons of a particular race” inserted in the clause. As the Minister has pointed out, it would make it impossible to zone out areas and it would have the effect of making the whole position quite impossible. I do hope the Minister will consider the question of making this clause retrospective to townships already in existence for particular classes and groups, whether they be European, coloured, native or Indian.

The clause does so. The second portion of the clause makes it retrospective.

I really fail to understand why the Minister should object to my amendment, and it is even more strange that the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) should not support the amendment. After all, I would have thought that it was in the interest of the Europeans in Durban—not only in Durban, but in the interest of the Europeans generally. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) objects on the grounds of dis-crimination against non-Europeans only, but there is no mention here of any particular race. It discriminates against Europeans in precisely the same way as against non-Europeans, and I have avoided stating what particular race this amendment is aimed at. It is applicable to all races and I think even the soloured people will object to a European scheme being carried out in immediate proximity to a coloured area or in the middle of a coloured area. The Minister says it is the policy of the Government to separate the races in regard to schemes under the Housing Act. I am afraid it is not the policy of the Government—it is the policy of the Government to allow things to develop — it is the policy of laissez-faire. The Government is not very much concerned about the separation of the races. I have some particulars here about an application by the Durban Municipality. In 1941 the Durban City Council applied to the Minister of the Interior, under Section 11 of the Housing Act, for approval to the acquisition of certain land in the Riverside Area. I want to read the decision of the Housing Board to the Committee in order to illustrate why I consider it was necessary for an amendment such as this to be adopted and included in the Bill. This will also show that it is not the policy of the Government to provide for separate areas for Europeans an non-Europeans. In 1941 the Durban City Council applied to the Minister under Section 11 of the Housing Act for approval to the acquisition of certain land in the Riverside area. The Minister referred this to the Central Housing Board, and on the 4th February, 1942, the Central Housing Board reported to the Minister. And they said this, inter alia — and I should like hon. members for Durban to listen very carefully. They reported: “That most of the inhabitants are Indians living under slum conditions — upon acquisition the Council proposes to set aside the whole of the Riverside area comprising 603 acres of land for European housing.” That was the intention of the Durban Municipal Council. And the Housing Board went on then—

In other words, you have an area there where the worst possible conditions exist. Indians and Europeans are living in slums and they are living cheek by jowl. And then the Board goes on—

And then they say this—

And then the Board adds—

Precisely what I want to prevent in my amendment is suggested by the Housing Board, namely that you should have Asiatic settlements and immediately next to those a European housing scheme. Is that the policy of the Government? It must be, otherwise the Housing Board would not have made the suggestion. As a result, the City Council was advised that the Minister proposed—

The Minister told us that the policy of the Government was to have separate residential areas. Well, this is in direct contradiction to what the Minister told the Committee. The Minister proposed here that a large part of Riverside should be reserved for European housing and the rest to be occupied by Asiatics. That is a contradiction of what the Minister told the Committee. What we desire to prevent is this. Where you have City Councils building housing schemes next to European areas we think it is detrimental to both European and non-Europeans to have the two races contiguous to each other. That is what we want to prevent. We have had such conditions in Johannesburg. The Municipality built the Coronation Township—a coloured sub-economic housing scheme, next to a European township, Crosby. There were strong protests lodged, but nothing happened. The scheme was proceeded with and today you have Coronation Township, a coloured housing township immediately adjoining a European area, Crosby. And that is what I desire to prevent by this amendment. No harm can be done. It is a discrimination against either race—not against one race, and I think it is necessary. If the Minister is sincere in what he tells the House, that he does not desire Europeans and non-Europeans to live in proximity to each other, then I think it is essential that he should reconsider his decision and accept this amendment, which I hope the Committee will give its support to.

I think I should deal at once with the facts of the case stated by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in order that there should be no misconception in this debate, and in order that false trails should not be laid. The hon. member has referred to the proposal of the Durban City Council to undertake a housing scheme at Riverside. I am wondering how the hon. member secured access to the documents of the Central Housing Board.

I got my information from one of the City Councillors.

But the hon. member’s facts are not quite correct. And I think it is advisable that the House should know the true position. The Durban City Council had in years gone by been lamentably slack in regard to the housing needs of all sections of the community, and somewhat belatedly they seemed to wake up to a sense of responsibility. It had been stressed by the Housing Board for a number of years that they should do something about housing. The question of Indian housing was involved. It is, and was, one of the grievances of the Indian community that adequate housing facilities and amenities were not provided for all sections, both for the poorer and the more affluent sections of the Indian community. The Durban City Council proposed certain schemes to the Housing Board in regard to Indians and Europeans in certain parts of the Borough. Among those schemes was one to provide for Europeans in the area known as Riverside which is just across the Umgeni River, and abutts on the new suburb of Durban North. In the course of my negotiations with the City Council and the Indian community on the much vexed penetration question—of which some mention has been made in this House during the last few days—the Indians were constantly pressing the point that the City Council had not provided any housing facilities for them. They asked not merely for houses for the sub-economic element of the Indian community, but for houses of a better type for Indians who could purchase them in areas where proper sanitary, road and lighting amenities could be provided. It was consistently the contention of the Durban City Council that there were no areas available in the Borough of Durban or adjacent to the old Borough suitable for the purpose. I have had long conferences with the City Council and with members of the Natal Indian Association at which this subject was discussed, and the Durban City Council at one of these conferences some two years ago told me emphatically that it was not possible to find land suitable in the Borough of Durban or adjacent to the old Borough—suitable for what the Indians wanted. It was, therefore, somewhat to my astoinishment that a few months after that I found the Durban City Council approaching the Housing Board with a proposal to uproot a large number of Indians who had been living in Riverside for fifty years, to turn them out and replace them by Europeans. That rather negatived the contention of the City Council that there were no areas available.

It was occupied.

Yes, occupied by Indians, admittedly living under slum conditions.

And by Europeans.

Yes, but the Europeans were very much in the minority, and one would have imagined that if the Durban City Council was anxious to make provision for Indians it would have cleaned up that area and constituted it an area for Indian occupation only. But it proposed a scheme to uproot all the Indians and replace them by Europeans.

And you don’t mind uprooting the Europeans?

There are Indians living on both sides. The hon. member says that I do not mind uprooting Europeans. He is a little bit hasty. The gravamen of his charge is that I want a scheme for both Indians and Europeans—and now immediately he turns round and says that I do not mind uprooting the Europeans. Well, if that is so, then surely his latter charge is a direct answer to his former charge. Anyhow, having inspected the area myself, it did not appear practicable to provide for two schemes on the Riverside Estate. There is an artificial boundary line, a line of demarcation, as a result of the road running through to the new Durban Township, and the suggestion of the Housing Board was that we should have the one portion of the Riverside Estate on the one side for Indians, and another portion on the other side of the clear line of demarkation for Europeans. The Housing Board originally suggested that 600 plots should be thrown open to purchase by anyone. I did not like that. I felt that that might lead to purchases by both elements and we would get no further. And, therefore, when submitting the proposals of the Housing Board to the Durban City Council, I amended them to this extent, that 600 plots should be reserved for Indians and the allocation of these plots should be reserved to me, and the remainder should be left to the Europeans. The object clearly was that there should be separate townships.

Did not the Durban City Council agree that there should be 600 plots?

The City Council, I understood, was prepared to agree, but then certain difficulties arose in regard to the actual allocation of the plots. There were a number of religious buildings, mosques etc., on the lower side of the area, on the seaside of the boundary road, and it was quite clear that if that proposal was to be implemented it might lead to considerable hardship and it might lead to hurting the religious susceptibilities of these people. Further negotiations were taking place when the Durban Council announced that it would not go on with the scheme but would deal with the slum conditions under the Housing Act. That is how the position stands but I give these facts to show that it is incorrect to suggest that there was no attempt made to deal with this matter on a proper basis of sorting out the two groups and allowing for their amenities in two different townships. To suggest that no coloured township should be erected unless you have an area of something like five or ten miles between a coloured and a European township is perfectly absurd.

I don’t suggest anything of the kind.

If the hon. member’s suggestion were to be adopted it would be quite impracticable within the confines of the Borough of Durban to provide these townships for Indians or other coloured races. The harm, the danger, the social danger, lies in racial groups living together often in slum conditions, where the standard of living is low, and where there is no opportunity for either group to improve their conditions. Once these groups are sorted out and live in their own areas, I cannot see the danger of this so-called proximity. Surely the hon. member for Fordsburg does not suggest that the European community is so spineless and so vulnerable that when they have respectable members of the Indian or coloured community living nearby, the fact of this proximity will demoralise the European community. These things have happened in the past without any detriment where there has been a proper line of demarcation, and surely these things can happen in the future. We must be practicable, we must be realistic in these matters. I can assure the hon. member that this policy of providing separate accommodation through local authorities is a policy which will be continued, but that policy will be completely nullified, it will be stultified and frustrated, if the amendment proposed is given effect to, and I reiterate that I cannot agree to it.

In connection with this question of separate residential areas, the hon. member is busy trying to sit on two stools. He is aware of the fact that there is a strong feeling on the part of the Europeans that there should be segregation between European and non-European. In addition he knows that a portion of the coloured population is resisting this, and therefore we find that the Minister is not willing to act effectively. The Minister must take into consideration that when we build a European scheme or a coloured scheme today that these schemes will expand as the population increases, and if there are not separate areas then we shall soon find the coloured area bordering on the European area and then we shall have the same old trouble over again. It must of necessity cause us many other difficulties in the future. I want the Minister to realise that we also have to do with communal travelling in buses and trains. If we have areas for Europeans on the one side, and on the other side areas for non-Europeans, then we shall immediately solve this question of communal travelling in trains and buses in a large measure. Those difficulties will be decreased considerably, and it will be easier to solve these difficulties. The Minister should not lose sight of this aspect of the matter. He should not close his eyes to it. He might say that the buses fall under the Municipality, but it is nevertheless his duty to ensure that a stop is put to this communal travelling, and one of the ways in which this can be done is to set aside large areas for coloureds on the one side and large residential areas for the Europeans on the other side. For that reason I cannot see why the Minister is opposed to this amendment, and I want to ask him to reconsider the matter.

I feel that I can with some justification say a few words on this subject of housing. We in Port Elizabeth have made a success of housing both sub-economic and economic. We have built many thousands of houses, both for natives and coloureds, and for poor whites and for the working classes of Europeans. What is more, we have made a success of it. We have had no segregation troubles, we have got a large area to which we have transferred the natives from almost incredible slum conditions, and it is always a pleasure to those of us to take an interest in matters of this kind, that the great majority of these people are rising to the occasion and are making good. They are taking a pride in the better housing conditions which they enjoy, as a result of the efforts of the City Council, and not less as a result of the efforts of the Government for providing the necessary funds at a very cheap rate of interest; many people are inclined to forget the Government’s part in endeavouring to provide sufficient houses for all clases of the community. We have a very large area which we have set aside for the coloureds, and we have had no trouble in getting the coloured people to occupy that area, and they are living there perfectly happily and peacefully. The only trouble we have had with them there is their agitation to get schools and churches, and I am very glad to say that they are obtaining those. We are having a large school built which will satisfy their requirements for some time to come. Now the hon. member for Fordsburg has expressed doubts of the bona fides of the Government on this question of segregation. But to my mind the position is perfectly clear. The Government does believe in separation by, shall we say, persuasion, by arrangement, but it does not believe in compulsory segregation, it does not believe in casting a stigma which will cause resentment in the minds of large numbers of people in our midst—and rightly so. Now, the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has said that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg is not necessary, and I am inclined to agree with her. It is not necessary, and let me say this. We look with suspicion upon any efforts of memers on the other side in endeavouring to amend, and as they say, improve the Bills which are brought forward by the Government, particularly if they in any way relate to the coloured or non-European peoples. Because one always feels that there is an underlying motive and a deliberate attempt to force compulsory segregation upon this country.

You are segregating Europeans—they want both.

I am very much afraid that the hon. member does not follow his argument or my argument to its logical conclusion. Now I have had the privilege of seeing how this thing works. An area is set aside for coloured people. The town grows, and inevitably it approaches the fringes of that area set aside for the coloured people. What are you going to do? Can you arrest development; can you dam it up and say: “You must go this side, and you must go this side.” It is almost inevitable that in growing towns, particularly in coastal towns, the growth will overtake any scheme which is made and adopted by a municipal authority, and the growth of the town will gradually overlap what has been created with a view of meeting the situation. What are you going to do then? Are you going to say: “We are very sorry, you coloured people, the town has grown; the Europeans have overlapped the area which was set aside for you, and we are reluctantly compelled to ask you to move on.” Are we going to do that or are we going to create the conditions for these people to which they are entitled, and continue the growth of the town around them? There is no reason why the two sections should mix socially. There is no reason why there should be any intermingling of our children with the children of the non-Europeans, and there is no reason why these people should not have decent conditions under which to live and rear their children, and if only we carry out this policy on sane and sound lines we can overcome all these difficulties, without any talk of compulsory segregation. Compulsory segregation simply upsets the susceptibilities of these people; it creates more racialism and it does not achieve its object.

The hon. Minister invariably has one line of defence, and he employs that on every conceivable occasion, and that is to accuse other hon. members either of not stating the facts correctly …

Fully.

or of exaggerating, or of carping criticism. That is the only line of defence the hon. Minister has, and I think it should be perfectly clear to the House that that type of defence merely shows his own lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion. The hon. Minister states that my facts are not correct, but in his own speech the hon. Minister confirmed everything that I said. I read a portion of the Housing Board’s report, and the hon. Minister could not deny anything in that. I read the proposal of the hon. Minister to the Durban City Council; that was evidently correct; the hon. Minister took no exception to that, and he even agreed that the only line of demarcation there would be, if his proposals were accepted, the width of a road between the European township and the Indian area on the other side. With that the hon. Minister agreed. First of all he commences by saying that my facts were incorrect, and then he immediately went on to confirm everything I said. The hon. Minister then took refuge in some absurdities. He accused me of wanting to prevent any housing schemes for non-Europeans being built, and he said that what I evidently wanted was a distance of ten miles between the non-European area and the European area. Well, that is absurd. It is so absurd that one is surprised to find an hon. Minister occupying a responsible position, taking refuge in an argument like that. Not one member on this side of the House suggested that there should be a distance of ten miles between the European area and the non-European area. That is not the intention at all. The intention actually is to prevent undesirable contact between the races. That is the intention and the spirit of this amendment. Hon. members on this side of the House are not averse to housing facilities for non-Europeans. We are in perfect agreement that provision should be made for non-Europeans, but what we want to prevent is undesirable contact between Europeans and non-Europeans. But evidently in the liberal policy adopted by the hon. Minister he considers it to be in the interests of the spiritual well-being of the Europeans, that they should reside on one side of the street while the non-Europeans reside on the other side of the street. Anything in the nature of compulsory segregation would be a stigma on the non-Europeans and that should not be entertained. I do not know what the environment of the hon. Minister was in the past, whether he actually experienced conditions such as these, whether he has ever lived in close proximity to non-Europeans and whether he found it to be in the interests of his spiritual well-being. That may very well be the case. I want to tell the hon. Minister this, that if he considers it to be a stigma on the non-Europeans to be separated from the Europeans, then we will be perfectly prepared to have the Europeans segregated. I do not think the Europeans will take any exception to segregation. But I am perfectly convinced that the objection of the hon. Minister to this amendment is really that they have not the slightest intention of carrying out the policy that was enunciated by the previous Government some years ago, namely, that everything possible will be done to segregate the Europeans and non-Europeans. While the hon. Minister and his party are dependent on the coloured vote, and in view of the trouble they are having with the coloured people as a result of another measure, I am sure that they will not provide separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—40:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—59:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a third time on 1st April.

I shall be glad if we can have the attention of the Minister in connection with the appointment of District Surgeons. I am glad to be able to say that we have made progress in this connection in the past few years. There was a period in the past when a magisterial district had only one District Surgeon, and in many cases he was only a part-time official. Even before I became a member of Parliament I concerned myself with getting magisterial districts divided into smaller divisions and that in each division a full-time District Surgeon should be appointed if necessary. We have progressed in that respect. But I want to bring to the attention of the Minister that even this progress is not yet adequate. A district such as Waterberg, for instance, is a very extensive district; it covers between 6,000 and 7,000 square miles. It is not a level district such as the districts one finds in the Free State, but it is intersected by mountain chains and valleys. If one has a level district, then a District Surgeon can sometimes serve a great area. But in a district such as Waterberg this is impossible owing to the topographical nature of the district. As the Minister knows, we have a District Surgeon and an assistant District Surgeon at Nylstroom. Further down in the Bushveld there is a part-time District Surgeon. The area that is served by the two District Surgeons in Nylstroom is so extensive, and as a result of the topographical nature of the country it is so difficult to cope with the district, that those District Surgeons simply cannot do justice to the population which they have to serve. In addition there is the further fact that the population has increased enormously during the past few years. People have moved into the area from far and near. They have bought and occupied land there and they have established themselves there. The needs have thus become much greater than they were before. I know that the magistrate discussed the matter with me, and that he has addressed representations to the Minister. I do not know if those representations have already received the attention of the Minister, but I know that the magistrate directed representations to the Secretary for Public Health. The Minister’s department has therefore already received the representations, and I want to ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the proposal of the magistrate, who takes this matter to heart. It comes down to this, that apart from the two District Surgeons there are, a part-time District Surgeon has still to be appointed in the Northern portion of the District, in the vicinity of Vaalwater or Sanddrif.

Is there anyone available in that area?

No, there is nobody available there. That area is without a doctor.

Without any doctor?

Yes, except that the District Surgeon of Nylstroom has to go there. But in view of the geographical nature of the area, Vaalwater or Sanddrif would be a central point for a District Surgeon. If the District Surgeon cannot be accommodated at Vaalwater, then proper accommodation will be available at Sanddrif. It is a few miles from there, and it is also a place that has been earmarked for a big central school. If this is done, then a large part of the area of the District Surgeon of Nylstroom can be added to that area. A large part of Potgietersrust is now served by the District Surgeon of Nylstroom — in the Naboomspruit area. Then it is also an area in which malaria often prevails seriously, and for that reason also better medical facilities should be available. I need not dilate on the subject. The Department of Public Health has received a report from the magistrate at Nylstroom, and I want to ask the Minister to pay very thorough attention to the report of the magistrate, and to accede to the demand if it is in any way possible. Then there is another matter. At Nylstroom we have the District Surgeon, and the assistant District Surgeon. The assistant District Surgeon is on a temporary basis, and I have already directed representations to the Minister in connection with this matter. I understand that they do not appoint permanent assistant District Surgeons at this stage, apparently because they want to give doctors in the army a chance to apply for these posts when they are demobilised from the army some day. Is that fair? The Department of Public Health is surely not there to provide a post for this doctor or that. The duty of the Department of Public Health is to care for the health of the people and not to hold work in reserve for certain persons. There is not the least danger that the people who are in the army today will not be able to make a living in South Africa. There is an enormous need for more doctors in South Africa, and there is thus not the least justification for the Minister’s action in holding open posts for doctors who will be dismissed from the army later. The Minister’s duty relates to health in the first place. If he puts that number one, then he must see to it that persons are appointed at places such as Nylstroom who have the work at heart. This temporary assistant District Surgeon is a man who has his work at heart. He did not concentrate on a private practice but only on his services as District Surgeon in order to extend assistance to the poor people. He has a heart for the cause, but the Minister does not want to appoint him permanently because the Minister says that he cannot do so now in view of the fact that he wants to give doctors who are dismissed from the army or who will be dismissed from the army in future a chance to apply for this post. That is not the way to deal with the interests and the health of the population. The Minister is not there to hold open a position for this person or that. Does he really expect that a man who really takes an interest in his profession and who really takes an interest in work of this nature — can he expect to obtain suitable people to do work such as this on a temporary basis for four, five or six years? I take it that the Minister is not particularly hopeful of the war ending soon. Just imagine, the permanent appointment of an assistant District Surgeon such as this is postponed indefinitely. He is kept on a string, and he does not know if he will get the appointment one day. Can the Minister expect any person worth his salt to continue this work under those circumstances year after year without making some other plan? Can the Minister reasonably expect this? No, he cannot. I therefore want to ask the Minister to reconsider this policy of the Government. If he has a good man such as the one he had at Nylstroom, who is prepared to go on with the work and who takes an interest in the work, then let the Minister appoint him permanently so that he can continue the work in which he is interested. The Minister cannot expect a good man to remain on a loose footing. If such a person goes away or leaves the service then the Minister has to appoint someone else in his place temporarily, and after a year or two that man also departs. So it goes on. In that way we can get no consistency in the work of the Department of Public Health — no consistency so far as the medical side of Public Health is concerned. On the contrary, we shall thereby cause the greatest chaos. For this reason I want to ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to the permanent appointment of these people. He need have no fear that the doctors in the army will be unable to make a living after the war. There is more than sufficient work for the doctors we have in South Africa. If he looks at the numbers of medical students in our Universities, and the cry that is going up: Give us more doctors, then the Minister need entertain no fear that those people who are dismissed from the army will not have sufficient work to make a living.

There is one matter which I want to put before the hon. Minister. I forgot to do it yesterday. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) is not the only hon. member in this House who felt last year that the appointment of a Public Health Commission was not a necessary preliminary to the revision of our public health services. But the hon. Minister appointed a commission, and from all appearances the country is taking the work of that commission very seriously, and doing its best to assist in a comprehensive review of our health services, on which we may lay the foundation of an efficient health service for this country. Now, sir, in the past the practice of publishing the evidence before commissions has gone by the board, perhaps quite justifiably; the cost of publishing large volumes of evidence, much of it not very relevant, was probably prohibitive and unjustified; but I think there has never been a commission before which so much careful and authoritative evidence has been presented, as is being presented to this commission, and it has struck me recently that it would be a great pity if this evidence, or portions of it at any rate, is not put before the public with the report of the commission. I therefore want to suggest to the hon. Minister that he should put it before the commission that they should plan to link with their report at least the memoranda that are being presented to the commission. I think that would be of the very greatest value to the public. We are not planning, I hope to have another commission of this size any time in the near future. We are all assuming that this commission is going to do all the work that is necessary for laying the foundation of all public health services for the next two or three generations to come. In the circumstances I feel that it would be of immense value to the public, who are going to subscribe both financially and by consent to the establishment of the services we are planning, to be able to see the foundation on which future policy is to be shaped. I hope the hon. Minister will consider this proposition and advise the commission accordingly.

Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) put a question to the hon. Minister in this form: Could he make a statement on what the Government’s policy was in providing cheaper food for the poorer people of this country, and to my surprise and amazement the hon. member waxed very eloquent in charging the Government with exporting food to the detriment of the welfare of the poorer people of this country. I do not know whether the hon. member was led away possibly by the picture that he saw last Saturday morning of food supplies being loaded in a transport ship, without knowing where that transport ship was taking the food, and it might be necessary on my part to remind the hon. member that there is a war on. We have nearly 200,000 of our troops to be fed and clothed, and a large number of them are outside the Union, and it is necessary to transport food for their maintenance. May I say that it is not only necessary for us to supply them with the necessary food, but it is necessary for us to supply them with the necessary food from our own country, and in many cases possibly from the very farm which these boys left to go up North and to Madagascar. When the hon. member comes forward and charges the Government with exporting food under these conditions, I say that it is a most amazing statement to make. I hope that the hon. member will give us an explanation of his attitude and of the statements that he made in that connection. I would not like it to be felt in the country that any member sitting on this side of the House is opposed to the feeding of our gallant boys up North, because as I understand the position, that is the only export of food that is taking place; and may I remind the hon. member that the Minister interjected when he made that statement, and drew his attention to the fact that the people of the Union are today eating brown bread instead of white bread, and the people are quite prepared to do that in order that our boys up North can get the necessary white flour. I want the hon. member to have the courage of his convictions and to practice what he preaches, and I want to tell him this as a food producer, to follow the example of a certain gentleman known in Cape Town as Mr. Dorfman, and if the hon. member will do that as a producer and distribute his produce in the same way Mr. Dorfman is doing it, the poorer people in this country would benefit very much by his action. I commend this to him.

We have heard from the Minister what he intends doing or leaving undone in connection with housing, but the fact remains that there has never been such a scarcity of houses in our country as today. Only a few days ago we saw in the Press how Europeans live together with coloureds. In places such as Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town there is not a shortage of a few houses, but of thousands of houses. What is the reason for this sudden great shortage? One of the reasons is, of course, that many refugees have come into the country, but even the Department of Public Health tells us in respect of this shortage of houses that although there have been no changes in the State’s general housing policy, it has become necessary to expedite housing programmes, but that the defence building programme, that had to be expeditiously executed, had as a result that the progress of housing in general was delayed. There is a war in progress with which we on this side do not agree, but if building material in our country had been used only for the requirements for the Union, one would still have been able to understand it, but while there are thousands of our people without houses the Government has gone ahead on a great scale with its building programme for the British military authorities. Thousands and thousands of pounds have been spent to build hospitals and other buildings for them, and it makes one feel disgruntled. One would have thought that if our Government had to build hospitals and camps for the British Government, then there should have been a condition that Britain would supply the materials, since we have no material for the building of houses in our own country. I am glad that the Minister has said that the two most important things for public health are sound nutrition and good housing, but the difference between the Minister and ourselves is that we realise that it is a duty the State must undertake, to provide adequate housing for the population, just as it is the duty of the State to provide people with employment. As the position is today, it is impossible to provide sufficient houses, because the Government evades its duties and shifts the responsibility on to the municipalities, utility companies, the Reddingsdaadbond, or other charitable institutions. The Government evades its responsibility, and shifts it on to other bodies. Now the Government comes and tells us what sums have been spent on housing. Under the sub-economic housing schemes an amount of more than £11,000,000 has already been spent, and of that more than £8,000,000 has been spent on behalf of non-Europeans and only a little more than £2,000,000 on Europeans. The sub-economic housing schemes are undertaken mostly in the big cities, and it appears from the figures that the big cities are most concerned about the non-Europeans. Take the number of houses that have been completed, that are in the course of construction, or that have not yet been approved, and then one gets a total of 32,000 houses of which more than 28,000 are for non-Europeans and a little more than 3,000 are for Europeans. The big cities, therefore, look after the non-Europeans. It avails us nothing to put the responsibility on the municipalities because the Europeans are not assisted by the municipalities. The Minister and other hon. members have argued that the municipalities should be compelled to provide housing schemes. But if one evades one’s own work, then it does not help to enforce that work on others. The smaller places and towns cannot be forced, because they are not able to undertake schemes; they are too poor to do this, for when it comes to sub-economic housing the towns must bear the responsibility for a portion of the loss. If they undertake a scheme that costs £1,000, then they must bear the loss of £12 10s., and the smaller towns cannot do this. You cannot draw blood from a stone. Therefore we cannot pass off the responsibility on other bodies such as municipalities and utility companies, or the Reddingsdaadbond. It is the Government’s duty to ensure that the people are properly housed. Building material is scarce at the moment. I must honestly say that it appears to me as if the Central Housing Board is not very anxious to assist the people, or to step into the breach for the Government and to help the matter along. A few days ago there was a report in the Press about the Monica Home at Mowbray, which was completed in December, 1941. In November, 1942, they withdrew certain things at the request of the Central Housing Board, because the building contractors had not been completely paid out and still had to receive £471. They say that to this day they have received no reply from the Central Housing Board in this connection. Another case is that of Sorgvliet. Artisans were called for in August of last year, and in February of this year they received a letter dated 22nd January, in which they were asked if the position was still the same now as before. This was also a scheme that was to have been undertaken by a utility company. If you write a letter and you get the reply only six months afterwards, then the whole thing strikes one as very tragic. Here we have people who want to undertake the work of the State, and only after months and months do they get a reply from the department concerned.

I know nothing about the case; but why was the complaint not directed to me?

But we have a special Housing Board. Surely the people ought to have an earlier reply.

I quite agree.

This procrastination makes things impossible. [Time limit.]

There is a matter under the head of pathological laboratories that I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is in connection with the supply of sera and vaccines to the public. I wonder whether the Minister would not be prepared to take this matter into consideration. I believe that the position is that sera can be obtained free of charge in the various institutions, but where they are supplied to a medical practitioner for one of his patients, then these sera have to be paid for. I am thinking particularly now of the case of anti-diphtheria serum. This is a fairly expensive serum. You need quite a number of injections before the patient is cured. When this serum is supplied through an ordinary medical practitioner the charges are fairly high, and I think that as this is a serum which is necessary for public health generally, the Minister should consider the advisability of providing this serum free. There is one other point in connection with this matter which I have not been able to verify, but I understand that the anti-diphtheria serum can be obtained in Cape Town through Lennon Limited at a cheaper price than it is supplied by the Institute of Medical Research, Johannesburg.

I rise partly in the interests of unity, good order and discipline in the ranks of the Government party in the House, and in defence of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) against the savage attack made upon him by his half-section, of Langlaagte. I also was very interested in what I might describe as the passionately eloquent speech of the said hon. member for East Griqualand, and give him credit for what I believe to be sincerity. But what he chiefly said, I submit to you, sir, was that hundreds of thousands of the people of our country were unable to pay even for bread and butter—their spending power was so low that they were unable to pay to the farmer even the cost of production for the food products necessary for a decent standard of existence. He was pleading the cause of hundreds of thousands of submerged people, and I shall give him credit for making a good Labour Party speech. That is the sort of speech we have made in this House hundreds of times. Well, sir, although he made a good speech, in good Labour Party fashion, he did not show the meticulous accuracy that we always try to display on these benches, and at the same time he was illogical in letting loose his overwhelming barrage solely on the Minister of Public Health, who, I am sure, would deprecate that position as much as anyone in the country. The Minister has a very kind face and a very charming smile, but even such attractive attributes as these do not help him greatly in this respect. He has to deal, we must in fairness admit, with the social and economic conditions as he finds them. He has to deal with things as they exist. That these economic conditions are disgraceful we have asserted from time to time and we continue to assert so. Nevertheless, that is a burden the Cabinet as a whole must shoulder, and to call upon the Minister of Public Health for a complete policy to enable all the people in this country to get adequate food and other supplies, under present arrangements, is not quite cricket. I think if the hon. member for East Griqualand felt so keen on this subject, he might have joined the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and myself in our gentle suggestion to the members of the Public Service Commission that they should look with sympathy on the very lowly paid junior members of the Civil Service in the Public Departments. I am surprised the hon. member did not do so; I hope he will be prepared to join with us in the attempt to instil pity into the tender heart of the Minister of Railways with regard to the 28,000 coloured labourers whom he has on his Railways, who cannot pay to the farmer the cost price of his products, because they get a wage of only about £5 per month. And I hope the hon. member for East Griqualand will have it out with the Minister of Finance who, by the simple process of accepting the Labour Party’s social security plan, could have prevented all this trouble, or at least put us on a basis by which, as the years pass, these troubles would decrease and ultimately disappear.

May I ask the hon. member to get back to the Vote.

Yes, sir, if I have left it, I will. I was enjoying myself very much where I was, wherever it was; but I shall come back at your call. May I give you the assurance that when the country does adopt the right attitude and puts a Labour Government in power in South Africa, there will be no trouble of this kind at all. I am sure that will be a great comfort to a number of people, especially those who do not get enough to eat; to know that we shall ensure that every worker is paid sufficient for his labour to be able to buy for himself and his family, at a fair price, the necessaries of life. If I must more explicitly deal with the Vote, may I come to a couple of questions which I think may be raised on it. They are not unimportant. I have a lady in my constituency who is doing very good work as a nursing sister, in assisting the medical profession with regard to the healing of varicose veins, and in the course of her practice she has need of elastic stockings and they are prohibited, I understand, from importation.

You should apply to the Rubber Controller, not to me.

Does this particular controller not fall under your power?

Is he not the Minister for Varicose Veins?

There is a controller for everything, so far as I can see. Most probably a controller for lipsticks and chewing-gum, and what not? There must be at least one in the hon. Minister’s Department. I hope that steps will be taken to allow the importation of medical requisites of this type. The other request I would make has to do with those excellent powders, liquids and things with which sufferers wage war on predatory small animals and insects of unpleasant habits. I do not say these are more numerous in my neighbourhood than in any other. They occur, apparently, almost everywhere! In Europe, I believe, a certain Mr. Keating achieved fame for pioneer work of this description, of a very valuable kind. A favourite specific in Natal is “Common Sense”, a commodity which deals faithfully with cockroaches and the like. There is unhappily a considerable shortage of this ammunition at the moment, owing to the low priority rate which prohibits its importation into the Union. I put it to the hon. Minister that this has a direct bearing on the general health of the country, and ask for his sympathetic consideration of the difficulties of the importers. Prevention is very much better than cure.

On the subject of public health, we have always taken up the standpoint that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the entire population should be and should remain healthy, and I am very thankful that the Minister announced yesterday that the Commission that is conducting an enquiry into medical services and health conditions, has made good progress with their work. But I am afraid that it will still be very long before the Commission will issue its report. In the meantime thousands and thousands of people are suffering under the prevailing conditions. The medical profession has greatly degenerated. Many members of the medical profession have made of that profession simply a lucrative affair to exact money from poor people. It is unpatriotic and un-Christian, whoever does this. I am pleading for the less privileged members of the community. We go out from the standpoint that the State is the father of the national family, and that the State must ensure that every child of the family is kept healthy. There are, for instance, the less privileged members of the public service, youths and girls who must exist on £10 or £12 a month, but who cannot get free medical treatment. They must pay in full. I want to mention one case. A girl who earns £12 per month had to undergo a mastoid operation that cost £60, which she had to pay. How does the Minister of Public Health feel, and how does his Department and the Government feel, when there are such conditions? Can they sleep in peace and be satisfied while such conditions exist? Here you have a girl out of a poor family who has to pay this enormous sum for an operation. Will the Government not have mercy on the low-paid members of the community, on all those who receive small salaries, so that when they have to undergo such operations, the Government will help them? We know that there is a movement afoot for the institution of a State medical service. We are heart and soul in favour of it, but in the meantime the grass is growing under our feet. Thousands of our fellow human beings are afraid to go to a doctor because they fear the accounts that they will have to pay. I hope the Minister will meet those people with small salaries.

It is very pleasant to see the House at its best for a change on this Vote. Constructive criticism has been delivered, and advice has been given that is calculated to promote the important matters under discussion. Permit me to say to the Minister that we observed with gratitude the laudable undertakings of this Government and of previous governments in recent years in connection with the housing of the population, and that these services have been placed on a very much sounder and better footing than ever before. We know that circumstances today are very difficult when it comes to doing what the Government or the Minister desire to do in the sphere of housing, but nevertheless it gives no cause for gratitude that serious attempts are being made to put the very important question of public health and housing on a sound footing in so far as circumstances will permit. I am also grateful to know that under the difficult circumstances which prevail today, much is being done in connection with nutrition, and in creating a healthy community in this connection. But notwithstanding the fact that we are doing all in our power in connection with housing and better feeding, the need still exists for better education as to the living conditions of our population. I think that we still lag behind as regards the education of our people in respect of a healthier mode of life; how to live more healthily than is the case today among many sections of the population. All our housing and nutrition will help nothing if the people are not taught how to live more healthily. What I mean is this: Let us teach our children in the schools the hygienic principles of life, let our children be taught the necessity for hygiene, the necessity for more airiness in the homes and bedrooms, sound physical exercises, etc., so that they can also learn the value of sunshine, of fresh air, of a regular bath, and let us also make the necessary provision, wherever possible for such conveniences. Let us teach our children to equip and to harden their bodies against the elements. We train our soldiers and equip them physically to withstand the difficult circumstances under which they have to live. Let us do the same for our population and particularly for the children, and let us equip them and harden them physically. In this way we shall avoid many of the diseases to which a weak body is subject. To my mind the more dangerous diseases originate from colds and influenza and other less serious diseases. Let me mention one example. Take the person who takes a regular shower in the summer and who gets used to it. When he has got used to it then he is able to go on with it throughout the cold winter, with the result that his body becomes so hardened that it is not susceptible to any cold or the consequences of a cold. Such a person will go through the winter without influenza, while another person who does not do this will be subject to colds and influenza. Too many of our people still live in unhealthy, stuffy and congested homes. Where, sufficient clothing for the necessary warmth lacks among the poor people, they seek warmth by making their homes air-tight, and on account of this the necessary fresh air does not penerate to the bedrooms. Our climate is a moderate climate. We have not the extreme climatic conditions which prevail in other countries, and I feel that the lack of air in bedrooms lies at the root of many of the evils that we can list under bad health. Since we do not have the extreme climatic conditions, we can do much more to admit fresh air into our homes, and particularly into our bedrooms. Here I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. Cannot we get standardised automatic airing for our homes? We have this in connection with machinery and in factories, where provision is made for the contraction and expansion of air admitted into the buildings in accordance with whether the building becomes warmer or cooler, and I want to suggest that the matter be investigated, for I feel that along this way the airing of houses can be promoted. I do not say that this is always the case, but in many cases, particularly among the poorer section of the population, the people suffer from a lack of fresh air in houses and particularly bedrooms. I also want to plead today for the provision of better accommodation facilities on the platteland. We see that a lot is being done for the provision of better housing in the towns and cities, but very little is being done to provide better housing on the platteland.

Are you now speaking of the towns?

Of the farms. The towns make the necessary provision wherever they can under the facilities made available by the Government, but on the platteland on the farms there are many farmers who are poor and heavily burdened and who are not in the position to make the necessary financial arrangements for more convenient and better arranged residences, and I would like the Minister to consider that matter seriously. Is it not possible to provide better facilities as regards housing on the farms? The housing of our coloured population on the platteland also leaves much to be desired. My time does not permit me to go into the matter comprehensively, but it is a well-known fact that coloureds crowd in numbers into small bedrooms, and that they shut out all air. They do this, even if it is not necessary for warmth, because it is a habit with them. There should be an investigation to see if automatic airing of a standard type cannot be introduced. The spread of tuberculosis is aggravated greatly by these conditions. In our land of sunshine, in our sparsely populated country, we should not have had as much tuberculosis as we actually have. People come from other parts of the world to recuperate in South Africa, and we notice how tuberculosis is increasing disquietingly, particularly among the coloureds. We dare not sit still. Our coloured population are dying out from tuberculosis, and we should grapple with the problem without delay. We know that there are not sufficient hospital facilities for the treatment of tuberculosis patients, and that there are not enough nursing institutions. The Divisional Council are sitting with their hands in their hair and can do nothing. On the platteland they are the responsible bodies which must act in connection with tuberculosis, but they are not in a position to do so on account of lack of the necessary funds. [Time limit.]

There is only one matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice—it is a matter to which I think the Department has given very little attention. I am referring to the dental services provided in this country. The Minister last year said that this year’s report specially referred to the disease which we found in the North Western districts in consequence of deficiencies of certain properties in water, and I very keenly looked forward to this year’s report to see what his Department had done to improve the position. I find that there is only one official, one dentist, for the whole country, to attend to this matter, and there are other parts of the country as well as the North West where this particular disease is found, and I should like the Minister to give the matter his attention. We who travel through this country find that children of 8, 9 and 10 years of age, are affected. Children who are otherwise in good health have badly worn teeth, and broken teeth, and by the time they are 18 or 19 years of age those children get into conditions of bad health as a result of the state of their teeth. Now there is another matter I wish to refer to, and that is the facilities in existence for the training of chemists. The Minister should give the matter his attention. There is a tendency among chemists to form large companies and one finds today that the number of chemist apprentices is becoming smaller and smaller. In our Afrikaans medium schools, in Cape Town particularly, one finds that there are any number of children who are anxious to take up the vocation of a chemist but there are no facilities for them, because the large companies like Lennon’s, Heynes Mathew’s and others, don’t take the slightest interest in the training of people for their profession. There is a shortage of chemists in this country, and it is felt that there is a clique controlling the whole business, a clique which aims at keeping out a certain class of student, or apprentices. I have a letter here in connection with this matter. Many parents approach one and tell one that their children would like to become pharmacists, but that they cannot get anybody to give those children a start. We notice that there is a great shortage. Last year according to the annual report only 86 chemists were registered. I should like the Minister to consult the Pharmacy Council and see whether steps cannot be taken to provide facilities for the employment of more apprentices in the profession. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) raised the question of district surgeons, and I in turn want to emphasise the necessity of the appointment of additional district nurses, especially in those areas where there are large settlements and where the State should see to it that there are properly trained district nurses. It takes us a long time occasionally before we are able to get a doctor, especially in the North West along the Groot River where there is a large settlement of people, and it is essential wherever there are district surgeons that the Department should see to it that there are also nurses to assist, especially in the North West where the people live so far away from each other. The Minister should make a point of seeing to it that wherever a district surgeon is appointed district nurses are also appointed.

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

I am in favour of it that the hon. Minister should appoint more district surgeons. I am also in favour of the appointment of many more district nurses, particularly on the Platteland, but I differ widely from the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) where he asked the Minister to make those appointments of district surgeons permanent. I do not think that the hon. member will in that respect get the support even of the district surgeons who remain at home. I do not think that that profession and those who have remained behind want to derive benefit from the fact that a large number of their colleagues are serving in the army today. I think that if the hon. member consults the doctors he will find out that even they are opposed to permanent appointments. Let the Minister make as many appointments as he can; there I agree with the hon. member.

What is your objection?

I think the hon. member will find that their ethics stand as high as the ethics of any other profession in the world.

Their ethics lay down that they must keep the people healthy.

Yes, and precisely for that reason none of the district surgeons will object to serving the cause of national health by accepting a temporary appointment and not claiming a permanent appointment. They do not want to derive advantage from the fact that their colleagues serve in the army today. If the hon. member will take the trouble to consult the doctors they will be the first to say to him that they do not want to be appointed on a permanent basis, because it will mean this, that they derive advantage from the fact that their colleagues are on active service. Then I want to add that this House and the country owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the doctors who have remained in the country as well as to those who serve the army. I have had the unfortunate, or fortunate, privilege recently of going through their hands, and let me tell you that the country today has no idea of what is being done in the medical world to save the life of even one person, of one soldier. I want to take this opportunity of paying them the highest tribute for the work they are doing. I say that the country owes a great debt of gratitude to the doctors who have remained in the country, as well as to those who are serving in the army, for we find that the doctors who remain at home are today busy doing the work of two doctors; they do the work of two men to enable their colleagues to serve in the army. They have gone out of their way to render good services to the country. The hon. member said that the doctors must work in the interest of public health. There is another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, namely the question of malaria. My constituency has no malaria, but I think it is known throughout the country that the medical profession has done a great deal also in that direction to combat that disease. But I think that there is another practical way in which one can be of assistance to the public in the malaria areas of the Union, as also to the doctors, namely that a quantity of quinine should be available in the different areas of the country, even if it is with Platteland farmers, so that the doctors can have the assurance that they will be able to obtain that quinine when and where they require it. I think that the doctors of the malaria districts of South Africa will agree that one of their difficulties is to obtain that remedy at all times, and the means I suggest is one of the means in which this can be done. I would like to recommend that to the hon. Minister, and I want to say to him that where the remedies were proved to be effective in the past it was precisely where one had the remedies at hand and could apply them before the disease developed too far.

I would like to identify myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) in connection with the question of the permanent appointment of district surgeons while the war continues, and I hope that this is a policy that will be applied not only by the Minister of Public Health but in every branch of our Public Service, namely not to appoint persons permanently while the war lasts, while there are persons of the same profession on active service. As regards part-time district surgeons, I hope that the Minister will prescribe the law more closely. It often happens in the small towns that we have only one doctor and he has to do all sorts of work, and as a result of that, and perhaps because he is sometimes—I want to say immediately that there are few such cases—out more for the purpose of making money than of serving the public, and the public suffers under this. I say that there are very few such cases, but unfortunately there are still such cases, and I therefore feel that their activities should be more closely prescribed. The poor section of the population, mostly coloureds, are overtaken by sickness, and I know of cases where the doctor has absolutely refused to treat such cases before he is paid for the work he is called upon to do. I think it is not only objectionable but reprehensible. It is said that a person can go to the magistrate, and that the magistrate will then issue an order for the treatment of such a case. I want to tell the House that coloureds in the town in my constituency have come to coloureds on my farm to ask them for half-a-crown to enable them to pay the doctor for the treatment of their children. I say this is not right, and that the State ought to intervene in such cases. If one goes about the Platteland today one sees an improved state of affairs as regards housing everywhere among our less-privileged labourers. There are landowners whose housing has been improved as the result of the subsidy which they received. I hope that when the appointed time arrives to return to the operation of this scheme that it will be applicable not only to the European occupiers or bywoners, but also to the coloured population. It is not necessary for me to emphasise that where one has improved housing it must of necessity bring about improved health, and I want to urge strongly upon the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

On a previous occasion in this House I have drawn the attention of the Minister to the necessity for better hospital provision for tuberculosis sufferers in the Riversdale district, and in the south-western districts generally. The matter has also been brought to the attention of the Minister through the medium of a deputation. I would very much like to know from the Minister if he would give his serious attention to it.

I shall do so later.

I shall be more glad still if the Minister not only gives his serious attention to this matter but if, after he has considered it, he will also see his way clear to provide for this urgent need. But then there is another matter that I also consider of urgent importance, and it is the following: It is the necessity that exists for demolishing tuberculosis-infected houses. I do not know if the disinfection of such buildings can be effective. I want to know from the Minister whether it would not be advisable to make the demolition of such buildings compulsory. The Minister knows that there are houses infected by tuberculosis. We have had cases in such houses where persons have died of tuberculosis; the survivors remained in the house; they showed no symptoms of tuberculosis, and yet they contracted the disease later as a result of the infection that remained in the house.

Tuberculosis is a notifiable disease.

Has provision been made for the compulsory demolition of an infected house?

Yes, it is notifiable.

I am glad to hear that. It is one of the things which in my opinion is absolutely essential. Then I want to say something in connection with housing generally. When we speak about housing we are inclined to think only of the bad housing conditions in the urban areas. In the Platteland and on the farms there is a great need for better housing for both national elements, whites as well as coloured, and I want to ask the Minister to extend these sub-economic housing schemes in such a way that they can be made applicable also to the Platteland and to the farms. There is really a great need for this. A farmer has a house on his farm for a share-worker, a bywoner or a share-sower. Those people do not occupy the house for ever. They change their abodes. Perhaps they were sick in it. Perhaps they suffered from infectious diseases. The house is perhaps disinfected against tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, but we find that these are not effective measures. The demolition of one house and the erection of another house is perhaps absolutely necessary and desirable. If this happens today it must happen at the expense of the owner himself. I want the Minister to give his attention to the matter and to make it possible for the owner of the farm himself to build a house in some way or other for those who are employed on his farm. An effective plan must be formulated for the provision of houses for Europeans and coloureds who are employed on the farms. I think there is a great need for this. Then there is one particular case that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the position in the little town of Barrydale. It is a little town in the Little Karroo and is situated between two mountain chains. There are perhaps people who will ask why there should be a little town there.

It is a pretty little town.

It is a pretty little town and a fertile little place. The Minister of Public Health probably knows that there are no medical services available to the public there at the moment. There was an assistant district surgeon, but he preferred to go to South-West Africa because he could make a better living there. Then use was made of a missionary who, I think, also had a medical certificate, and who had been employed in the Sudan. But he decided to go back to the Sudan. At the moment there is no assistant district surgeon and also no district nurse. The nearest doctor is 30 miles away, namely in Swellendam or Heidelberg. It costs the people £12 every time they call a doctor to Barrydale.

Is there no doctor?

No, there is no doctor and also no district nurse. The allowance of the district surgeon in Barrydale — I must express my gratitude for it — has been gradually increased from £75 to £150. But it seems that £150 in that special case is inadequate. Those persons have found that they cannot come out on it, and they have gone away. I want to ask the Minister to consider this case as an exceptional one and to increase the allowance of the district surgeon to at least £300. Then the Minister will perhaps encourage those people to remain there. Then I come to the question of a district nurse. I do not know if those people know precisely how they must set about obtaining a district nurse, and I shall be glad if the Department of Public Health will inform then on the subject. The predikant is the leader both in the spiritual and the social spheres, and it will be a good thing if the department can inform him on how he can set to work through the establishment of a charitable association to be able to apply for a district nurse. This can perhaps help temporarily. I feel that a great need really exists there. There are quite a number of people who have no medical services available. If they are wealthy enough to pay £12 to a doctor for a visit then they can summon a doctor from Swellendam or Heidelberg, but the poor people cannot do this. I shall be glad if the Minister can make provision for this need, and if he will see to it that some measure of medical service is made available to the people in that neighbourhood.

During the course of the debate this morning certain new points have been raised, and I wish to deal with them now. One of the subjects touched on by many speakers is the question of district surgeons. The last speaker has made an appeal in regard to the position at Barrydale. Before dealing with the general question of district surgeons, I would like to say to hon. members that I hope they appreciate that many of these individual matters they have raised are not so much matters of principle but of administration. Quite obviously it is impossible for a Minister of Public Health or the Head of the Department to deal with these matters unless they are brought to their personal notice. I do not regret that hon. members have raised these individual cases; it is only natural and they are doing their duty to their constituents. But I do feel that as there is no particular point of principle involved, it would be very much more helpful and would expedite a decision in these matters if they would try to see me personally or the Departmental Head. I sympathise with them in their views, and I am anxious, as the Department is anxious, to help every district to obtain an adequate medical service. But hon. members will appreciate that in these days of rush, when one’s time is taken up with a great many matters, it is better to have a personal discussion than to deal with them here and so give them an appearance of being matters of policy. I shall be glad to go into the matter of appointing a district surgeon or an additional district surgeon at Barrydale, if the hon. member will give me the details. It is perfectly true that South Africa is not adequately staffed with district surgeons. If we take the number of magisterial districts and the number of district surgeons in the country, we shall find there is a good deal of leeway to be made up. That position existed during the piping times of peace; it still exists, but it is very much more difficult to deal with it at present than it was four, five, six, seven or eight years ago. Hon. members know that a tremendous drain has been made on the medical services of this country because of the requirements of the military authorities. Doctors have joined the military forces and are serving within the Union and outside South Africa. In order to try to ensure that the needs of the civilian population are not neglected, there is a sub-committee of the Medical Association dealing with applications of individual practitioners to join up for active service. Many applications have been refused, applicants have been declared to be key men, because approval of those applications would have seriously depleted the number of doctors who are in the country to attend to civilian needs. I do not think we have sufficient doctors at present to meet all the needs of the population, but a balance has been struck as between the needs of the military and the civilian population. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has pleaded the cause of the northern district of Nylstroom, and has asked that a doctor be appointed in that area. I would address the same remarks to him as I have to the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. P. M. K. le Roux), and if he will be good enough to deal with this matter with me personally or my Department, I shall be glad to go into it. In any event, the matter will be gone into. Where we are not able to obtain doctors, we may be able to increase the number of district nurses. I think an extension of the district nursing service is necessary; such extension has been adopted in many areas by the Department, and we are anxious to still further extend that service. We have been extending it, and there is a need to expand it still further. If we cannot have qualified doctors, at any rate let us have qualified nurses who can do first aid and offer a measure of relief. I cannot agree, however, with the hon. member for Waterberg in his contention that district surgeons and additional district surgeons who are appointed at the present time, should be appointed in a permanent capacity. The policy which has been laid down by the Department is that now, when vacancies occur, we make temporary appointments only. These appointments are for the duration of the war, and three months notice thereafter. It is the intention of the Department to re-advertise all these posts so as to give an opportunity to those persons who may be on active service to apply. I think that is an eminently fair proposition, and a policy which should have the approval of the country as a whole. The hon. member has said that it is the function of the Department to foster public health and not to reserve posts. I agree that it is the function of the Department to foster public health, but there is nothing inconsistent with the ideal and that objective in the policy which is being followed at the present time. There are many persons who are able to obtain positions at the present time and who are occupying the posts of district surgeons in the absence of other doctors on active service. I am not suggesting anything detrimental to these occupants, there may be many who are axious to go on active service and are unable to do so. There may be other reasons why they do not, and I am not even considering the case of those who may not be with the Government in its war effort. These things do not enter into public health, which I hope is above all political considerations. But if my hon. friend tells me that those who are carrying on here the work of district surgeons and ministering to the needs of the population are being prejudiced, I disagree with him. Many young men have been appointed to these posts, they are gaining experience, and when the time comes for advertising these posts they will be considered on their merits. But I add this, that the claims of those who have been on active service will also be considered, and it is the intention of the Department to safeguard the rights of those who, because they are on active service, are unable to apply at the present time. I think that this policy will be one which will commend itself not only to the House, but to the country as a whole. Quite apart from these considerations, there is the general question of shortage of doctors and nurses. If the Department were able to carry out its wishes, we should have many more district surgeons and nurses. As far as the doctors are concerned, there is a definite shortage because of war needs, and the same applies to nurses, of whom there is a definite shortage. It may surprise hon. members to know that we have a tuberculosis hospital at Springbok for the purpose of serving the needs of that area. It was recently completed, but has not yet been opened because we have not yet been able to obtain the nurses. I am urged in the course of this debate, and I have been urged elsewhere, to build more hospitals for T.B. patients. The Department is proceeding with the building of more hospitals, and subsidising the building of others, but I do offer this word of warning that hon. members must realise the difficulties that we are faced with. Here is this hospital ready and equipped for patients, and it is idle, at the present time, because we cannot get the nurses.

The army pay for nurses, is it the same?

I understand there is not much difference so far as pay is concerned, but apparently the idea of army life and the conditions there seem to appeal to these young women more than civil employment. It is psychological this question, it is part of war psychology, but we are trying so far as non-European patients are concerned, to obtain the services of native nurses and coloured nurses. I point out these facts to hon. members in order to show that the matter is not so easy as it would appear to be. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has asked me whether the evidence being given to the National Health Commission will be printed. She particularly stressed the point that if the evidence cannot be printed because of financial or other considerations, at any rate the memoranda submitted should be linked with the report ultimately made to the Government. I think there is a good deal of force in what the hon. member has said, and I shall bring the matter to the notice of the Commission. I do think it is necessary for me to deal with the slashing attack of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) upon the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson)! I see the latter is not in his seat, and he is no doubt smarting under the wounds inflicted on him by the hon. member. I think I will leave it at that. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has dealt with the question of housing, and has made reference to one particular building, namely the Monica Hostel at Mowbray. I am informed that that hostel has been opened and is in occupation at the present time. I am unaware of the complaints which he made this morning in regard to a certain dilatoriness in answering correspondence. If the hon. member has complaints of that kind, I shall be only too glad if he will bring them to my notice. Neither myself nor the Departmental head would approve of any delays of the sort alleged, but I do not know the facts at all. I suggest if he has these complaints, he should bring them to me or to Dr. Allen, and they will be dealt with. I am grateful to the hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman) for his recognition of the fact that the Department of Public Health cannot be expected to cure all the evils and ills existing in the country at the present time. The Department has quite a number of responsibilities on its shoulders, and I very much appreciate what he said in regard to the food position. In my opinion, the Department of Public Health should act as a watch-dog in the matter of food, food prices and the distribution of food. The actual distribution of food is more a matter for the Department of Agriculture. We have a Food Controller, and we have the Department of Agriculture, which is concerned with food production. The Department of Public Health, through its nutrition section, will in the future have to act as a watch-dog to ensure that the needs of the consumer are safeguarded, and that anything in the nature of the destruction of fruit is eliminated. I dealt with that subject yesterday, and I need not go further into it this afternoon. The hon. member for Durban, North has raised a matter of some importance, that is the difficulty of obtaining rubber stockings. I am not an expert in regard to rubber stockings nor Keatings Powder, in regard to which he said there was a shortage. He dealt at length with the qualities of this Keatings Powder, and I seem to recollect that there was a slogan in regard to this particular article which is somewhat in conflict with the normal slogan of the Department of Public Health. I seem to recollect that on one occasion this article was advertised with the slogan: “Millions now living will soon die.” That seems be in entire conflict with the fundamental concept of the Department of Public Health. But I have no doubt it is very efficacious in regard to the creatures with which the hon. gentleman sought to deal. I have made enquiries, and I find there is a Controller of Medical Requisites, who has a Committee functioning under him, one of the members of which is the Secretary for Public Health. This Committee deals with recommendations for priorities in regard to medical requisites, and attempts to ensure that supplies of necessary medical appliances are provided as far as possible. I know that this Committee has been dealing with various drugs of the M. and B. variety, and has been successful in its efforts. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) has made a plea on behalf of the less privileged section of the community, and has asked that something should be done so far as their medical needs are concerned, before the submission of the Commission’s report. Well, sir, I sympathise with the hon. member very much indeed; he has certainly made out a case which has been made out in this House before for what I may term the middle class. The rich members of the community are able to obtain all the medical and hospital facilities they wish, and the very poor sections are treated as paupers and also obtain the best medical and hospital attention. It is the classes between those two sections who are jeopardised. Recognition of that fact was one of the reasons for the appointment of this National Health Commission, and while I have every sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. member, it seems to me to be very difficult to embark upon any policy before the matter has been thrashed out by the Commission. I think it is a matter for individual doctors and individual hospitals. We have to rely upon that innate humanitarian sense in all of us to try and assist the underdog, and those in a difficult position, and I am sure that the milk of human kindness which means so much in our lives today, will not be found wanting when it is really put to the test. I think we shall have to rely upon voluntary help until such time as we can have the recommendations of the Commission, and the Government has an opportunity of bringing forward a new scheme. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has made a very reasoned, moderate and eloquent appeal for health needs in general. He gave us a very instructive address before the adjournment, in the course of which he raised the question of the housing needs of the Platteland. That is a matter which has been dealt with by hon. members opposite. There was a scheme some years ago for assisting farmers to provide housing for bywoners. But I would remind hon. members that that was a scheme which was not administered by the Department of Public Health, but by the hon. Minister of Social Welfare; and, as I have been under fire for quite a considerable number of hours, I shall be glad to hand that baby over to my hon. friend! That scheme was in operation under the old Government, but it was suspended during the regime of the former Minister of Social Welfare, Mr. Fagan. It was administered by the Department of Social Welfare, and I suggest that, if hon. members wish that scheme to be revived, they should address their representations to my hon. colleague, who is waiting here very expectantly for his Vote to come on. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has referred to the question of dental research in South Africa, and has very rightly pointed out that the condition of the teeth of large sections of the population is nothing to be desired. There are certain portions of the Union where young children suffer from deplorable dental conditions. A year or two ago the Department appointed a special dental officer, and if the hon. member refers to page 12 of the current report of the Department of Public Health, he will see the activities of this officer are dealt with there. I agree that it would be desirable to obtain the services of additional dental officers to carry on this work. But here again we are met with the paucity of applicants. It may interest my hon. friend to know that the present official, who is doing admirable work, has been anxious to go on full time medical service, and I have with regret had to refuse to allow him to do so, because he is the only man available to carry out this work. If we could obtain additional professional men, we would be very glad. But I can tell the hon. member that we are embarking on a very interesting scheme, which involves dental services, in the South Western districts of the Cape. At Karatara near Knysna there is being established a combined Social Welfare and Medical Centre under the auspices of the Minister of Social Welfare and myself.

What, another baby?

Yes, it is a joint baby.

Who is the father?

It is probably illegitimate too.

In order to settle that vexed question we have decided that the Minister of Finance will be the father—he will put up the money! There will be provided a full time medical officer, a full time dentist, nurses, social welfare officers and others. It has been found that the dental conditions in those South Western districts are very bad, there are many children of 14, 15 and 16 years of age whose teeth are either gone or completely black, due to causes such as deficiencies in the mineral content of the water —I believe Fluorosis is the technical term—we are starting with that experiment, and if it is a success I hope to see it repeated in other parts of the Union. Now, finally, I come to the question of tuberculosis, to which certain hon. members have referred. I said yesterday that tuberculosis is a matter which has the constant attention of the Department and is in the forefront of its campaign against infectious diseases. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. P. M. K. le Roux) asked me about the South Western districts. I received a deputation headed by the hon. member and I told them that the question of the South Western districts has received the attention of my Department for some time. The Department has already decided to establish an infectious diseases hospital at Worcester. We have been receiving reports from the Magistrate of Riversdale for a long time past stressing the need for something to be done in that area. The Department for several years has been pressing Riversdale to do something in this matter, but without effect. We have received important information from the Magistrate of Riversdale. The local authority there has so far done nothing. The Department is now considering the establishment of a tuberculosis hospital to be built at the cost of the Union Government in the South Western districts somewhere along the area from Riversdale to George. It has not yet decided the location of that hospital, but the decision to establish such a hospital is part and parcel of its plan to build tuberculosis hospitals at Government expense in certain areas which will meet the needs of large surrounding areas.

Is the Government taking up the matter nationally now?

The Government has been taking up the matter nationally for a long time past as the figures which I am going to quote will show.

The Minister said that the Riversdale people had done nothing—that the local authorities had done nothing.

The local authority of Riversdale has done nothing about the local needs. The Department of Public Health in despair has now decided that it will erect a hospital in that area to meet the needs not only of Riversdale but of other areas—but I do not undertake to build that hospital at Riversdale. It will be a hospital which will meet the needs of Riversdale, Mossel Bay and George, but it may be located elsewhere. However, it may well be that the Riversdale Local Authority, knowing this, may be prepared to come forward with certain proposals and I shall be pleased to discuss these. Now let me give these figures in conclusion to show that the Department has not been lagging behind in regard to tuberculosis provisions. In the course of the last two or three years the following provision has been made to deal with tuberculosis: Beaufort West; a tuberculosis hospital with 60 beds, Government contribution £12,000; Bloemfontein a tuberculosis block, 44 beds, Government contribution £8,000; Cape Town Tuberculosis Hospital, number of beds 200, Government contribution £75,000; Durban Tuberculosis Block, 200 beds, Government contribution £26,000; Durban Tuberculosis Control Clinic; Government Contribution £1,700. Then, there is also provision for East London, Grahamstown, Johannesburg, Swellendam, Worcester and other places. At the MacVicar Tuberculosis Hospital, Lovedale, at Nelspoort Sanatorium, at Rietfontein Tuberculosis Hospital and at Rentzkie’s Farm, Cape Town, we have at each place provided 100 new beds. These are schemes which have either been put into effect, or are being proceeded with at present, making a total Government contribution of £583,000, in order to provide 1,278 beds.

Who finds the balance?

Well, either the local authorities will have to do so, or otherwise the Government will have to pay 100 per cent. of the cost.

What is the position about Port Elizabeth?

The Port Elizabeth area is being considered at present. There are other schemes under consideration at present and I mention these to show that the Government is prepared not merely at pay its share under the Public Health Act, but, where it is necessary to serve a wide area, to build hospitals and bear 100 per cent. of the cost. I think that covers the points which have been raised in the course of the debate this morning and this afternoon, and I hope hon. members will now be prepared to relieve the anxiety of the Minister of Social Welfare and allow the Vote to pass.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Labour”, £580,000,

May I have the privilege of speaking for half an hour? We are on the eve of a General Election and within a short time the electorate will be called upon to deliver judgment on the record of the Government for these past three and a half years. They will also be called upon to deliver judgment on the Minister of Labour and the Party which he so conspicuously leads. Well, the electorate will have to deliver judgment as to whether the Minister and his Party will continue to lead a very uncertain and wavering existence, or whether they will be completely wiped from the political scene. I am convinced that without the support of the United Party the Labour Party will be extinguished, completely snuffed out, like a candle. This is probably the last opportunity for the House to anticipate the decision of the electorate.

Do you mean your last opportunity?

No, not mine, this is the last opportunity for the Committee to anticipate the judgment of the electorate and to pronounce their judgment on the Minister and his policy. To enable the House to do that I am going to move—

The reason for my doing so is obvious.

Make it a guinea.

The reason for that small reduction should be obvious to hon. members. One knows that salaries play a very important part in labour politicians’ lives, and as we know what the electorate of Benoni is going to do about the Minister’s salary, we should at least leave him with the balance until they have had the opportunity of delivering their judgment.

Does that apply to Fordsburg too?

In September, 1939, the Minister entered the Cabinet with a fanfare of trumpets. He informed the House that he stood for the workers interests in this country; that he was here with the support of the Trade Union movement and of the workers outside the House. The Minister’s entrance into the Cabinet roused considerable expectations in the hearts of all workers and especially the poorer classes in South Africa. They thought: “Now we have this thirty-five hour week and this 10s. per day champion and with the power in his hands surely great things could be expected.” The workers looked forward to a new era in the economic history of this country. Well, during the past three and a half years the Minister succeeded in having two important industrial measures passed by this House—the Factories Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act—that is apart from a few small amending Bills. Those two Acts are hawked by Government speakers from platform to platform throughout the country in their endeavour to show the people the wonderful things they have done for the workers of this country. But even those Acts they cannot claim as their own, because they were already on the stocks when the previous Government left office. One outstanding thing about the introduction of these Acts was that the Minister so consistently refused all suggestions or amendments from this side of the House to improve the provisions contained in them—the Minister consistently refused all suggestions aimed at improving conditions for the workers, for these people who would fall within the purview of these Acts. Another very conspicuous matter is that the Minister had to resort to the guillotine to enable him to get these two measures through the House. There was the Factories Bill. In this Bill, the application of the guillotine resulted in only 23 out of 56 clauses being discussed by the Committee. This raised an outcry throughout the country. The Minister consistently refused to accept or to consider any amendments. Any amendment designed to improve the conditions of the workers, any amendment aimed at improving conditions in regard to paid holidays, annual leave, or sick pay was consistently refused by the Minister. All these amendments from hon. members on this side of the House were turned down and refused by the Minister, and that in spite of the fact that the declared policy of the Labour Party was a thirty-five hour week and a minimum wage of 10s. per day. The same thing happened to the Rents Bill, a social measure introduced by the Minister. Again he consistently refused all amendments introduced by this side of the House designed to improve the Bill. Again he had to resort to the guillotine to save his face, with the result that only twenty-four clauses were discussed out of 46. That was the record of the Minister during the past three and a half years in regard to legislation. But let us examine his record in regard to the treatment of the workers apart from legislation. First of all let me recall the scandal in regard to the Sweetworkers strike. The matter was raised in this House—the way the sweet workers were treated, the way their rights were trampled upon. Then we recall the Rustenburg Tobacco Workers strike.

You might first of all tell us what the scandal was.

The scandal was the treatment meted out by the Minister to the workers—the refusal for a new wage determination. The whole matter was discussed in the House. If the Minister will refer to Hansard he will find all the details there. In 1940 we had the Rustenburg Tobacco Workers strike where tear gas bombs and batons were used against European women strikers. The Minister had no individual responsibility for that, but as a member of the Cabinet the Minister had joint responsibility with the rest of the Cabinet. The Minister was equally responsible with the rest of the Cabinet. When that saw the light of day, the Minister at a Labour Party conference declared: „Never again will tear gas bombs be used against workers.”

But surely this is the speech which you made last year.

I am reviewing the Minister’s record on the eve of a General Election over a period of three and a half years. Last year we had the sweet workers strike in Johannesburg. That matter was fully discussed on a previous occasion in this House. Again we had the Minister on this occasion finding himself helpless to do anything, and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, had to settle the strike. There we had the scandal of women strikers manhandled by the police, and being thrown into pick-up vans. Then we had a strike in Natal last year where again tear gas bombs were used. In 1941 there were thirty-seven strikes, and in 1942 fifty-eight strikes. On the Minister’s own statement the majority of these strikes were for improved wages. In 1942 we had a large number of native strikes which led to acts of violence.

Do you approve of these strikes by natives?

Obviously I don’t approve of native strikes. I have tried to get the Government not to approve of native trade unions—but it is the Government’s policy to approve of them. The hon. member who has just interrupted should confine himself to agricultural matters — which he knows very little about—rather than deal with this matter which he knows nothing at all about. The native strikes in 1942 led to acts of violence.

Did you approve of them?

I have told the hon. member before that his only contribution to debates in this House consists of foolish remarks.

For which he gets a double salary.

In 1942 there were a number of native strikes which led to violence, and in one particular case it led to loss of life. Some spokesmen of the Municipalities put the blame for these strikes and actually for the loss of life on the shoulders of the Minister and said if it had not been for the indecision of the Minister of Labour that strike would not have occurred.

You don’t believe that, do you?

I am merely saying what the spokesmen of the Municipalities said on the matter. They said, and they said it time and again, that owing to the Minister’s indecision that strike eventuated which led to loss of life. I am not discussing the merits of the strike.

No, I notice you are not, but you are attributing blame.

We must also remember that during the Minister’s tenure of office he probably had a much easier position to deal with than any of his predecessors. He had the position when there was unprecedented prosperity in South Africa and that thousands of workers had enlisted with the result that the labour force was considerably smaller than it was before 1939. But even after three and a half years, with this depleted labour force, at a time when there was such a large demand for recruits and when large numbers of people jumped into uniform, in spite of all that there were 1,100 unemployed registered every month. After these years of unprecedented prosperity we find European labourers in Government employ—non-subsidised workers, totalling 4,555—still receiving from 3s. 6d. a day. During three and a half years these European labourers have not received one 6d. increase in their substantive rate of pay.

Whom do they work for?

They work for the Government. They are employed in various Government departments — the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Irrigation and others. There are 4,555 of these European labourers receiving from 3s. 6d. per day, and during the past three and a half years they have not received one 6d. increase in their substantive rate of pay. It’s true that they do receive a cost of living allowance but in regard to their substantive rate of pay they have received no increase at all during the tenure of office of the present Minister of Labour—that in spite of the fact that the Minister is such a staunch protagonist of 10s. a day. That is the position of the people on the lower rung of the economic ladder. In spite of the fact that the Minister takes credit for improved wage determinations and industrial agreements there has been very little improvement in regard to the position of most of the people generally during the last three and a half years. I contest the Minister’s right to take credit for improved wage determinations and industrial agreements. The Minister cannot influence wage determinations. The Wage Board is an independent body and the Minister cannot influence any agreement. Neither can he influence any industrial agreement. Consequently the improvements which have taken place, the Minister cannot take credit for. I have shown on previous occasions what the economic position of a large number of people in South Africa is. I have shown how many hundreds of families in one South African city are still in receipt of an income amounting to £6 6s. 5d. per month. I have shown how many hundreds of our people are still receiving and are still applying for poor relief. Only a few days ago Prof. Batson before the National Health Commission declared that 16 per cent. of the residents of Epping Garden, one of the model townships in Cape Town, could not buy sufficient food on which to live, and that 47 per cent. could not buy sufficient food without sacrificing some other necessity. I should like hon. members who seem to be so amused at these conditions to laugh again. It amuses them to hear that there are thousands of people living below the breadline, people who cannot buy sufficient to eat. That is what amuses them.

No, you are the amusing factor.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the world which can amuse the hon. member.

Well, anyhow, you do.

Well, if I can amuse the hon. member then at any rate it is something nobody else is able to do. Prof. Batson also declared that in the Good Hope Model Township 8 per cent. of the people of that township could not buy sufficient food to eat, and that 31 per cent. could not buy sufficient without sacrificing other essentials. That is the position in Cape Town alone, and then hon. members opposite hawk these two industrial Acts which I mentioned from platform to platform to show what has been done for the people. On the 24th February in an address in the City Hall Prof. Hutt and Prof. Batson and others, had no hesitation by implication in condemning the social policy of the Government. Prof. Hutt said that the chief causes of poverty were the Wage Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Apprenticeship Act, the Agricultural legislation, the Tariff, Trade rings and Industrial monopolies, the squandering of the people’s capital etc.

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I do. In fact in a previous debate we have announced our policy in regard to all these measures. And this is borne out by what we advocated. The Minister had the opportunity of either amending these Acts or of introducing new legislation to give him additional powers to alleviate the conditions in this country. I am in agreement with Prof. Hutt and that is why we want to alter these things. We have examined the whole position and we find that this Government has done very little in the last three and a half years. Not only are we satisfied that the Government has done very little to improve the conditions of the poor and the middle classes, but we say that the Minister has concurred in the elementary rights of the worker being taken away. The worker has always had the right to sell his labour in the highest market. That right has now been taken away. Only a few months ago a moulder was fined £14 or fourteen days for refusing to work overtime. There was an industrial agreement, providing for a fifty-six hour week, but in spite of that this man was fined £14 for refusing to work overtime. The Government have taken away the liberties of the individual for the sake of their war effort. We find that that is the position after three and a half years, and that is the position on which the electorate will have to base their judgment. Even the few benefits provided by the Factories Act have not yet been applied to the biggest employer of labour in the country, the South African Railways. The Minister of Labour in conjunction with the Minister of Railways appointed a Committee shortly after the Factories Act was passed by this House. That Committee has now deliberated for two and a half years and it has not yet come to a decision in regard to the application of the Factories Act to the Railways. The biggest employer of labour is not bound by the provisions of the Factories Act. The Minister has held office for three and a half years. I said in the beginning of my speech that high expectations prevailed among the people of this country when the Minister entered the Cabinet. Here are a few of the principles for which the Minister stood, and which he has failed to carry out during his three and a half years of office. I have here a booklet entitled “Labour stands for bread and butter politics”, issued by the Labour Party, at the time of the General Elections in 1938. Here are a few of the principles for which the Minister stood, and which he has discarded. The first is—

Another principle for which the Minister stood was—

The Minister has not carried that out. Another—

Have we had such a guarantee? And then—

Has that been dealt with? And then—

Has that been done during the past three and a half years? And then—

We have seen very little done to deal with that during the last three and a half years.

The only thing we have seen is a threat to the Government that if they don’t knuckle down to labour, labour will oppose them. And here is another one—

And yet the Government employ 4,500 labourers on non-subsidised works and pay them from 3s. 6d. per day. They have not received one 6d. increase on their substantive rate of pay. Those are the principles which the Minister stood for in the past. A certain member on another occasion said that no party had shed more principles to see the war through than the Labour Party. That was in regard to the last war, and that can be applied with equal truth to the Labour Party in regard to the present war. In regard to miners’ phthisis the Labour Party had a plan, and they went to election on what they were going to do. What have they done? All these principles for which they stood, which they advocated and which the electorate expected, not one of them has been carried out. What is the position actually, the present position? I have here a cutting from the “Argus” dated the 9th of this month, only two weeks ago, in which a health visitor, Miss Hardy, says that no figures can convey the horror of—

Miss Hardy was giving evidence before the National Health Services Commission, and she—

These are the conditions which prevail in spite of these wonderful and fine principles of the Labour Party, which they never carried out. Mr. Chairman, the Labour Party have shed, not some of their principles but all their principles, to see this war through, and they have not seen it through yet. And now, Sir, as a grand climax, they have decided to give everyone of our school children one warm meal a day, and with that they are going to the electorate. The first year they are going to spend £50,000, which means one-thirteenth of a penny for every £ in a budget of £160,000,000. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the sum total of what the Minister of Labour has done during the past three and a half years, and I have not the slightest doubt what the judgment of the people will be. I have no doubt what the judgment of the people would be if the Labour Party had the courage to stand on their own legs.

We are putting a man in at Fordsburg.

The Labour Party will continue to kiss the boots of the Prime Minister, so that a few of them can speak back into the House ostensibly as Labour members, but actually as United Party lackeys.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to an organisation which is doing very useful work in the Union; I mean the Juvenile Affairs Board. These Boards have done very useful work since their inception. Boys and girls have been placed in useful employment. At first some difficulty was experienced owing to the low educational standard of the applicants, but as the years advanced the standard of education improved, with the result that we have found very little difficulty now in placing our boys and girls in employment. We are able to place many boys in the various trades and industries. The point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the importance of a pre-apprenticeship system. Members of the Juvenile Affairs Board and the Technical College Councils are of opinion that there should be an intensive pre-apprenticeship course. The Juvenile Affairs Board, to which I have the honour to belong, have discussed this matter and have come to the conclusion that it is essential that there should be this pre-apprenticeship course of training, and in this connection certain suggestions have been made which I must ask the indulgence of the House to read—

That is the most important part of pre-apprenticeship training, namely cultural and technical education—

This system of pre-apprenticeship training has been tried and proved satisfactory, and I would like the Minister to take cognisance of this fact and to give the matter his very serious attention. We realise that the present time and after the war, there will be a great expansion in the industries of South Africa, and we must give our boys and girls the best opportunities of training, so that when the time arrives they will be able to meet the demand.

I regret that I cannot be quite satisfied with the interpreter whom the Minister of Labour has, but I do not feel like speaking to him in English. I hope, however, that the interpreter will interpret correctly. To anyone sitting on this side of the House, and who must view the Labour Party all day long as it sits there on the other side under the leadership of the Minister of Labour, and who knows what a hard time the poor people in our country are having and how they must struggle to make a living—well, we here who see how powerless the Minister and his party are to do anything for those people, to us it really looks funny. Two members of his party are absent today. One is out of the House because he no longer thinks that he is able here in the House to do anything for those people. He has given up hope. He said that the Government there on the other side is the most capitalistic government that the country has ever had, and of course he feels out of place there. He is not in a position to speak his mind, and the result is that he is beginning to feel completely out of place. We on this side feel that the greatest proportion of the labourers in the country are Afrikaans-speaking people, and it is therefore our duty to act on their behalf. We do not act on their behalf because they belong to one trade or another, and also not because we want a few more members in Parliament, but because they are Afrikaners whose interests we want to take care of. We have been noticing the negotiations that are in progress between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour in connection with seats. The negotiations have now progressed so far that a peculiar fight has originated here in this House between the Labour Party and the Dominion Party.

And who won?

I think the Labourites lost. The position is that even the Minister of Labour is dependent on the Saps for a seat.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote.

I am now speaking about the politics of the Minister of Labour. I am busy with his policy, and I think I am entitled to discuss his policy or his salary.

Then the hon. member must confine himself to the policy of the Minister.

His policy is simply to get into Parliament.

This is the first time I have heard that this is a policy.

That is all he thinks about now. The Minister is the Minister of Labour and leader of the Labour Party, and he has a definite policy, or he ought to have a policy.

He ought to have a policy. Now you are beginning to speak correctly.

I think I am entitled to discuss the policy that he ought to have. I say that he cannot put into effect the policy that he ought to have because he is dependent upon the Saps for his seat. He must dance to their tune. They say that they will allow him to come in, for so long as he remains there will be no Labour Party. It is very interesting to us who sit on this side to read in the Press about what is happening on the other side to see if the Labour Party cannot be made a little bigger; it is funny to see what all is being done to see if they cannot find a few more seats for the Labour Party.

What about yourself?

I shall get a seat free. It is not necessary for me to struggle for one. In order to get seats and to catch the votes of the workers in the country they came with all sorts of promises, as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has read out from their programme of principles. But they have not given one single proof that they are going to carry out those promises. I know what the Minister of Labour will again tell us: That he put through the shop hours law. But he knows as well as I do, and he has admitted it here in Parliament, that that Act is not good enough. He admitted his impotence here in Parliament to come forward with legislation such as that he promised the workers. In the circumstances the position is simply this, if one looks at the strikes that have taken place, that the Minister is stuck in the hands of the Capitalist Government on the other side. He is not a Capitalist, or ostensibly not a Capitalist. He is a man who says that he is a worker, and he represents those people’s interests, and now we find that a whole lot of strikes are taking place from time to time. We have even had the throwing of bombs and the mandhandling of women, but the Minister of Labour remained powerless. Why? Why does he not go to those people and say that he is powerless, and why does he not tell them that the Government in which he sits prohibits him from doing anything? If he does that he will be representing those people. Instead of that he says: I sit here to see the war through. He agrees with the war policy of the Government. But he can surely support the war policy of the Government without being in the Cabinet. He can support the Government and see the war through without being a member of the Government, and then he will be in a position to act in the interests of those people whom he says he represents.

Why are you so concerned about me?

I am concerned about the poor people who are being misled by the Minister because he wants to try to get their votes. His own people have threatened him and have told him that he will be in a stronger position if he does not sit in the Government. Why does he not go and tell his people clearly what the position is? He cannot go to the Labour movements today and say to them that such is the position; he does not dare to go and say to them that in order to see the war through he must be prepared to do nothing to carry out the programme of principles of the Labour Party. If he goes to tell them that then they, as they have already threatened to do, will tell him to get out of the Cabinet. While he sits in the Cabinet he is jointly responsible for everything that is done by the Cabinet, and if he is really honest towards those people and towards the principles laid down by his party then he has no right to sit in that Cabinet, because he admits that he cannot give those people what he should give them. He cannot cast from him the joint responsibility for the actions of the Cabinet. He sits in the Cabinet. What is done there and the mistakes that are made, the things that go wrong—for that he is jointly responsible. If his Department’s action is such that strikes occur, and if the strikers are manhandled and even shot dead then it is due to the fact that the Government has not carried out its duties towards those people, and then he is jointly responsible. He simply cannot cast this from his shoulders; he cannot say that he has nothing to do with it. He cannot go and say that it is the Capitalists, because he is a member of a Capitalistic Government. Where that is the position, the country must know it. The workers in the country must know that the Labour Party under the leadership of the Minister of Labour is no longer in a position to do anything for the workers. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, what has been disclosed by the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is the fact that hon. members opposite are not really concerned about the conditions of the workers, but they are bitterly disappointed about the likelihood of the Labour Party and the United Party going to the elections as a combined body in order to do everything possible to see that the war should be carried through to a successful issue. They are disappointed because, to use the graceful expression of the hon. member, they will not be able to speak in in some constituencies where they might have had a chance in a three-cornered fight.

Tell us why you have changed your coat.

Why have you changed your coat?

I have not changed my coat. Why are you no longer a follower of the Minister of Labour?

I am; we are working together to see that the war shall be carried to a successful issue. That is one of our objects, and the other is to pursue a policy, a policy which we have always pursued, of trying to improve the lot of the workers.

Why did you leave him in the lurch?

I left the Labour Party, and I will tell you about that in a minute. I have adopted a policy of getting improved conditions for the workers gradually, rather than by trying unsuccessfully to get more immediately. The Labour Party and the United Party today are working wholeheartedly and loyally together, not only in connection with the war effort, but also in improving the lot of the workers. My hon. friend says that the only legislation that the hon. Minister can point to is the Factories Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If the hon. Minister of Labour had been responsible only for those two measures during the last three years, he would be entitled to the whole-hearted support of the working classes of this country. To take the Factories Act, we have by legislation reduced the hours of labour, we have improved the conditions of the worker, we have given them holiday leave on pay, and various other improvements, and that has been due to the co-operation between the United Party and the Labour Party. Then with regard to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a Bill was introduced by Col. Creswell in the Pact Government, but due to the antagonism largely of the Nationalist Party, that Bill was not passed. We had from year to year to withdraw that Bill because they objected to the principle of State insurance. Today, as a result of this co-operation between the Labour Party and the United Party, we have effected a tremendous improvement in the lot of workers who suffer from injury, and a tremendous saving of money in the matter of insurance and premiums. We have passed a Bill which definitely lays it down that the whole system shall be run on a mutual and non-profit making basis instead of allowing private companies to exploit the position as they have done for years and years. This improvement was effected in spite of opposition from hon. members opposite, many of whom are directors of insurance companies. These two measures alone are a sufficient justification for the arrangement which exists between the Labour Party and the United Party. I go further and I say, and the public will say, that in spite of the difficulties created by war conditions, the present Government and the Minister of Labour, by means of industrial legislation, by regulation for cost of living allowances, wage determinations and industrial agreements, have improved the lot of 222,000 workers. A great deal of improvement was effected from 1939 to the end of 1942, and the position is better today. Wages have been increased, and conditions of labour improved. The hon. member has quoted an individual case of a man who was found guilty of refusing to work overtime. I say that is one of the most creditable things reflecting on the present Government, because we believe in the importance of the war issue, the importance of winning the war, we are prepared in a case like that to say that some sacrifice shall be made. The fact that the member could only quote one case shows also that the workers in South Africa are prepared to make sacrifices for our war effort, unlike hon. members opposite, who would like to do everything they possibly can to break down our war effort. The winning of the war is the principle issue at the present moment, and my hon. friend the member for Fordsburg, knowing that, knowing that there will be no three-cornered fight; has to speak out of Fordsburg because he knows that the electors of Fordsburg have no more time for him.

I will fight you or any other member of the Labour Party in Johannesburg.

Why does not the hon. member say he will fight us in Piquetberg?

Why did you leave the Labour Party? [Interruptions.]

Measures are being carried out to improve the lot of the workers in spite of the war that is going on.

What about the native strikes?

Unfortunately, while some municipalities had given effect to wage determinations others had refused until the natives had to fight for their rights, which could only be got by them through fighting. This is unfortunate as it has created a feeling among native workers which once was felt by European workers that they can get by fighting what they cannot get by peaceful methods. I am sure under the auspices of the Minister of Labour that difficulty will be done away with, and natives as well as European workers will realise that they can get improvements by peaceful methods under the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act. These are the methods by which the Government is pursuing its policy to improve on the one hand the lot of the workers, and on the other making it possible for this country to do its share in the war effort.

The hon. member who has just spoken is known in South Africa as the greatest turncoat in the country, and I can truly say to the Minister of Labour: Save me from my friends. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was a friend of the Minister of Labour, but he left him in the lurch, and he went to sit at the fleshpots of Egypt to fill his pockets, and now he comes here to ascribe motives to us. Every time he gets up here in the House he ascribes motives to us, and that while he is a man who has changed his party from improper motives, financial or otherwise. I want to speak about something else, however.

I want to warn hon. members that they must not ascribe improper motives.

I would not have done it if the hon. member had not acribed motives to us. He said here that we were opposed to an insurance scheme for workers, but that when some members on this side became directors of insurance companies we were suddenly in favour of it.

Hon. members must not continue with this.

We stand today on the threshhold of great industrial development in our country, and care should be taken that we shall have well trained artisans to take up their positions in the various industries and activities. The Minister has promised us in the past that he will amend the Apprenticeship Act so that that Act can fulfil modern requirements. Since that time the industries of our country have developed, and we find ourselves in this difficulty today that if the war terminates we shall have great industries here in the country but we shall not have the trained persons to undertake the work of those industries. The Apprenticeship Act as it is now, is an Act that is solely intended to protect those who are already in the trades. We find for instance that the composition of the apprenticeship committees is such that only the employers and the employees are represented on them. The result is that the employers have authority as to who will be further taken up in the trades, but the State as a whole has no authority in this matter. The Minister has promised us that he will give his attention to a revision of the composition of the apprenticeship committees as they exist today. It is important, because we find today that boys of the Platteland who come to the city and who want to be trained in some trade must first be approved by the apprenticeship committees, and then such a boy from the Platteland has no-one on the Committee who is well-disposed towards him. We therefore want the Minister to bring about a change so that the State shall also be represented and so that the boys from the Platteland who apply to be trained as apprentices shall at least be well-received by the Committees. The is a feeling today that apprenticeship committees form a closed group. Then we feel that the age of admission should be increased in respect of most of the trades. We find that parents on the Platteland do not like to send a boy of 16 or 17 years of age to the city, where he is not under proper control. Should the Minister get so far as to build houses for apprentices, and see that they receive bursaries in order to board cheaply so that they can compete with urban apprentices, it will solve the difficulty. We feel today that children on the Platteland are being kept out of trades as the result of various factors. I have here a letter that was written by the head of one of our big trade schools to a member of the Advisory Committee of the Trade School Association, and all the difficulties I raise here are also raised in his letter, which I want to quote partially to the Minister. Quite possibly a part of it falls under another Vote of the Minister, but I think I should draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to it at this stage. In any case it will also be raised on the Vote of the Minister of Education. In this letter he deals with the trade school course, and he mentions how this is not sufficiently recognised as an apprenticeship period. The letter says—

I want to put a proposition to the hon. Minister of Labour which perhaps might be useful to him as Minister of Social Welfare. I want to ask whether he will consider getting his Labour Bureaux to develop a special division to study the types of work available in commerce and industries and in municipal, provincial and Government employment for cripples. It is difficult to know whether to bring this up here or under the next Vote, but I do want to emphasise the Labour side of it. The hon. Minister will appreciate that the problem of crippledom is going to loom very large in the future, and of all the groups of disabled, it is perhaps the most important for this reason, because of the very large numbers amongst them and also because of their potentiality for remunerative employment. That is why I am asking the hon. Minister to get his Department to make a survey of this matter now, because three things are necessary for the employment of cripples. First of all, I think, it must be more apparent than it has been in the past that the State is willing to assume more responsibility for the employment of these people. I think that is very necessary—not only the State but semi-state services as well. One other point that is apparent is that propaganda amongst private employers must be used so that they can be made to realise that suitably trained disabled people, especially the cripples, suitably trained for a particular form of work, are able to do the job as well as the normal person. We have a very fine example in the manner in which Henry Ford in America has gone about this work. May I say, sir, that we must have a sense of responsibility, a grave responsibility towards all disabled people, and in the coming years we are going to have even a greater responsibility towards them, not only because if they are able to work their whole psychological outlook on life is changed, but also because, I maintain, their productive capacity can be very useful to the State. I do want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will not through the Labour Bureaux set up a special division to study this matter. I think almost that a Government Committee ought to take this matter in hand, because I feel that it is extremely important. In fact I would go so far as to say that there should be legislation making it obligatory upon employers to employ a certain number of these unfortunate people. I cannot carry that argument any further here because it means that I must ask for legislation and you would rule me out of order. I do feel very strongly that in the past we have placed too much emphasis on giving grants and pensions. What we must do now is to give employment to these people, to salvage as much human material as possible by fitting them for employment rather than by giving them grants as the Department of Social Welfare does. Not only would the hon. Minister be doing a fine humanitarian work if his Department did as I ask, but we will feel happy in the knowledge that we are leaving no stone unturned to deal with this very serious problem that is going to arise after the war.

I am glad that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is here. He spoke about how the Minister of Labour has improved the position of the workers. Now I would like to give the reply of the Minister of Labour himself to the hon. member, from which he will see that the Minister himself has stated that he is impotent and can do nothing for the improvement of the workers under existing circumstances. That is also our experience. I do not know if the Minister remembers that in 1940, just after he became Minister, a strong deputation from this side of the House went to see him about the living conditions and the salary position of workers. I have here before me a full report from the deputation who met him. The reprehensible position of the soil erosion workers, the plantation workers and others was brought to his notice, and also the position of the shop girls on the Platteland. My time is too short to summarise it all, but I just want to quote the last few lines of this report—

That was three years ago, and we are still waiting for the reply. But I said just now that the Minister himself has stated that he is powerless. He tries, but he cannot. He delivered a speech in Benoni on 8th January, 1943. There he said that the capitalists notwithstanding their war-time silence were by no means asleep. He said that people spoke glibly of a new order and of social security after the war, but that they should shake off the lethargy that prevails today and that they should fight for what they want because the capitalists would try to suppress any radical attempt at reform. That is precisely what we say and what the Minister also admits. He said that the capitalists neglected to give any consideration to the welfare of the masses and that even in a period in which the country was animated by a spirit of patriotism, his efforts as Minister of Labour to introduce national workmen’s compensation and shorter working hours, in order to make more work available, was fought tooth and nail by the insurance companies and the engineering industry. The Minister stated further that the workers heeded his appeal to increase production, but that the money-powers showed no tendency of appreciating that action. Does the Minister deny that he said it, or does he confirm today that he is powerless? If the capitalists act in this way in a time of crisis, what can we expect when the war is over? But it is significant that the Minister further stated that even the Prime Minister was bound by the money-powers and that every attempt would be made by the capitalists to thwart his plans for a better living standard for the people. My question is whether the Minister denies that he said it there. It was published in all the newspapers and I do not think he will deny it, for otherwise he would have denied it long since when it appeared in the newspapers. There the hon. member for Troyeville has the reply of the Minister himself. He has failed hopelessly, and he lays the blame at the door of the capitalists. I want to plead today for the labourers on the Platteland. I want to put this direct question to the Minister: When and how has he improved the conditions of the labourers on the Platteland since he became Minister of Labour? Not at all. Notwithstanding the fact that living costs have become much higher, notwithstanding the fact that these people ought to receive 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. higher wages today in view of the circumstances, one can say that their position has deteriorated rather than improved. I saw a few days ago that there are still unemployed. If people are still unemployed in this period, what will be the position later? I want to ask the Minister whether he is behind the idea of making available the mighty sum of £50,000 for the purpose of giving children one warm meal per day? If he is behind the idea then I want to ask him if he himself does not look upon it as a ridiculous idea. The hon. Minister of Finance has made mocking references to utterances on this side. Now I want to ask the Minister of Labour if he agrees. Is he behind that idea? I want to say that I have a little more experience of the conditions of the children in the schools than the Minister of Finance has. There are about 420,000 European children in the schools. Does he see his way clear to giving them a meal for less than 6d. per child per day? That alone amounts to £2,250,000 per year. Then there are the 453,000 native children. Does he see his way clear to giving them a meal costing less than 3d. per day over the 210 schooldays of the year? Then there are still about 127,000 coloured school children. Milk in Cape Town today costs 4½d. per pint, and to give no more than a glass of milk to the children involves the expenditure of almost 6d. per day. I do not think the Minister has any idea of the position. They make available £50,000 per year for 1,000,000 children. The Minister says it is only a start, and that it will be brought up to £1,000,000. Have they gone into the figures? According to the figures I have given, an expenditure of at least £3,250,000 per year is involved. The Minister is in the Cabinet to do something for the workers. Has he done anything of which he can be proud? This sum of £50,000 is ridiculous. Let him rather give the population good work at good wages.

I do not think the hon. member need worry himself very much; this Government is pledged to a hot meal per day for all children, whatever it may cost. He need not try to make political capital out of it.

Are you serious now?

Yes, I am perfectly serious and I am convinced that the hon. Minister is perfectly serious. All this sing-song we are hearing from hon. members opposite is really not relative to the Vote at all. They are really not interested in it.

What experience have you got of it?

I listened with great sorrow to the initial representation of the policy opposite in moving a reduction of £1 in the Minister’s salary, and that was the whole of the indictment against the Minister, because it is not worth a pound and it is certainly not worth the time one takes in debating it. One could very easily have given the Minister £1 by way of subscriptions and saved all this discussion. One thing he did say was that the Railways had no right to stand outside the Factory Act. I know that the hon. Minister thinks that too, but I also know that he still has to persuade the hon. Minister of Railways, and I hope the time will come when he will succeed in persuading the Minister of Railways to come in under the Factories Act. I rose to draw the attention of the Minister to a section of the community which is the concern of his Department. This House some seven years ago, in 1936, introduced the provision of a Blind Pension and inaugurated a system whereby the National Council was recognised, in order to make it possible, for a more or less uniform policy to be applied in the payment of all the workers in the various blind institutions throughout the country. We have institutions in Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Worcester, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and also Roodepoort, and there are opportunities for development which I sincerely hope the public will be able to finance. When the Bill received the blessing of the country, no person was more loud in its praise and in its opportunities than the hon. Minister of Labour. I accept his sincerity. I accept the sincerity of his Department, and when we all put our heads together we endeavour to work out some scheme whereby these blind people in these blind institutions and workshops might be able to work to the best of their ability and go home at the end of the week with a fair and adequate reward for the labour they had put in. We know that a blind person is a grievously economically handicapped individual. It is the policy of the Government and the Department, so far as practical, to spread the disability which a blind man suffers over the shoulders of his more fortunate fellow citizens. That is fundamental in the principle of pensions and wage augmentations. Now, sir, there is nothing so degrading really as for a person to go with his hand out and say: I want a pension; and at the same time to be working. Sir, the fundamental basis of workers in blind work shops is to lift them out of the category of indigent people. The blind pension is a pension for indigent blind, and it is necessary and will be necessary for many years to come. I may say now that probably 60 per cent. of the blind population of any country are over the age of 60, so that when we talk of the 2,000—less than 2,000—European blind and less than 2,000 coloured blind and the facilities for workshop employment, we are not dealing with 4,000 people but we are probably dealing with half that number and we are dealing with only a matter of about 40 per cent. of that total population who are in schools, being educated and who are capable of working in workshops. When we came together in 1936 with the help of the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Labour hammered out a basis by which one would interpret into practical means the principle already accepted, of making the public pay, as it were, for the economic handicap under which the blind suffer; we decided, having the whole experience of the world before us, on a system of augmenting the wages of the blind. Before one can arrive at any policy of augmentation, there must be an acceptance of the fact that we are prepared to allow the blind to earn so much per week, and working on the experience of Australia and New Zealand, Germany and America, all of which countries were in advance of their times, and we applied those principles to the blind in this country, and I hoped that one would be able to accept as a good week’s earnings for a blind man, working eight hours a day, a maximum of £4 per week. All of our blind workmen, work through an apprenticeship of five years in our schools. Surely the State is prepared to accept the principle—I know that they are prepared to accept it—that any man who has been apprenticed for five years is entitled to £4 a week. We tried at that time to get the Department of Labour or the Department of Social Welfare to concede a basis of £4 a week, but we did not succeed. They conceded a basis of £3 a week, and we generally accepted that. When we talk of minimum wages we invariably mean maximum wages, and we tried to establish a basis of £4 per week as the maximum. In this instance we were helping blind people to help themselves, so we conceded that the maximum blind wage would be £3 per week, of which the Government would pay 1s. per hour for those more efficient workers. That was estimated to be the earning capacity of a well-trained, well-adapted, thoroughly efficient blind craftsman—1s. per hour; that is £2 8s. on a 48-hour week. The Department of Labour came along and said: “Very well, we are prepared to augment those wages on a 25 per cent. basis, in other words, 25 per cent. on 48s. making 12s. per week. 48s. plus 12s. making £3. That was the maximum which the blind people may be able to obtain seven years ago. [Time limit.]

We have learner-artisans, youths who have continued their course at a trades school until they have completed it, and we hear from one of the principals of trades schools how those youths who have eventually finished very easily find their feet. There is another aspect of the matter to which this principal draws attention, and I want to bring it to the notice of the Minister. He writes as follows in connection with trades school pupils—

It is perfectly clear to everyone what is going on. The writer of this letter urges—

He makes this further suggestion. He urges—

And then I come to an important recommendation which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is a hint which is given by this principal of a trades school—

1. (a) Under a legally constituted apprenticeship system.
   1. (1) The Railways and Harbours Departments.
   2. (2) The Posts and Telegraphs Departments.
   3. (3) The mines.
   4. (4) The Air Force and certain Defence Departments.
   5. (5) Certain sections of the Labour Department.
   6. (6) Certain factories, with the proviso that only properly trained and qualified full-time instructors or foremen shall give the necessary training to the apprentices.

Thus when the youth has finished with the trades school he may apply to one of these places to be taken on further as an apprentice, and so learn his trade. Today what happens is that when the youth has finished, and he applies to these different employers, then they ask him whether he has worked under a journeyman. They ask him whether he has worked under a journeyman for three years, and if he says that he has not done that, then he simply does not get the work and the result is that he stands idle on the labour market. There are numbers of youths who were trained as mechanics. They had a trades school training, but that does not count for them, and they must do ordinary work because they are generally too old then to still become apprentices. It is a very important matter, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the Apprenticeship Act so that things will not continue like this. We must make provision that the youths who were at a trades school will have an opportunity of being trained in the trade which they chose. As I have already said at the beginning of my speech, we stand on the eve of great industrial development. We must have skilled men. Our experience in the past has been that when we have not had the skilled men then they have been imported from outside, from England, Holland and elsewhere. In the future we cannot allow such men to be imported to take this work out of the hands of our youths. We should so amend the Apprenticeship Act that we can make the best use of our labour resources in our country, and we must take into account the country’s circumstances. We must also take into account the feeling of the parent, when he feels that he cannot send his child at a tender age to the big cities, where he will not be under proper control and where he will not be under the influence of his parents. If the Minister takes these things into consideration, he will be able to understand that parents prefer to say that children must pass Std. 8 or 10, and when they have done that they can no longer in many cases become apprentices, because then they are generally too old to be enrolled as apprentices. There is only one trade in which there is a fair opening for trades school youths, and that is in the furniture industry. I hope the Minister will give us a promise that he will accept the suggestions that we have given and that he will give the Committee the assurance that he will amend the Apprenticeship Act in that direction.

I was saying that the sincere effort of the Department of Social Welfare and of the National Council for the blind aimed at augmenting the wages of these people to make it possible for them to go home without any need for a pension. The basis was worked out on the basis of the grant. And the A grade would be a maximum of 1s. per hour with an augmentation of 25 per cent., making it possible for a man to earn 1s. 3d. per hour. The subsequent grade of workers were in order of less efficiency, so they were 10d., 8d. and 6d. And on those rates the Department would pay on the bases of 25 per cent. Going up and increasing the percentage of augmentation and thus reducing the amount which it was felt this Society had to pay. The amount works down from the maximum of 10d. per hour to 4d. per hour. The Department of Social Welfare has consistently shown itself sympathetic to these cases, but as one can imagine, the various institutions working under this scheme of augmentation found it difficult to apply the percentage systems, and when they found that when a man earned more than the amount of £10 per month through the workshop he lost his pension, they felt that they were doing something seriously bad to the Department of State if they said that they had a blind worker who did not want a pension. So they introduced an individual scheme whereby they reduced the earnings of the worker to such an extent that he fell immediately below the amount laid down, which would entitle him to a pension, so that in certain workshops we had this as a fundamental basis—not to give those men as much as they could earn, but just as much as would not deprive them of their blind pension. It was found that what he took home at the end of the month as a pension with his earnings was less than he had been earning under the scheme of augmentation. So they introduced a system by which they implemented as an ex-gratia grant to give these people sufficient funds to enable them to go home so that they would not lose by the fact that the workshop was not carrying out the system of augmentation. The inference not only to the State, but to the subscribing public, and to the blind people themselves, cannot be better expressed than by taking one particular workshop. Take the Pretoria workshop which had seven workers. They decided that they would no longer apply the system of augmentation, so they proposed to reduce the man’s earnings as a worker to such an extent that it would make it possible for him to qualify for the maximum blind pension. The difference between a maximum blind pension and the earnings which he now received would be made good to him. I took the trouble to work out in relation to these seven workers how much extra the Workshop Committee had to implement these workers in order to ensure not that they went home with the maximum of 1s. per hour, but merely that when they stopped the augmentation, the blind people would not suffer. It was interesting to find out what it costs. The charitable grants from that Society amounted to £200 per annum in order to ensure that the men got their blind pensions. They gave the men wages but they had to reduce those wages, and they had to implement their income to the extent of £200 per annum. They did that simply because they did not want a complicated system. We are developing and we are going forward and for many years the Department of Social Welfare have maintained a very close liaison between the workings of the various societies, so much so that Dr. Brummer under the instruction of Mr. Kuschke, who is intimately aware of the varying methods of remunerating blind people, was sent into the various workshops for a report. Dr. Brummer has given the National Council the benefit of seeing his interim report. I hope I am not speaking out of school. Mr. Kuschke was responsible for Dr. Brummer attending the meeting of the National Council in order that the reactions might be known before these recommendations were implemented by regulations. It is proposed to alter the basis of augmenting blind wages and on the proposal of Dr. Brummer the Social Welfare Department will not pay percentage augmentation in future, but half the wages that blind persons will earn. I accept that. And I think the acceptance of that proposal by the Social Welfare Department would probably put the question of blind remuneration on a much sounder basis, and on a more acceptable basis in every workshop, and one which every workshop would readily accept. Dr. Brummer has suggested that one should stabilise as a maximum the earning capacity of blind people in future at 1s. 3d. per hour. Well, I want to ask the Minister not to do that. We considered this recommendation at the last meeting of the National Council and we passed a unanimous resolution expressing the hope that the Department of Social Welfare would apply the system of paying 50 per cent. of the blind person’s wages rather than have the old system of augmentation which was only applied in two or three workshops. [Time limit.]

I wish to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister of Labour. In Bloemfontein there are special guards on the Railways to look after the prisoners. They do not come under the Railways, but under the Prisons Department. Some of those persons have worked for three and four years and they do not get a single day’s holiday. They work many hours in a day and often they have also to work on Sundays and Saturdays. They were all appointed on a temporary basis, but there are some of them who have already been in service four years, and they get not a single day’s holiday. I want to ask the Minister to go into it. Then I should like to know what the position is in connection with unskilled labour. From replies to questions it has appeared that the wages that are paid for departmental work, such as the eradication of weeds, erosion work and so on, are from 4s. to 5s. 6d. per day. I should like to know whether those wages have been raised, or whether they still stand between 4s. and 5s. 6d. per day. Then I wish to ask the Minister a question in connection with basic technical training. There are about 8,000 youths who have enrolled for this course. Some of them are now back in the Union, and I should like to know from the Minister what the position of those persons is. Are they now regarded as semi-skilled men, and will they get an opportunity to undergo a further course to become qualified artisans, as they were promised? Some of them have been in the North. They are now back, and will they always be regarded as semi-skilled labourers, or will facilities be given them to complete a further course so that they may become skilled workers? I want to point out that, if we go into the matter, then we find that during the past few years about 6,700 tradesmen have come from overseas. And we on this side urge the Government to take steps to give semiskilled workers further training in order to make them skilled workers. Up to now those requests have been refused. The first step that the Government took was this technical basic training, and. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible so to alter the position that semi-skilled and unskilled labourers in the future get an opportunity to become tradesmen. Why must we import tradesmen? We have imported thousands of tradesmen. Those tradesmen get £8 and £9 a week and the Minister must take steps to train our own tradesmen. In an important report which came out a short time ago, it is stated that approximately 40,000 white persons have since 1914 reached working-age without having received vocational training and without the matric. They can take on no positions of skilled labour. They are people who must work for 4s. to 5s. 6d. per day, whom I mentioned just now. I want the Minister to take a forward step to ensure that those persons in the future shall get an opportunity to be trained as tradesmen.

May I have the privilege of speaking for half an hour? I am asking for that because the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has moved a reduction in the Minister’s salary. The Minister is not only Minister of Labour but he also controls the Department of Social Welfare which constitutes a most important part of his work, and I think in connection with that the Minister and his Department have given complete satisfaction under the existing conditions. But first of all I would like to deal with the question of wages. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has dealt with the Acts for which the Minister has been responsible, the principal of which were the Factories Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He has also dealt with the number of workers whose conditions have been improved as a result of wage determinations. I think the House will remember that from this side of the House representations were made last year for improvements in the wages of unskilled labour generally in the various Government Departments. I don’t think the opportunity should be missed of referring to this question again. I consider that the pre-requisite of any satisfactory measure of social security in South Africa is the payment and the maintenance of a reasonable minimum wage, without which such a code or such a measure would not have a satisfactory foundation. As I said, we made representations last year and I think the Minister took the matter in hand.

I did so long before then.

Well, then the Minister refreshed his memory. In any case, we have valuable evidence that the representations which were made had good results in the working of the South African Railways and Harbours. We are very appreciative of the fact that the Administration has a very sympathetic Minister in relation to the question of wages. During the course of the year material advances were made in the wages of unskilled labour, both European and non-European, affecting many thousands of workers in the Railway Administration. And the position has been reached on the South African Railways and Harbours that one of the main principles on the programme of the Labour Party has been practically achieved, namely that of securing a minimum of 10s. per day for European unskilled labourers. When I refer to 10s. per day I have in mind that the present wage of unskilled labour, European on the Railways starts at 8s. 6d. and rises to 9s. 6d. To these rates should be added the rent rebate allowed to railworkers—and the rent rebate covers a considerable number of rail workers—nearly 3,000. The rent rebate averages 2s. per day in these cases. In addition the Railway Administration has introduced a noncontributory pension scheme. When therefore the hon. member for Fordsburg refers to the position which existed in 1938-’39, he must take into account the improvements that have been made by the Government in all its Departments. We cannot overlook the fact, seeing that he referred to the joint responsibility of various members of the Government, that, in the Railway Administration the position of the unskilled labourer has been greatly improved. But we have had no definite statement from the Minister in regard to the position of unskilled labour in other Government Departments, and we therefore hope that the Minister will make such a statement in relation to the wages and conditions of service of unskilled labour. We are well aware that when one deals with the question of wages and salaries, one has to bear in mind the danger of inflation, but I think it can be accepted as a principle that until you have established a reasonable minimum in our entire wage company, the question of inflation should not be taken into account in dealing with law wages. Immediately you have established that in South Africa, then the principle of inflation should be dealt with as a common factor governing incomes throughout the whole community. I said, sir, when I began, that any proposal to reduce the salary of the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare should bear in mind his work during the three and a half years in the matter of social welfare itself, as well as the splendid work that he has done in connection with the Department of Labour. And, sir, I think it would be as well if this House were to compare the expenditure in the Department of Social Welfare for the year 1938-’39 with the year 1942-’43, and see whether under the various heads, the Minister is not to be congratulated on the relief that is being accorded to needy sections of the community. For example, let us take work colonies. In 1938-’39 I find there was an expenditure of £3,825, last year (1942-’43) the estimated figure was £15,549, an increase of £11,723. In connection with the settlements for semi-fit, the unfit and the aged, the figure for 1938-’39 was £7,066; last year it was estimated at £40,000, an increase of approximately £33,000. Then take assistance to similar persons other than those on settlements: the expenditure m 1938-’39 was £138,580, last year it was estimated at £297,550, an increase of £158,969. Take the position of child welfare in the Union: in the pre-ware year 1938-’39 the expenditure in the Social Welfare Department was £342,713, and last year it was £497,550, an increase of £154,836, and so, one might proceed showing that notwithstanding the difficult period during which the Minister has held the portfolio of Labour and Social Welfare, it has been found possible to increase expenditure to such a considerable extent. I want to say that these figures speak volumes not only for the Minister but for the Department which is making such rapid strides to improve the position of the needy sections of the population.

Are you advising the voters to vote Labour?

Sir, we are well aware that there is still much to be done, and we will do our utmost on this side of the House to assist the Minister in his endeavours to raise the status of those whom the Government desires to help. The Minister’s Department will be largely concerned with the question of social security, and it seems to me, as one who is interested with the Minister of Labour and others in this matter, that it is eminently desirable that the Government should consider a five-year plan for the improvement and the succour of those who are in need, particularly with reference to the children at one end of the span of life, and to the aged at the other end. We are aware, sir, that it will be extremely difficult in these days to do more than consider a complete social security code, but I think it is practicable to devise some plan, limited though it may require to be, which would have the effect of securing the support of the whole population of South Africa. At any rate, sir, we look to the Minister to do his best.

Order. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the portfolio of Labour. There is another Vote dealing with Social Welfare.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, there is a proposal before the Committee that the Minister’s salary should be reduced.

It makes no difference; when there is a special Vote, matters affecting that Vote must be discussed under it. The hon. member must confine his remarks to the portfolio of Labour.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to challenge your ruling, but it does seem to me that where a Minister holds two portfolios, as I do, and his salary is called into question, then we may traverse the whole of his activities.

That is correct as far as the Vote under discussion is concerned. The practice is that discussion on a Vote must not traverse services for which provision is made on another Vote. I will not interrupt the hon. member, but I hope he will, as far as possible, keep to the Vote before the House.

Well, sir, it will be extremely difficult. I have listened to the debate which has taken place, and I followed an hon. member who has discussed a question of social welfare. I have come practically to the end of my statement, and I will not transgress your ruling.

The hon. member may proceed.

I was talking of social security in relation to the Department of Social Welfare, and I will be very brief in view of your ruling. I hope the Minister will take into account the disparity between the disability allowances and old age pensions. I want to make some remarks in connection with the question of surplus fruit. There is no doubt that the Department of Social Welfare is very prominently associated with the matter of avoiding the waste of foodstuffs. I refer to the distribution of surpluses of fruit or any other foodstuffs. Now, sir, we have had a statement on the question from the Minister of Public Health, and we also had one from the Minister of Agriculture. I do not ask the Minister to make a statement here today as to what his Department is doing, but I would urge that the Government should issue a clear and full statement as to the action that will be taken in future in regard to surpluses of fruit, so that we shall not have any repetition of what has happened in the past. We know that two or three years ago the Social Welfare Department had a very fine offer from the K.W.V. of 80 or 90 tons of grapes.

1,500 tons.

There was a surplus, and the Social Welfare Department was advised in good time so that they were able to make arrangements for distribution. I feel that the country will expect from the Government a clear statement as to what would happen in the future in regard to surpluses. In my opinion any scheme for dealing with such surpluses cannot be satisfactorily dealt with unless we secure the wholehearted co-operation of local authorities and all other parties interested in this question.

I just want to touch generally on a matter that is of great importance. If the Minister desires to make a reply on it, it will perhaps give satisfaction throughout the country. As Minister of Labour, and Minister of Social Welfare, it is the special task of this Minister to see to it that, so far as the State is concerned therein, the people in the country are provided with a proper existence in employment in which they can make a decent living. Now I do not want to refer to other Votes, but I put this matter thus: We hear it said on both sides of the House that in many parts of the country there are still people who have no work, or have work that does not place them in a position to provide properly for the feeding and clothing needs for themselves and those who are entrusted to their care. It is a definite charge against the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare. Now I should like to know from the Minister if this must be regarded as his contribution to the solution to the great problems of lack of work and inadequate wages. I want to ask whether the Minister is going to do something in connection with the specific matter of wages. Is his contribution as a Minister in the Cabinet the provision of one meal a day to school-going children? We have heard from the Minister of Native Affairs that such a meal will perhaps cost 3d. per day per child. Now I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now seeking a solution along this course. The parents who are responsible for the feeding of their children receive insufficient wages to give the meals to their children, and it is now the policy of the Government to provide the children with meals in such cases. Is that the policy of the Minister? It is the duty of the perents to provide their children with food, but now the policy of the Minister is that the State must step in and provide the children with meals, because the workers do not receive adequate wages. Does the Minister agree with the criticism that has been put forward by this side of the House? What we say is what he said all those years when he sat on this side and before he became Minister, namely, that you must create working conditions in which the people are in a position to feed their families properly. You must provide work and secondly you must see to it that wages are paid that are sufficient to enable the people to make a decent living. Does the Minister still agree with that? That is the standpoint which he, too, upheld for nearly 30 years: Give to the father of the family a proper occupation and an income with which he can support his family. Then it will not be necessary for any Government to come and give the children meals. The fact that such a course is being taken is a charge against the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Social Welfare. The fact that it must be done in South Africa on such a scale is a condemnation of the Minister of Labour, and it is in conflict with the standpoint he held for so many years. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the citizens have work and out of their wage can feed and clothe themselves. When he comes now, just before the election, with meals, it is an indication that under this Government things are going badly with the people. But I want to go further and I want to say that for European and non-European children, including costs of administration, you can give no meal for 3d. a day. I have here certain figures, which I have already mentioned. Together with administration costs, a meal will on the average be not much less than 1s.—that is what I said. In that case £10,000,000 a year would be needed, and then I do not count the children who are on the register now, but the number in 1939. A meagre £50,000 is being made available for the current financial year to be added to the milk and butter scheme which already exists, with the prospect that perhaps next year £1,000,000 will be made available. According to my figures, if a meal were to cost only 3d., it would still mean £2,500,000 a year. But the meagre £50,000 is made available. I want to ask the Minister what he has to do with the scheme. Is it his contribution to the solution of the two problems of unemployment and low wages, which are entrusted to his care? Or does he acknowledge, with us, that that is not the way to solve the problem? I expect an unreserved reply from the Minister as to whether that is his solution, or whether he agrees with our criticism.

I want to make a few remarks in relation to the regulations issued in connection with the augmentation of wages earned by the blind in blind workshops. In my previous speech I had got to the stage of the recommendation which had been made that the maximum wage rate to be paid to all blind workers shall be 1s. 3d. per hour, 1s. to be paid by the workshops and 3d. by the Government. There is a proposal to stabilise the wage at a maximum of 2s. per hour. That does not necessarily mean that every blind worker in every blind workshop is going to get 2s. per hour, but I do ask the Minister to consider and translate into practical effect the recommendation of the National Council, and fix as a maximum rate 2s. per hour. We do not know what it would involve the Minister in financially. We know that seven years ago we thought that the blind worker should not be permitted to earn more than 1s. 3d. per hour in any workshop. It has been proved that they can earn more, and I am sure the Minister will be one of the first to say that the blind worker ought to be encouraged and is worthy of his hire.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any intention of carrying out an investigation into the wage conditions of unskilled labourers in the Transkeian territories. I have already pointed out that the influx from the reserves to Cape Town and other large centres is largely due to wage conditions in the native territories. They are obliged to go out to supplement their meagre earnings. And while I am on this question of the influx of labour to the towns, I want to point out the difficulties which face these labourers when they get there. Large contracts are entered into by people in the big centres with the Defence Department and others, and without reference to anybody with any knowledge of the position, an S.O.S. is sent out for labour to work on these contracts, and large numbers of natives come down from the reserves. They work for a while, and when their work ceases they do not seem to be anybody’s responsibility. This is a situation which should be controlled in some way, and I feel that depôts should be established in these large centres where these workers can wait, until such time as their labour is required. Employers should not be allowed to send out these S.O.S. messages to the reserves unless they are able to accommodate the people who come in to work. I would like the Minister’s attention to this.

I am both pleased and disappointed at the manner in which the Committee and especially members on that side of the House, have been dealing with me this afternoon. I thought I might at least in this last year of this particular Parliament, have been spared the pain of having to resist a reduction in my salary. Now, sir, I will make a promise to hon. members on that side of the House, and that is that if they will not divide and waste time on this matter, I will give them the £1. There is considerably more behind this than the £1, there is the whole feeling of continued frustration on the part of hon. members on that side. They are suffering from a feeling of frustration because they cannot help contrasting the success of this administration with the arrant and complete failure of the administration of the Government which hon. members over there supported.

What about your own speech?

I never go back on my own speeches. Unlike the hon. gentleman, I never go back on my own speeches, because my speeches are made from the heart and theirs are made from expediency. The fact that hon. members on the other side have consistently moved a reduction in the salaries of previous Ministers proves what I say.

In fact, you come off best.

No, I have not come off best yet. They might go further and move that my whole salary be taken away. But in view of their having moved the complete abolition of one Minister’s salary, we might move to reduce the salaries of hon. members on that side of the House from £700 to nothing, and the probability is that we shall carry it, and I feel perfectly certain that it would be reason for great acclamation by the country outside. Now, sir, I do not know whether I have got much to say in reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). He gave us no more than a rehash. What a wonderful memory the hon. gentleman has. Either he has a wonderful memory or he has been refreshing it, because year after year he has made exactly the same speech. The sense of it or the nonsense of it is precisely the same as on every previous occasion.

Your nonsense remains the same.

Why did the hon. member not simply get up and say: “I draw the Committee’s attention to my former speeches and I say ditto”? And what is there in it?

And your reply is just the same.

I beg his pardon; there is something new. The hon. gentleman is worried in advance, and terribly worried, and his expression of worry was received by sympathetic cheers on the other side, as to the course of the negotiations between the two parties on this side of the House. They see in these negotiations, which I may tell the hon. gentleman at once look like being very fruitful indeed — they see in these negotiations the complete extinction of their own side of the House—and quite rightly. The hon. member has ground for his worry.

If everything you are going to say is as much rubbish, you may as well sit down.

I am afraid the hon. member is no judge of rubbish, because a man who continually talks rubbish cannot know what rubbish is.

Order, order!

I leave the hon. member to the vestiges of his conscience.

We leave you to the vested interests.

The hon. member says that in the course of the discussion in this House on the Factories Act, the Workmens’ Compensation Act and the Rents Control Act, I consistently refused to accept amendments which were improvements. I can tell the hon. member this, that if they had been genuinely designed to be improvements, I would have accepted them like a shot.

Did you agree with the amendments?

Yes, certainly I agree with them.

In that case, why would you not accept them?

Of course not, because the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that the majority of this House was against them, including himself, and those hon. members who moved the amendments moved them with their tongues in their cheeks, and they moved them because they wanted to place me in a difficult position.

No, you are a hopeless Minister.

Now the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House say that I have gone back on my principles. Let me tell my hon. friends that I have never shed those principles at all. And if hon. members are sincere in their desire—at all events they have asseverated it—if they are sincere they will help me to put my principles into force.

Why don’t you say “ditto”? You are applying the same thing over and over again.

No, I am not. That is the only thing that is different.

You have been saying that for 29 years.

Yes, my hon. friend is right, I have been preaching this for 29 years to hon. gentlemen, and they know perfectly well that there is only one way of getting complete happiness in this country or in any other country—they are the first people to oppose it—they are the backward reactionary people of this country—and that is the complete abolition of the profitmaking system.

Look at the marvellous unanimity over there.

Yes, I am still in the same position vis a vis the rest of the members on this side of the House as I was when I first came here. But I am in this Government … .

To win the war.

Yes; you are outside the Government to make the war fail.

It will fail.

And in concert with all the workers of this country we are prepared to go slow; we are prepared to win this war whatever it may cost us.

The cost is your double salary.

Oh, don’t be silly. That is not the sort of material you ought to use. Let us try to behave as gentlemen towards each other. My hon. friend knows that is no inducement to me. It never has been. However, I need not stress that point.

He is not talking about you.

I hope not. The point is, that when this Labour Party came into the Government, we came in without any conditions, our object being to show our complete association with that section in the country that was determined to put South Africa on the map. That was our attitude, and what we are getting in the way of advanced legislation, in the way of improved conditions for the workers of this country, is something in excess of what we expected. No, Sir, I want more. I am not satisfied by any means with what I have got.

What have you got?

If you are not satisfied, why should we be satisfied?

May I ask those hon. members on that side of the House what they were doing when they were supporting the Government?

Precisely what you are doing now.

How is it that their souls are now wrung with painful sorrow for the conditions of the unfortunate worker of South Africa? How is it that they have just discovered it?

You ask the Minister of the Interior what I did.

I challenge any hon. member in this Committee this afternoon meticulously to examine the Hansard record of all his speeches, and I challenge all hon. members, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) included, to show me a speech where, when he was sitting behind the Government, he interested himself in one way or another in the conditions of the workers. All my hon. friend could talk about was the railways. He never spoke about the unfortunate circumstances of our unfortunate fellow-citizens in South Africa. I have never been satisfied with these conditions all through my Parliamentary career, and I have consistently fought for improvements, and I am doing so today.

But you only talk.

I am working for it, and the proof of the pudding is largely in the eating.

We have heard that expression very often.

He said this afternoon that the Minister of Labour has no right to secure credit for the increase of wages secured by the Wage Board. I have every right to do so because the Wage Board does not begin to operate until the Minister instructs them to do so. He instructs them to make enquiries. And, Sir, I have looked things up; let me tell my hon. friend that today the workers of South Africa, through Wage Board Determinations are in receipt of no less than £5,000,000 per annum more than when these people were in office. That is to be supplemented—and here I do not get so much credit but there is some credit due to me—that is to be supplemented by at least another £5,000,000 obtained by industrial agreements, st that the state of the country today from the point of view of the workers of South Africa is that we are £10,000,000 per annum better off than we were when that party was in power.

But you are not the cause of that.

And as the value of the money is not its face value but its circulative value, which I have the right to claim on a conservative estimate, is at least ten to one, the effect on the general business of South Africa of the increase in wages during my tenancy of this office amounts to considerably more than £100,000,000 per annum. That is no extravagant claim, but it is a state of affairs that I want to show for the consideration of this Committee in order that they can see whether it has been an advantage or a disadvantage, and I claim that it has been a complete advantage to have had the administration of the combination Government that is sitting here.

Give us some figures; don’t give us your estimate of the increase in wages. We want figures.

May I get down to one point immediately that the hon. member for Fordsburg brought up. He wanted to know, and quite rightly, what was happening with regard to the application of the Factories Act to the Railways. He is perfectly correct when he says that though the Factories Act applies to all Government Departments, there is one exception and that is the Railways. But that exception was only agreed upon on condition that a committee was set up, a joint committee representing the Railways and the Labour Department to see, not whether it should be applied to the Railways, but how and when it could be applied to the Railways, the principle of its acceptance in the Railways being accepted as a principle. There is a committee sitting in Cape Town today, working out the details of the application of the Factories Act not only to the workshops of the Railways but to the entire Railway staff.

The trouble is that the committee never reports.

The committee is on the job now. The hon. member is the sort of individual who would make a report without giving the matter any consideration at all.

Don’t be nasty now.

The hon. member is snapping at me and he is going to get it back.

I can take it.

And I can take it from the hon. member. Just calm your friends, will you.

Order, order! Hon. members must not interrupt the Minister so often.

It is a fact that this committee is actually sitting now. Hon. members must remember that this is a gigantic scheme. Even I who am equally impatient for a result, realise that it will take longer than I expected, because there are so many grades and so many different hours of duty, and all these things have to be worked out in detail, and a common means has to be evolved, and I think we should be delighted to realise that whereas my Factories Act was only designed to apply to factories and to factories alone, here we are by negotiations between the two Departments arriving at a decision that factory conditions shall apply to the entire Railway system. Incidentally, it may interest the House to know that the building industry has adopted the same principle. The building industry has agreed to apply the Factories Act conditions all over their industry. The hon. gentleman rather sneered at me about this 35 hour week. I still want those 35 hours. If I can count on the support of the hon. gentleman and his friends, of course, I see no reason why we should not get it. Can I count on the hon. member’s support?

You should count on the support of the Government?

Can I count on your support?

Undoubtedly.

I am delighted to hear that. I accept that as an honest expression of opinion, and I see some hope now for the 35 hours.

Persuade your capitalistic friends.

Do you support me in the 35 hours?

If you introduce it before the end of the Session we will support you. [Laughter.] What are you laughing about? Is it just stupidity on your part?

We are laughing at that suggestion of yours.

The hon. gentleman reproached me with what he was pleased to call the sweet workers’ scandal in Cape Town. I do not know what it was. Does any hon. gentleman on this side know? I hope the hon. gentleman will tell me what it was. But scandal or no scandal, my conscience is clear.

It is a very pliable conscience.

I have never hoped to reach the elasticity of my hon. friend’s. I would never try. But he brought up what appeared, on the face of it, to be quite a reasonable reproach, namely this use of tear gas. He said that the tobacco workers were brutally attacked—I think he put it that way—by the police or something like that, and that tear gas was used. He cannot accuse me of responsibility.

It is a joint Cabinet responsibility.

No, you are the exception.

Immediately I heard about it I at once interviewed the Minister of Justice and he equally emphatically with myself issued orders to the police that that sort of thing must stop at once, the point being that no oppressive measures were to be brought to bear by the police in order to break a strike. Then the hon. member says that after I had metaphorically speaking put my hand on my heart and assured the country that no tear gas would be used, it was used again in Natal. I would like to ask the hon. member what he would do, or what any of his friends would do if the police were being attacked by natives and Indians oh strike with cane knives; what would they do? Would my hon. friends stand there and be slaughtered?

No, they would run for dear life.

Don’t say that. We probably all would run. You know a formidable cane knife in the hands of a determined individual would make you pause, would it not?

My information was that they were in their houses when it was used.

No, that is not true. Here I have the telegram. It reads as follows—

Now what would the hon. member do?

I would accept that.

That is the fair way of dealing with each other. Take the case as it stands and play the game with each other. I want to assure my hon. friend that the police have received the most definite instructions that under no circumstances are they to try by coercion to prevent a strike. They are not to try in any circumstances to get strike breakers into works where the workers strike.

[Inaudible.]

If you and I had an altercation, it is just a question of who strikes first. Things do happen in the heat of argument. I have done it myself. I have gone for the police first and the police have given me a clip on the ear. I was going to say that I bear the scars of those conflicts. I know what I am talking about. I want to meet every criticism that is poured out on me, and I say that the hon. gentleman’s criticism about the 3s. 6d. a day that Government unskilled workers get—there I entirely agree with him. Unfortunately all these adverse circumstances from the workers’ point of view are an inheritance, and, Sir, we should not be reproached for not having moved faster. We should be commended for having moved so fast from the time when we first took over office. I accept the reproach. I am not satisfied that the Government employees should get that miserable wage. All hon. members on this side of the House support me in this, and we are doing our best to improve those conditions, and I get very impatient indeed, but my hon. friend can take it from me that we are doing our best to improve conditions all round. He accuses me of having taken away the elementary rights of Trade Unions and the individual workers by war measures. They were very necessary. We had to conserve our war effort; we had to use our human material to the best possible advantage, and we had to move them here and there.

But I thought you were fighting for democracy.

We are fighting to win the war, and that is the first consideration, and I may tell my hon. friend that these war measures were not made blindly and without consultation. And I will say that the mass of workers were not too pleased with them. Naturally, in a democratic state and in democratic institutions, we resent this type of thing. At first, but later, we accept it. Perhaps my hon. friend will now quote to me from Sachs… .

Your former colleague.

I am talking about the Schoeman-Sachs combination. I am quite willing to have it; it only strengthens my argument.

But why is Sachs against you; you are in alliance with the Communists?

No, no! Would my hon. friend say, if he and I got together on one thing, that there is an alliance between the Government and the Opposition, and let me tell the hon. member this; Sachs is no Communist.

Not a Communist?

No, he may claim to be, but the head of the Communist state in Europe, Russia, would repudiate and has repudiated this gentleman. They were fired out of the Communist Party in Russia. I have said before in this House that the word Communism is used very loosely with a complete application. I am very pleased, and I glory personally and from a party point of view in the Allied alliance with Communist Russia. I glory in that, because they are doing their job—perhaps more than their job. And among other things, and perhaps the most important of all is the fact that people who hitherto thought otherwise, now realise that Russia is not definitely anti-Christ—in contradistinction to Hitler who is.

That’s a new story.

Do you believe that?

Absolutely, and my hon. friend would believe it too if he and I were to get together in the lobby and if we were not firing questions across the floor at each other. Now, the hon. member for East London, North (Mr. Christopher) raised this question of apprenticeships. I did not quite get everything he was reading but perhaps he will oblige me by letting me have the interesting little Digest he was quoting from. I think I got the gist of it though. He is asking at the request of someone at some technical college for free training for apprenticeships—training in the particular trade the lad proposes to take up, and he asked that a certain time value shall be assigned to that. Well, that happens today.

Yes, but we want it extended.

We shall do that as soon as we possibly can. And I want to say this, and it will interest my hon. friends over there, and also the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), and I think most hon. members over there—and on this side of the House too, that I had a Bill drafted on this whole question of apprenticeship. The hon. member for Fordsburg knows about it. I proposed to carry that Bill through the House, but in view of the developments that have taken place, in view of the basic training developments, the technical training developments, and various other developments, such as questions of age—all these things have assumed an importance owing to the war that I personally never dreamt of, and I am certain that no one interested in the subject ever dreamt of it. And the same thing applies to the War Measures Employment Bill. So it is my intention, if a grateful country would allow me to return to this House, and if my hon. friend over there will be allowed to return—and I am sure he will be allowed to return—because he has now gone to a place which is safe—and if my hon. friends over there will welcome me back—then I shall want to have a thorough discussion in conference with all people interested and concerned to see if we cannot hammer out an Apprenticeship Act which will fit the different circumstances of the times from what they used to be when I served my time.

That is long overdue.

When do you want a discussion?

In the recess. And the same thing applies to my hon. friends, the Native Representatives; I propose to have a conference during the recess with all those interested in native workers organisations. There, again, the thing bristles with difficulties, and I hope that we shall be able to get along if we all meet together and try to hammer out something which will fit the Bill. I am sure my hon. friends on the Native Representative benches will be prepared to assist me in the matter. They have not raised it this afternoon, but they know what is in my mind. It will go a long way if we can have such conferences. The question of age is involved. I don’t know whether we can agree to extend apprenticeship to the age of 24.

I did not say 24.

On the face of it that seems rather foolish. Anyhow, all these things will be hammered out and we can see what we can arrive at. Now the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) was not serious in what he said. I want to say to the hon. member for Gordonia that I am entirely with him, at all events in the hope that we are on the verge of great industrial development in South Africa. We shall be requiring a tremendous number of skilled people—I think we can depend upon that, but we must remember that we have over 14,000 apprentices, mostly in the engineering industry today. I am sure that the Apprenticeship Committees, when they decide for or against granting an apprentice to a concern, explore the whole field.

Oh, no, they don’t.

Oh, yes, they do. Their instructions are to see first of all whether the shop which is wanting an apprentice really needs an apprentice, has the necessary appliances, the necessary journeymen, the necessary skilled men to teach that boy his trade, and secondly, whether by taking one more apprentice they are not likely to overcrowd the trade. In that respect the hon. member is right in assuming that one of the functions of the Apprenticeship Board is to protect those already in work. But that is inevitable. But all these things will come into our discussions when we meet.

What do you do in the meantime with these students from industrial Schools?

I am afraid I must say this to my hon. friend—it is just the same as asking: “What is going to happen to these people who are getting medical degrees, what is happening to those who are passing their engineering degrees.” It is the same sort of thing. I cannot force the jobs. I have just indicated that in my opinion we shall never be able to satisfy all the requirements until we abolish the profit-making system, and I really believe that is the first thing to tackle, but until we have done that we have to accept the limitations imposed by the profit-making system, and meanwhile we are at mercy of employers. We shall do our best to place these people but that is all I can promise. The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) is very anxious that I shall set up a special division to explore the possibilities for the employment of cripples, and I take it the rehabilitation of cripples. That will come with it. We are on that now. The Under-Secretary for Labour is a member of a committee which is investigating the whole problem. My reiteration for the abolition of the profit-making system is my reply to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), but now he wants to know, and so does the hon. member for Boshof, whether the one meal per day to school children is my contribution, meaning the Government’s contribution—is it the only contribution towards the improvement of the position of these people?

It is an acknowledgement that it is a bad state of affairs.

I do acknowledge that. It is a reproach to our system that we have to feed the children, because their parents cannot feed them.

Give the parents better wages.

I agree with you up to the hilt.

Why don’t you do it?

Why don’t you do it? I am no more capable of doing it than the hon. member is.

Take a vote on it now.

Will the hon. member apply it to every worker in this country.

Yes, to every worker.

To the farm worker as well?

Yes.

It is a very lone yes.

We are prepared to give every individual in this country a wage to enable him to maintain a decent standard of living.

What do you call a decent standard of living.

So as to enable him to feed his children and himself?

What does that mean?

It is not measured in money only.

They sell fresh air in the country.

And you buy coloured votes.

This is a serious subject, we have to think about it, we have to try and get out of this slough of despond. Do not let us get chit-chatting across the floor of the House. Let us discuss it. My hon. friend—and I say it without trying to reproach him—fails to see circumstances of the time. In a former speech the hon. member on this question said that it was undesirable, this one meal per day for school children, to native school children, because it would attract them from their work to school.

He did not say that.

Yes, that is what he said.

Now, are you going to blame me for the wages that are paid to these farm labourers whose children are going to be attracted by a 3d. meal.

The farmers have beer-feeding these people themselves.

Why should they be attracted to school? All I have to say is this, that if that is going to be an inducement to native children to go to school, I am very glad we have introduced this system.

At 6.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 11 March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 1st April.